Insurance & Commerce- House

Hey I do want to go ahead and make a couple housekeeping arrangements or announcmenet that we can it is my intent on intent to get there every house bill today and that may mean coming back upon adjournment which I hate to do it but we're getting late in the session so we have to come back upon adjournment and I'll further want to say it's my intent that I want to work there every bill that because we don't know but that we feel is not going to be contested for lack of better words so the ones that there's a lot of people signed up to speak on we're gonna wait and say that's towards the end because we have a lot of bills to get through to that so that is my intent but it is did I do plan to get to all of them today so represent Perry would you like to go to the end of the table. Introduce yourself and I believe you're going to run a concurrent and sentiment on my behalf on fourteen thirty eight sat correct that is correct Mister chairman I appreciate it very much The Me give a note about it out together the This is an amendment which were actually and I got the expert testimony here in the audience if we do need needed but we're this is the we're concurring on the Senate amendment to remove remove or change from the comments from the industry the intent of the legislation was to ease the pain point for the industry in these changes will allow the securities department to obtain additional guidance from stakeholders on the provisions of that's all we're doing here. Be glad to bring the table if we have any questions thank you represent Perry are there any questions by the committee. Seeing none there's no one signed up to speak for or against this bill. What are the wishes of the committee represent Perry I'm sorry would you like to close for your bill closed in on making a motion to concur okay the pair has close is made a motion to concur in the Senate amendment all in favor say aye opposed say no thank you to the Senate amendment has passed. What a sensor at the end of the table you are also going to run S. B. three fifty seven is that correct that is correct Mr chairman so would you like to do that now yes please thank you thank you may proceed this is Senate bill three fifty seven is the I mean this bill for the insurance department and I have Amanda rose they can if I can ask to join within the table absolutely. If you were kind of in the table introduce yourself and you can. Provide testimony on this if you have. It's a. You're ready hi Amanda rose with the Arkansas insurance department. I'm going to start I'm happy to go through the general under this quickly or. Answer any questions that you have. A lot of it is clean up language You really You've got some talking points but a. Be glad to answer any questions. Okay so it's my okay are there any questions by the committee. Saying then this is the general omnibus bill for the departments my understanding No no question so would you like to close your bill is impaired I'm closed okay was in Paris close for his bill was or will of the committee. Motion to pass by represent more in any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. Represent Perry since you're still within the table you have H. B. seventeen thirteen. Is that correct yes Mister chairman I appreciate you allowing me to do this this is another senate bill. This is brought to me by the insurance department to Really on the fidelity bond. And I do have Have people here that to help me do that as well with if we need help but at the background on the self insured fidelity bond program provides fidelity bond coverage of state agency's County municipal entities and school districts. The program is managed by the insurance department risk management division. And the governmental body bonding board approves claims to be paid to participating governmental entities whenever a claim is made and I can go through each section if you want to to help explain but a lot of its is defining language and clean up language. That's what the that's what the that's what the bill with the. Okay thank you is impaired any questions by the committee. One direction Lundstrum you're recognized for a question in what is the new language can explain that to us. I would asked the from the insurance department to join me at the end of the table will be glad to help. Sir if you would just introduce yourself to proceed with your testimony. The morning Randy Robinson Arkansas insurance department. And sections. seven oh to We just updated the definition of Delhi bond nor to clarify the scope of coverage. And the the language itself and seven oh five seven oh nine seven ten. We added selfinsured to add agreement throughout. subsection to. That also is in seven eleven also in seven eleven there's a reference to repealed title nineteen code. Regarding investment options and we just updated that to the current the code. Thank you Sir any questions by the committee. Okay saying none. There's no one signed up is anyone here in the us to like speak for or against this bill. Saying no wonder if the pair would you like to close your bill Mister chairman I'm close for the bill appreciate a good vote okay where the parents close for the bill We have a motion by reserve Eubanks to do pass all in favor say aye. It post say No graduations you've passed your bill thank you Mr chairman thanks committee. Representative Baker would you like to present. Committee this is written records going to proceed on H. P. twelve fifty seven. Thank you Mr chairman a little confuse their cincy pronounce my name correctly for the first time happy to be at the end of this table. Good luck even more. Even more excited to present house bill twelve fifty seven this is one I'm I'm personally passionate about this bill comes out of several meetings I've had with various police agencies across our state and one. Resounding issue seems to be a common denominator and that is that for city and county law enforcement officers they are. Very concerned with the cost of insurance once they retire so right now for a county or a city law enforcement officer who has met the lot fee definitions for four Tyerman they are not eligible for any alternative. insurances outside of going into the private market and so what this bill does is it tries to mirror the benefits package that hours Arkansas state police currently have at their disposal. In that if they meet the requirements for full retirement. A city or county law enforcement officer will have the opportunity to purchase state employee health insurance for them and their families until that individual is Medicare eligible. I do have several represented here from Siegel and Milliman to help explain the fiscal impact it is my understanding that right now the maximum number of individuals who could receive this benefit hovers around the forty three hundred mark. And the overall increasing costs to cover those individuals when you deduct what they pay in and then what the state would be expected to cover their expenses for that type of population I believe it ranges from two and a half to five million dollars so I would love to take questions if there any. Thank you representive any questions by the committee. Question what you're recognized for a question. you mention the the state police has been this doesn't cost them any money and their retirement fund does it a state police officers are allowed to keep their state employee health insurance currently once they retire so there's two correct okay thank you thank you Mr adding additional members to that would have the option to buy into state employee health benefits thank you. They represent Reserve Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair representative acre the. The price tag on that uses will be about five million. That is my understanding to be the maximum if all available participants would participate and the maximum number of covered spouses and beneficiaries were applied this is an option that okay okay that's the thing. Any further questions by the committee. Okay saying none there is no one signed up on that she was there anyone in the other two like to speak for this bill. Anyone unless an issue I speak against this bill. I say someone. Mr chairman grant Wallace director of employee benefits division were neutral on the bill but I did just want to add some additional commentary if that would be permissible. Absolutely give introduce yourself someone proceed with the testimony so what we agree with the intent of the bill there is a little bit of concern about the liability that would also be associated with the post employment benefits that would be offered by this population and that is a number that minimum and did look at and that exceeds a hundred million dollars to the plan and that is a great concern for our plan we look at the reserves that we are operating within the requirements that we have to meet a fourteen percent. Threshold on the reserves and this would at this current time our reserves would end up going negative by plan year twenty twenty eight and start declining and we have to dip into our reserves in Plano twenty twenty five. So there is some when you're adding the retired population which is a more costly population to our plan that is going to increase those expenses and spend that down even faster so ideally you would be able to bring in a an active healthier younger population help offset some of that liability so I did want the committee to know that there is a concern with unlike the state police or their own insurance bucket this is adding them to the state employee bucket so that's the insurance that we're all on and so that the additional cost that comes with that liability would come on us as state employees. Thank you. Thank you for tests I believe we do have some questions for you for your reserve warden you're recognized. Would you give me your up. Interpretation of the word neutral. And I'm not I'm not I don't. What you're saying but the what you shared with us is no neutral position I mean you all of you are you the board or commission does with when you are you're against the bill because it was cold calls others to expose and I just don't understand coming appear before this committee is and you've got a neutral position and then you sit there and criticize it run down the bill and I just don't understand that thank you Mr it was not my intention to criticize a bill I just want to fully informed of the concerns that we do have I am news on the bill we we will figure out a way it will just come at the expense of state employees. Follows. If you are recognized for a follow up person would. If you're if you're. Well the only on the position that have you talked to the representative I think about this before this morning no Sir Yunis's a word to him about this no service was you couldn't be addressed his legislation. Because you never mentioned the concern that you all had to him and we were not brought into the development of the bill either. Thank you Mr. The chair recognizes representative first. Thank you committee chairman of thank you I guess I have a question because you know I've been chair of the employee benefits division insurance committee co chair with I do have concerns about the viability we've made a lot of changes issued with going to a Medicare advantage plan for seniors with this build cost a hundred million dollars if we excluded the retiree part from this and other words if we insure them bother employee but let them go on Medicare as retirees is that an option or with the bill is trying to do the opposite actually it's when they retire out of their current insurance that's offered by the local entity whether that city council or whatever they would then have the option to purchase into this state employee plan. So just getting that that pre sixty five retirees okay I'm sorry I didn't hi I I had not read the bill before today there and yeah I understand it now I appreciate that maybe your maybe it's not a neutral position but I appreciate being informed of what it's going to cost the program because we've made a lot of effort over the last two years to reform that insurance program but I guess represent occur were you aware of the constitutional cost to the program when you read the bill so in a drop in at the last minute here as as we all know the process of receiving back or fiscal impacts has been challenging so I worked with trying to cover the police officers and their families until they are Medicare eligible so to answer questions they are no longer eligible if they have some sort of eligibility criteria for Medicare whether that would be disability what that that's age of the various requirements for Medicare eligibility if the retiree meets those they would not have the option to purchase into the system but the monetary aspect of this was presented very recently and so my understanding was the cost of coverage was on an annual basis. Yeah I'm sorry I had I hadn't read the bill before you bought it so I guess I'm trying to understand exactly how this will work the Would you have that our insurance is secondary if they didn't buy into the Medicare advantage plan at ten we have a second part of the average individual will serve nearly three decades. All in the law enforcement capacity. If they retire at the age of sixty they would be able in the first sixty days after they retire to decide if they want to pay for this plan. Once they turn sixty four that plan terminates and they must enroll in Medicare. Eight nine no but we actually have two plans now we have a Medicare advantage plan and then we have the state plan that they can buy as a as a would not be eligible for the supplement it was just be primary. In H. correct okay thank you. Representative flowers did you have a question. I did thank you madam chair record so what would happen if this change was not made what would happen to that those employees in that population so what is currently happening in the. Driving force by this concern is that law enforcement officers are not retiring. so right now they are choosing to after thirty years of suiting up and in my opinion taking on an extremely risky job to the benefit of everyone in this room. Choosing to do that another day longer simply because they are afraid of the insurance prices and that gap between being sixty to sixty four so right now they are not retiring. I have a quick question for the. Witness I guess. Per se thank you so the estimated cost that you were informing us about. Is that an estimate or is that are those pretty hard numbers. They are projections but I feel. It in in the the ranges that Milam and presented. Follow up manager. For the witness I have a with Millman like to come speak with that would that help the committee. Do you want me to stay. You may have. we in strange FOR Millman. So it is so I understand that those are projections and I guess given that the time. Frame and and really the gravity of read a cause concern that I think all of us probably share. What could be done to alleviate. some of those costs from even from the perspective of you know a projection like what could be done sure to the bill or. How your calculations to protect you know. The state employee's plan but still address this need. Eight you know I think I think granted alluded to it earlier you're bringing in a population that understandably has higher medical expenses then sort of a a younger population there's sort of a alternative way that you could theoretically do it where you're bringing them in as their active employee kind of like you have for the state employees today where there in there in the plan when they first become an employee and then they're in that program all the way through retirement theoretically but. If if if you're your goal is to cover retirees only that is just that's gonna come with a cost and there's no way that you could limit the benefits in different ways you could cut it off earlier you can make changes to the benefits in theory but. If you're going to offer the same coverage that state employees have to these individuals eight there's really essentially no way to to reduce that cost outside of cutting benefits. Am I free to comment five final question Mister chair you're recognized so what about the possibility of for example since this would be a group coming from outside under the circumstances you just mentioned and I don't know what any additional cost there would be to offset the possibility of additional cost but let's say there ended up being additional costs what would it look like if let's say the paid you know three percent more when you were looking at you know I mean could it be that but they're coming from outside so anyone coming from outside he wasn't an employee all the way through would have you know eighty five percent or three percent surcharge sure yet you you could increase premiums essentially and that that would be a way to reduce the net cost to the state do you have any idea what that would look like it we we did not perform any sensitivity analysis if you were to change the premium level to the to the retirees now is that something you could do for representative acre as he moves his bill through so that if there's a change that could be made to accommodate the cost could be and it's reasonable that he could do that yes absolutely yes ma'am thank you. Represent Baker do you have a comment before I go to the next question that I do I I did want to stress that it's it is clear in the bill that DVD or or whoever the governing decision makers on this to have the autonomy to make the price changes that they feel are adequate to help protect the state they do have the freedom to do that also this is an optional program again we are looking at variations in what the probability is that someone what group is actually going to roll you have obviously lobbies and Rowley's have spouses that their health insurance plan that they want to jump on may be more conducive you have retirees to take on separate employment in the private sector that they would receive those benefits so this is an optional program that may not be the most cost effective option for the retiree but I felt that it was imperative that we make the option available to them. The representative written you're recognized for a question. Only of. Projected cost how did you arrive at that can you give me a was blocked by those numbers how many of the forty three hundred are you familiar with and are they not being covered under a plan that might have. Have the same cost the event just occurred in a different time yep thank you for the question The lop the Staff were not able to tell us definitively who within Lotfi has existing retiree medical coverage from their employer it's just it's data that Bobby is would have no reason necessarily to track until now but they don't have it and so the way it essentially goes into our projections are our numbers is we we take a look at the liability we're using assumptions for retirement provided by lot the we use assumption for assumptions for medical claims from the state employee's plan and we've created a series of projected cash flows assuming that the election rates. Form for these for this population mirrors that of the state employees so really what you're saying is it could be a lot more but it could also be a lot less yes Sir in your ear you what you're saying what you're saying is your lease subject to. it is It is S. subjective from the standpoint that it it assumes that future behavior will meet assumptions to the extent that they don't two to the extent you have fewer enrollees are more enrollees than the cost will so could deviate so it's kind of like a dream your dream never lives up to reality. yeah I can see your point thank you thank you Mr chairman thank you Sir. Any other questions from the committee. Representar just you're recognized thank you Mr just really quickly to represent flowers question sounds like you talked about kind of differentiated costs based on different folks who would be in the plan and you have the authority in the bill to do that are there other kind of differentiated pricing people currently anybody. No Sir all the retirees replace would pay a similar concept in their premiums that date it would not be like. EVD employees that retired get one rate verses a DHS employee that get another rate all state employee once they retire get a separate so in this case these retired police. We're not saying they would pay what everyone else is paying plus five percent or something like that. I think the proposal or the concept could potentially be there now what that actually look like and how they actually navigate that I would just have to go back and study a little bit more and and learn what. How to actually implement something like that. Okay thank you. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill. Representative Baker would you like to close for your bill. Thank you Mr chairman and committee would like to say aye I guess it goes without saying that all law enforcement agencies both in their local chapters and then they're statewide chapters are extremely supportive of the bill the need is there and I believe we have an opportunity to meet that need I'm close for the bill. Represent the hours you're recognized for my. Motion to pass. I have a motion do pass is there any discussion on the motion. Representative Ferguson you're recognized for discussion on the motion yes like I said this is being the chair of the ABA day and we have really worked for two years to stabilize this program by made into the Medicare advantage program as much as I appreciate law enforcement and I think it's on a bill that we want to help them I think anything we do right now to add and destabilize this program will be a disaster I really encourage you to vote against this bill. Any other discussion. If not we have a motion do pass on the table all in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries you past your bill. Represent Johnson are you ready present house bill twelve seventy two. I understand you have an amendment. Represent Johnson can you introduce yourself for the record please represent Lee Johnson district forty seven members this is an amendment that's changing some language this is agreed upon language between insurance companies and providers to clean up some debated issues in the original language to the bill and I'll be happy to take any questions on the amendment. Committee anybody have any questions for representative Johnson. C. nine was the will of the committee. I have a motion from representative Hodges to adopt the amendment all those in favor say aye. Those may. Widdop that the amendment you're recognized now to present the bill as amended thank you Mr chairman that committee members so in the insurance provider or wall the provider can be in network with the insurance company at the insurance company then on occasion will at least that network to another entity as part of their insurance business that's that's accepted practice this bill is outlining some things within that practice to try to protect the provider who's in that work so this bill requires insurance companies to notify the provider if their network is being leased so if I'm in that work with an insurance company they're gonna lease that network under those terms to another entity then they would have to notify me it gives me the ability as a provider to opt out of that particular network without severing the contract that I'm already in with the insurance company in the end it also prevents it from being penalties if the if I decide to opt out so if I choose to opt out of the network is different times you can't terminate the network that I'm in for that reason again this is in addition to bill don't think there's any opposition be happy to try to answer any questions. Members have questions for the representantes and. See we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none represent Johnson you're recognized to close for your bill I'm close from bill or make a motion to pass but. As amended as okay members we have a motion do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Those may bills pass as amended thank you Mr chairman. President Johnson do you have any other bills a year wanting to run today. Are there any that we want to hear today. In make you get out of the moment yes Sir which one would you like me to try to run I'll let you know if I'm prepared to run it. House bill eleven thirty that's the next one on the list I do have an amendment. This is amended just adding Senator hill as a co sponsor. Members are there any questions for represent Johnson about is amendment if not I'll entertain a motion. I have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Those may we've adopted the amendment you're recognized to present the bill as amended thank you Mr chairman committee members to understand what I'm trying to this bill I think you have to understand current statute with regard to know compete contracts so currently in Arkansas law all of our covenant not to compete language in statute is is part of a particular section of code at the bottom of that code under J. section to which is not included in this bill you know sometimes bill R. one clue to existing statute in the bill but only what you're trying to meant it says very clearly that these covenants not to complete shall not this section shall not apply to a person holding a professional license under Arkansas code seventeen subtitle three Arkansas Code seventeen subtitle three is a reference to all the medical professionals in code so when you get a subtitle three this is a chiropractors nurses physician so. Under current law in Arkansas Kevin is not to compete should not apply to medical professionals this is clear in my mind the current statute yet in spite of that. Colleagues of mine in the medical field continue to be asked to sign a complete contracts continue to have those contracts challenge to be upheld continue have to fight these issues in court I have physician colleagues that are spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting these no compete contracts in my particular community where we have to hospitals very close proximity sometimes we have people that have lived in the community for many years twenty thirty years you want to switch from one hospital to the for variety of reasons but because they've been asked to sign in a county contract in because the for whatever reason people are reading this law as clearly as I think they said they had to fight those issues in court to my knowledge there's never been a court cases been up held on this issue because again the statute to me is clear so I want to be allowed to address this issue I didn't realize that there was even this prohibition on no competes for healthcare professionals I went planning to put the prohibition statute bill are came back to the states in statute a representative Johnson a civil apparently is still being challenged many times in the court so what at what I'm all of them with this bill it is very clearly restate these cabinet not to compete contracts do not apply to medical professionals it's is clarifying the law not changing law in my opinion and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions on that. Represent person you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman. Is it fair to say but medicine and it's excluded because. Patients particularly in the middle of treatment if I mean what's happened a lot of times the that a doctor would lead to practice in the patient with me in the middle of treatment in for continuity of care the hospital some have already been lied to the patients I we don't know where your doctor we and and then they're hung in the middle of maybe needing prescriptions are medicines and have been transferred to a new doctor it would that be one of the reasons I think that certainly could be you know it's hard to go back and look at our colleagues from past sessions and know what the thinking was at the time when they crafted Law but as you read this law and again I'm reading to you straight from statute you know this is this is Arkansas Code four dash seventy five dash one one cannot compete agreements and it's just is is phrase after phrase about whether a cabinet not compete is and what it defines and then you get to the very bottom and it says in J. this section shall not number one be read to impair limit injured parties protections are right so they are so trade secrets act number to apply to a person holding a professional losses in Arkansas code title seventeen subtitle three so as far as why are for are you a prior legislative body decided to include medical professionals and in the in exclusion certainly that could've been one of the reasons I'm there's a number of reasons one might decide to exclude medical professionals from that no compete agreements but if it's there in the law it continues to be brought forth in court the courts continue to uphold current law I'm just trying to clarify that issue once and for all Hey look this definitely would like we really mean it this time it doesn't apply to healthcare professionals. Represent Lundstrum you're recognized for a question I just need some clarification on page two lines four through eight this is new language section B.. Correct in the end. And that fits under this same code so which were changing so like right now the code I'm reading is what is is is actually is in this bill I see now so it says this section shall not in what it's referring all the covenants not to compete be read to impair that's current code apply to personally professional license under Arkansas Code Tel seventeen stepped out three that's current code and then basically it's just restating that underneath the second not to compete or provision that restricts the right of an individual holding a professional license under Arkansas code title seventeen setelah three to practice with the individual scope of practice. On termination the Kevin not to be agreement is void in in so again why. Why employers are asking healthcare professionals assigned them live got a good question be why would you as a professional sign when I I can't answer those questions for each individual but there are definitely people being asked to sign means they're definitely professionals that are signing them and and maybe it's just ignorance of the law you know sometimes when you sign a contract you're not doing your due diligence the way should that happens but but clearly our intent in the statute in in my opinion was to exclude medical professionals and this was the language is brought to read the bill are to clarify that issue. If I could follow up I get where you're going and I agree with that I just wish it said medical professional license or something that made it clear because we have a lot of professional licenses out there well I could see somebody twisting this around and I think that the key is is medical for its professional license under Arkansas code title seventy subtotal three and when when you go to that particular area it's it's a west it's contractors Dennis dietitians a hearing instrument dispensers lay midwives massage therapists nurses occupational therapists it's a whole list of healthcare professional so it's very specific to that that section of statute that list these professional license also would apply to a a plumber electrician because they're not in this section of code okay all right thank you. Are there any other questions. We have no one signed up to speak for against the bill is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none representative Johnson you're recognized to close for your bill close from a bill make a motion to pass as amended. We have a motion do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. Those may. Graduations representative Johnson you've passed your bill as amended thank you You may keep rolling the Leicester I'm happy just I'm happy to see the head of the table here was run a bill. I don't see anyone in the audience here to run a bill so. Go for it I you passed over so the two bills that I have they're both waiting amendments but there is a Senate bill that I have Senate bill three twenty four. I'll be happy to try to run that bill. So you're ready to run Senate bill three twenty four yes Sir. All right you're recognized to present the bill if I may as if I could have that I think your DH is your from farm bureau to counter the tables well. Members is a pretty straightforward bill it creates a new definition a code for a nonprofit agricultural membership organization and then after creating that definition it creates some language allows that nonprofit organization to provide health insurance of policies that would be exempt from so from state regulation this is a mirror some other legislation that we've done for Christian nonprofit organizations who would be happy to try to answer any questions. Represent person you're recognized for a question yes I mean I have some real concerns about this field because you're essentially circumventing the insurance department and all regulation and will these policies that mean my concern about these policies many times they have lifetime maximums are mentally maximums and you know there a lot of horror stories out there about patients who think they have insurance but then when they really needed to have a heart attack or they have some experience in it's not effective so why would you want to create a product that bypasses the insurance department regulations and. You know everything that we put in place to protect the publications to bad policies. against your dates with the Arkansas farm bureau federation if I may. So. The reason of the award for this bill is. We have a lot of young young farmers who are struggling to either get into the business full time or or get. Or expand their current operations and so. What they have told us in is their number one impediment to doing so is the cost of of health insurance as a self employed former many of them are required to pay a hundred percent of their their premium they don't have an employer whose cost sharing with them on that and the already extremely high cost to get into farming with all the inputs and equipment Leding etcetera you know their debt liability payments are also really through the roof so this is a real challenge and as a state and as a country we're saying you know the average age of farmers sharply increasing and the number of young farmers getting into farming is very low and so you know we we foresee you know somewhat of a crisis in agriculture about the number of people who are continuing to farm full time and so that is the impetus of for for this bill is to try to work on giving them a an affordable option Six other states. Currently offered this plan it's been and it's been offered in Tennessee for seventy five years. we know that there's some of those war stories out there the plans that other farm bureaus and the other six states do not have monthly maximums do not have lifetime maximums in fact they have maximum out of pocket of for policy holders so that you know once they leave at that maximum out of pocket hundred percent of their health care is covered you know these these plans that these other to other farm bureaus are implementing are very compatible to the ACA bronze and silver plans. The reason you know for this legislation is you know a lot like a resupply and self employed plants that are not subject to state regulation you know they are able to plan designed to fit their employees or their over their policy holders are divided in the best product possible with the best premium prop possible this would allow us to pursue that same same option. Well I mean certainly I mean my dad was arise from ran out on the farm so I'm I'm sympathetic to that but still if you're wanting to circumvent all insurance policy not pay premium tax not about any state regulation there's no assurance that you're going to be selling these people a product that is worth anything well and maybe maybe could have the insurance department through here come talk about all of the things that are protected by regular insurance that this would not include. Erection recognized for a question. So is the part. I'm sorry I forgot your name it's clear Jerry Jerry is so what I hear you saying is that because the state regulation. New farmers can't afford to get insurance is that what you're saying which is why you're trying to go to this other plan essentially I mean what's not what's on the open market today you know as a self employed farmers are trying to pay a hundred percent of those premiums and it's on a formal many many young farmers go without insurance so those of favour yes so. Form your offers insurance to farmers are you required to have them pay a hundred percent up front is that a state regulation or that a farm bureau so just to clarify so farm bureau is essentially a three legged stool we have the insurance company would property casually. We have the same nonprofit federation. And then we have a foundation so this would be a member benefits. So just like if you join farm bureau you have access to our health our property casting products you get five dollars off if you buy a new for pick up you get a free car seat you get other member benefits having the ability to a to apply for this health benefit would be among those benefits so this has nothing to do with farm bureaus property casualty insurance company this would be offered only to farm bureau members as a member benefits. Yes. I apologize to him per se per. Thank you of I just lost my train of thought that's okay. Of. Okay he was talking about but you know that this applies just to federation bureau members said as far as the that three legged stool guys this is something that would be a benefit offered to the members of the nonprofit federation not a part of the other legs of the stool I think that helps yes so if they. Aside from the member benefit I guess what I'm asking you is does the insurance company have the ability. To work with former so they're not having to come out a hundred percent out from do you have that ability or is that state regulators or can you even ask for that I don't know. I'm not sure I understand the question I mean that. As a form he. Farm bureau insurance is a property casually it's not a health insurance company What the what the farmers will not be employers of ours so there's not that an employer employee relationship for a cost share their I don't believe so it is my aunts maybe insurance of the insurance. We are going to get them to the table as a president but I think we have a few more a couple more questions Perry did you have a question for you in the queue I do Mr chairman thank you. So how many members are there in the in the federation or that would be able to participate in this health insurance programme so roughly there's a hundred and eighty thousand members of farm bureau income many of. Go ahead as a media witch who currently have insurance already so wouldn't be dissed offered to farmers it would be offered to the hundred and eighty thousand people which I happen to be a member of farm bureau right so okay. In and as an un but will say aye from an educated consumer and I see this come available and I and role in this health insurance plan that I think is a comprehensive plan and like what representative Ferguson saying that's when all is said and the minus show up when you go to the hospital and realize a procedure something is not covered because it's not. The full fledged health insurance plan. Sekarang may I will. I would argue that these that these coverages of would be compatible to the ACA plans of bronze and silver which cover a lot of those procedures and I would also say that you know we would fully disclose have a disclosure on you know all the paper that we provide but if in the other point I want to stress is that without members. Farm bureau doesn't exist. We have a built in incentive to ensure that our members are satisfied and continue their membership. And so we're not. Any interest at all in providing a not a good product and not customer service we have we are as a membership organization we are incentivized to ensure that our our members taking care of. Thank you read the first step question. Well I had a simple question to a representative Prairie. Came with this question. So I'm going to S. so as it may I have a family member who is also a member of farm bureau Sir. I'm not a farmer right. Would they be affected by this program. As a as a member of farm bureau they can apply for this been so they can apply for the benefit of this this will be a member benefit. Available to all members. Okay. What. Thank you Mr as a follow up so yes yes so would they have to apply. Yes this health program yes Sir is so if they didn't apply they would be on the same program that they are. Correct this is not a man this is not forced on anybody this is certainly optional and it's just like I said just is one of the the membership benefits that they can take advantage of if they choose to do so okay thank you Mr. Question what you're recognized for a question. We'll. And I support this because of our culture. We will lead not. No upfront what they're going into what they're asking to participate in and is just a buyer beware yes Sir it all worked we will fully disclose what this plan is and it's not something to the regular thank you thank you Mr. Thank you acts like a question for you I apologize I was out for a moment what during the testimony did you say what what other states are or other states doing this at this time it could you tell me if you know which ones of instrument sure there's six other states Tennessee being the longest at seventy five years it's Tennessee Texas Indiana Iowa. Ohio. I think that's thank you does get by that thank you yes I'm Missouri's gap legislation they're currently working on now so there. Missouri's working on this effort as well. Representation is what you're recognized. So representative will be made a lot of sense with this question in the session so when it if I'm a member and I'm warning this program is going to be of a document that is at I know we get detailed of our benefits so whatever but will there be additional information provided for these individuals that going to this program absolutely okay. Thank you any further questions by the committee. I believe if we I believe there's been a request made if the insurance plan if you could just kind of give your just your thoughts and analysis on this bill a couple representative inquired for that so thank you Mr chairman both ran with the insurance department we visit with farm bureau about this program judges rights and represent Ferguson this is an individual health insurance policy program not just for farmers but it does include farmers includes any individual member of farm bureau as a result of this legislation these policies would not be regulated by this legislature no problem authorization requirements will apply no make medical mandates all the required medical mandate coverages that we required of commercial health plans would not be required of this product it is not subject to the guarantee fund it would not pay premium taxes and the individual rates would not be reviewed by the insurance department Allen for bill is very compliance very solvent company has had this program work in other states on on the other hand when you look at the other side of this and so we don't anticipate problems but I do agree with the committee the concern should be that members should know what they're getting into for sure. You're recognized I just wanted to clarify that are making the point that in all six other states these plans pay premium taxes so you know that if if that is if this passes and we move down this road obviously that's something that our intention would be. Thank you I believe we have some questions about the committee members of flowers we have a question. For a mystery and thank you Mr chair. So without much to regulation and oversight and I do appreciate that. The built in incentive to do right by our members success but. Four instances where something does go wrong it could. members complain that file complaints with the insurance department or now they could but we wouldn't have any legal jurisdiction to compel a plan to do whatever the consumer wanted because this car out I mean what would be there because it could be that Hey we gave you disclosure and then you might have one of your members say well I didn't really understand or know that and now I have I got sick and I'm not covered and I thought I was covered in or someone told me that would be cover this much and I wasn't and now I'm stuck. Well we're sorry you know here's in black and white and well I have to prove somebody I have a recording or I have a letter that said I would be covered so then who they go to they would not be able to come to the department because they have been exempted from our regulations they would have to go the AG's office probably under their consumer practices act would be a default mechanism that they could go to so what happens in those other states that are successful with this program in terms of where. You know members can go with the complaint or just not even a complaint but just help me work this out I'm sure duck and. So from a you know from a customer service standpoint and response yeah we any member in Arkansas would have any seventy all we have office and also the five counties so if they have issues they've got a place they can go to in their in their community obviously our office is here but in terms of you know. What you're referring to I think you know we would still have to comply with all the consumer protection laws you know and and and be accountable to to those and with the Attorney General and said so but from a customer service standpoint and working through claims etcetera you know we're in every community in the state with we will be accountable to our members just as we are on other issues that they have within their property casualty product. One oh I'm but we finish other flowers. Well quick question okay thank you thank you at. it would there be room for some sort of mechanism. Like but it's men or something within your organization that could be built into the bill and and you mentioned that you know the tax that exists in other states is not necessarily in the bill could that also be added in this bill so that members could be feel comfortable that there is a mechanism for people who might have complaints or issues and you know the taxes you fully intend to you know render is also built into the bill is that possible. I think anything's. What representative warned recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman all right so I I get the goal to help young farmers have a a lesser cost so can you give me an idea because I've been told like young farmers are facing like premiums of fifteen hundred to two thousand a month so with this plan you say it's comparable to the bronze plan how much less with the premiums be for your plant so what we have what of what we have seen in other states is about thirty percent yes and that's a that's a rough average but it without doing actual actuarial this is obviously step one for us but once we get into it and and you do and then actuarial you know picture what that potential Policyholder bases here we would know that exactly but other states are seeing thirty to forty percent less. Okay thank you Mr chairman. The representative eve's you're recognized. Just a quick question who actually would sell these. Policies is that farm bureau and if it is or is not these are commission paid to the agent selling. So our intention is not to sell these through the agency force these are this is again it's just of member benefits so when you join farm bureau or in your annual renewal this will be listed as a benefit for for your for being a member of of farm bureau so they're not gonna sell it means they're not going to be sold or push through the agency force okay thanks. President person you're recognized. Yeah I think that certainly and you know I have real concerns about this because if you're if it's like you're saying the ACA comparable policies I'm not sure why you would care to just make them insurance policies that are in compliance with the Arkansas insurance department I guess my question debate this is there a again to agree but most policies we have gained to reserve fund that ensures that policy holders if there's a problem there will be a fun there to cover that hello how is this handled this we see this without the support of the guarantee for all provisions of the insurance code would not apply and that would include to get you. So. Okay and was very soft and I don't want to miss representation so interstate but technically they're not subject to the guarantee fund either yes Silicon Valley bank was solitary. Hey and the other question I guess if if insurance agents to represent these questions are selling these policies how is the public going to be adequately informed about what the policy is and what it is not if it's like measure plans it's not really an insurance policy. So you have to be a member of farm bureau to be eligible to apply. And in order before you apply we would have a point at which we interact with that member and we clearly communicate and provide those disclosures to them and so that it's not a trained insurance agent. Communicating with them I mean that's my concern I mean I've yes I mean if they walk into the office they they will likely speak to an agent my my response to our agents going to be selling this this is not only important part of their portfolio that they're out there pushing necessarily but if they have a member come and ask them a question or talk about applying they will certainly be available to to well and again my question for you if it's truly an ACA comparable planned then why not do it correctly and go through the insurance department why try to circumvent the insurance department in all of the protections for consumers. My response that would be that. What this was like I said this was brought to us or we so we. Found out about this per se because one other State Farm bureaus of done and help with their their model for what they've done in these other states that have seen they've where they've seen success and five. Allowing of these plans to be designed for these target populations of folks who are profoundly uninsured of this is the best plan of a you know route they encouraged us to to to go and so that's that's what we're doing well I might say to have had a lot of promise kind of day because like I said I'm member fund be counted upon my dad farmed salmon I've explained to them what they see as they said I will compliment just tell me to contact you I didn't realize and they're not FOR date or so. Ferguson I believe did you have a question yes Mister chair thank you. to farm bureau here it is this the only health of product on your hands. Yes yes I mean we have a relationship with Arkansas Blue Cross that we we will administer sale there if somebody walks in to one of our county offices looking for health insurance we have a partnership with Blue Cross of Arkansas to provide them with that you know their their product lines that are in the marketplace okay so to the Mr Ryan. So the insurance department. Actually has no rules regulatory authority over this health program but the other programs that farm bureau a if they do that's correct. But under this health program we have no regulatory authority that's correct to level that's correct and so in individual member like my family member is they have made she with this health program and the choose to join it they cannot file any claim with the Arkansas insurance department is correct okay our way thank you thank you I just recognized thanks Mr. so even if this plan would be. Required to comply with state department rules would still have to comply with the affordable Care Act correct or any federal. Regulations or requirements. I don't think it does. You wouldn't have to collar with no federal is not a I have with they're not ACA compatible they're volunteering to provide an ACA compatible prawns but that's out there voluntary nature of it thank you mandate to do so okay and then representantes mention some other examples of organizations that are already doing this you mentioned some Christian nonprofit privatizations can you maybe explain that example and tell us if there's any other examples of medicine is one of the largest healthcare sharing ministries the healthcare sharing ministry industry also got an exemption from the Arkansas insurance code for many of those companies like measure which you might hear do ads on the radio it is an alternative to traditional health insurance so that is one of the additional areas of industry that is accepted in the same area of the code that phone bill will support this exemption and so very similar. And in your experience since that's been in operation have you experienced or seen some of these. Similar concerns I guess that are brought up in this case we've had complaints but unfortunately we have to turn them away because we don't have jurisdiction over those particular rock plants. Thank you. Thank you reserve any further questions by the committee. The saying none there is there's no one signed up there anyone in the audience who likes anyone else would like to speak for or against this bill. Okay saying no one. Johnson would you like to close your bill. What what I think I'd like to have to listen to some of the testimony I think there's some at ways to maybe amend this bill to make a little more amenable to the committee I'd like to pull it down and talk to form your a little bit about some ways maybe we can come back with some caveats that provide some security system of the members questions and affordable do that but we can get something done with that there's still time and we can meet later on today then so look at and go from there. Thanks. Thank you absent that's certainly your prerogative I appreciate you guys and I appreciate all the questions from the committee the bill is to bring that back if he so chooses we're gonna jump around at what women move without objection Speaker Shepherd has a couple of bills that that he's asked around so I'm gonna if everyone's okay without him allowed him to to to move ahead so. If you want to state your objection you can deal with it it's a new one. Speaker Shepherd. Speaker Shepherd you're recognized you have a couple of bills I believe six sixteen forty nine as the first one on the agenda would you like to proceed with that one first yes Mister chairman thank you Mr chairman members of the committee do have a couple couple bills I bring to you this morning to begin with house bill sixteen forty nine and and joining me is Matt record with university of Arkansas I guess maybe he should introduce himself and gives title. mapping for a senior associate general counsel for the thank you Matt recall a senior associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas. Thank you so members of those that were here last or around recall that that I was the lead sponsor on the Arkansas student athlete publicity rights act and that is the act that provided for student athletes at the college level to be able to participate in name image and likeness deals and if if you follow college athletics even to some extent high school athletics this is become a really big issue and what we have done is we have with this bill we are providing for some adjustments to what we passed last time which is not really a surprise this is an evolving world when it comes to name image and likeness I said two years ago in a perfect world we wouldn't even I wouldn't be here would be handling this that we wouldn't be dealing with these types of issues but the fact of the matter is Congress had worked on this and they failed to act and so now it's really becoming coming upon the states to address these issues and this is a matter of opportunity for student athletes but it's also a matter of competitiveness when it comes to our institutions of higher education and so if you look at the bill I'll just walk you through the what what adjustments have been made and on page one you can see that we've X. extended the category of student athletes that are eligible previously it would in the bill that we passed two years ago you had to be enrolled in an institution of higher education now you have to be there been accepted to add it into admission or signed a letter national letter of intent or other written agreement to enroll at an institution of higher education within the state of Arkansas and Matt can speak to this in a moment but did and he can correct me if I'm wrong but basically the reason we've extended this categories what happens or has happened is that. You might have an athlete in Arkansas that commits to the university of Arkansas for that matter to the Arkansas state to be neat institution of higher education that commits they could even sign with that institution but primarily after the commitment in particular before they sign you could have other schools other entities from out of state that come in and say Hey if you'll move your commitment if you will the end up signing with our program then we can go ahead and start providing you help facilitate name image and likeness bills that was not the case under what we were allowing under Arkansas law and so that's why we have expanded that to quite honestly help to provide our institutions to be on a level playing field even when it comes to the recruitment of our student athletes here from the state of Arkansas. The Page two we've extended some language to allow the institutions it's supporting foundations or other authorized entities to identify create facilitate otherwise enable opportunities which that really that's probably already taking place because just to clarify that that the university a issue and others and they're supporting foundations can help the student athletes to facilitate these name image and likeness bills and additionally we provide that nonprofits are able to compensate student athletes for the use of their publicity rights which one of the things that I think we've seen is and that's probably others from the university can speak to this is that oftentimes these name image and likeness bills are being done with charitable purposes in mind it's you know it might be that there athletes to Napoli has an and I'll deal where they are out you know have hosting a football camp posting a basketball camp going into a boys and girls club so this is clarifies the charitable organization it shall have the right to compensate athletes for those publicity rights. But if you move on over to page three again that's just kind of clarifying things to bring consistent with the changes we made previously on On page one. I thank the the other probably most significant provision is then found on page five which It would shall see about midway down the page has a person or entity regardless resident shall not give a promise compensation for the use of a name image and likeness of student athlete and rolled institution of higher education or prospective student athlete who has entered into a contract with an institution of higher education located in Arkansas with the purpose of recruiting reducing the student athlete to enroll at another institution of higher education and an institution of higher education or supporting foundation authorize it to the third party licensee shall have a cause of action against any party that violates this section that's basically building off of what already existed Arkansas law which would be tortious interference with a contract quite honestly what happens at the college level is that you do have institutions to try to come in they try to entice student athletes to transfer and move away from schools and so if they have entered into an and I'll deal we're just simply stating that they've been or incident I'll do here in the state of Arkansas that will it's it's our policy is the law that those should not be interfered with by third parties and so that is the the the highlights of this bill again most of this the the main substance was passed two years ago this is just some clean up language to try to help move it along as this area balls you know hopefully at some point Congress will step in and maybe can provide some uniformity if even that it's important keep in mind whether it's high school or college. Prior to this law there is nothing to prohibit student athletes from signing name image and likeness bills the issue is is that it was prohibited at the at the NCAA level and so the NCAA in order to allow athletes to do this you have to have a state law that permits it and that's that's why we brought it two years ago and that's why we're bringing these additional changes and all that with the chair to permission I turned over to Mr makori he wants to add to my comment sir highlight any other provisions yes Sir if you would please state your name for the record in your tour title proceed with your testimony. yes Sir Matt McCall a senior associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas System. Mr Speaker did an excellent job summarizing and the intent and meaning behind those changes in the proposed law. one of the things that I do want to highlight because we've we you've likely heard a lot of different positions about win should and I'll start prior to is it prior to enrollment or at the high school level one of the one of the things that I think is very beneficial to the way this particular law as written. Is that it strikes a balance in in that it's when they're accepted admission signed a national letter of intent or other agreement and and that's helpful for two reasons to the student athlete into the institutions for what it gives the student athlete an opportunity for education they then become there on the radar of the higher education institution they can then begin to provide the guidance that they need academically and financially to begin to explain tax consequences for name image and likeness agreements to provide general information about things like exclusivity clauses and things that your average seventeen eighteen year old may never even heard of the other benefit to that is that allows the institution to remain compliant the current law requires that there's a notification to the institutions so that they can monitor to ensure that it is not a recruiting inducement and that it's not being made as an extra benefit at and this being the starting point for the student athletes allows for that communication with for example at the university of Arkansas their flagship program to then know about those agreements and to be able to monitor those from a compliance standpoint. with regard to Section two and the changes this is standard and a lot of other laws across the country and as the mist aye the Speaker mentioned part of this is is the laws of all and the facts and circumstances affecting our students in this state change depending on what's happening in these other states. We have to be flexible and and I know that. Our institutions are very thankful for what this body did when it passed the original student athlete publicity rights bill because it does allow our institutions to continue to operate in a compliant manner and to remain competitive which is one of the most difficult things to do right now in this environment. The last thing I will say about section six the speakers correct it is basically a codification of what the current NC double a rule is the NC double a does prohibit institutions from trying to use name image and likeness compensation to recruit to an institution or to provide it as an extra benefit simply because someone is a student athlete. this wouldn't have any liability on the on the student athlete but it would do is it would protect third party licensees those businesses nonprofits within the state of Arkansas who have retained student athletes as their spokes person or as an ambassador And gives them the same rights they would under what would essentially be a tortious interference claim but just makes that a little more clear. Happy to answer any questions that you are met thank you for testament we we do have a couple of questions represent Richardson you're recognized thank you of so I'm glad you guys are doing this I think we saw some information in Florida were some recruits were recruited away in use in an ideal deals to do that have you guys had that happen to you at the university have you been privy to those situations student athletes were lord away. I can tell you circumstantially we do have reason to believe that that those things have occurred yes Sir. Thank you any other questions by the committee. Okay saying none we do have some people who have signed up to speak on behalf of the bill The first question on the agenda is hunter Yurachek you would like to come to the table. I think most of us know you but if you would introduce yourself and. Who you're with and proceed with your testimony thank you representative medics in that thank you hunter your check vice chancellor and director of athletics at the university of Arkansas Fayetteville thank you for your time today and for entertaining our bill over the past three years were in one of the greatest here's the success of Arkansas razorback athletic history and the the student the publicity rights bill has been been a big part of that has been at the forefront of name image and likeness in our industry has been a big part of that our flagship program the formation of the one Arkansas LLC under the umbrella of a razorback foundation has been a big part of that this bill that is in front of you will be a big part of that continued success and how we treat and I L. very important to our coach is very important to our student athletes I move and we're taking it to be seriously it and how we implement that on our campus and I think we're taking great care being great stewards of the resources that we provide to our student athletes to name image and likeness but this is a very important bill for us to keep this in the for profit and keeps us competitive not only in the Southeastern Conference but nationally we've we've had the privilege of winning over the past three years twenty SEC championships five national championships and we've had top ten finishes in the Learfield directors kept the University of Arkansas in name image and likeness and how we've treated that across our state has been a big part of that. Thank you I don't see anybody of any questions by the committee. Okay saying the thank you for your testimony appreciate all that you to. The next person that signed up to speak on behalf of this bill is Terry Prentice. If you would just introduce yourself and who you're with and proceed with the testimony. Okay good morning thank you representative Maddox Terry Prentice senior associate athletics director for athlete brain development of the university of Arkansas Fayetteville thank you for having me today as a former student athlete I can't tell you how much it means to be able to see this body impasse the student athlete publicly Rights Act two years ago I was hired two years ago to to fill this role and feel as though we've had great success over the past two years the state that are education of our supporters our corporate partners the parents of both a current world student athletes and our prospective student athletes couldn't have been done without the support of this group so again thank you one thing I want to mention in the importance and passing this bill many of our other units inside the athletics department with that be academics sports medicine or compliance office communicate with a student athletes who signed letters of intent or other written agreements once once that occurs Rossi to publicize and student athletes as you see them on social media platforms I think passing this bill with these changes allows us to communicate with a student athlete as it relates to their name image likeness opportunities because as we know our student athletes are immensely popular once both during the recruitment and also once actually do sign and being able to communicate with them in the conversations they might be having with business owners and whatnot and also being able to review and approve of those agreements is is important so again thank you this body and so I have. Thank you so much for testimony any questions by the committee. Okay saying nine thank you the next person signed up to speak in Shane Broadway if you would. We know you but introduce yourself and to your wedding Mr chairman I'll be very quick shame Broadway vice president for university relations for the issue system I just wanted to speak on behalf of our athletic director Joe Purinton as you know he is just completed a basketball search for new head basketball coach Arkansas state university and could not be with us here today he's trying to play a little catch up from enrolled last couple weeks to an interview so I told him I would stand informed today I just wanted to come up and and echo everything has already been said in Speaker Senate to until Congress takes some action and there's actually a hearing going on this morning on Capitol Hill I was in DC last week moved topic obviously came up in conversations of topic nationwide but until that action is taken is going to fall to us at the state level and I appreciate this body giving us an opportunity to be competitive our conference is just expanded and become a lot more competitive the Sunbelt conference has and so giving us this option of of being able to do this for our student athletes men and women certainly keeps us in the ball game so to speak so I would also want to take a minute to recognize Matt McCoy and Brad Phelps my chief counsel and Randy messing Ellie and everyone who have been involved with the Speaker on this the lot of a lot of meetings law discussions over the last several weeks and months is just an come together very quickly L. at a lot of discussion I appreciate them in our partnership together with university of Arkansas in in this thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you representatives did you have. Question. His left the table. There's no one else on the just to speak on behalf of this bill Eaker shepherd would you like to close for your bill. Well I just would to just would that say I appreciate your consideration this bill would appreciate a good vote. I thank Speaker Shepherd has close for his bill What is the will of the committee. Okay. Well we have numerous people who were asking to to be the person so I believe the first also represent Richardson you're recognized. I have a motion to pass in which isn't that is a proper motion is there any discussion on the motion casing none all in favor of the motion do pass say aye. It boasts a no regulations your bill is passed. And center there I believe you have one more sixteen fifty. Thank you Mr chairman so House Bill sixteen fifty also it deals with the. It in part it deals with higher education athletics and state of Arkansas I do have an amendment that's being passed out Doesn't really change anything in the bill it just kinda restates a provision after discussion with the another interested party. And so I I guess I would like to see if I can get that amendment added on that I can present the bill is yes we will proceed on the amendment first we have a motion with president warned recognized for motion do pass on the amendment. all in favor motion to pass on the amendment say aye opposed say no amendment is passed you can proceed proceed with the bill as amended all right so what you have before you is it is titled in advance ticketing and resell consumer protection act and it really has to two main parts to it number one is as you may be aware generally in Arkansas tickets cannot be is not be sold above face value most states my understanding most states have have allow for tickets to be sold above face value Arkansas is kind of an out liar but the fact of the matter is that uh tickets are being sold above face value on online I mean that happens every single day and so this is just trying to codify to provide some structure to that you can see there that there's a number of definitions that are included in this and then it includes part this that we no longer would prohibit the sale of tickets above face above face value but then secondly on page three it would prohibit local governments from entering into some kind of prohibition of selling tickets above face value The among the provisions that are included here with when it comes to higher education and the sale of tickets for. A collegiate sporting events then they would first have to be made available by this by the institution of higher education. At a price no greater than face value for a period of ten days now there's some exceptions to that and keep in mind that the university universities as they sell tickets they set the face value so they could set the price wherever they wanted this point but this is just simply say that if they're going to sell on the secondary market they're gonna be re sold at least for the institution that issuing the tickets they have to first but with certain exceptions they would have to be first made available to the public for ten days there are some exceptions to that that primarily relate to meeting certain contractual requirements that that normally would exist when it comes to particular intercollegiate athletics and so at the end of the day what this what this bill does is allows for individuals to be able to serve to sell tickets or resell tickets above face value again it's codifying and providing structure to something that's already happening but then it also has a consumer protection piece that's involved as well then you could see that on page five that in an individual who's in the business of selling or reselling tickets or an organization group association partnership corporation that sells resells a ticket to an event in this state shall guarantee the consumer or see their tickets guarantee the purchase tickets will provide ballot entry maintain a telephone number email address live virtual support physical representative venue or other involving means of contact for the for complaints customer service an inquiry and should implement a standard refund policy and you can see what those provisions require again go back to the to the previous page if an individual who's not in the business of selling tickets reselling tickets is not required to maintain those things in other words if you have tickets to a game and you just can't go you want to sell those tickets you're not required to have to adopt a refund policy and so I wanted to make sure that was very clear but. For those that are in the business of selling or an organization or entity that this is what they do they would have to adopt this and this is it gained for the protection of consumers a lot of money is spent on tickets whether it's the NCAA tournament or Taylor swift for any number of other types of events and so it's important to have these types of consumer protections you can see that we've included some criminal penalties when it comes to counterfeit or violations of of this subchapter and then I have come to some cleanup language at the end as far as Bringing the well just bring some consistency between the old law and what we've offered in front of you and with that I'd with the chair of the commission asked Mr McCord to offer his comments as well. Thank you Mr Speaker We've we've identified that from the university standpoint to primary trends with the reality that we have a law that says it is illegal to resell tickets above face value and the reality that that's that's what's happening online you have other states you have other vendors who then buy up our tickets and sell them back to us at at four times the amount our fans are left scrolling online to try to find access to sporting events in their own state that sometimes four and five times the amount of what a ticket would be sold at. By legalizing that process what you do is you allow those individuals who can attend those games but don't want to be in violation of the law to impose those so the supplies the supply increases the market price for that begins to drop and it makes it a lot more accessible for our fans in the State of Arkansas to to get tickets if you're sitting at home and and you see a razorback basketball game you may see two three rows of empty seats and what's been advertised as a sell out crowd that those tickets were sold that doesn't mean that the individual could attend and maybe they weren't comfortable in and trying to figure out how to resell those same tickets on autumn a website that requires a market price. So those seats go empty so the other trend as we believe that this would help us. to give ticket access to more of. Our our fans and our stakeholders around the university. The other issue for it as we look at all of the other laws across the country I believe there are only three or four other states that currently outlaw resale at market value. there the the laws are antiquated they don't fit with the practical reality if we typed it on our phones our computers or laptops right now we probably see ten twenty websites by reselling tickets to any music or entertainment event or sporting event in the state of Arkansas. The what we don't have is any control over the regulation. And as the Speaker pointed out we don't have any guarantees that those tickets will show up on time that they'll permit us access to that event That are not counterfeit. And this finally gives us an opportunity to be able to regulate a market That this largely been I'm controlled by the state of Arkansas for Welcome since the inception of of our regional ticket law. with that happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you for testimony any questions by the committee president Hodges recognized. Thanks chair just a curiosity up support the bill just a as far as implementation in kind of the the practical. putting the law into effect how does that work because of something you are able to do kind of on the university side or do you have to work with these companies directly and kind of fill them in on what the law is now and and they're responsible for complying I'm just kind of curious the real world application of how this works. The good thing is the the primary partners in the secondary market are even aware of this right now so that they're tracking this and a track across the country and they have legal departments and lobbyists to ensure that they're going to be compliant it's the more unscrupulous vendors. That the market actually helps enforce all of that because they'll point out that there are individuals in that market who are not following the law and that are not providing tickets in compliance with Arkansas law. It also allows us from a ticket standpoint. To be able to push back on some of these activities that might have prevented. Our our fans for being able to purchase those tickets you know like large buyout institutions can then limit the number of tickets that are available for sale so that you don't have bots or other entities buying large volume and then immediately selling them on a secondary market and those are things that yes we we would be able to control from a an institutional standpoint. If you did see about actor somebody not complying I guess what would be your recourse to deal with them or just some worried they can be reported At that are our director ticket sales can correct me if I'm wrong on this but I believe would be able to deactivate the ticket. It says that's correct all right thank you. Thank you Hodges any further questions by the committee. Okay seeing none there is no one who was signed up but anyone that into like to speak for against this bill. Okay saying no one Speaker Shepherd you're recognized to close for a bill. Thank you Mr chairman thank you committee just to appreciate your consideration this bill that's something that it's been worked on with the university and and as Mr McQuay indicated a number of the interested parties out there are obviously aware of it and have been working with Mister Corey or or myself in terms of clarifying and so feel like this is a good bill whose time has come in Arkansas I think it's bringing our law up to date with what in actuality was already a curry. Thank you the representative is close for his bill Weprin Allen you are recognized. I apologize revenue Warren you're recognized. The motion to pass by represent Warren. As amended Sir I need this is a discussion on the motion okay seeing none we have a motion do pass as amended all in favor say aye. Impost NO graduation you've passed your bill thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. Thank you I believe next represent Hodges would you like to go to them to the table with sixteen forty I believe. I apologize go ahead and proceed with your bill sixteen forty yes thank you Mister chair I want hope I see some as eager do pass motions on my bill as the Speaker got for his bill All right so sixteen forty so members you might remember I went a bill a few weeks ago we dealing with rebates or token gets an insurance. Insurance business and I was approached by some industry folks about potentially amending that bill. And just to make things more simple ended up deciding not to amend that bill to file this bill separately so that's kinda where came from but just to give you a little bit of information before I bring up some of the folks to the table this bill adopts model repeating language that was recently approved by the national association of insurance commissioners insurance companies that want to provide devices that connect to the internet and help monitor track and educate policy holders about risk these devices such as water leak detection devices. A win win for the policy holder in the company the policy holder reduces the risk which in turn reduces the number and severity of claims. Insurance companies want to be able to give these devices and services to their consumers by the way are anti re baiting statutes are written these devices and services can fall into the category of prohibited rebates. This bill allows insurance companies to provide these value added services that relate to the insurance risk so some of the insurance of industry folks have worked with the Arkansas insurance department and my understanding is everyone's agreed on the the terms herein the bill I haven't heard any contact with any objections but I will bring up Derek Smith just make some comments about the building will be happy to take questions. Thank you Mister Smith we would it just introduce yourself for your within particular testimony. Good morning thank you Mr chair committee my name is Derek Smith I'm an attorney with the Mitchell Williams silicates and would your law firm here in Little Rock Arkansas where I specialize in insurance regulation today I'm representing State Farm insurance company as well as the American council of life insurers representative Hodges did a really good job explaining the bill I'll just simply say anti re baiting laws have been around pretty much since the start of the regulation of insurance they're primarily designed to make sure agents and companies aren't buying business and to maintain a level playing field but the way they've been written they cannot prohibit innovative services that carriers would like to provide to consumers to mitigate risk he mentioned leak detected devices other things that health or life insurance carriers might provide or things like insulin monitors attached to people or other wearable devices that really do go to improve it and uh risk and so this law for this model was developed after years of negotiation by insurance commissioners is really designed to help allow things like that that are related to the risk of so it's not a free for all and I'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. Thank you Mr Smith any questions. Okay saying none. There is no one who is signed up to speak on behalf of this bill but is anyone out there who would like to for against okay saying no one which of Hodges do not close your bill. depreciate the committee's time as a State Farm customer does have a very expensive week problem at my own home I think think things like this could be great for consumers so I appreciate y'all against time again and says for your support and I'll make a motion to pass we have a motion to pass by represent Hodges or any any discussion on the motion okay saying none all in favor say aye. Impost NO regulations you've passed your bill thank you thank you reserve age would you like to to run your bill. I believe there is amendments being passed out. This is HB. Sixteen fifty two and there is an amendment. I believe the mental require too much discussion but. If you would just explain amendment. Get the amendment just adds Senate co sponsor. Senator Penzo. We have a we have a motion to virus of eleven to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye. Imposed representatives you may present the bill as amended I appreciate it thank you members this is just a clarification bill it cleans up some ambiguity that was caused by an Attorney General opinion back in two thousand nine in spite of the fact that the statute allows construction management service to be utilized by cities counties in political subdivisions the Attorney General at the time ruled that it only applied to school districts in reaching that decision the Attorney General relied on the emergency clause that was found at the end of the original bill the Supreme Court the Supreme Court ruled that language within an emergency clause does not constitute a portion of the statute so this bill just simply cleans up that confusion. Thank you any questions by the committee. Okay saying none there's no one there so that but anyone would like to speak for against this bill. Saying only that because your bill closing I make a motion do pass as amended wed motion do pass as amended all in favor say aye. Imposts NO graduation you've passed your bill. Representive road I believe you are next if you'd like to go to the end of the table. Mister you have a preference on which bill Lester with. No Sir I don't know what what you have a couple I know that you want to run to everyone again. Thank you all start with the H. B. thirteen forty nine. this is the E. sports legislation that has come through this committee already and it is back to concur on three Senate amendments Mr shared forgive me for my experience would be a vote on each one of these amendments one of the time it would be a vote on all three. Without objection and we can we can vote on all three of them at the same time that be preferable to me yes Sir she can proceed on all of them and then we will vote thank you very much. So the amendments are pretty simple and all of them have been agreed upon by the casinos and the bill's sponsors representative ray had to present another bill endeavor committee this morning asked me to present this to you today so thank you for your time committee Senate amendment one removed the reference to the very end of the bill two amendment one hundred and the Arkansas racing commission this language was removed so the bill could not be construed to authorize additional gambling's by casinos. The language that remains in this section of the bill states wagering on the outcome of any sports tournament is not authorized under this chapter. Senate Amendment number two add an additional language that you can find on page two lines twelve through fifteen. This was added at the request of the casinos to broaden the definition of what is not included in the definition in the sports term and it further excludes any games involved dog or horse racing also excludes any electronic pull tab games. Senate member number three is clearing up a drafting error that was a result of miscommunication from the sponsor's on Senate amendment to. that covers all three Senate amendments and Any questions thank you for the presentation so members any questions on any of these three Senate amendments for the road. Okay saying none there's no one signed up and would like to speak for against these amendments. Similarly we like to close the road I'm close to my bill per se to good vote and make a motion to past easements to motion to concur and Senate amendment one two and three all in favor say aye. In a post NO regulations you've passed your bill. And then you have another one representative road if you could refresh if you would just tell me which one that is and proceed with that please yes Sir this is Senate bill forty three Senate sponsor Jonathan Dismang and how sponsor Lanny Fite and This is a very minor technical corrections to the quite famous to this committee net metering bill. What about the. So I'll aim to go up from there. So this minor technical correction addresses the bonding provisions in the consumer protection section of the bill the net metering developers identified this issue after the bill and move forward Senator Dismang and representative to fight committed to amend that provision through a separate bill. And The bonding described in that bill that was passed is not available and so the language in this amendment was provided by the net metering developers and is agreed upon by all parties involved and they are here to answer questions and before I ask them to come to the table just state that the new language requires a ten thousand dollar bond general liability insurance coverage of not less than one million dollars in a valid contractor's license issued by the contractors licensing board this provision helps protect our cans and net metering customers and there's no controversy surrounding this minor technical corrections be glad to feel any questions at this time. Thank you representative or any questions at this time. Okay saying none we there is no one signed up to speak for against this bill but is there anyone in the other two would like to speak for against this bill. Okay Senate one reserve road would you like to close for your bill I am closed and I'd like to make a motion to pass I have a motion to pass all in favor say aye. It does say no regulations you've passed your bill. Mr like to go three for three of the bill okay with you yes Sir you may proceed yes Sir thank you before begin I'd like to request Adam Jackson an assistant Attorney General on the AG's office join me here at the table to provide his expertise and insight on the legal implications of this bill. Sixteen forty seven. And I believe this is HB sixteen forty seven twenty sixteen forty seven yes Sir thank you. You may proceed with your testimony thank you honor to present this bill this is a bill that addresses a sensitive and serious issue that requires what I believe to be our media attention I understand this is not the typical committee that would hear build this nature but I'm grateful for the opportunity to present this vital piece of legislation to you House Bill sixteen forty seven to create the offense of offensive relations with the child seeks to create a new criminal offense in Arkansas that specifically addresses inappropriate behavior towards children the bill defines offensive relations as an adult twenty one years of all or older knowingly placing one's open mouth on the open mouth of a. She's been on the mouth of a thirteen year old child or younger with the purpose of enticement or inducement to engage sexual intercourse deviate sexual activity or sexual contact as defined defined in the Code five dash fourteen dash one one under this bill individuals who engage in offensive relations with the child would face a Class a misdemeanor charge it's important to note that this bill does not replace existing laws related to sexual assault or abuse of minors instead it seeks to provide addition an additional tool for law enforcement and prosecutors told offenders accountable for their actions this issue was originally brought to me by Van Buren police department detective detective Jay Baker Crawford County sheriff Daniel Perry in Crawford County prosecuting attorney Kevin Holmes they discovered a gap in our law when they were unable to adequately charge. And forgive me for the graphic nature of this but a thirty four year old who was caught open mouth kissing a thirteen year old child and the second similar a similar case that came out of the sheriff's office. It is concerning that we don't have a strong statute for this offense and although it is rare but there's no further sexual contact in the counter such as this one is still alarming enough that we should address this legislatively this behavior is taking advantage of children who are believed to be most likely most vulnerable it's crucial that we provide them with the necessary protections against any form of inappropriate conduct I believe that house bill sixteen forty seven will play a crucial role in protecting our children but making it clear that any form of inappropriate conduct towards a child is absolutely unacceptable I'd also like to add that the Arkansas sheriff's association supports this bill and I urge each of you to join in making our state a safer place for children thank you for your time and attention and we're glad to answer any questions at this time. Thank you I believe we do have a I have some questions by the committee represent Eads you're recognized for a question thank you just curious appreciated but why did this not go to do just Judiciary Committee I was just informed that this is a committee led on I had no vote in that matter so to speak. It. Any other questions by the committee. Seeing no questions I see some discussion no questions at this time We have no one else who signed up to speak on behalf of the bill I don't know if if you if your guests want to present any testimony or not but certainly that's up to you. Adam Jackson assistant Attorney General state of Arkansas criminal division. A representative road nailed it that's that's the purpose of this bill I do want to make sure it's it's clear this is not designed to catch you know everybody's you know great aunt who shows up at thanksgiving and just you know kisses all the way around the room this isn't designed to get that this bill is actually designed a lot more like the grooming statute so it's there to the the person is kissing for the purpose to lead to other types of contact and that that's what that's the the card the the behavior that this bill is designed to catch. Thank you for testimony any questions he does that okay representative flowers recognized for a question. It sounds like a great deal to me I just want to make sure I mean what that has there been any opposition and the other I guess the other maybe concerned. Is it. In terms of implementing something like this. I didn't grow up in a house or we kissed on the mouth. But some people do. So. I don't know how how do we deal with that you know I mean some people culturally show affection differently and I know that said open now so let me jump into it in the follow up if I don't hit on the head so to speak like to let Mr Jackson respond to this as well I would say that the again in the nature of this where this was derived from was that there or just in my community and I'm sure and others sadly that there were instances of this and there was not a criminal offense that could be charged to a thirty four year old adult. Open mouth kissing a thirteen year old child this is not a family occurrence in there some language in the bill that specifically protects family members who show affection on a regular basis in a perfectly acceptable way may be different from how you or I may do that but I wanna let Mr Jackson address that one more time. Okay this is kind of what I was it getting it before is you're looking at like Bonnie is this con why is this open mouth contact occurring and it's for the purpose to entice induce or other the other person to engage in sexual intercourse deviate sexual activity or sexual contact now that is it is based on the context of the situation you know it is somebody's relative that comes up and just you know goes around the table thanksgiving you know we're when when they send. It's obvious from context this is they're not trying to engage in some kind of further sexual contact but how you go about proving something like this and I think that may be what you're you're asking represent flowers have you go about proving it it's much similar to proving gratification you look at the contacts are there have there been text messages exchanged back and forth have the been Facebook messages has there been you know any other signs of romantic asked type contact that may not amount to actual a sexual contact which has it has a clear definition in the law but you look at the the context and of the whole the whole big picture about what's going on and that's how you determine what whether this is just some innocent conduct or it's attempting to allude to something more or is a pre loop to something or should I say. Last thing I say real quick before follow up is currently there's just not a crime that you can charge and we discussed there may be but I'm not very strong chance that you could potentially pursue endangering the welfare of a minor and not necessarily very likely in that course where is this would stop somebody from being around free and do this and not have any consequences. My the only thing that I see as a concern and yeah I'm looking at this through the lens of my previous service on the Judiciary Committee and I say I'm not a lawyer to send dangerous and. What I think I know but there the part of the bill that Says it is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor does not know the age of the child or believes the child is fourteen years of age or older. So certainly in this circumstance that you just mentioned about a thirty five year old kid Senate thirteen euro like I don't care if they're related or not I like this. But when I think about circumstances where we're talking about twenty one or older and you know when young people are out partying at clubs and now you know I just remember. Being. You know. A teenager and wanting to go to parties where they're older boys and I mean I wasn't a girl who's always trying trying to date somebody twenty one but their work and you know when you have thirteen year old girls who don't look thirteen year old thirteen. I'm concerned about the circumstances where there's. A twenty one year old kid who's out at a party and he thinks he's talking to a sixteen year old which some people think is inappropriate however just understanding the culture of young people now you have parents who are pissed that you know their daughter was out kissing a boy at a party. That boy didn't know she was thirteen I just think this opens the door to a circumstance where a young boy might think he's dealing with the teenager. Parents are test that parent might have more power more money than the other and now this kid is in college or working and now he's a felon. That's the only thing that concerns me about this and I'm wondering if there's something that can be done to fix that because often times I would say you know sometimes that can be used for this and I don't think that's anything anybody here wants that's the only concern I have all the for the Mr Jackson on this but before I do this state officials a misdemeanor so that would be a felon and secondly I believe this is going to be in line with language kind of across the board and other offenses yes the when we were originally looking at this offense and trying to figure out okay how to structure this and where to put it one of the things we looked at a lot was. This is a pre lead to something else much the way grooming is and so we were looking over there how grooming is structured and grooming if anybody's going to look it up is five twenty seven three of seven subsection II of that is that contains the same language the we're looking at here NO all understand you know grooming is a. Yes ma'am I thought this is a felony when I read sexual intercourse deviate sexual activity I thought it was a felony if it's a misdemeanor office. Thank you. Is a great question now presented now reiterate what I said yesterday really should consider Law School. Richey Richmond you have a question. Yes you just talking about grooming. It. Is it is almost identical to what they grooming law is already. with with grooming we can only flip back over to it grooming really involves disseminating some kind of visual or print medium to the child's for the purpose of this other contact this is what this is for you know to lead to that other contact so it it wouldn't fall under grooming because they're not changing any kind of like pictures or imagery. When one of the questions I just had. At the end of the bill of one page what is it to. Where you have a actor does not know the age of the child or believes the child is fourteen years of age or older yes I remember this subsection of the language in that one Judiciary means that we have is this a place where that should have known. May fall in instead of believe the child to be forty. Someone that representative Collins had yesterday yes yeah cat Because I know we we debated this before about this language in the the. The reasonable notice it is essentially read into the statute and I'm not trying to any I just wanna make sure it's all of this I mean I'm I'm in favor of the bill I just want to. Make sure you know that that is very valid consideration I don't know if that's something that you would. What you want to. Just a representative Richardson That I believe to speak with Mister Jackson that that be something that we should do and I would commit to having it amended on the Senate side if you if you to agree with that. Yeah. What I'm asking with. Page they have believes the child is fourteen years of age we just had a another bill yesterday Judiciary where the language type ended up with a should have known it is asking them what they will want to add that to tighten it up Sir is no. Yeah that's all. Honestly I think what we can do Mr chairman we were anticipating coming back after session this afternoon is that correct. yes certainly yes what I like to do is get that. Amendment done and then at it and have that pass along with this this afternoon. That's good in there so there's another issue with the check on out we have a member separates questions about why this ended up here so we're gonna find that out also but I think that's good that that's that's appropriate you can withdraw from now and then we're going to meet after which are today so thank you thank you thank you Committee. Members if you will if if you will indulge me I'd like to ask to take a five minute recess so that we have a couple members waiting on some amendments in order once more bills and then but will break for lunch take five minutes. Members we're gonna go back on the record and proceed with some more bills appreciate that the accommodation we're trying to get through as many bills as we can quickly today representative payees motion you're going to sit in frankly for me and run SB four eighteen which it's a it's office Senate bill put Senator Dismang sat correct that is correct Mister chairman okay would you like to have but it someone come to the table with you they're here if we need to okay thank you if you would just go and proceed with your bill I appreciate Mister chairman committee Senate bill for eighteen is a commerce bill it's came out of the Senate thirty four zero so it's it's kind of agreed upon language it's transferring the administrative functions of the security department to the bank Department. So us. That's really you know we're we're downsizing shall we say are consolidating is a is a good way to put that not really downsizing but consolidating functions. Okay thank you I have a question for reserve would. What's the driving force behind this. I will ask by expert witness to the table the. Get season Marshall Arkansas bank commission Arkansas State Bank department represent written at as I have represented a what initiated that this was a commerce bill but it is to align to agencies that have oftentimes a lot of crossover in our industries to those in those individual IT industries are becoming more combined themselves and this is consistent with how many other states to reconcile its just to achieve efficiency where possible. Thank you yes you Mr thank you employed in any other questions about the committee. Okay saying none. There is no one signed up to speak on this bill either for or against but there's anyone out to like to okay saying no one representative Perry would you like to close your bill I'm closed not make a motion to pass okay we have a motion do pass by waves of Perry all in favor say aye. Imposts NO. Regulations you've passed your bill thank you Mr chairman thank. Thank you. Colleagues which have one housekeeping matter before we break for lunch it we had a ruling from the parliamentarian and who unfortunately representive roses bill was not to be placed here it was just a mistake so that's going to have to be transferred to Judiciary and apologized over the road and for the others on that puts my understanding accommodations can be made to make certain that you can run your bill runs so. With that we will break for lunch and will see ten minutes upon adjournment.