Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee - Senate

I hope this delayed start was able to guess members a lot of running time we're trying to stagger these means a little bit so with that we will move through the agenda I want to prioritize Senate bills first just because we're late in the session not discriminating against any bill for any purpose purpose a reason but I just want to try to get Senate bills out the door first because of time issues also and we will have this meeting will be from now on that call of the chair so most likely if we're trying to get through and get as many things done today as we possibly can so we'll come back fifteen minutes upon adjournment today as well okay so if you have. People that need to run bills we need we need to try to maximize the stay as much as possible because I want to be here Friday. All right with that we will go ahead and just work through the top of the agenda it looks like we have to concur and H. B. eleven oh two can somebody handle that okay great to Senator Penzo you're recognized for. H. B. eleven oh two. State your name for the record you're recognized thank you madam chair of Clint Penzo district thirty one house bill eleven oh two admitted at a committee of last week it got to the Senate floor in an amendment was requested so this is just concurring in that the amendment it removes some redundant language for things that are in place under prior legislation And takes out cystic fibrosis because it's already screen for some cleanup language and it also adds a time frame language to the appropriation approval Page two line three says attesting to begin on newly added core medical conditions upon approval of the appropriation. The funding for the General Assembly and we added or within thirty six months upon introduction to the panel. All right are there any questions from members of the committee. Scene nine is there anyone here to speak for against the amendment C. nine to hear a motion to concur The Amendment motion to concur second all those in favor say aye and it posed Is haven't congratulations the amendment is. Opted are concurred with thank you Committee okay we have another one I'm gonna go three twenty two. Senate bill three twenty two is to concur and amendments I'm just going to keep my chair right now but I'm gonna turn the gavel over to Senator Solomon just stay in your seats. Senator Solomon you're recognized to be chair. I'll go and get to the end of the tape. Recognize you to present your bill. I'll go down there but you can figure. Okay. Senator Missy Irvin district twenty four thank you Mr chair and what this amendment does that we put on in the house was just some clean up language that was requested by the department and and. As it's my bill my amendment I think it's a good catch and get clean up from the house members anyone have any questions. Anyone here speak for against the bill. Senator you're welcome to close for your men and close so we just make a motion to concur with this amendment you make a motion second all in favor say aye. Opposed say. The Bill pass this thank you. Okay moving down. The agenda let's see Senator Hammer at. Representative Clowney. We'll see Senate bill three ninety two. Senator Davis. Senate bill three ninety two. Okay of the all state and I for the record you're recognized for sensible three ninety ten pre and Davis state Senate district twenty five. Okay thank you thank you madam chair members of the committee. M. S. so this bill it is most of it is actually and just clean up language and we you know changed some of the language you know from artists in training to student artist or artist trainer to instructor so it was more streamlined with what the industry uses and it would be and just clear terminology but this bill is actually and a response to ACT nine hundred of twenty twenty one myself and Senator Kim Hammer and a few others ran a bill and separating that permanent cosmetic industry from the body art industry and try to do some other things other than that and to help sort of regulate and ensure the safety of of that industry but this bill puts it back together we also and in the bill add two more positions to the cosmetology technical advisory committee and we put a position on for tattooing and for piercing artists to ensure that they have representation on the regulatory board and we also change that instructor to student ratio to no more than one to eight and students per instructor in class and and added some additional instructional hours for those artists who wish to become instructors. And we and that it's an additional inspection by the department of health it's an annual inspection rather than just a one time inspection and added some additional hours and from three hundred and seventy five clock hours four hundred clock hours and for those in training and and an important piece that we changed I think is that ratio online instruction to in person it's going from fifty fifty online in person to eighty twenty and with a majority of that and training or instructional time being in person I mean they're learning how to put permanent cosmetics on on people on their bodies so it's important to have that in person time learning how to do that. And say this is really as I said it clean up but it the way the bill was written last session it was really hard I think for Department of Health chi right out rules in a clear way because there is a lack of clarity throughout the bill and so and we have been working with the industry and with department of health for I mean probably. Ten months now and on making sure that this is correct making sure Department of Health is good with that so I'm happy to answer any questions I do and have someone here that can also come to the table and help me answer questions as well. I have a quick question on page four on your lines four five and eight and nine and I ate that's in addition and I our a light that language but if you can just describe where that came from and why you wanted to include that that would be helpful yes and I actually and have when they come up you're recognized. Right and because she can give examples I mean it is important due to some health issues that minors get through and I think it's important for to talk about it okay. And your signed up to speak for the bill to go ahead and sit down and state your name for the records we're happy to have you. Good morning thank you for having me madam chair and committee for hearing me this morning my name is Alina Kappa Hana and I represent the permanent cosmetics industry. The four years before your remarks do you mind if you can just answer that question for me about on page four of the bill lines four five and eight nine where it says when the person is given medical consents due to medical necessity from a physician in addition to parental consent. Direct correct so it is not a person is a minor right and they have a medical condition that would require them to have some form of permanent cosmetics okay we're not only's stating that we would like the parental permission but also the medical consent in that instance okay I like the language I just I thought it would be good to have a little bit further conversation detail about that Senator Solomon has questions for I think Senator Davis we will get your comments in just a second You may not be able to answer this but do you know how are regulations compared to states around us are we more or less about the Sabres restrictions yes yes Sir I'm I'm very familiar on a national level how every different state operates so so how close are we. Locally and regionally and nationally so relations less regulations. That's tricky you have our neighboring states like Tennessee that have no regulations and then you have Oklahoma where these services are only performed with doctor supervision so you know you you sort of have both ends of this of the spectrum and it does very very vastly from state to state. Generally though Arkansas lies. A little more stringent than most states what what are the health implications. Some states have zero and some are very restrictive are there any outcome differences in those states that are significant. Absolutely and it is in my experience over the last eight years in this industry that states that don't require regulations have a lot more and bad outcomes with procedures many bad outcome taking a more restrict we do we do have bad outcomes and that is that's our goal to try to fix this and make it better make education better number one we are lacking in it And that apprenticeship style hands on education this is not a cosmetology field where you're cutting hair this is something where you were permanently inserting something into somebody's skin forever. Yes well I mean that is not about the bill and support of the bill so I've under center should not talk later about that okay thank you okay and Senator Solomon and that's something that we were trying to help. Correct two years ago but we really didn't get Feedback from the entire industry you know I call I'll take the blame for that on my end I didn't incorporate everyone I needed to throughout that process to ensure what we are trying to help without comes we didn't get all the feedback and input that we needed to do it correctly and so that's what because a lot of confusion and lack of clarity throughout the rule making process over the last two years and so that's what we've done it the right way this time. All right are there any other questions for Senator Davis yes and and miss. Capper hand. Either on the thank you senator Boyd. I think my question is for Gabriel Hana. But I mean like this is a serious question is a little awkward ask this but on page four line seven line six and seven it is unlawful for a person to perform body are on the indestructible change to Terry and that uses a for genitalia and we're striking genitalia I mean is this that seems concerning to me and I just want to know is is this like really a thing this is this. So to answer that question and it is a very good question there are medical procedures and we certainly that's what I need to know there are okay that that answers my question thank you. Are there other questions from members of the committee. All right we will take your comments now if you would like to speak for the bill. You're recognized to speak for the bill okay okay so it the biggest things that I think that everybody should really be aware of is that we are trying to fix this we're trying to make this industry more powerful in the state of Arkansas I'm an artist that participates not only on a national level in this industry but I I participate all over the world in this industry and I would love to see our state excel forward in a positive way I would love to see us pay more attention to people encouraging them to actually make careers instead of shutting down their jobs because they're discouraged when they graduate from an institution we see too often that we get new graduates that come in for a job at a job interview and they don't even have the basic necessity of skill to be higher opal and that's just not okay so through reducing the ratios to for having a student to instructor ratio no more than eight people ensures that that instructor is putting time and attention into those people also learning a skill like this is a hands on crafts we suggest that only twenty percent be performed online eighty percent needs to be in person and a true apprenticeship style it's our job as instructors and also being industry leaders to be responsible to pave the way for the future professionals that are going to go into this industry. Thank you so much are there any other additional questions. For members of the committee C. nine thank you so much for comments we also have you and Mr Matthew of all. Your your your your time okay great is there anyone here to speak against this bill okay if you'll come for Mr Derren Taylor. Thank you Mr Taylor fuel to state your name for the record then you may proceed with your testimony sure my name is Darren Taylor I am the owner of Arkansas permit because medic institute in cabin Arkansas I run the largest tattooing body piercing impairment cosmetic school in the state I currently have graduated about thirty eight percent of all the artist inside the state of Arkansas I have enrolled current currently an active enrolled about a hundred and twenty eight students this bill well we don't disagree with every aspect of it there are a few components that were work adversely against it it would action negatively impact a significant portion of the population that actually seeks our education forum about forty percent of all the students we bring through our program or single moms many of these individuals or individuals who have a career for example in cosmetology maybe aesthetics in their adding this actually as a cabbie ought in order to create more income for their family. We have mastered and created a program whereby individuals can do a percentage of their education online through a fifty fifty this is one of the things we definitely disagree with on this platform we have for the past four years when using a fifty fifty bland and creating a gateway for individuals to maintain a full time career occupancy as well as be able to attend school by changing that you're gonna require people that already struggle with their income to have to be on the campus more and I do fundamentally disagree with the fact that they need more time to be able to cover the three pillars the three pillars our brows eyeliner and lips those are three things we focus on beyond that individuals can take extrication to gain extra certifications in that. When you look at the money involved by increasing those hours you're talking also raising tuition currently the state of Arkansas we do not recognize postsecondary really I just far as any type of entitlement any type of funding the government funding for individuals going to print make up school so basically it's all out of pocket I currently carry seven hundred fifty thousand dollars in outstanding tuition that by individuals in the state of Arkansas who seek to have a license but do not have the money to put down for this would be estimate if we made the changes current proposes law fifty percent of all my enrolled students will not be able to and we draw students from as far away as Las Vegas I have students in my school from every neighboring state besides the Louisiana currently enrolled I pull students from northwest Arkansas therefore actually opening a school in northwest Arkansas starting next month don't make me use in closer proximity for those involved having to travel. When you look at the numbers that rations were talking about one of the things is proposed and brought into publishing the last bill which allow individuals. The ability to find another way to become instructors we are severely lacking instructors in our state currently all body artist account for in this is a record as a key made by the health department just recently there's eleven hundred thirty one total artist this includes permanent make up artist tattoo artists and body piercers when you look at this number there only twenty two people for state of three million forty thousand that would be eligible to be instructors. Twenty two people are three million forty thousand we would be taking steps severely backwards right written by taking repealing senate bill that would mean that basically everybody in the state would have to be that is eligible to be an instructor having a five year license would have to be an instructor to support the industry. That is not responsible. The sponsor educator program basically means an exhibit at gateway for us to take individuals who complete their license allow them to do the second doing cosmetology obtain another six hundred hours of education and therefore through an accredited institution like our own be able to teach this program we can tell you unequivocally that individuals who do not have this education do not teach well just because you've been practicing for five years does not make you profession to be able to teach if that was the case why we not have nurses is teach other nurses why we have a doctor's does teach other doctors we require education and higher education for a reason I can see all the documents if you wanna have them in my briefcase I what my school has been through the past couple of years I invested a hundred thousand dollars my own personal money last time to run a bill to help create a better a better pathway more safety for the industry that was all completely funded by myself I have funded all the money of the attorney fees everything to do it this time as well important committee of sixteen individuals from around the state to give their input. The passing this bill as it's currently written will send us backwards not moves forward put more people out of work and we take the business of my own potentially shut down I'm a multi million dollar business. I educate more people in this state than anybody else there's on arguably those numbers that statistically stand out there if anybody has numbers and challenge that please do so. But this bill as it's written will not move us in the right direction it will move us backwards thank you. Thank you are there questions from members of the committee we have a Senator Solomon you're recognized for a question do you have any outcome data for. People that are injured are having bad reactions from a statewide. Forty percent of all the individual that my school fees for procedures have. Previous work that is done incorrectly there is a shift wide gap I don't even disagree with ms Gabrielle's information which you supply I mean I actually think a lot of information is correct she is correct there's a lot of bad work out there but it's also because the fact that a lacking final adjudication process if you have the data yes yes okay thank you and this is if the quality Compared to regional how to weave rack. Arkansas actually currently ranks fairly high and and and require that a lot of states that do not regulate this industry at all so there's no regulation you only pay a hundred dollars a health department and you are not licensed there's no training required okay thank you. And senator Boyd actually had a question I think M. on page four and if you have a copy of the bill. I just wanted to get your perspective as well because actually as I thought about that I think this may have been language that I put in place and twenty thirteen but I can't remember. But I think it was because I worked with the tattoo industry it so it just where the question I think that Senator Boyd had was striking out the word level or genitalia and just replacing that with every ola. And it can we get your perspective I don't agree with that at all I mean I think anybody who's a minor unless it's been strictly map provided by a physician should not have their aerial as nipples because we don't have to those we don't do permanent make up on those we do not peers those so I think that that should be removed. Okay I mean I don't think we I think we should be honest I'm sorry should be included that we don't do not do that service okay okay well I I just I didn't know I just thank you thank you. Are there any other questions for the from the members of the committee senator king you're recognized. So we have these procedures or any of this stuff done I mean typically people look into it they find that something bad is going on if there is a bad actor and that alone. Helps keep. Bad people from being in business for a no incorrect that's the reason why I actually got in this business purely by action as you can probably tell I'm not female so I'm an anomaly in the industry I'm also old I got into it because my wife went to an institution that was on the list by the Department health and we found out that she was taken advantage of she lost her money basically was sort of her license so I got into this not only that Washington school she received a bad surprise not instructor only through the process of a lawsuit involved we find out that this individual was never duly should have never been doing a license the state of Arkansas they're operating today if you got to the free information act request it from the health department you're gonna find a hundred seventy complaints against an institution that is still currently dishing out licenses with a three day certification training I do agree that the online process of having this three day training is garbage but I don't agree with anything beyond fifty fifty which is what the US department of education does allow COVID taught us a lot of things about that and you need to be prepared for therefore we were already prepared coming into this our program is very well written we're the only school in the United States of America that is currently not only accredited once but about to be credited or second accreditation the second accreditation process is brought in through the same accreditation company that credits almost all the cosmetology's goals in the state of Arkansas. Thank you other questions Senator Solomon. Did you participate in all the meetings that they had about this the health department however they would when they wrote this bill apparently they had some meetings and discuss I was not invited to the party they do not want me to party because I'm the biggest dog in the car in the box and they do not want my opinion No Way we have reached out to everybody ask them to go to be a participate so we could have an active voice with them again we're not a complete opposition to it but we are not invited to the party sometimes you. If you wait for an invitation you miss the opportunity sometimes you do show up well we don't know whether or they're having meetings and so. Okay are there other questions from members members of the committee. All right C. nine thank you for your testimony and let's see do we have anybody else and that wants to speak for or against this bill. Senator Davis you want to wait for and then you have the second amendment okay. I do have an amendment and I apologize I thought it was engrossed it was sent to that house yesterday I mean to the floor excuse me and I signed it and thought it was ingress into the bill and the Department of Health just caught it is it's actually not gross okay so they're bringing that amendment over right now and I can let Department of Health explain it it was just some clarity that they wanted to have in the bill. Okay we want to wait for together yeah we need to wait until the amendment gets here so that the members have the men amendment before you okay we'll may was just briefed will come back to the okay okay great thank all it down and then we'll come back all right great thank you so much and let's see. Okay. I'm gonna try to get three Senate bills first real quick and let's see I have Senate bill three twenty is next on the agenda I know we have members here from the house but we're trying to get three Senate bills and get them out the door first and Senate bill three twenty is not bill. Okay Senator Solomon. Four ninety two as well. Actually I'll I'll wait I'll let Frank Cavenaugh go first representative Cavenaugh I'm sorry. I've never mind Senator Hammer is gonna kinds on it okay then I'll go is there anybody else that the member here. Okay. Centerville introduce yourself and your cast you may proceed. Thank you senator Missy Irvin district twenty four. We're doing the amendment yes but yes The Amendment was read. I'll explain the amendment the amendment was working with eBay and so we're happy to make the amendment per the request and also that we at basically are getting rid of the increase of of any fees that's what the amendment does. I make a motion to adopt the amendment anyone have any questions on the amendment. Centreboard a question. I'm sorry I got a second for a second okay If any questions on the amendment anyone to speak for against the amendment. Seven nine we have a motion. motion by the member goes and goes second okay all in favor say aye hi impose a sentence the member passes thank you thank you members and Senate bill three twenty permits the regulation of in state online auctions and it and estate sales so that we can protect consumers at updates obsolete and outdated provisions of auctioneers licensing act it has been amended to exclude real property from the definition of an auction because they are regulated already by the Arkansas realestate Commission and to provide an exemption for used car auctions because there are licensed by the Arkansas state police so we're trying to narrowly focus this this. But keep the processing fee that I like I said on the amendment this keeps a processing fee of five dollars and it adds language requested by eBay to clarify that an ecommerce website that only provides a forum for others to conduct an online auction is exempt from the Arkansas nears licensing act the auctioneer industry has requested in support of this bill M. as of regulating in state online auctions and estate sale providers are currently unregulated is leaving consumers with no accountability or recourse against those that are practicing and scrupulously and the bill provides necessary updates to clarify the administration of the Arkansas auctioneers licensing act and with that I've got folks from the agency that works with industry at that can answer any questions could you introduce yourselves and will this questions. Kelly black the director of the auctioneers licensing board. And I'm Dan Parker on the chief legal counsel for the department of labor licensing and the auctioneer licensing board is one of our licensing entities under our cabinet level department. Members anyone have any questions. In nine as anyone here to speak for against the bill. Seven nine Senator you're welcome to close I'm close I appreciate us working with the industry and eBay and what they were able to bring to us I'll closed representative voted with the will of the committee. Your motion second. Second call in favor say aye aye opposed your bill passes thank you thank you thank you amended as amended thank you so much miss Steele always great to catch us and I have Senate bill while you're in the chair all disco and the Senate bill four ninety two if you would just introduce yourself the bill number again please yes Sir Mr chair Senator Missy Irvin district twenty four this is Senate bill four ninety two. And you're welcome to present your bill. Thank you M. A. this at what this does is just updates to allow for an alternative to the requirement for notarization I've had a similar bill this session on this and again just making sure that we can add language where add this can be a release with an electronics and signature with an electronic Senate signature versus notarization M. and that is really the the gist of the bill is just to update for technology and allow that electronic signature for notification verification. Members anyone have any questions. Saying that anyone here to speak for or against the bill. Seven nine you're welcome to close I'm close I appreciate a good vote and we're here we're motion the second second. Go all in favor say aye hi proposed thank you your bill passes thank you. All right moving down the agenda thank you so much Senator Solomon and moving down the agenda and do we have anyone here for. We do have the amendment now okay representative Cavenaugh you're recognized and. What what the bill are you House Bill. Fourteen forty six. All right. Yes. House Bill fourteen forty six. If you will state your name for the record and then you are recognized. Thank you madam chair a friend Cavenaugh state representative district thirty. For quite for reviewing services. All right you would explain your amendment amendment just as a clarification actually allowing that children that are victims of child trafficking of human trafficking that actually be part of this bill that can be accepted okay excellent at any questions on the amendment. Motion to adopt the amendment second. All this favor say aye. Oppose ayes have it amendment is adopted you may present house bill fourteen forty six as amended thank you madam chair thank you Committee this bill rolls out of our mental health work group as we were working through the process we discovered that through our psychiatric residential treatment facilities in the state of Arkansas we we had some issues that we wanted to address one of the ones with enough beds for Arkansas kids And so that's what this bill is doing is trying to help us to be able to get more Arkansas kids on those beds and then we also noticed that there was a loophole and the quality of care nobody was really you regulating and overseeing the quality of care that these children the facilities are you know inspected for a lot of different things but not quality of care and so what we did is designed a system where DHS one actually actually see over the quality care of these facilities and these beds so that we can have one standard of quality of care and this there are ways that people can be held accountable if they're not providing the proper sale and that's really a quick overview of what the bill does not take any questions. Okay other questions from members of the committee senator Boyd you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Mr why seems to be here to answer questions so on page two of line nineteen twenty that area a psychiatric hospital license under the child welfare agency licensing act could you just kind of give us a brief overview of what's in there and and how this all fits together with that. Certainly a it in the discussions that led up to this and working with the original cabin on the bill that she wanted to do there were concerns that were raised about the quality of care in generally facilities that process I can't or care to children and in terms of loss under those to fall into different categories if the psychiatric residential treatment facilities which are licensed for DHS and through the child welfare agency review board the separately have facilities are licensed as hospitals they're both providing behavioral health services and both providing services to children but there licensure is is different and so the discussion was to provide a quality of care standard and review that looks at both sides of that question. Okay so they can still be licensed separately it's not combining them or anything like that so cross channels still fall under hospital licensure and the other one falls under DHS licensure correct this bill does not to do anything to change Law Center and we've said we set us on the other side that enters apartment houses forty we will defer to their licensure authority so we're going to do anything for your health is telling a facility one thing we're told us something different will coordinate with health and make sure that we're not duplicating or contradicting what health does in their luster authority okay thank you. Sullivan you're recognized for a question I should ask this earlier so is there an additional cost if they're trying to get more the certifications there's a cost to be inspected their fossilized over at any cost for the. No additional costs for riders to serve okay. All right are there any additional questions from members of the committee. All right nine. let's see we have Sherri Walding. If you come to the table you're signed up to speak against the bill. Hi my name is sherry wielding I'm a licensed psychological examiner an administrator and that this behavior hospital and to the point that was just presented there is no additional cost to the providers that's being presented in this bill but there is certainly a cost of the state another entity is basically being proposed to come in and and oversee what's already being done by other state entities so we do as a hospital report to the Arkansas department of health and there are quality standards contained in those rules and regulations as well as the joint commission which requires which hospitals are required to have first accreditation on top of that we do have the center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and AFMC so we do have a lot of governing body is overseeing the quality of care that's being provided specifically in hospitals in PR TS as well I understand that it is the you know the intention to so having more oversight or maybe guide more quality of care but I do think there's other ways and other avenues that things can be done without duplicating the service without duplicating another entity coming into providers and and adding to the administrative burden that's already existing with the four passes with joint commission was the impasse with the department of health it does seem quite redundant and not a good steward of resources I'm especially when that those measures and that information is already there and available specifically for hospitals there are quality metrics that are submitted to the Arkansas data network as required by the joint commission so these are the same reporting at data points that are being requested in this bill says the collisions and restrain like a trumpet medications admission referral data that's that's already submitted so just kind of seems to me of we're we're to reduplication processes that are already in place. That. Senator Solomon you're recognized for a question. Two hours. fairly familiar with some of the you know how many Sir how many visits you get from. Regulators regulators. I don't count there are continuous care obviously we're statewide organization and do all different levels I know at the hospital it is pretty regular we'll have somebody in our program every month it's certainly every quarter so you have cars. What do certifies you now sorry. Yes okay so we do have multiple entities that come in whether once a month every quarter there is we have regular visits from different people. Who is certifying you now so Arkansas department of health currently provides licensure and certification for psychiatric okay Mr for licensure for Accreditation we have the whole scope of things how many people are coming to your clinic and taking your time for administrators to could you go boiler inspections you have so how many how many people come in and look at you. Well when you add in the boiler inspections and the fire I mean no there's at least I mean I'm gonna add guesstimate fifteen to twenty entities that are coming in and overseeing our operations are facilities and are all in this is this is one more yes Sir okay. Okay are there other questions from members of the committee. Senator boy and. No Senator live. Thank you ma'am Sharon and time yes while you're still here I. Public. Based on your testimony I would like for DHS I guess to respond to the fact that she stating that Hey there's Carty organizations that are doing this so so Mr might can you respond to hi this is not the duplication of of what she state. Sure sought all dressed that there are several the entities that do look at on all sorts of different situations and systems within these hospitals in terms of the actual quality of care piece that is options partly Joel Arkansas Perfil partly joint commission I think the concern that the stakeholders raised when this was being discussed in the task force and means customers are having on others the concerns were really round is it is an adequate level of oversight specifically for the quality of the care being provided to those children I think that's where the concern was in us giving an example of this is more on the PR TS side is also true on the hospital side. For Medicaid we as a pair we do look at quality of care for our beneficiaries and so we have a Arkansas Medicaid clients whose pets placed in these facilities that is something that we look at but when you have someone is placed there by another state or is being placed by private insurance or directly by parents that that quote that oversight is missing there is I think that's part of the intent there is to help fill that gap there device smoothest oversight to make sure that all the children these facilities are receiving a call the level of care. All right so now my question to you man this could you respond to that. Who who's providing oversight yes so regardless of payor source the joint commission and CMS an Arkansas department of health as we currently are that's regardless of payor sources not just Medicaid it's not private pay it is everybody this is DHS coming in and doing the same thing with regards to quality so that is already done there is a difference between P. R. T. F. and hospitals and with the way things are set up currently it just seems if if there is a concern for a lack of quality specifically we keep talking up here to aspen hospitals are thrown into this but with B. R. T. S. it seems like we can do we can and men rules and regulations for those specifically around quality versus creating a whole other entity to do that so for me is there is a difference What what they're asking us to do now at that makes sense this. They would want to receive quality they say that we're not overseen except for the Medicaid that's not true we are seen for overseen for quality joint commission doesn't care about payor source. Arkansas department health doesn't care about payor source. Senator Solomon you're recognized for a question. I've been through the several times market I know. And let you do a side by side you can't afford the redundancy and you have people coming in all the time to look at the same things and it eventually causes a less quality of care because you have your demonstrators walking around and so that we're not trained very well and the impact is. Difficult so if there a process where you lay all those key things down and you know I would say peeling paint is the quality of care issue okay you can't separate quality of care for anything any of those folks to so do you do a side by side comparison in order to remove the Ford ended six yes Sir also that that is our intent that our plan is we we do we do this about six years ago or right and it never changes so did you do a side by side eleven a redundancy I'm sorry I misunderstood what you're asking. Yes Sir we did look at with a look at what was going on review all those different sites but I think it and again it just as make clear that DHS we're we're neutral on the bill we try to check assistance president having on this I don't want I'm not saying that the some of that that teaches is actively supporting but with that said with the discussion in the in the the committee just the concern those are hard I think for many stakeholders was that there is just not a sufficient level of oversight specifically for that quality care piece and particularly when you look at children who are being placed by other sources being placed by out from out of state or be placed directly by yes Sir representative Cavenaugh to the ten that committee did they sit down and do a side by side to eliminate redundancies. In the committee we did not when we spoke with DHS on looking at drafting that was one of our things that we wanted to be sure and look and see that were we found loopholes and what we're trying to find ways to get rid of those loopholes so quality care can be for all kids and that was one of the big concerns we had The Cosby quite frankly had some problems of the quality of care and that was brought out during this time that we will discover that we did have some issues with quality of care and we spoke to stakeholders and one meeting and and one of their concerns was the reason that they they admitted that they did have some issues with quality of care and they laid it off on the fact that they weren't getting paid enough and so they weren't able to hire enough qualified people they felt so one of the things that we did was we raise the rate that we're actually paying for these facilities to five hundred two dollars and. We thought that was gonna help them with some quality of care issue because we did feel during the work group that that was the right thing to do was to raise that rate but we still have issues with quality of care and I think as a state it behooves us maybe not to create redundancies but to make sure that these kids are taken care of properly it doesn't matter what sitting there in and I think that's a goal that we're trying to accomplish what I agree we all want to get that one of the greatest barriers if redundancy of these inspections in this incredible and if if we don't start there and eliminate redundancies I don't know how we can get better care because you got your staff who's supposed to be directing care doing show and tell two six or eight or ten people a week that's really difficult what I'm I'm hearing you say there was no side by side of redundancies within all sections. I did not do that while in effect on all orders I will I just want to show everyone just to because I do understand the concern you're raising that's what we saw at the chest present several years ago we we heard providers Hey I'm I'm getting DHS people once it's coming in on Monday I know this is coming on Wednesday they haven't talked to each other they're asking the same questions one after doing this multiple times so within DHS that supports we take the wi of State and Chris coordination of our folks so that we send someone out of still be returned it one time take all care taker all at once so that we will need that to publication and reduce that amount of all the other provider and indeed that we talk with a part of helping artists do the same with part of health did reduce duplication and ensure that we're not over burdening these providers with regulatory requirements but that hasn't happened Henderson it has it has we made significant improvement in reducing the number of visits or making the facilities and combining those take a look but with this section or division provider service and quality assurance they take over a law that responsibility and we have much more coordination now between them and the other entities within DHS that regulate He's going down this road but when you say we don't do a side by side and then you said we just did that. While at. I think when we talk on two different tracks here in terms of did did the task force it down and do a side by side comparison of who's regulating what I don't know if they did the right side by side of the ocean and the same thing so you have somebody going and looking at paying. The bill off the walls are you doing R. two three people doing the same thing or what but have looking at records yeah I don't want to go into this right now I think it's it's really concerned that we over burden the administrative load it raises the cost and and harm quality of care thank you. Senator Boyd. I have a question for Mr white on a road we got to witness appears that shall go ahead now no okay everybody's up here so I want to come back just a minute here I'm trying to wrap my head around all this quality of care and and so on so forth. I'm understanding DHS is the source of payment to these facilities. Seven in some cases but not all. Okay so this isn't like Medicaid portion of DHS that is providing this this is like child welfare services of help help me understand again who who is doing what be sure I guess my question was going to be well if if you're providing payment should that be consideration for for payment so help me understand that I'm missing something sure yeah if for any given child who's in one of the facilities on either side the purity of side or the hospital side it could be that Arkansas Medicaid as the pair it could be that that child is placed or other parents and their private insurance pay it's also possible that child being placed by DCFS and DCFS is paying for their trouble for funds it could be an out of state to trouble for welfare in the front of the state it could be it could be another state's Medicaid program that's pay so there are there an array of entities that may be the payer for any given child in those facilities. Okay so it's it's the role of the CFS that were were placing this quality of care. We we did not see the bill does not specify that goes to the CFS just as DHS generally I think in terms of where that would be placed an organization that is undetermined at this time and part of the part of the complication here is the learns Act is shifting some related staff from us to for education so we got work through the process there of how that's going to work for finalized where this would be with the DHS okay so we don't know exactly where this is going in DHS so we don't know exactly who's doing it we do have outlines of the things that they're supposed to do yes. But we don't expect a budgetary impact we expect the people who are currently working there to be able to do this did I miss understand that at this point we we believe we can absorb it again that's contingent on how things work out with that transfer of the division of child care to the Department cation but at this point we expect within absorbent thank you. And if I'd like to add one thing when we're talking about the inspections and things one thing that was brought out as they may have an inspection and they might look at something but they don't really have any way to affect their licensure so there's nobody if they do something wrong that can go in and effect that licensure if the if there is a problem and so that was one of the things that was brought out Senator void you're recognized then Senator love okay we're just very quickly so this is a valid. Point so what's going to happen is if it's a DHS licensed facility obviously DHS would have oversight but what you're saying is if it's a hospital license the department of health licensed facility because we're not transferring licenses DHS is going to coordinate with the department of health to have action taken on a licensee yes okay. Yes. I'm sorry. Would you like to respond okay I can't I'm sorry I don't know all the rules and all of this to say that there's no action taken by the department of health the joint commission is false there's immediate jeopardy status you can have your accreditation a license revoked like they're still disciplinary action another component of the bill as written is yes there is the administrative appeals act component in there that doesn't even afford like a reasonable conversation when there's a discrepancy you know we have a FMC that comes in right now Arkansas foundation for medical care they come in and they survey asked they provide a report with all of their findings we respond to that and say oh no you said you know we didn't have guardian input on a treatment plan well here's that plan that in fact here it is on the show this to you and we can't even get a response or Ann I've dated reporter have that taken back right so there's no real mechanism so there's other issues with regards to the bill but it concerns me if this is the same process that we have in place with an entity already we're talking about doing this again they put DHS put into the past agreements oversight of quality. So they're having the passes to that with the providers with the Arkansas Medicaid beneficiaries that are in tier two or tier three but word we're doing it again. Okay this is okay so the Department of Health even brought up to the table please you need to make that a response to that statement that was made because we need verification here exactly what the state law is somewhat the department of health's role is in all of this. Number one number two AFMC is under contract with DHS is not correct to provide specific things so that that those are. Not necessarily ever I mean you can describe that contract if you can is that regulatory is educational because there's they do all kinds of different things sure that's that for the first earlier than when the players themselves may look at the quality care for their specific clients a from CSA would have a sequel to quality care for Arkansas Medicaid clients they are not allowed to look at quality of care for anyone else under that under that contract. Okay Department of Health he'll respond to senator boys questions and then I think the statement that was made. Thank you Morton Health Charleston center department health is Senator boy would repeat his question. So what I'm trying to delineate is this oversight pay so what we're doing is we're adding a function to DHS who is part of Arkansas state government right we don't know exactly who or what who or what entity within the H. S. but one of this will affect everyone of your licensees that doesn't have a license with the H. S. so what we are trying to understand is if DHS comes in and has a finding regarding quality of care quality of quality of care. What's that going to look like if they're saying you need to revoke the license or you need to do this you need to do that. I thought we one understand how that's gonna work out you're gonna work together. I'll let Mr Thompson chime in a part of this I think what the intent is and Mister white and represent Cavenaugh can help clarify this a little bit I think. The issue I think that they're trying this you try to address in this bill is the quality of care for children when we typically do in our hospital licensure we're looking at you know pharmacy we're looking at surgery we're looking at the paint peeling off the walls really that sort of thing if their specific needs for that child or other education maybe around their specific more in depth health needs I think that's where DHS it may look at that and maybe have some actions that you know if they can address that will be able to bring to the board of health will address it that way and with that helps kind of address some of your questions there. So because of the unique nature I would say and health care of facilities taking psychiatric care of children. This there are issues that are outside your normal brown of hospital inspections. I wouldn't agree with yes generally that there are some issues that will impact some children that may be in some these hospitals that may be a little higher level of Oversight maybe the good work. I'd like to clarify two is one thing when we're talking about all the different payers and who has. Authority over their last injure if they're an out of state child it's taken or it's a private pay. There's nobody in the State of Arkansas that can affect their licensure with that because they're out of state and we are not bound by Arkansas licensure law if it's a private pay they're not so that was one of the loopholes that we found in this that we saw that there were some children that really didn't have anybody that was over saying that quality of care that was one of the things that was brought up. But now fits a child's place by Arkansas that's one thing and that's different but when we have these kids from out of state or private pay particularly out of state because we do get tells that's where we were having a real issue that they were kind of like in no man's land I guess is the best way to describe it. Okay thank you and so I mean. No more one last thing like CMS is really not a regulatory. Body that's going to come in and check your license that. I mean I yes actually meant DHS to respond to that question. Matt. Bills attracting of is if you have a child who's on Medicare I mean Medicare would have some jurisdiction there I don't know how active CMS is monitoring quality on on those Medicare clients. Yeah I I'm not I'm not quite set Mr Gilmour I'm not the expert on CMS but there is a as was mentioned a joint accreditation all that I mean so we do our hospital licensure if there's immediate jeopardy type issue and CMS. May get involved there but there is another process that was kind of alluded to that with CMS where you know we are inspectors are involved or we work with our contract but they're not necessarily on the grounds their their democratic nation bodies they can and will come out okay thank you okay perfect okay well I'm gonna go to Senator love it and then back to center Boyd into Senator Solomon sent. Okay okay Senator boy just so the so this is very complex I appreciate Senator Solomon help in me understand. Is your an actual hospital you're representing an actual hospital is just a psychiatric hospital so you have a joint commission accreditation survey. So are there any measure I these call measures or something I mean are they looking and surveying you on how you treat kids I mean help me understand now how joint commission affects this issue yes Sir so absolutely yes to all of that no two quality tracers they're looking through the entire length of stay of that child's care and treatment right and they're getting a random sample it is not dependent on any sort of pair which is why even those those out of state that calm and nobody's looking at those yes they are with that's what this is about it's not determinative a pair and they're looking from start to finish their looking to make sure that every single diagnosis everything that we have front that's reported from nursing a recreational therapy or group therapy that those batters are followed up and addressed and that's following the entire duration of treatment and we're talking about hospitals with this we're talking matter subacute unit which is at three six months length of treatment so the joint commission is coming in and they're looking at those records and they're wanting to see from start to finish our caring for that child day in and day out not to mention the feel silly Review but the standards are quite robust it is quite expensive with every single measure that they're looking at bill identified you know higher point areas that they call national patient safety goals they're looking at literature asks suicide risks you know social determinants of health so they have the emphasis in areas but they're looking everything from facilities to food and nutrition certainly nursing and clinical services with the therapists I mean it's it's every departments. Okay senator love to you have a question. Okay Senator Solomon you're recognized for a question from I'm still struggling with this quality care issue there's nothing that's done that is a quality care when they come and look at your records and check your billing making sure kids are getting the correct services your billing for correct services that's all quality care if they're looking if your doors are locked in there your roof is leaking that's all quality care and I'm when I'm here what I'm hearing is that you're you're quantifying quality care as to behavioral health actual service code and are they delivering the service code correctly and. Health department has a different standard of that you're not looking at the billing rates and the the those things you have a different health standards then what J. Cole or car for all those of the have thanks again I just can't separate quality care for McKenna hospital are pays any patient in a hospital from what they're doing I'm still struggling with that but. Would you agree. You don't have to okay thanks. Yes absolutely number one there were the Senate we don't have restrictions on questions okay I appreciate that and I just want again I understand this is a complex issue. So you have employees who are licensed they might not be employees but relationships with licensed physicians licensed nurses may be licensed pharmacists. CNA's so these are people who have registrations licenses that have boards. Okay just to sit in and those boards can take actions on licenses if there's individual issues as well okay yes Sir. Okay yes are there any other questions from members of the committee. Senator love. Thank you mention it this is this is complicated Katie this and just perplexes me because I'm listened to well I guess in your testimony and I'm talking to mark white. This is not. DHS's piece of legislation per se. However it will impact DHS. Blooper plexus me then. If we're not doing this already pod is DHS not bring in this bill. So either we either doing it or not but I I I guess I need to hear from you are we actually doing this and this is just gonna be something additional or is it I mean. Also we we agree with or a Cavanaugh and the the task force that there are gaps in there are loopholes and there there is probably some oversight that's missing there but. There are lots of good ideas they can that has forced we do not adopt all those as our initiatives that we were going to advance and so we we pick things that we were doing and we have our legislative package saw by saying they were neutral mean to imply anything one or the other I just believe that we know we we can only endorse or oppose legislation that the governor gives permission and it's not something the secretary proves and so I'll let it confuse things by saying that what I should always will be clear about where we're coming from okay all right thank you and if I could I add. The task force. We did we had a lot of different things that we looked at there's been a lot of different legislation that come out of it lot of different rate increases that came out of it for providers that we didn't have to come to Legislative it was actually done outside their role in making process and the waivers but. As we were going through this. If we already inspecting quality of care. Then why did we have a problem with quality care and why wasn't it addressed that was my issue is that if we already had the inspectors to do this why were we continue to have quality of care problems and so for us that was a big concern and that's why we brought this forward and it came out of the the workgroup and we heard many providers talk to us about that this was a concern and that's where this arose from. Okay I have a question no no I have it do you have a follow up Senator love okay I have a question for the task force can you be specific for their testimony given in the task force that were specific to the quality of care issues. Whether the task force to begin with it was just a work group within the task force so it's just a voluntary task force we had a hundred and fifty providers their of people coming that providers may everywhere and there were all kinds of testimony from all different kinds in there there were testimony about there was concern the quality of care yes and that one of the biggest ones we can't get or keep again and then there were reports of things that are not being addressed you know from assaults on down the line and so that was that was an issue in a concern for us and so that's what brought this legislation and Beyonce with you the reason I bought the HSE in is because it is a very complicated issue and someone we went down this process we got into a one hole because it is a very very you know specific issue it is has lots of different fingers and things and so that's why we ask for a chance to please help us this is what we want to do with what some call standard quality of care to help address these concerns and things that we've heard. Help us get that done in the best way and that's how DHS got involved okay great and thank you for for that answer the question okay thank you are there any other questions for the witness that's table okay we do also have someone here to speak against the bill Shane Frazier. If you'll identify yourself for the record. Thank you for having me I'm showing for agency local point behavioral health system and often also speaking on behalf of the bridge way in Rivendell behavioral health services of Arkansas clarification of a couple things This Is going on so what I'll try to be sustained. The issue with the department of health and state survey is coming from the department of health and inspect the peeling paint in those sorts of things but they also and it will go for the medical record and look at the quality of care standards from that issue as well so there's a little discrepancy there when this bill. Task force is there were some issues with P. R. T. S. and quality of care concerns and somehow hospitals became. To the situation we're currently licensed and accredited by the joint commission the centers for Medicare and Medicaid services the department of health the Arkansas foundation for medical care is the entity that comes in the purposes on the Medicaid beneficiaries all the other regulatory bodies focus on every beneficiary within the hospital. The. Pediatrics but. They are adults as well. View the Clarence. Hi it's families they investigate the quality of care and organizations I'm here to ask that I can't hospitals with services be excluded from this bill if it moves forward because we are already regulated to Senator Solomon support by all of these other agencies and. Focused on quality we never speak out in opposition to get something to improve the quality of care however we feel this is a convoluted but it's confusing and it is a lot of redundancy there has never been addressed in that state hospitals like ours that acute care facilities we are license and survey the same as Baptist UAMS Saint Vincent children's hospital we get our licenses. The regulatory standards to behavioral health certification on top of the you can care certifications we feel that is plenty and that this bill including subacute care hospitals like ours is an over reaching over regulation and it will detract from the quality of care that we're providing. Okay thank you so much for your has many other questions from members of the committee for and Mr Frazier. Scene nine thank you so much for your testimony R. A. is there anyone else here to speak for or against this bill RAC nine you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair just to clarify. This bill was blocked because there was concerns about quality of care that was brought up during the workgroup and I'll say again as I said earlier if we're inspecting quality of care why are we having problems with quality of care. And why what were the last hospitals body and that have these bids of because we need one standard of quality of care for all the kids in the State of Arkansas it doesn't matter what they're stating the and that's why they were brought in and and that's that's the big concern that came out of me and be honest with you. This came because the situation that came out of my district and that's how I got involved in and it was from my I. child that needed to be treated them with their issues around his treatment so for me it became this mission to try to find a way that we can ensure that the kids of Arkansas get the quality of care and I understand there's a lot of different licenses and there may or may not be redundancy. But I'll just say again what we would do and is not working because we got problems with quality care and that's my problem with that that's trying to find a way to solve it and with that I'd close and I would thank you for hearing me and I appreciate a good vote. Thank you so much and okay. What is the pleasure of the Committee. I see no motions so unfortunately it dies for lack of a motion. Thank you. Okay. Senator Johnson I see you. Thank you madam chair and with your permission I would like to ask judge Joseph would to join me Yes please come for state your names for the record and you're recognized which bill are you doing. Senator mark Johnson District seventeen seventeen Joseph wood cabinets separate secretary for the transformation share services. with bill or you this is Senate bill three ten. I hope the only one I have in your committee today so. We're just going to get into it. Okay. All right please proceed okay thank you madam chair committee Senate bill three ten is extremely simple and simply repeals an act that was passed the end of the session and in twenty twenty one has to do with electronic waste collection recycling and re use and first of all want to make sure that everyone president understands that this is not doing away with a collecting recycling and reusing the waste of any cat there were some problems with the bill I like to think and hope an intentional problems but but let me go over a couple of them the biggest one being that the collection process would be placed in one of the original solid waste districts to cut recover the statewide the waste to there was a problem that they would be have the the right right of to be able to claim all of the recycle or potentially recycled materials collected by the marketing and redistribution which the state agency that was formerly under the FNA was now under transformation church services and this that's very important for a number of reasons but one of the biggest is that uh MNR is a catch agency they don't get a G. are appropriations so we have to make sure that they're funded because they do a great job of allowing surplus inventory and judge I think it covers a whole lot of things not just to recycle electronics and things but everything from vehicles to other types of equipment office furniture whatever and laus Arkansas nonprofits and local governments as well as state agencies to be able to to obtain that that that Quitman as needed so the bill does nothing to stop the Process that would do it just takes some of the. Additional bureaucracy out of it it would certainly allow a TSS to contract to deal with this in a manner that would protect him and R. and its role in this as well as the the revenues of famine are in this and then finally it to will create that flexibility that leads to the new administration and A judge would and his staff to implement this process to the manner in which they see fit the governor's office supports this bill and I would be happy to answer any questions and I would like to also see if judge would like to add anything to what I've said thank you senator and thank you madam chair members begin we are supported repealing the bill I know the governor's office Secretary of curry over in the energy and environment is we've had those discussions about this as well again for the appointed senators already laid out the there's some confusion about what happens to the disposal like tronics and again we get a chance to take inventory from around the state bring that in and then those proceeds are split between those agencies and departments and brought a man as well as us and secretary curry and environmental and energy engine environmental to make available grants for districts around the state and then obviously the last part of the most important part is the self funded I mean we all ask general revenue to run this Arkansas state surplus that is all managed and sold through the the proceeds from the sales. we do have I have here to the code runs Arkansas state surplus in any particular questions that you may have but again appreciated the support because the the bill to repeal bill. Okay are there any questions from members of the committee. All right C. nine is there one here to speak for against this bill. Yes against. Sorry yes if you'll come to the table. Thank you Sir appeal to state your name for the record and then you're recognized to proceed with your testimony. Thank you madam chair I'm correct Douglas director of the regional recycling district appreciate this opportunity of and also comment on what senator Johnson and secretary would just stated is as far as electronic recycling let me take just a moment in a I will be brief about the history of this for a number of years leading up to twenty twenty one the Department of environmental quality now the division of environmental quality under you the provided two and a half upwards of two and a half million dollars a year as a electronic recycling grant to all of the solid waste management districts in the state of which there are eighteen. all of the districts benefited from the grant funding and we're able to use the money to collect. Transport and recycle electronic waste the important part of electronics of recyclable electronics is that most if not all electronics at least focused on in the current law containing toxic waste contain lead mercury cadmium and and other toxic waste that should not be put in a landfill. if there is not a electronic waste collection process in the state of Arkansas. in state wide there is no E. waste program other than the current law that was passed in twenty one which has yet to be implemented. then you have toxic waste going to landfills in communities around the state the department of energy and environment and the the well the the pollution control and ecology Commission. Has the ability to bandy waste from of landfills however they have chosen not to do that. And so what happened in twenty one was the electronic waste grants were discontinued by D. E. Q.. the two and a half million dollars that went to the various districts was discontinued so there's no longer any money for a regional solid waste management districts to collect transport and recycle E. waste or to contract with private contractors who do that work. in casual conversations after that I was asking to see if we could come up with we being the regional recycling district could come up with a public private partnership program that would in some manner provided revenue to the regional solid waste management districts and to the counties and other communities to collect and recycle E. waste this was a similar process our district was asking a number of years several years ago to come up with a extra large tires recycling program which we did. And so we took that as a challenge not as an official request from DC queue that is a challenge to try to solve the problem so I district came up with an outline of for electronic waste that would be a public private partnership that would not cost the state any money nor would it cost individuals who wanted to deposit or otherwise have collected E. waste around the state we send it out line over to II and the their lawyers did that it took a look at it made some speeches suggestion Senate back to us and the and we. When about to looking for a sponsor for an ultimate bill senator Wallace was gracious enough to handle the bill in the Senate. In Carlton wing handled the bill in the house and twenty twenty one this committee in twenty twenty one gave a do pass that bill unanimously and the Senate passed a unanimous unanimously and the Arkansas house had like action as well the governor signed in April of twenty one. The bill as it relates to in our the bill simply states the could the current law simply states the marketing and redistribution section of of the Department of transformation and shared services. shall assist in the facilitation of participation in the program that's all the law says as a regards statement are assist in the facilitation of the program. We met with them in our own a number of occasions prior to the passage of the bill after the passage of the bill and then after D. E. Q. issued an RFQ of for entities to apply for the contract administrator for the program. A senator Johnson stated that the that the collection of the waste is handled by one district well the collection of the waste is handled by a private contractor the administration of the statewide program would be handled by any District or entity that would submit information based on the R. if Q. that the queue of put out in twenty twenty one we responded to that all right thank you I was told by DQ we were the only one to respond to the RFQ. And we were selected as the contract administrator. The law then said that the contract administrator would issue an RFQ for a private contractor who handles electronic waste and was duly certified to be the contractor for the program to collect the ways to process the waste and to sell the waste at a profit that profit that would fund the program for the state and for the general public at no cost either entity. Finally the bill did state that the the contract administrator in the contractor would draft a recovery plan that this program could not start without a recovery plan being approved by the Q.. We wanted this begin drafting that recovery plan with the assistance of them in our and we have not received any assistance from them in our own that recovery plan since twenty twenty one. Finally just let me come is that uh. the the marketing redistribution section of of them are at the state this is the current law the current E. waste law that senator Johnson would like to repeal only deals with electronic waste as it relates to in that are in our certainly would have the continue their responsibility on other state surplus this bill not only deals with state agencies surplus state of Arkansas surplus but also electronic waste around the state that comes from the general public I will give you to examine examples of some problems that we have been counted as it relates to electronic waste of the first is in in the current program once the electronic waste is sold we really there is no tracking on on ownership of that. esco who is the electronic waste contractor in Rogers Arkansas recently reported that they were ask or they submitted a bid to purchase number of hard drives from a scrap metal shop in Oklahoma they purchased those hard drives there was information on the hard drives the hard drives came from UAMS. With sensitive information on the hard drives the program that was passed in twenty one would ensure that there would be a tracking of custody and also the elimination of all and then the scrubbing of all hard drives and memory of any electronic waste that was collected. And another example if if I may and then I'll I'll close is that one of the benefits of the current law is that through this public private partnership electronic waste computers tablets desktops laptops can be refurbished and sold at a discount for instance there's another example of several years ago Escaut in Rogers Arkansas collected over a thousand Chromebooks they refers those Chromebooks and sold them to a public school district in California at a discounted price that's the benefit to the public of the current law if this law were repealed we would have no E. waste agenda he waste law in Arkansas for the general public state agencies would continue to use them in our but not every state agency uses M. and R.. if this bill were repealed then districts solid waste management district could not fund electronic waste collection as our district does and as other districts around the state so what we're looking at in what we have offered and then communicated to with with TSS in in our is to simply amend Emin are out of the current law so they can continue to operate their electronic waste program hopefully in conjunction with the the existing law and work together we have not received any response on that offer to amend them in or out of the bill be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions from members of the committee Senator Flippo did you have a question okay any questions from members of the committee. C. nine I'm is there anyone else here to speak for against this bill. Sam nine. You're going to we can have a director of a political comments to speak a little bit to the cleaning of. Date if we if there was any because we have to we do have a listed I believe it for a little call is the manager at them in our madam chair he's here yeah just come on up we shop just because and I also have Alex Johnston is Alex Johnson here that we need to hear from Alex Johnston as well just go ahead and bring you up you have assigned for. The bill so just set your name for the record then you may be recognized I'm still Coleman manager of marketing redistribution or to assist yes Sir Last year alone we sold over a little over nine hundred thousand dollars of used electronics The way the bill would do is we would lose that revenue and we are self funded currently Well. We is basically twenty five percent. Of the sale eighty Q. gets twenty five percent and we send fifty percent back to the agencies to use what they have appropriations for And that about a third of my revenue used to sell electronics and all through this everybody's only talk about laptops computers and everything but if technicality you get to that some refrigerators are considered electronic waste because we have a digital door if you take the door off ministers scrapped NO but if it's got the door only in nobody's address what we're going to that kind of stuff and that still considered falls under the word electronics and so this was going to really cut into my budget and the way it was worded the way I was instructed in a meeting that we would go still go pick it up I paid for my drivers to go with my trucks spending expense and all that bring it back in storage until I got a truckload so is still to come pick it up and that was not going to be in the best interest of what I was doing out there it would to a lot of time energy and. Personnel. Okay thank you for your statement other questions Senator live here. Thank you mention I guess. In regards to a bill repealing it all. And because you're only working with state agency's correct yes. And so therefore but the general public you know you're not working with so to be amended for for our in our to be amended out of the deal. With that in the end not addressed the issues that. But not a dress if if I might madam chair answer surplus question It would partially do so but A. L. especially from the revenue side but I might wanna to to bring back to the point that a lot of the reason for the total repeal Senator love is that their technicalities that were spelled out and maybe too much detail in the bill that would not give the state local agencies who as you know their their customers so there's a. You know of sheriff's office it need to a computer and don't want to have this they don't have in their budget to go buy a new one they've been that's where in our has done historically is provide low cost lower cost but working electronics and things to to the local government so it's a partial yes impartial no to your answer your question okay but what I'm saying is in because even ours not picking up from the general public I miss no they're not picking my understanding CERN is is we still have the general public taking care of with what's not just agencies I mean I want to state agencies to take care of you wrong but. But I want the general I don't want this to end up in a landfill yes Sir and so if we I mean. Just. Look at the bill if we were to. Take them and I don't know what they're not resolved the issue the M. and R. as having. Well senator I just and again I had let allowed judge wood and Mr call to further address it but but the fact is that in our and the solid waste district have been dealing with this for a long time before the original bill was passed so I in my opinion this nothing would preclude them from doing what they did in the past to do their job either agency it so it's not like we're we're pulling the rug totally out of them we're taking it back to where they were a couple years ago and as far as the the the the hard drives are great example that that was addressed by law and I think Mr call can comment on that several years ago there was a seven on your side expose of peoples information we're all hard drives from computers that come from DHS and if they found them just as described in in the Oklahoma case but it was discovered by channel seven and they did a story about it and there was state law I believe fill up to to fix that he could tell you that number I don't remember but but doing that was if that happened as described in it was already violation the law so we we've got ways to deal with this this is just a puts it into a very tightly closed shop so to speak and and alcoholics the same time burdening the state government not just in our but state government local government as well. And that's the reason for the total repeal okay so then we are in turn then what is the what is the. The result to the general public on an. On and the disposal of this material now let me answer it this way Senator I have Disposed of electronics including some obsolete computers the solid waste district I don't know if it was before when Mister Douglas became director but they had a a collection center near Verizon arena and I drove up with my truck and they not I didn't have to touch it they just unloaded and put it in there whatever they were Senate to and it was recycled so they had the job that been doing the job I would presume they've been doing a fine job with that and to this is this bill was burdensome on the state of Arkansas but certainly didn't prohibit them from handling any recycling program that they have done in the past or could come to conduct content potentially doing the future and then manager can I S. Mr Douglas stand in regards to how would this impact yes absolutely. First of all turn it back on okay first of all of the the amending in our out of out of the bill we think would solve the problem that that Mr code has I would hope and we would be happy to work on any other language that if would affect him in our because the current law says that in our will assist in the facilitation of the program that's all it says so the example of may be Philip you picking up Electronic waste and and for esco that's that was a conversation that we offer to at the desk offer to have to help facilitate the program that's not set in stone or set in law in terms of what what was described as the wasting a refrigerator the current law in it enumerates exactly the elect kind of electronic waste that is covered by this by this current to E. waste law as it relates to toxic waste and it's listed in the current law as far as the collection Senator love of the for the general public senator Johnson Johnson is correct our district and other districts I know Faulkner County does this lane county Washington County has done this judge in the past Washington County under the under the old grant received a hundred fifty two thousand dollars a year to collect the waste that money is gone Washington County has no money to collect the waste unless you take it out of another fund is is we would have to do the regional recycling district is going to operate a collection of that senator Johnson just mentioned on April nineteenth and twentieth at sins arena over the general public and businesses can bring the waste and have it which is not wasted all because a lot of it can be refurbished and and resold but they're going to the the general public will be allowed to bring the waste as they do every year to our special collection and drop it off for free and have it rough properly recycled this will be the last collection that we operate because we have no funding for it anymore. Under the current law if it were operating right now esco would operate that collection for the general public at no cost to us and no cost to the general public a repeal of this bill does away with that for the general public and so I think I hope that answers your question in terms of the solid waste management districts collecting the waste and we allow you waste to be collected at our five green stations around Pulaski County but the district now has to pay for that because we no longer get in the queue grant we're running out of money to fund the E. waste collection and will have to stop at some point if this bill if this current act is repealed. Thank you are there any other questions Ann and get we maybe you were in and I think we had our chief counsel and and I know there was some discussion going back and forth about the the conflict the law Advantage of our I can bring our chief legal she can maybe just hit again about the law this is in conflict which again makes the reason why we look at everything on the bill original. And I mean that I will grant that emergency aid I mean will I have Alex Johnston at the table but if you would like to bring that person that that would be fine and she's solid. We'll just a part of her and stat okay. And then thank you manager yes. If you'll just say your name for the record then you're recognized. Yes. There is a scene and Holly on home cheap legal counsel for TSS. And the question was I'm about the conflict of law in as I understand it back a couple years ago and this law was passed with eight ACT eight thirty nine of twenty twenty one but it actually conflicts with Arkansas code annotated twenty five thirty four one oh seven that particular statute allows in our to sell electronic devices and split the proceeds between the selling agency and in our and then the department of energy and environment which then. Any use of that money to find a recycling programs recycling grants so I don't I don't know exactly I'm you know I'm not and from any so I'm not it and sure what they do to spend that particular pot of money but it's my understanding that some of those grants could be used to fund the public recycling programs that are already in existence but that the money from in our shouldn't be used in the private sector that would be a violation of that previous statute that is been enacted for all. Okay so the question I'm not sure how long you've been with the agency I've been with TSS about four weeks six weeks something like that I was previously at the AG's office okay so I guess my question then was this act passed in twenty twenty one correct and I think it was unanimous. E. yes okay so that that would include I voted for it Senator Johnson I'm assuming voted for this bill correct yes ma'am and and senator Wallace was a co sponsored he answers and representative when or the sponsors since then I've visited with both of them and there was a well I'll just politely say a this connect maybe between what the agency had had what they had inferred and what the agency had implied. I and I will I must say if if you would like I don't however it to the extent you asked me to madam chair but I do have an email exchange that with the Mr drop pay from eighty Q. from when this was first brought to my attention if you'd like me sir I I'm not necessary but it is saying I'm your vote that we voted for some things that if we drill down a little further we might not have okay well I again I I I'm and I'm asking the question yes ma'am or the members of this committee we ask the questions to use specifically was anyone in this agency present during the time this call this law that we're trying to repeal way that where they present and did they bring up that conflict in the language at that time. Madam chair the general counsel that was previously in my role is here in the room may I confer with her at yes if she wants to come. I'm so sorry to put on the spot. I thank the chair. Or a. Our committee's rocket of an R. committee's job is to work through issues and to try to correct policy if we can that this becomes our bill and then we as a committee trying to work on this bill if you'll just a name for the record you're recognized. Thank you line Ballard I'm actually chief counsel now with the energy department energy and environment and I can give a little bit of context although I was not the chief counsel at the time the bill passed back in twenty twenty one and I joined the Department of transformation and shared services I believe in. Twenty twenty one right after sessions so I missed that debate I don't know I don't have an answer as to whether or not the Department transmission insured services was consulted on that bill I will say we we did not find that conflict I did not find that conflict we certainly look to the bill which at the requirements on TSS in the implementation and then we realized that title twenty five have that conflict that was something we came to Lou I'm twenty twenty I can't remember but that was only determine there is that conflict there and there were some issues with the bill itself. That we we were just trying to wrap our heads around okay so so I guess just under Johnson why a full repeal verses amending the existing statutes Madam chair and committee I discussed the possibility of of the amendment to that with the Mr Gilmore back there and it is the representing the regional solid waste district and I was would consider that however that I received a message from the governor's office that she wanted the whole thing repealed and I said okay this is deferred to the governor's decision that's why secretary would and the other representatives of TSS are here today to testify for the bill they're probably more than one way to skin this cat but this is the one that the administration asked us to go ahead and do and so that's the answer your question okay I appreciate that thank you any other additional questions from members of the committee. Senator love you're recognized for a question and so aren't so we're talking about this this public money going to a private entity of. But was for the grants given to the. Solid waste districts or whether the given to escrow. Because it's two different things the fourth for saying that that's a conflict because it's not a conflict if it's going to the solid waste district versus going to Tesco so where's the conflict in that funding. The initial statute says that the money goes from in our is to eighty EQ to create recycling grants and I can let miss Ballard Chicago or that and if the recycling grants is being given to the solid waste districts then that would be a conflict. What did not. Not so sure I understand your question I will tell you in title twenty five that sets up electronic waste recycling program for the state agencies there is a fund created in total twenty five for that it's got certain things can be used for I do not know right on top of my head what those grants are and a schedule with the purpose but it's already into the final language in that section okay considering she's to go to the recycling districts aren't so obvious number one lot one wasn't the money flow into the recycling dishes that that was the issue. It. If you have you have answers. Well the way that this law was written the. Electronic waste goes to S. Code this code then resells it they get the money and then they give. Some of the money back to the overseers and then they do the pick ups so we're given a state property the Arkansas sale to a private company and they're making money off of it and they're going. Keep the reporting money and then they do send some back but the the whole problem is. Given it to them to start with that that makes no sense to me as a citizen of Arkansas on let alone him or I'm given state stuff we paid for this and that's what that's what we're time amid M. and are now but I guess that one of the issue yes it will I think certain it there was grants involved to start with those have as much Wallace it had gone away because eighty to quit funded this bill is a total total different thing it's not a grant. Okay esco is still collecting I mean given are still. Be given are still collecting the waste there so no waste is supposed to be fun in the this supposedly Fund in several different pieces which in which includes the grants but now the grants and I've sent center look at make a distinction I think that's there's a bit of confusion here and I just wanna see if I can clear that up they're two separate and distinct things I wanna talk but there are there were some existing grants I believe that eighty Q. had for regional recyclers at a program that went away I believe in twenty thirteen so um and I have I can get more information on that if that would be helpful the. The recycling program that was set at the waste recycling program that was set up for state agencies was completely separated is a completely separate fund consist completely separate grants that are used for recycling so there's two things we're talking about here and I think they're getting maybe a little conflated so that program that D. E. Q. had for many years that I believe regional recycling districts were able to take advantage of duties and that you wish recycling there was a program out there that went away at one point the program that still exists on the books in title twenty five for the strictly for state recycling twenty five percent as proceeds fund that ENE eighty Q. takes that money and they can consider I think great applications for recycling programs and they use that money for that Senate to different things we're talking about their. Okay and and members I let's see I think we're gonna wrap this up and then we're going to adjourn so because I need to let my members eight are there any additional questions from members of this committee. All rights is there anyone else here to speak for or against this bill. C. nine you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair and I think the confusion explains why we need to repeal the entire bill and and start back over and I appreciate the governor the exerting lack leadership to we'll take a clean sheet of paper make sure we're covering all the bases so I'm close thank you okay and what's the motion to pass second all those in favor say aye. And opposed. Is have it congratulations you've passed your bill members we will stand in recess until fifteen minutes upon adjournment of our Senate session.