Insurance & Commerce - Senate

Wait through we want everyone to be able to speak will limit you to two minutes tonight if you don't get up until get to the point and the the clock starts sept you help pay she will go a little you'll see the clock starts when you sit down. So that's when the clock starts image which shall be keeping of that for. Chairmanship of please introduce yourself and and the president Senate bill three eighty eight as amended Senate bill three eighty three eighty eight Ricky Hill Senate district eleven. Senate bill as amended three eighty eight is but it has been in the works for four years it's a peer to peer agreement all sides are very in agreement on this at once had this bill in front of second Senator we try to get organized. Senator Murdock my clock still running no Sir. Two minutes all apply to you please keep it going. You have all made. It's good to you thank you Sir this is bill how long well hello works in making for years Toro it appear everyone has come to agreements on this this bill neither side really happy so that so that's a always a good sign to good bill. With that being said I'll take any questions. Committee are there any questions Senator Hill. No questions RT is to have you in the audience to speak for against. Seeing none. You for your call for your bill senator thank thank you Senator one appreciate a good vote on this we've been working out a long time on this we went through with this bill law two years ago in we just been working really hard and really appreciate a good vote on this because I feel like we've got something we can all live within actually defines peer to peer. With that said I appreciate a good vote and I'll make a motion to do pass got a motion to path of second second by Senator Irvin all the favors please say aye. Those opposed. The rise as amended as amended congratulates you pass your bill. Senator. Centerman has several bills she will just announced us which one she wanted she gets a she gets to it. Thank you Mr chairman of the committee I'm gonna start with house bill twelve fifty two. It does have an amendments. Okay the The Amendment that she's referring to is act on your death we passed out this morning. House bill twelve fifty two I'll explain the amendments the Amendment as. It just more it clarifies prosthetic device for athletics and recreation includes process Prof prosthesis meeting the description of utilizing a blade type foot designed for running or other high activity or high impact endeavors. And that these recreational print print these prostheses shall be deemed as medically necessary by the treating or referring physician has prescribing the Prof sees prosthesis. Sorry. And at the patient who is a candidate for recreational prosthetic shall qualify the Medicare functional level status as a K. three or K. for functional level as a user you can achieve the determines that the amendment part you're going to address okay make sure we're doing that first that I'm I make a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion and a second all in favor say aye hi your motion is adopted. Thank you an house bill twelve fifty two as amended we works with the insurance companies are represented Johnson it did to cover these type of new prosthetics as you probably may or may not be familiar with that new technology has allowed for the type of prosthetics that have bladed type foot on them and which is better utilized respect especially for children to be able to participate in physical activities and run and do different things like that so then amendment I think it created the in negotiated bill and at I am aware that there's no opposition. And we do have an update the fiscal impact that we're going to pass around real fast Siegel did do an update of fiscal impact between this morning and this afternoon and it and they remain that does. There was no change to the previous fiscal impact which the previous fiscal impact with zero. Thank you need any questions for. Centerman from the Committee. Senate Johnson. Serving the handout is saying that the percentage bill is basically adding conditions they be medically necessary I mean right if you need to press that a guy saying that's a rebuttable presumption but I want to make sure that it made sense yes yes it's just utilizing a different you know and update technology of prosthetic correct it's not actually necessary so then it would be at loudspeaker covered under insurance thank you senator I have. Any other questions. Anyone here to speak for or against the bill. Saying no one was will the committee. Motion to pass as amended motion do pass as amended second by Senator Boyd okay got a question okay. Discussion yes. I just need to be recorded as non voting non voting. This is for sure you got that. Okay. So we had a motion and a second as amended all those in favor say aye. Those same signed hi the bill is passed thank you. Which of the net okay sorry house bill twelve seventy three. And house bill twelve seventy three and then some healthcare payer identification card to include short term limited duration insurance and several years ago we passed a bill that required health insurance card to say on the card if the coverage was fully insured coverage or self insurance coverage to assist the providers with the billing of claims what this bill does is it adds to other less frequent policy types which are short term limited duration insurance and healthcare sharing ministry that's going to be listed on the ID cards this doesn't impact anything to do with what the policies cover it just requires the disclosure on the card of what type of plan it is so that health care providers know what type of billing and to to per se that's what all the bill does it does not did not require a fiscal impact change there is no change impact and it did not require a fiscal impact statement. Be happy to answer any questions Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman Senator Irvin section one section two stand alone those are not together so it's it's section one talks about the healthcare sharing ministry a section to the short term limited duration insurance and those are exclusive to each other it's same kind of identification with one's one cat saying one thing and one saying another not both. Right but it's still it's still achieving that they would both be on the card I think it's just because those are listed in difference Kevin thank you not only had the healthcare sharing ministry that the only thing on my card these these this is not covering one situation it's covering two or more situation correct thank you thank you Mr. Any other questions he. There anyone here to speak for against the bill did not sign up. C. nine was. What will we have a motion do pass. I have a second center Johnson. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye opposed same sign centre your bill is passed thank you. And house bill twelve seventy five. Your bill okay house bill twelve seventy five some insurance carriers perform retrospective review of medical procedures to determine appropriateness add documentation except or a when this occurs a request paper copies of medical records from providers what this bill does is simply says that if a provider is willing to provide electronic access to their medical records then this access is sufficient for the insurance carriers to perform the reviews it does not impact patient privacy policy privacy laws do still apply and the access is limited to only the treatment payment and operations as permitted by HIPAA and it just creates inefficiency to try to allow for electronic access versus paper access for records review at and this also does not require a fiscal impact. I have a question for Centerton. What. I know it's late but just one quick question so if the provider is it optional on the provider like if they prefer to send paper records to any could they do that yes they would they would have to be the one in control of that get grant the access and create the ability for that to occur but they would still the provider would still be in control over those those files they would just be able to submit them electronically versus paper okay thank you. Senator Penzo. In a question any other questions from the committee. Senate my. So how do we. For me all going to utilize the same format or how does that work they're all gonna be on the same system or though and I mean not they're not all on the same system so that would have to be a her provider type of an agreement if if that would be allowance provider doesn't want to have a you know system that conforms with the insurance company needs to upload with utilize the nothing they would still have to go back to the paper process. Okay how does it work now. So now if you have a records that you would need to review you would need to submit them by by taking basically print off the electronic medical record if you have electronic medical records I'm assuming you have to print off all of your notes there is somebody from carts III think they can be here to speak to this you want to come and speak to it and then submit those by paper or via paper charts you just sit there and make copies and then send them to. For review that's what I understand but he can answer questions more specifically senator. T. as. Can he answer Senator Dismang question. Yes. These are two separate record. Our chairman and committee my name is Simon the prints off I work at Carleton cancer center. so medical records are usually we get a request from the pair and that the notes the date of service and then we have staff that go in and print out all the records that may take up to a fax machine and fax it to the designated number on the request some players don't disability faxing in that case on the request to put an address and we mail the records and. We have an understatement so what do we need what's the need for the change when what we so we're going to shift the burden from the heir to the insurance company but how to how does that work walk me through the. So right now one cares request records it takes a couple days for that request get in the mail and then it takes a couple days for to get back to them with the some insurance companies that we have positive as they perform because they're able to access the chart when they need to and their staff can go ahead and hit download and save it to their system for the records that that they're allowed to access. Thank you no. Senate Mara this is this a may or shall. Utilize. As an. He would have to have the ability for them to to work together so it's it's permissive okay is made yes okay thank you. Senator in the. Should you have a question okay. Any other questions from the committee. Anyone else here to speak for against the bill. Seeing none was will the committee at okay I'm sorry I'll be quick at I mean cars I is here to speak in favor of the bill that and because of time I'll bypass that and I'll just close by saying it is permissive and in being able to do it this way they can actually look at the things that they need to verses the entire record been sent over at so we're just trying to streamline and create efficiencies. Thank you I'm closed thank you ma'am what's will the committee. Do pass by Senator Johnson second by Senator Murdock in discussion. Sorry just that an abundance of caution just remind everyone I'm a pharmacist my wife's not L. Justin have a sister's a speech pathologist. Thanks Sir. All all all those in favor say aye opposed same sign painter your bill is passed and. And for disclosure I merry to doctors there you get. Okay sorry a lot so okay. House bill twelve seventy four. H. B. twelve seventy one. Okay and house bill twelve seventy four establishes a timeline that at peer review entity mass respond to healthcare provider who is seeking an appeal of a prior authorization request the husband died denied for cancer patients that are being evaluated or treated for hematology or oncology dynamics says as you know this is an issue when it comes to trying to get to this cancer quickly four business days for non urgent reviews in two business days for urgent reviews So that's what the bill does specifically for at these diagnoses. And an additional disease state or other diagnoses that the insurance commissioner may include only by rule. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you senator of any questions from the committee. Saying on his or anyone here to speak for or against the bill. Dalby Davis and as amended the opposition everybody's kind of agreed I I believe that's correct yes they got card sitting here this is again as. President Carter in support of the bill and I think they worked all these issues out. it when I got here. To be Frank this. Well I understand I do my day I try to do my due diligence. Thank any other any other questions. Senator you're pretty close I'm I'm close I appreciate a good vote I make a motion to pass a motion to pass by Senator Irvin segments here to avoid. All those in favor say aye aye opposed same sign scent your bill is passed thank you see more Senate bill five thirty six an inmate in the Arkansas portable energy act I believe there are some folks here What this bill does is starting in twenty twenty four and continuing one time every three years they PSC would produce a report discussing the remaining useful lives of existing electric generating units based on the data and information provided previously provided by the integrated resource plans of these electric utilities and there is someone here that can speak to that to this bill but we worked with the electric coops on this bill and she is here has been here all day long bless our hearts so let Jennifer introduced herself for the record I'm Jan Hansson that arc Arkansas like trick cooperative vice president John council. To to yeah so that this bill amends price some clarity for the public service commission when it passed in twenty twenty one the commission opens and docket to in their in those docket there been orders issued asking for clarity on the scope of their of the request of this docket so are this legislation and it has provided clarity here and to allow them to use the data that's already provided by the utilities on generating units that report is updated that's the legislation knows every three years so the data that they need to conduct this analysis is already there and it sort of eliminates the need for additional work. Any questions from the committee. Per cent thank you Murdock thank you chair just interested in on page one beginning in line thirty through thirty four the things that you're excluding they seem to be fairly important piece of information it says including evaluation because benefit this was previous legislation cost benefit analysis or rate impact analysis and analysis of the impact on reliability real resilience to the state's electric utility grid system and we've had some concerns with agree system load and have had to manage some of the power distribution base of it so I just to eliminate that was a reason why you struck that language sure and that's an important issue for our the upon Arkansas electric cooperatives while I'm balancing power and making sure electricity remains reliable or affordable for our members but this batch language being stricken here does not anyway limit the commission's authority to request those types of now this or to conduct those types of analysis it's just eliminating the mandate to do so so the way that the legislation's right now require them to do that analysis when it wouldn't necessarily be needed if the commission had the information it needed it would need to re conduct that analysis if it you know sort of needed to do that the commission could do that doesn't restrict the public service commission's ability to do that they could still do those analysis if they deem it necessary. Probably from a policy making perspective with these mine anyway that I would probably never want to create a system whereby eliminated analysis I eliminated information critical information to. The general public in those that we utilize it I have a I don't know what it takes to generate this information in this piece that you taken out a lot but it says okay so well so there probably needs to be at least in my opinion anyway some justification on why that comes out because these are the indicators of some import yeah so when the when the public service commission approves essentially is that the building of those facilities that information is available that I. R. P. process that's the integrated resource plan that process is essentially include information that the commission can use for to conduct those types of analysis and if the commission has a specific question on certain things that are about to be for example the commission says no need to necessarily do those types of analysis for every single plant if a plan is not you know projected to be retired in the near future so that the other component of this bill puts a time parameter around when the analysis should be conducted so if for example we have the plants we have no intention of retiring there's no need to conduct that type of analysis and expend the energy both from our are you know that work for our members or also the commission to conduct the nonsense if it's not necessary at that plant is not anywhere near its retirement date so there's also that five year time limit so kind of putting some parameters around the scope of the commission should determined it needed that needed to do that or conduct the information or conduct the analysis to determine if the you select the plant could should or could be extended they could do so. So I'm just are you eliminate that the year last season just a pretty simple sentences in a report refers to that five year thank you talk about just looted that the meat of it is eliminated in the this just that last part but anyway thank you for escalation Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman of. Center I'm I'm looking at five thirty six and I'm looking at five forty four I thank in conflict. If you look at Senate bill five thirty four five forty four ACT this is the new one year that has been just been filed. I'm sorry ma'am. I'm not sure but I don't know what five can you senator Markey's bill he's got about. Looks like a majority the Senate is a co sponsor I think you're on there too senator I just this is the one having to do with the meeting already concerning coal powered electric generated generation facilities to require a certain action forty was filed today the one you're talking about filed today I don't think they're in conflict I haven't had the opportunity to read five forty four entirely the decommissioning of coal plants I believe that's the bill you're talking yeah yes ma'am what what we're talking about like tricks generating units it would be the same but these should not be right in conflict there this is the time of period I understand I can forgive me I've read that one this morning and I believe there's an amendment this afternoon so I haven't had time to fully flesh out five forty four but that time period I think is a hundred eighty days in this ADA Amendment and Senate bill five thirty six is the five year horizon so it's giving the commission more time to look kind of create a report based on the data that they already have to give them time and then the decommissioning one is more of a immediate Act that's looking at facilities that are the utility is designated hate this one will be does it will be the commission the near future so I think they can be read together I'm concerned because. I just totally concerned about this the Commission thing and I Sir I've asked questions about it before and I know there was a consent decree that entered into with the Sierra Club which my attitude is the last people I would want riding our energy policy for the state of Arkansas is this year hello but to what I'm I'm I'm looking at I like Senate bill five forty four and I don't dislike five thirty six but I want to make sure that they're they're not incompatible because indeed this one five thirty six is about electric generation not necessarily called just all generation five forty four is more specifically aimed Coldplay but again I'm not saying it's a bad bill but I'm I don't want to pass both of these and so I wanted a minute we got conflict the and I again I'm not trying to drag this out Mr chairman I just this jumped out at me on the side I thank I would just respond I can assure you that at Jennifer and all of those stakeholders are looking at making sure that there is no conflict and I I would assume that they would all have eyes on that to ensure the senator we have a long weekend of may be the same. What. Senator Dismang. This. On that. Again I'm not I'm I'm OK with reporting eight both bills out but we may need to reconcile them on Monday or something we will I would not hold this up Senator Dismang but. Okay yeah I. This is the kind of things happen at the end of session I'm just thankful sitting thank you any other questions Senator any other questions looking on the committee. Seeing none is anyone here to speak for against the bill. Seeing no one Senator but closed closed I appreciate a good vote. So what's the will of committee. Most by Senator Dismang. Second by Senator Johnson. Any discussions. All those in favor say aye aye opposed same sign scent your bill is passed thank you. Last one for me. I know you're having Senate bill one thirty seven. and I have somebody that has also been here all day I think here to testify for the bill so I'm just gonna go ahead and just turn it straight over to this end of it In one thirty seven and. That's the speed we have a financial impact on that. He gonna steal yes there is. Thank you senator rather looking here it's showing no no impact whatsoever. ACT so you're free to present your bill sure so Senate bill one thirty seven and I am in an attorney ever I know that I did a lot of work on this issue to as at one session ago that create some care planning and and things. Some some care planning and treatment planning processes I think there have been some issues with some of our processes honest that are located in the state of Arkansas particularly there's some issues there that in state folks seem to be having an issue with verses out of state folks perhaps but I'm going to turn this over and and let him speak to the to the bill. Please enter several record thank you Mr hi my name is grant Fortson and I represent several Arkansas surgical process that honest I'm also joined by of one of my clients doctor dean McNeil is here in support of the bill what Senate bill one thirty seven does is clarify coverage for certain necessary Max the. Maxillofacial services and primarily or significantly are specifically the services will be covered when the defect is caused by birth or developmental I. mortalities often referred to as cranio craniofacial anomalies a disease or trauma and then only when necessary to restore speech swallowing or chewing or controlled infection or pain. And a little background quickly these services that historically were covered by carriers more recently the past two three years and what Senator referred to they have become almost wholesale denied based on dental exclusions and so really what this does is just clarify that these are a necessary services when they're incidental to these craniofacial issues or disease or trauma and so of. Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions or so Dr McNeil. The question to the committee. Can we go ahead and bring up document meal since he's also here just for time's sake yes. Dr right now you've got two minutes. Folks the type of services that we provide to several record I'm sorry dema my name's G. McGill McGinnis seven here for close to twenty eight years I wanted to give just a hint of ag what we do just so that we can get some help for these patients thirty years ago I did hospital residency where I worked with all other specialties in a hospital may be proving. Bag clearance for transplants or four ACT of any organ transplant and it is for had be clear without infection also and after that it did prosodic residency and I have currently over half of all the process in the state were for in my office is in little rock and Fayetteville and What we do all his work with professional teams patients could have cancers we may work with you in that UAMS on tumor boards they may reconstructive jaw which led both in addition to that the patient to us for reconstruction of the final at two thirty two and this is why it's getting denied and this was this is where we really need your help. With that in questions if you will if you have any questions from the committee. C. nine thank you for your testimony Sir thank you. Any other questions for Senator Irvin. Centers my. Yeah. Yeah. Max you sign up. In that in that case you've got thirty seconds. Screentime I started. Three in favor or against. I'm sorry I'm testifying against the bill if you read this bill closely you will see that this is really just opening up for dental services last session you all created a craniofacial Board and gene that is put in place to review procedures to make sure that people with craniofacial anomaly get the services they need if you look at the bill and you're talking about disease or trauma trauma could be getting hit in the mouth with the ball and losing the two we should not have to be paying for implants for things like that the same with pain if you have a if you have a toothache this bill would require us to pay for an implant the bill is very broad the bill does have a fiscal impact our actuaries believe that it would cost seventy nine million dollars. There are people who lose teeth because of drug use we should not have to be paying for implants for those people I would ask that you vote no on this bill and leave current law remain as is in the hands of the craniofacial board that oversees these procedures thank you. Thank you. Signifying back to you for questions. Any other questions the committee for. Thank you ma'am. See no one else here to speak for or against the bill. Will the committee. Senator. There's no motion okay well I can make a motion but if there's no second then. I don't think I'll make a motion. Thank you ma'am thank you your bill did not pass. Senator Hammer. Senator hammer please introduce yourself for the record. Thank you Mr chairman Kim Hammer stay senate district sixteen. Do you have an amendment Mister chairman. One eighty one. And. But we do have an amendment to this bill. That passed out. Senator hammer you're freed up present your a list of the thirty. But you're one is meant to look over this one. I was. Senator Hammer you're free to present your amendment Mr. To the constraints this bill is pretty much free drafted but I had to conform to what was already in following order make the deadline and I can walk to the bill and hit the high points and then I can get a little deeper but I won't take up the whole night doing it. what it does is it it strikes from the existing language to visor Council it's due to sunset the end of this year for what they need to do between now and the end of the year that's already in place so this will remove that council at the end of at the end of this year and it does not re establish it on page three talk about off the off label and coverage of the rest of it is pretty much existing language you get up over on to page four down toward by which is consistent with the established protocols and rules to be developed we inserted rule making process for the insurance commissioner to be able to have that ability to modify making rules necessarily unnecessary excuse me and those rules are to be promulgated by August thirty first of this year you're with Page five talks about a health benefit plan and it a stable it It reaffirms who it is with the primary care physician would have to work in consultation with those disciplines that are listed there at least one of them primary care physician will consult with the center of excellence at children's and there is a appeal process that is written in there which is standard to all appeal processes for insurance companies and it just says that when the U. S. when United States Food and Drug Administration recognizes is because there's a thirty four million dollar study going on right now they're one concludes but actually this bill will go away because it would be an FDA approved drug put emergency clause on it because of the needs that are ongoing with regards to specific illness and Mister chairman that hits the high levels of what the what the amendment does. Any questions on the amendment Senator Hammer. Seeing none more so will of committee. Adopt the amendment at a motion second center Johnson all those in favor adopting the members say aye opposed same sign. Senator your committee this past I appreciate your bill as amended thank you Mr chairman for during the meter to just there is a physical impact that was passed out to yell earlier three and go back and redo the the bill to make sure it lines up with that and so should have the the you should have that. You're free Sir thank you Mr chairman. First I want you to know that the fiscal impact shows that with the amendment to that there was no change in fact that kind of like to read that highlighted one is kind of dark three wishes abandonment of slightly loosen some of the restrictions for treatment but shouldn't be materially change and I think that would cross BlueShield data was based on calculations I think is what that says our calculations was on a bit conservative anyway I'd like to point that out of stores which highlighted on the revised fiscal statement by the the agent going through the bill again here real quick the reason took the reason took the Advisory Council out is because it sunsets at the end of this year and with everything we've been able to achieve so far and if this passes it's going to I think fulfill the needs of why they Advisory Council set place what I'm gonna Vice people that have this this disease or those that are interest is to set up any other kind of association similar to that of Alzheimers or cancer or anything else that they could pursue their purpose from that point forward really would like to point out mention already that assurance commissioner have the ability to a stable she rules that may need to go along with this but Page five is the meat of what is intended to do currently the center of excellence over at children's has a four month backlog one suggestions was was that we would add additional staff over there grow the clinic for meeting the to do the I think it's one day two days a month that for days we felt this was more realistic approach because what you have is people are having to drive all in all from all over the state to come to the center of excellence we have some excellent PC peas and others that are interested in this and for example what can happen is PCP up in northwest Arkansas in collaboration with or consultation with the disciplines or wish on page five be able to make a day. Diagnosis so it's kind of a checks and balance if you would what this keeps people for hand drive in an us expand the cost of expanding the clinic over there it will also says that they can consult with the center of excellence at children's hospital the appeal process is normal people process if there's you know the denial of claim or you know adult doubt of ordering and Relacionada FTA in about the emergency clause and also we want that data reported to the center of excellence because this we are in a trial basis right now they're significant number of our Kansans are involved in the trial basis the because this is becoming a a disease that is noticed nationwide now disclosed unanswered questions with this comment this is for Mr Paul Ryan who is kind of the founder there are now about twelve states that have fallen into line with Arkansas and this is a comment like just read putting contest because big deal is everybody's worried about the money and about the cost I get it it's it's kind of on the front here but we've been find the same for several hours of sessions now and here's a thought just let you know. Regarding a if this is the email sent that center of excellence performed for IV IG treatments during twenty twenty two this is important since it shows the low number of IV IG in the state once the center of excellence in place so as far as this man of financial runway it is not I mean I'm not saying there's not cost to that four over the course of twenty twenty two they're doing a really good job or center of excellence to screen out those who really need this and what this will do is allow other PCPs and coat collation conjunction with the other disciplines to build make sure those diagnoses are legitimate I'll be glad to answer any questions Mr what what's the roughly roughly the cost of those defense we ask it be ten to fifteen thousand I understand that Mister and there there's a protocol that's in place that's what they need to know these PCPs are gonna have to follow the protocol that's been established by the center of excellence here you A. R. at children's we can judge with you M. S. but that protocols also in standard with the national so there there are checks announcmenet long before you ever get to the ideology they're all of their other drugs that are prescribed there much you know just like antibiotic or a see pack you for that may not be exactly right but very low cost if there is a level in the the IG they need it okay thank you Senator next time unless a yes or no questions yes Sir sorry. And any other questions Senator Hammer Senator Hickey need. The other committee members have any questions. Seeing none we have low one signed up to speak against BlueCross BlueShield. Max's time you got the full two minutes you signed up. So I I agree with everything senator Hammer said at the center of excellence has done a phenomenal job with the cases and we couldn't be more proud of our partnership with US please intercept a record again Max I'm sorry Max green with Arkansas Blue Cross and blue shield on page five of the bill our concern is with the With the physicians that the specialist would be consulting with we do believe the psychiatrist should consult with a neurologist we think having an immunologist in there is unsafe in Arkansas immunologists are allergists those people don't know anything about this very very rare disease we would ask that that language be stricken from the bill and to your question our pharmacy estimates that That a dosage of ideology is between twenty and thirty thousand dollars it depends on the weight of the child and depends on the amount of Joe's dosage so this is you know this is a costly treatment treatment thank you but as senator Hammer said there are a lot of things in place and we want to make sure those things stay in place to make sure the children who needed especially opening it up now to more providers being able to diagnose and treat so that's why we would recommend you check out immunologist. And thank you. Thank you questions Senator Boyd. So I just wanna make sure your primary concern is immunologist. And you did acknowledge it could cost twenty to thirty thousand dollars I haven't priced in a while but it's expensive yes so but those are your primary issues a. Yes okay. Senator Hickey you don't mind merit of the she we got from Siegel. They were saying fifteen thousand unless I'm reading this right now they do say that the U. utilization information was provided by you all I thought so is that different than the what so how does with what you just said and what they put on here how we're that discrepancy coming from well I don't know where they've where they receive their cost number what we provided Seelig Senator Hickey was data for this state and the school group that's all we were asked to provide them so if the school and state group and didn't have any hand or hand the claims. They. The cost would be very low as far as the cost of the drug they did not ask are pharmacy for that for that dollar amount you could Maginnis says utilization as well as I didn't know what we did give them the data for the S. CPSE group yes but not to costs no Sir thank you. Boyd yes. I'm still struggling with this I I mean I'm my heart is with helping the kids but also realize this is expensive and we don't ages and handed out get that I'm trying to pin down exactly so. What would happen right now I mean with Blue Cross like if the five thought my child had pans or pandas is there a process that process do this we we we get referrals today from the center of excellence which is a partnership between children's and UAMS and our medical directors work with their medical record directors over there so when we get a claim or call from them saying you know Justin Boyd child needs we've diagnosed him with panda pandas and he needs ideology that we know that that child has gone through the established protocol to properly diagnose because it is a very rare disease and many times it is misdiagnosed but the center of excellence it is a multi disciplinary approach it is mineralogist it is psychiatrist and other other specialist they make the determination and then they contact us and we pay the claim and so this opens it up for beyond the center of excellence correct it allows PCPs all over the stage to consultancies other specialists And and diagnose these diseases yes thank you. Any other questions. Yeah. Thank you ma'am appreciate your. Anyone else here to speak for against the bill. Sam Nunn center. You're pretty close. There's about twelve fifteen other around the nation this legislation is modeled after them it includes exactly. What it was in here's what's already set up now states it's not like we're we're creating anything new with regards to open it up to PCPs and this being a wild wild west right away that's exactly why we've written language we did so that they have to consult with the other disciplines that are in there to make sure that a diagnosis is correct they can consult with the center of excellence and that is reported there this is modeled after what other states are doing as far as the cost of cited that there was only for cases in twenty twenty two which even if you take the high numbers that was just mentioned it's nowhere near what some of the cost factors or fear factors are which that Mister chairman I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you senator Hammer. So what is the will of committee. Yes. Forget this yes okay go ahead. I don't know at least from my standpoint I mean I think that Blue Cross as far as the one thing on the specialist change in that I mean actually that seems like to me that makes the bill better I hear what. I won't Senator Hammer to listen if make sure he's agreeable. You know I've been working on this all session we just made a deal. You and of it well what I was going to ask you if we could just put that that particular. But what she suggested in thank you if everybody on this committee and I mean I may not be there may be somebody here against us I don't know but if their agreeable to that then he could he could amend this on the floor and we could just either agree to sign it right back out or we could actually see on the Senate floor the to Senate committee is going to be in favor of you suspend the rules for us to immediately here as long as it's only got that very that one change. The one change I'd be will it make it make sure will pull the immunologist my saying that right. Will pull them out and Max can say whether she be agreeable or not is that that's one injured asking for the right center if you don't want to add the other back in as you suggested which one I'm sorry the I thought you said you added other specials that you suggested no no problem just is already I apologize. Yes he just say just pull it out that that particular word the one district one medical discipline immunologist. Your your strike that I have no problem with this everyone's in green here we are to sign out and. This section. Yes. Question the question is can we make a motion to suspend the committee rules to allow for a verbal amendments. We don't have to. Yes. We already have a written amendment in place right here mark up your change on this written amendment will expunge the vote by which we adopted your amendment a minute ago and adopt a new amendment with written language staff take that piece of written language and that's what our holding used to. You know have it amended forty for the make sense. Twenty that would. We can do it right. That we have written we have an amendment in front of us for talking about changing a few words inside the amendment I think we're talking about taking one word out yet right now is to expunge vote by which we just passed that amendment really that a motion is one. Hello I want to make sure they're in agreement. But let me ask one thing our rules to say that we can make verbal amendments. And. What. Did you enjoy this sale with with five agreeing we can do it. Retains yes it'll be different. Hello I think we just circumvent it somewhat but. Senate is by is good to. So Senate is made without a motion. If there is do you have what you need. Right here okay. It be Christian Mr chairman it be a matters of drawing a line through one word instrument yes so the first thing I wanted to make a motion expunge but which we passed several amendments motion sickness senator Johnson all those in favor to exposure both say aye. All opposed same sign. Page two the the vote is expunged then I make a motion to suspend the amendment has been expired yeah the main motion to suspend the rules dopt the written amendment but we're not doing a verbal so it's the written amendment. We'll we are you don't have a war which what were to be striking is going with the on the record as well. This is right we were. Is. What is that. We're striking the ward immunologist yes Sir. Thank. Senate it may have a motion. G.. You would you come and tell the committee what today. First first of all I'll make a I'll make a motion that we expunged are you already made on the Arkansas did on that next is is I'm all I'm going to make a motion that that we see as it relates to this particular item that we suspend our rule the insurance and commerce rules as it relates to a verbal verbal amendment that's my motion to motion I have a motion and a second Sir Penzo all those in favor say aye opposed same sign. My next by next of my next of motions going to be is that is the other bill Senator Hammer is it totally incorporated in there I heard you say that it's almost or something whenever you presented is the amendment the total bill yes. Okay my next my next one will be will be the the amendment the amendment that has been handed to you Mister chair with the language is struck yes Sir that we adopt it that way dot and the ward immunologist struck out immunologist drug out and then we'll send that to the Senate to. We'll send that will send that back to the back to the Senate to be engrossed in the bill. And then we'll deal with that on the floor. And that's a motion yes Sir can you say that again no Sir. News Senator Irvin I do not mean to be a stickler but it would be immunologist comma that would need to be stricken. And that's on page five of the amendment is modify it that way. So you need to call. That the knowledges and the comma and the removed. Yes. J.. I have a motion to you second by Senator Murdock but what I was. Thank you senator Murdock. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Mr show do you have what we just did. Okay. Thank you all. Senate. No. The. Senate bill one ninety one. As amended Senate. There is a main motion. You sure this time said tomorrow is that okay Senator seconded all those in favor to pass the bill. As amended. With the word immunologist and comma struck out. Yeah I mean I mean I'll just stay in the common. All those all those in favor say aye. Oppose the same sign. Senator Hammer the bass. That's a first time action I've ever been able to hold hands on a bill and agree so I just want that FIR recognized reshape action but shall get it this far and I commend Reimer I really appreciate health thank you. Okay. Anyone here first Senator English is bill SP four forty nine. You want to run our bill. Saying no one will skip over that. S. B. for forty three Senator Leding. That bill's being called okay. H. B. ten twenty representative Maddox. Senate president. This bill does have an amendment. Penzo you like to present your amendment. Thank you Mr chairman This is a this amendment adds me is the Senate sponsor and remove Senator Hill is the lead Senate sponsor This language initially. The Bar Association and the bankers had issue with the bill the will everybody's came to an agreement and this is compromise language of their budget re to. I have a motion to adopt the amendment. A second senator Boyd all in favor say aye. Your amendment have been adopted. Thank you Committee. Well house bill ten twenty. two two years ago there was a large omnibus bill that was passed that kind of a good L. L. C. protections we later realize this and this is a bill to reinstate some of those protections for people. Any questions from the committee. Sh Senator Irvin. That just and. So I know that the banking association had issues with that so we're all good with the they're they're all good now that is correct okay. This bill came from the mimic came from them to make the bankers association is good with the with the member thank you. If they were done this up front out of let my name on the bill. Right. You instructed out. I'm just trying to line the. Any other questions. Magic of the winners speak for against the bill. Seeing none whatsoever committee. Do do pass as amended a senator Boyd segments Johnson. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye opposed same sign if your bill is passed thank you Committee. Can I as amended. Thank you gonna do Senate bill one fifty one as well yes Sir going to dinner okay. Senate bill one fifty one. Clint Penzo district thirty one Senate bill one fifty one. pretty much allows. Pretty much this this happens they you can transfer by warranty deed property into a trust this just pretty much three states. What what current practices it's been this way since I believe the mid forties so the. This would just. Lay out and statute the. The. DO once sale of Clause won't be enacted things like that if it's moved into a trust like I I've got a question for you on within a forty doing it's already in place why we need. Why we need this I think there's a lot of people that are concerned about if I moved into a trust or is the bank going to call the NOPD do is file a of my still going to be able to get my the mortgage deduction because it's in a trust instead of my name so there's a lot of confusion out there and this just kind of put in statute. Any other questions Senator Penzo Senator Hickey so. Hi somewhere Vice look at this I mean that by doing this if there's a lien on the property that no way Sir for instilling is our basic questions come up. Yeah I mean that that's because of the revoke herbal it's. I mean I'm just yeah my my understanding is this the they're still I mean it's not going to. Affect the the lien on the property. My next my next questions this. My next question questions his own phone line twenty seven there were putting in the statute of course it it it does not affect the coverage of the title insurance I guess what it was originally written. If you put in the law but we checked I mean or the title companies or they have not been contacted. To make sure that that your okay back there do not okay by the public want to come up and I didn't know this for nothing yeah. It's kind of I read more what you're saying sorry that lien would still be more at risk to be out there in front because it was done prior to. Yeah. Yes Sir thank you. That is we're waiting on you. are your name up there they're going to want to come up and speak so we'll go ahead and if. The committee's okay. What are. Please enter several record. Good evening my name's Wes will sign on with the Arkansas land title association. we are opposed to the bill as it's written we certainly are in favor of subsection C. of the bill with respect homestead taxes don't really see or an issue with respect to triggering a due on sale clause that's not our issue the problem that we have is that is with respect to title insurance policy forms that are out there today and circulation already provide this coverage so once I necessary at least as far back as two thousand sixteen if there is an older policy form that's in circulation that did not include that language in it then the insured if they're transferring property to a revocable trust. It would fall within the definition of insured as far as continuation of coverage in today's warms I believe that they can ask their insurer to endorse their policy to show their revocable trust as an additional insured. additionally they these are American land title association forms there forms adopted and used across the country and if we just late something like this then that's going to change that with respect to the state of Arkansas and the policy forms that are used here. again This Is retroactively changing because the current policy forms already include this coverage is will be retroactively changing policies that are already in existence and were previously negotiated. So so basically if the if the amendment some said something along the lines that as long as the title policy allowed it. Then with that he would be covered if if he tried to amend the bill put something similar to that life I guess my. My stable of the strike a and B. and what you say. I thank the title insurance out of it. Subsection C. deals with home state taxes on the due on sale clause. So are you saying well let me if if I may. I hope so now I'm back I'm back on you yes Sir but if somebody did it in the title policy didn't allow it I wouldn't want for you all to come back and say no you did something that now your title policy is no longer no longer valid well that was a previously negotiated contract if they are looking at that and they're working with their estate planning attorneys to do this their attorney can look at that and say we need to get an endorsement to your title policy. But if any policy that would be issued to anyone here today would include language under the definition of insured that would provide for continuation of coverage when the property is transferred to you as an individual to yourself as trustee or your revocable trust. So if if of Kannada that he's saying there was the word retroactivity was used you just said that. If a contract is already negotiated that way which my understanding is this is been allowed since the forties is that not accurate. I don't believe that so I I can't speak specifically stated but I don't believe that's accurate as far as title insurance is concerned I. You. At least at least from my standpoint I think it's if they could serve. Probably a fairly easy fix right here I don't know what it is just sitting here And personally I don't I don't I don't know that we remove. I mean if your bill Stephens however but may I don't know that we we remove it I mean I know most to like something within legislation those so that whatever that a state plan or whoever's there and they should be although I don't know how knowledgeable some of more that there's something that sparks their attention that there could be an issue with the title policy where they need to at least consider that because I think if that was in the legislation whenever somebody was looking at this that at least it would to a spark to support them to. To check into that a little bit because again I don't ever want anything or when somebody wants to transfer one over you know they think they're all they're all their insurance is still in place and it's not I mean in the joint out. Well if they transferred by warranty deed there's already an argument that they would have back against themselves for breach of warranty of title which then would trigger the policy that was out there because they were they were still covered for that even though they no longer on the property as individuals. I just wonder how this legislation though with the way he says it written up there I mean that I'm not sure how we would adopt or or how legislation could be worded that would simply make a suggestion to us to an estate planning attorney you may want to look at this. If this hadn't been this evening state planning attorney would be sitting next to me. Any other questions the committee yeah I mean. And just the dissenter Penzo or Barbara Patterson he's at the in the table I just don't know how we how we can. How we can put in the statute. That it shall not affect the coverage of the title insurance whenever he's literally sitting down here saying that it that is going to I mean it because if if they change in the future there their argument is if they change the forms in the future then or if it's or if it's a separate two separate things you know one if we change our forms in the future as far as and it's not just we and it's the state of Arkansas but. America basically by using these American land title association forms if they for some. Unknown to run it and I can't imagine that they would take away that coverage in the policy but if they did that in the future that's going to change because of this legislation how those policies are dealt with here in the state of Arkansas what I'm talking about on the retroactive standpoint is if you pass this today he's going to affect policies that were issued in nineteen eighty where those people still on it retroactively changing a policy that was previously negotiated and paid for without the benefit of anybody having anything to say about it it was our all. Any other questions the committee. Anyone else here to speak for against the bill. Sing NO one. Thank you for your testimony Sir thank you senator Penzo woods. Yes I just would like to bring up the whole changing the contract again in the future if if it's in statute you you look like you said this is for the entire country I'm not sure if they use these forms and and territories as will we might assume they do but at least there's fifty states with fifty different sets of laws and if we choose as our Kansans to extend this coverage in the state been title if they want to do title insurance policies in the state of Arkansas they will that here to this so I mean you just cause the forms change doesn't mean we have to as I stated here to the what's on on the form I mean every like I said every state's got different. Laws that have to be about buying real estate so I just would ask for good vote. What's the. Will the committee. I have a motion. Have a sale Senator Dismang. All those in favor or any discussion. All those in favor. opposed same sign. Do that again all those in favor I've. Opposed no. The bill does not pass. Thank you Committee. It depends on what sections of four sixty eight. No. Four sixty eight. Of. We're skipping over bill SB four seventy four which was Senator Bryant. Senator Dismang you will run for eighty four for Senator Tucker. Senator Dismang. Forty four. All right members. I'm sorry please please recognize several record hi Senator Jonathan Dismang Senate bill forty four we passed the bill earlier in the session that raise the limit the requirement for an audit from five hundred thousand to a million dollars I this is kind of comes back and provides a little bit of clarification if a nonprofit were to receive a just if the quester or large sum of money from a single dollar donor that that does not trigger an audit that that can be excluded from that that fundraising threshold and that that's essentially what this bill does how I will tell you that. Used to work in this world and talk to some accountants and I thought they were going to be upset that we remove some of the audit requirements on the non profits they said that we should of went farther than we did actually even though that's you know that where they make their living at a filter so that the the cost for an audit was way too much for you know at a smaller nonprofit with the the funds and fund raising levels that even at the million dollars. So. Any questions Senator nine. See I have a mom I have a motion to pass. I have a second. That being said all those in favor say aye opposed same sign. Thank you senator. Senator Leding for ninety. You're clear represent your bill Sir thank you chairman of us your members of the committee good evening Senator Greg Leding district thirty genetic testing is an important powerful tool in protecting people against Pacific cancers including most commonly cancer of the breast bowel prostate and stomach cancers are cancers that we passed down from one family to the next day of germ line mutations as one example about five to ten percent of breast cancers are related to a known gene mutation so say a woman whose mother had breast cancer might if a doctor recommended consider genetic testing to see whether not she inherited that breast cancer mutation you might of heard in this committee or or elsewhere references to the bracket wanted bracket two genes these are gene mutations are noted they have been linked to some breast cancers for such women the lifetime risk of breast cancer is increased by twenty to forty nine percent for women with moderate risk inherited gene mutations thirty percent or higher for women with high risk inherited gene mutation so identifying these risks early to genetic testing can help you decide guide decision making when it comes to trying to catch breast cancer early again it is a woman knows she has the gene mutations is more likely to seek a screening as an example and perhaps catch breast cancer early are on another example a person who learns of inherited mutation known to cause stomach cancer particularly hard to detect and legal cancer might choose to have their stomach removed their eliminating the risk of cancer data shows that more than eighty percent of patients who undergo genetic testing and changes made to the medical management including changes to imaging follow the chemotherapy strategies it is just a matter of the more information you have the better information you have in the earlier you have it the better decisions you can make Arkansas is made a lot of progress and making genetic testing widely available in twenty nineteen the Arkansas General Assembly unanimously approved ACT six eighty six the genetic counselor licensure act every single one of the stable voted for that law four years ago what is before nine incher fair and equal coverage for a candidate eliminating potential cost barriers to genetic testing and evidence based cleanings and giving our cans and access to critical information. Regarding their lifetime cancer risks this would apply only to Kansans from the healthcare professional has recommended a test in accordance with clinical guidelines I want to come in organization on this bill and but for an unavoidable conflict had one of the staff members who with the help present I do have information from the organization if the committee would like to see it otherwise but as for a good vote. Okay base basically from them there in support of what you're doing yes. J. DISMANG. So is there any cost to it state for private health plans or doesn't apply to any of the state plans and I do have a copy the fiscal note from Kentucky just passed very similar law and they found that there be no cost to their there's been no increase in premiums because of the law. Okay why did you exclude the state plans there was no cost because without this after the deadline that would affect the state plans. It took us awhile to get the language to miss that deadline. Any other questions for Senator Leding. We do have one here to speak against. Max. With. Max Greenwood Arkansas BlueCross BlueShield I would respectfully have to disagree with senator leading the bill because calls for no cost sharing there obviously would be a cost attached to this bill. You know I I and you've heard me time and time again talk about the unfairness of these bills that keep being brought before a committee that excludes state and school employees Medicare and Medicaid and our home you know bracket testing is already covered by federal law we cover. federal law when I visited with Senator Leding about this bill this morning and this bill was just filed a few days ago I did offer him some wage that we thought could help the bill the cost is a concern but on page three the test is able to be recommended by a quote health care professional well I don't think any of us want dermatologists recommending tasks like this you know we recommended language that said position with training in metal medical genetic counseling and testing the common folks disagree but that language the other thing we recommended is on line thirty two where it says under nationally recognized clinical service I'm sorry clinical practice guidelines we would add by the nam by the national Cancer comprehensive cancer network and ordered the United States preventive services task force where such recommendations are supported by evidence of improved health outcomes we would also limit these test once per lifetime so we're not seeing multiple genetic testing by any healthcare provider provider who wants to order now. And with that I'm happy to answer your question is what I'm I want to quote you the testimony you just said we're very clearly in this state and now that that everything is being pushed back on to to the private sector as far as these test yes Sir. Hello I mean every bill you're you're pushing the cost to small employers and working on Kansans who purchase insurance. Senator. At. I just wanted to go back to what you said when it says healthcare professional are you talkin page. Three line thirty yes ma'am okay and then what did you say that you would we would add after the end physician with training and medical genetic counseling and testing so people who have the training and genetic right are actually ordering the task no I understand yeah yes so you would replace healthcare professional I one of the things that I worry about this. Particular thing and and I and I guess it goes back to your lifetime. Once in a lifetime once every lifetime right is that what you said so the question on that. I mean once you once you have it done and there's really no need to for you to have it done again correct okay one of the things that just I worry about I saw like such an up tick of people doing this master I think it was Angelina Jolie that maybe did it or something my question to you is. If and and maybe it's to Senator Leding but if it does appear that you have this this Jett Jean. and then you choose to do like a double mastectomy or you choose remember your remove a part of your body that shows that you're going to develop cancer and that in the future. That those procedures would not be covered with day. By choice that would be like an elective surgery would not wouldn't it be an elective surgery if he chose I believe this bill that addresses that question I don't but I would not be addressed by this piece of legislation no I know it wouldn't I mean I think it's merit maybe a question for Max Senator I think it I think it would really come down to how the doctor coated it to be honest with you you know depending on the code that the doctor you right is even some even some elective surgeries if they're coated. And in a certain way they may not look. Elective if you know what I mean okay. Because I mean technically if you're moving a uterus correct okay and it said it says you're going to have cancer you're gonna have you bring cancer but you really don't have you during cancer and you're electing to remove your uterus so you don't in the future develop cancer I understand you would do that but that technically is elective procedure just like you would have an elective procedure that. May or may not. I mean being necessary medically necessary I don't that to me because Grady when it comes to this and there's a lot of gray area with genetic testing as as you all know I mean there's a lot of gray area I mean you know there are there are a lot of cancers that are not determined by genetic testing. Well I I I just feared kind of the. You okay you get the test done and then it comes back that you have this gene and then kind of go to this extreme of have an. Maybe maybe it's extreme maybe it's not but. But then they may as soon then that those might be covered when they may not be and I don't that's my concern with the bill I'll be Frank with you I mean because it's it starts down a chain reaction that the patient themselves may or may not understand if that elective procedure will be covered or not and I think that's that's my biggest concern with genetic testing of this works I do see value in it but I also see kind of the opposite of that it's hard to explain but that's just my my thought. Senator Boyd. Go ahead. So this we're talking about it rather than asking questions I mean I'm just gonna say I am concerned about the desk definition of health care professional that's a very wide open I mean I I couldn't get into lots of other health care professionals that might not come to mind that might all of a sudden have the ability to order these tests because of the way the laws are written the laws are not necessarily limited to just positions or just nurse practitioner six. I don't know that there's anything we can do but I am concerned and and you know and then I mean but I will also say in in in this issue of there really wasn't deadline I had a bill so I I respect that that there is a deadline and that's part of the reason these other put the state plans get excluded but as you know also someone who's you know mother had colon cancer I understand the value of genetic testing and you know I didn't have the gene my sister did so there is value so I don't know if we can get to this in this time frame but there are some concerns but there's a lot of merit here. Thank you Sir void any other questions or comments. Miss Max thank you very much for your testimony. Senator Leding is. Expect you. Thank you Mr chair So I did reach out to comment about some of the changes that the cross ask for today regarding the definition of health care professional they wanted to stick with that because that was the definition of bill proved by approved by this committee earlier this week so they thought there was no need to use something different regarding the once in a lifetime limit I reached out to the genetic cancer that we work with on the twenty nineteen law and she said that there is no such thing as one size fits all tests that technology changes in somebody's own family history they might learn a family member who had a certain cancer and then you might need to have a test again and so she stressed that just having one doesn't give you a clear picture for the rest of your life coming did agree to adding the national Cancer. The other definition the national Cancer the for the down the bill because that one change is not going to move across to a neutral position that that they didn't want to risk slowing down the bills process by trying to get amended. Thank. Thank you. Without your closing statement. just appreciate a good vote well I I will go just just very quickly when a shadow that genetic counselor in twenty eighteen what we work on the genetic counseling bill she had a client come it was a young woman whose father had stomach cancer and died of that and she underwent genetic counseling counseling because our doctor recommended because of that family history turns out that she did have that gene so she was at risk of stomach cancer and as I mentioned in my remarks that's a particularly lethal cancer because can be so hard to detect and only by the time they find it it is much too late so this a person elected to have their senate removed which I did not know that until months and months later she came up to me and then I did not recognize it was introduce yourself as the person who was there that day and said that she was so grateful for having had access to genetic counseling so she could make that decision. So I appreciate a good vote. Thank you Senator Leding so what's with the committee. Let's discuss this. Motion to practice I have a motion to pass by Senator Murdock. Not seeing a second. Since Leding didn't get a second thank you Committee. Per failed would like the second. Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson please RT several record sure Ashley Hudson state representative district seventy five thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee I'm here today to present HB thirteen thirteen if that sounds like you to use it does to me it's because you've already heard it once before and that senator Murdock presented this bill to you a few weeks ago before the break and I have prior to it going to the floor in the Senate senators Hickey and Payton notice that there was an omission to that part of the bill that outlined the types of creditors who still had access to life insurance proceeds in order to secure at or satisfied debt so in order to make sure since the point of this bill was to clarify what the law is on that and who is and is not able to access proceeds of life insurance policy to satisfy a creditors that and we went ahead and pulled it down before it went to the floor made the amendment that they suggested it and brought it back to you today so it is really just a single sentence and it is at the bottom of page two One thirty six is the new sentence which exit eight which says that insurance policy that's become an asset of the insured is also exempt from the exemption from creditors so it is collectible. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions representive. Seeing seeing none there anyone here to speak for against the bill. Say no one presented will be with you have a question okay I understand I appreciate your change and I will I will have to say this this is The reading of this bill has been very hard did did our crafters to this or with somebody else involved in the art of drafters to this. I have some help with something they just seem to do the same like I say the trying to read this is one of the hardest ones for me to to try to figure out so I just I've always animal count on you there's not any type of other motive or anything else that we're missing here I mean because. Well aid and and this bill came to me from a constituent who cares more about life insurance and literally anyone that that I have ever spoken to and told me that are existing life insurance bill left some confusion as to how creditors should be treated in terms of proceeds and so I took that and started looking around at how other states surrounding us were handling that problem and discovered that are statute was relatively vague and also left some confusion based on some case law out of that in the bankruptcy courts here as to how this proceeds ought to be handled and so in an effort to try to make our statute in line with those of the surrounding states elected Missouri taxes and Tennessee and we tried to update the language in order to make it Make a little bit more sense in terms of how the life insurance proceeds would be treated in the certain circumstances. Just one more if you don't do you you know I certainly did are there by composed today look at this also yes I did and they suggested language earlier on which we incorporated into it to ensure that the as I said the rights of the banking association would also be protected. Thank you ma'am. Any other questions representative Hudson. Discussion Centerville head. So just so that I think I'm clear on page one section one other than the beneficiary or assignee shall shall pre disease such a person. That's existing state statute. I wonder how that's correct we know how long packed it is to be. The walkie Parker is believe it or not that goes back to last session representative Gazaway did an amendment last session that added that language okay the firm. Any other questions. Seeing none. Also will the committee. Do pass senator Boyd second by Senator Murdock. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye opposed same sign. I seven your bill is passed. Senator Johnson S. B. five thirteen. If you'd like you like to skip over to the White as your skip over to Tuesday will. Yeah. There to sell for the record the center Johnson thank you say Mister chairman mark Johnson state senator district seventeen I'm joined the table with the former little rock mayor and attorney my friend March total of my stomach entities himself. In any Mr chairman and members of the committee marks total of. From my Little Rock attorney with the barber law firm. Go ahead senator Johnson's senator. Mr chairman committee where Getting a late but I think this one's pretty simple I'll I'll try to start out with the but this has to do with clearing up some things related to nonprofit corporations filing their annual reports and not being filed it creates kind of a administrative limbo for a lot of these corporations the US secretary of state's office has Supported this bill that we hope will will clean that up and I will ask if the committee's indulgence I ask Mr total to explain that a little bit more nor more depth. Thank you thank you Mr chairman in researching an issue dealing with the use of a name for nonprofit corporation one of my clients told me that it was a reserved and that I had already been used I did the research on it and and and the last time that they had file an annual report was thirty eight years ago it that there's a requirement under the current law to put in an annual report in annually many many nonprofits do not do that and so consequently these names are tied up for ever and so what this does what this legislation does is basically gives them every year the the secretary of state will declare those people who are not a current in filing their annual reports and after five years if they still have not filed their delinquent reports then they removed from the rolls and the names and then be used by other entities and that's what this bill does. Thank you be happy to answer questions Senator void so this just really cleans up the rolls five years and then somebody else can use it I mean it's a lot of language and I know what it does that's here yes. Any other questions. See no one else here to speak for or against the bill no other questions Senator pretty close I'm close to and I move do pass I have a motion do pass Senator Johnson secular centre Boyd. All those in favor say aye. Those same sign Jett Johnson your bill is passed. Senator Gilmore. Thank you committee members. In the short sleeves it is late and I know you're tired of the as I am. Thank you. I hope this is the I think there's amendment being passed out surveys away for that is an amendment please RT civil records are Senator Irvin Gilmore district one. Members the the bill that you're seeing with an amendment is one that you passed out of here I think on Tuesday there was a technical error caught and also the amendments changes sponsors. Changes primary sponsor to Mickey just to lessen the. Floater bills that I'm carrying so with that I hope this is the easiest thing that you here tonight. Thank. Happy to take any questions. With adopt the amendment. Thank you senator Boyd all in favor say aye. Those same sign please present your bill as amended Sir. Again member's bill you've already passing heard the amendment I think literally changes one word it's a technical I would ask for a good vote. See no one here to speak for or against the bill any questions. I have a motion do pass have a segment Senator void as amended. All in favor say aye opposed same sign seemed your bill is passed thank you Committee. Senator Rapert. Been waiting on you all night man. Please enter several record you Mr just right state Senate district thirty two it is a good day to be in Arkansas Senate. You have a member for years. Not on this Madam all night to make it on the next one I will. Which one of which forty one with the five thirty nine yes sisters until five thirty nine. What you what you're. Okay five thirty nine. You're free to present your bill thank you Mr members of the General five thirty nine simply adds for consumer advocates on the racing commission board. These advocates there's currently total seven. They represent the racing commission. Well at for bringing that number to eleven. These members will be appointed by the governor as to be non affiliated with any casino or casino vendor. It'll also establishes regular reporting to legislator I can see no gaming tax revenue and any illegal gaming activity in the state. As with any board I think it's helpful to have independent voices in that room that's why virtually every board in the state of Arkansas has consumer advocates on the board state banking board total five members two of which are consumers the state board of pharmacy eight total members two of which must be consumers. I think this is needed ever since amendment one hundred was passed adding casino. Casino gambling on to the racing board. Seven we we need to establish that there are consumers on that board to protect the interest of those using the system. So the intent that this is not to to admonish racing commission I think they're doing a good they're doing a great job and been around those stay intact this just adds for consumer advocates to that board on time time is short hello just get right into questions sign up for the membership. What questions for the sponsor Senator Johnson so thank you Mr chairman Senator right of. You saying. Citizens or consumers this is me they're not I saw it they're not related to they're not employees of anybody they're not affiliated in anyway to the casino with that include they don't own race horses that race at Oaklawn or they don't have any other they're not trainers or or any any by any vendor or you know in any way affiliated that would be totally independent is that correct what what we're going to leave that to the to the wisdom of our governor so you don't really other than the fact that they can't be you know relate the casino or stored affiliated with the casino licensee or casino vendor that's the only exclusion that you you put on those can be appointed correct okay. Thank you thank you Mr secretary Murdock. And what. So this is kind of a serious question so like when you say consumer does this mean they have to go to casinos at some point or consistent like if I just were in our cans and I mean what what do you what is your intent with consumer and it really is this year is just just an hour at Arkansas citizen. Yeah. Any other questions. What John. is. Cinryze is the governor supportive of this. Or have an opinion on it or anything I I have not been engaged the governor's office but it would be would be her sole point eight yes would they be staggered. Are the like the others are set up I guess. The others are are are thank you happen third under Haitian so it follows that same guidance okay thank you thank you Mister senator out. Okay any other questions. Thirty K. okay. Have yes representative right I guess I heard what you said list try to this what you said you said you know that they're basically doing a good job or great job the way they are. And basically that was gonna be my questions for your one of them I mean I've always been is not broke are we trying to fix that what. At their seats there has to be more to the story here I mean. It's so we're just not doing this out of the goodness of our hearts that were put in Arkansas consumers on their well what's the rest of the story so so. As I as I am. Thank you for trying to understand the issue like the racing commission went when horse racing started Arkansas and and I'm not sure when that was it is that was the racing commission and you've got a horse enthusiasts and in one hundred as casinos into the mix but it puts underneath racing commission. And then we had sports betting. We added underneath the racing commission so as as as we go Baltz in the depth of what we're tax seen and what we're regulating through this body and what we're we're putting on our or consumers Arkansas constituents it kind of slow slide that over into we're just dealing with the commission to deal with with racing so I think having having you know we had casinos on that weather's crazy net casinos is a sports betting at casinos so but I want to be fair to fair to the current situation at the same time having for consumer advocates that can actually advocate for the consumer that's having problems with you know that any illegal in any illegal betting going on that there or or issues with the system that they can present those and get basically a fair hearing at the at the board. We may continue yes Or again that that was my first one in and another thing courses was sent to me I'm not gonna sit here and tell you I went got this but you know we purchased about consumers and I heard the word use was independent members that was which started off with. We you know the current statute itself. Basically lays out that they're not supposed to have any financial interest even go sizzling are not supposed to be can related to officers of stockholders or any of that and. I don't see here where it would say just as racing commissions we've added those other entities with under the with within that. Think that would also apply to them so. It appears like to me that. Are we are they violating that mail order we know that I think it's in the wording of this I'm sorry all too well I mean it just it seems like to me that that some of the talk that's been going on out there and some of the stuff that we've kind of gotten prior to this and and kind of now that is kind of alluded to that possibility that you know maybe these people that were there were not following the statute because they really weren't. Because like I say everything that I see is pretty specific there can't be any relationship any financial or otherwise and again it's not limited just the racing commission I think I think the answer that I read I read the statute and I as you here and I'm not I don't have racing in in our area and I I've never been to the tracks here in Arkansas but I can ask that question because the room would say is everybody on the record racing commission now or who portion through this and when when purposes and yeah I would think that would throw a flag into the mix but I believe this is like the third and fourth infinity so really what's the nexus they don't own any interest or stock they're just enthusiasts put their forces on the field and in an axes the governor can remove for good cause and you know in that world of. Of money and power. It those are hard decisions knows or above above my pay grade and so. You know I don't know the answers your question but if we if we if we ask ask the executive branch to add for consumers on this board maybe they can. And shall keep things with the new added interest of casinos and sports betting against or adding in a little more a. Oversight. I do notice it here that even though the current statue even goes as far as saying the governor shall the right to remove any member on the commission for calls so you know if if if we've got an issue down there I mean I think there's another way to you know address it right now I think one of the other members ask you know and again that's not going to be my guide and decision here but would factor into it I mean you know is that does the governor does the governor actually won't these additional appointments because of something and one of our other members **** question you know we're putting weapon no weapon members of eleven members on the board I mean you know you start getting getting that many people to if something hasn't been broken and it has been working out working. Then I don't know why we're going to add more members because that really made may start creating conflict well I think I thank the current board there we would know we would know because there's no no requirement to to let us know so we asked if we had this statute were Commission shall hear all matters casino gaming sports wagering we're starting to get a feel better feel of what that looks like right my my experience you know I'll close after this you know my experience down here though I think we wouldn't know because I think and maybe maybe these members here have and maybe have been left out of the loop Personally I'm trying to remember if anybody has ever called me for the first time with the with an issue that they've had in a with that to with that growth racing commissioner that board I mean again maybe you have it ready it be maybe you know if the foxes guarding the hen house what would be what would that. Thank you Sir to Penzo then Senator Johnson. You're a. Some of. My background is health care and. Real estate construction those types of things I I can't think of a board. Over out there that doesn't have consumer members on it can can you tell me any other board that you're aware of that doesn't consumer advocates on I would say the Only for the comes in mind probably Arkansas contractors licensing board but that's an open market I mean it's and it's there's so many little pockets that in the end they may have it on there I went testified once I I don't know all the members the board is no some of the bigger names work were contractors Actually I take that back my. My I do know somebody either they are consumer advocate for the residential side. So with that being said I do not know okay okay thank you. Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman Senator Rapert I've looked up to the racing commission for and I know about half of them two of my my good friends and they own racehorses and there's nothing in the world wrong with that and they're good people and they right to a good job regulating profession and but when they started this whenever I know Oakland advertises nineteen oh four. But I think we started racing before we actually had it legal in Arkansas which is kind of an interesting history but be that as it may even since we specifically authorized parimutuel wagering it's been at least seventy or eighty years I guess but my point being that to It's only recently and you alluded Amendment one hundred that we've added casino gambling to their regulatory thing and well if you're if you're horse owner and you care about these things in your you know all the things that had to do with racing that doesn't automatically make you a real expert on the the casino side of it and I I receive that because I think your bill does And something this is not something that the General Assembly deliberated on and came up with some solution of how to do it we just took the amendment that had been put together by initiative by advocates that have a vested interest and I don't have to go into that everybody knows what school what happened and they said okay so racing commission's going to do it will always want another state you have a casino gambling commission give a separate group and some of them might have some crossover and some of them may do it exactly like we do but I know probably the biggest from being Nevada it is a it is a gaming commission city it regulates the gambling and and there's I'm not saying anything right or wrong about any model but I think it's perfectly logical to expand representation beyond just force people and and trainers and those just related to pair mutuel wagering to people that are as you say sit just plain citizens and use or consumers I would just say ordinary citizens are unaffiliated so would you agree yes senator I do agree okay thank you thank you Mister DISMANG. So it in since the all of the added functions of come along for the racing commission have we change the make up for the required make up of the Commission or is it just stayed the same throughout that process data center and then I'll. I make my statement regarding setting. I have attended meetings before it request of commissioners because of concerns and so that I don't think it's unprecedented there's concerns that's not just with this board or commission but others but I just wanna say that that that is not necessarily cases always been rosy and and in no particular issues. Senator Irvin. I'm not sure you can answer this but do you know if the racing commission has like subcommittee or did they consult with a veterinarian. I do not know the answer okay. They do have a veterinarian but it's not with the racing commission I know that they we deal with some specific things as it relates to horses and performance enhancing drugs and all those regulations that are existing at the federal level so I just didn't know. That is just one thing I just didn't have a question about but but the way that the state code create that is existing that I looked up I mean I I don't read anything in here that doesn't say that the seven members arch. Consumers. So you're saying that four different for members shall be consumers but. The seven that are members are also consumers. I mean from the way I read that the. Coat each congressional districts have a representative on the commission each member of the commission shall have been a resident for the state of Arkansas for no less than ten years and then and no person is actually connected with employed by financially interested in or relating to within the third degree of consanguinity you ready. Council Quinn of the okay thank you it's lands or affinity I mean I can read it but at I don't I don't read this as them not being a consumer. Well I think all boards I have no reason to have specialties you know specific bankers specific yeah in in but they're also consumers in other bankers this is saying is you know the way we want racing enthusiasts we want people to know that industry on the board that's that's that's the continual board make up this just adds for more this is they don't. Don't worry about horseracing don't worry about casinos worry about consumers users. I understand but there's nothing in this that specifically puts anybody of any expertise like you just mentioned on the board so the seven are just basically. their consumers are just citizens there's there and they're not on there there's not in other words there's not one specific that Merion as to be one of the seven there's not one specific. I don't know expert on whatever to be on it that's it's not prescribed in the code that way so I just. I just didn't know if you are reading this code differently than me or. Did I mean that you can answer it or not but I that's that was just my question when I pulled up the code yeah and I and I read the read through the code and. I took it is you know it can't be. You can't own it but by the third or fourth but if you're in the first or second you can that kind of attach yourself to it now could could a previous appointee had no affiliation I suppose that's possible because it doesn't it doesn't go into that detail the current members all seven or currents currently is centered on salute to their their in the in the the racing world connected through horse ownership or otherwise. Okay Senate Marach. Thank you so the impetus for this bill it is just something Senator did you came up with in your own or just somebody bring this to you how did this start it was it was discussed just a broad broad context of. No new in mind a mind advocate for consumers to be on your boards and commissions and and I AM and then what did you know that we have one that that doesn't and you just to kind of walk away will that that festers in your mind a little bit and here you know and I've got I've got no interest in it I just want good polisario they discuss with you do they have an interest do they have an interest in something of this nature or somebody that they're representing the I do not know the answer. This may be part of the I'd say N. anybody left in the room behind me probably has an interest oh no no. Thank you thank you thank you. But the very good answer. Any other questions. Seeing no other questions there's no one signed up to speak for or against the bill Senator Jett close. We're gonna we're gonna keep your time is valuable I appreciate a good vote. Thanks so what's the will of committee. Seven do pass by Senator Johnson seconded by Senator Penzo in discussion. Seeing none all those in favor say aye sixty miles go ahead. I was just gonna say that that the you know I'm I'm a big a fan of the consumer protection and I mean no the whole reason we're here is to represent people will represent casinos will represent you know companies we represent the people and I think I think the these commissions boards all should have you know because the consumer representative on to to have the voice of the people so I appreciate a good vote Senator Johnson. I agree with the senator Penzo statement I and I just kinda want to say that we're all consumers every single one of us as a consumer but we have some specialties in we have accounts we have bankers we have attorneys we have The pharmacist but we're all consumers but I think the fact that this is a An entity that is a large part of our state and controls a lot of our tourism and image is truly in in in many ways a of a major traction our state I think it's perfectly logical to expand it to include more representation and I'm not saying that this is a magic number eleven or anything but I do like the idea of what to. The senator Bryan has brought and I would to support this expansion I would have probably even strengthen a little bit to say you know you you couldn't be a have any kind of you know affiliation with the. The regulated entity is I'm scared the ethics commission calls us they're regulated in the but in this case it would be of the licensee so I would also appreciate a good vote. Hammer dot. Thank you chair so in the end of your world I would agree that we would just work involving consumers of for a very pure reason of not calling that the senator or anyone impure but it's business is what it is when business is so involved as it is in this industry the end sometime we get approached. To bring something for the for other reason our business not bad reasons but business reasons and I represent eighty could signal in my district in is in any make sense that I try to protect the interests for those that I represent in the business isn't it in my in in my area point being. If. There had not been other. Business related activity to such a Commission. And then the attempt to do other things then I would be of the same nature what I'm concerned about is. You know this strategic way that we can change something from its eight is working as it is you know is not is not harmful as it is I think we representative as we are so I just would think at this point that we're okay as we are in not that I'm against consumers because we have them as others have mentioned already on the commission. So I just want to keep it like it is is not disturbed with something that's not broken why we fix. Senate is mine I just I think we did really have a quick discussion about a couple of the questions that were asked. I plan on asking. Pretty often from here on. For these bills come from that were at the end of the table. I don't think we need to be questioning his motives and anyway I think was pretty clear about it. When I think there's been an evolution with what they're been tasked to the racing commission it's time for a member to be able to look at that and say you know what I think that it's time for a change and so the illusion or the alluding to that you know it's only being done because someone asking to do it I think it's improper I'm a little bit disappointed that happened well if I'm talking I'm talking okay. And so I'm I'm disappointed in that where the discussion when I was fine with all the discussion around this table and to we went to there and I probably wouldn't sit anything in the session amongst members. But I but I don't want to squish tuning the motives of someone when I think you very explicitly stated what is and what his motives were. And my response to that is the question it was not his motives at all I asked him a question that you interpretation of that is yours it is in your box and that's okay for you to respond that way but what I'm saying to you again sooner I'm not questioning you at all. Because of what Senate is making me think I want to know an answer. And the best thing for me to do was to ask you that in your face and I do that. Okay we have a motion to approve in a second or. The third. I have a motion Senator Johnson. A second a center Penzo to approve all those in favor say aye hi a little pose same sign. I said it we're. Now. I.