Insurance & Commerce - Senate

Five Lima starting next a next Thursday with this bill the stuff coming coming through so get started they will still kinda kind of call me. Senate Murdoch's NO you want to add those to okay Senator Penzo you're free to present your bill SB two oh five thank you Mr chair and I have a Casper you are here with me to help present building okay no by having introduced himself for the record. my name's Casper he were. Without restore paragraphs in table Arkansas thank you okay center console. I appreciate your let me step in here and speak in support of a single till five today. Our firm Assisted in preparation this bill as a result of difficulty in in recent years and and getting filings with the Secretary of State process in a timely manner this bill would change the standard used to determine the name availability of filings with the Secretary of State we hope that it simplifies it and makes it easier on the secretary of state to determine when a name is available and allows our clients and and residents of Arkansas to get their filings process in a in a timely manner. Currently the the standards used by the Secretary of State to determine the availability of the name are distinguishable and confusingly similar. This bill would remove confusingly similar as one of the standard used to determine the availability of the name. as a result of the the current standards the Secretary of State developed a a twenty eight factor test that's available on the website. And when trying to apply this test in my in my own practice I get way more rejections that I get acceptance at least on the first filing and you know we work with them to to try to find names that work but the the search function on the the website isn't set up in a way that allows residents to or Arkansas residents to search to determine whether name is available and so what ends up happening is we file and wait three to five days and receive a rejection and then re file with a different name wait three to five days receive another rejection and and that process continues until a name is is accepted and those results when clients are needing an entity formed in a timely manner either to meet a transaction deadline or tax deadline a lot of times we are able to meet those deadlines because we can't get the entity set up in a timely manner. So the the aim of this bill is to simplify the the standard used in make it easier on the secretary of state to determine that availability of the name there's only five factors that would cause a name to be not distinguishable under the revised standard. Would you windows up actors sure the first as a suffix. the second is a definite or indefinite article a in in the. The word and and the ampersand symbol. Singular plural or possessive form of a word and then a punctuation mark or simple. Those are the five factors that that would not cause the name to be distinguishable from another name. Thank you any questions give me Senator Hickey yes is is this the same this in the same version as it was before did we amend this at all with anything incorporated into this it is the same version was previously okay or did I talk to you on the phone you actually spoke to one of his partners okay all right I thought we were going to try to get an amendment they came back I think you know with something about. Well boulder or something like that also because if anything was boulder well I think we were trying to come up with language at all of course you know I get to get a lot going and somebody sent me an email there might be eight hundred behind on those but thank you I think the from speaking correctly I think there was some initial concerns on boulder but I think there's already something in statute was my understanding from secretary St that it that would handle okay it's there is no need to add that to it and then I thought at one time that we said that we we were considering some language that in the end that the secretary of state or whoever could have you know that I would strive towards the east and I understand that we're trying to put a definite but in the event and I'll use you center Penzo I think the thing was in talking with the whoever was in your office what was a gentleman's name Denny woods yes this was you know that you know I was was trying to go through this and I say you know Penzo roofing you know if somebody comes in in his area from the same same place is going to be the registered agent if they want to just have a business called C. Penzo roofing that's going to be allowed according to the way you all have this and personally you know what I. And I'm and I'm always a sticker that would try to have everything exact in the laid out but you know I'm not for sure that this is this is not the case so that you shouldn't give some discretion to the secretary of state's office in the and you know even if there was some type of appeals process I mean it's just seems like to me that there's going to be some unintended consequences right here that we could run into but I guess I guess what I would say that you know you could you probably can't buy Penzo roofing dot com is a domain name but you could by see Penzo dot com see Penzo roofing you get you can't lock down every domain name unless you acquire and so I would kind of say the you know it's kind of the same type of deal I mean there's there's no way to protect the name without copywriting inter trademarking enter so you'd be OK of somebody in your area do that I mean I I wouldn't like it but I mean there's and I wouldn't want to miss the process of to where it was so sticky that people can't get names and multiple rejections and takes month or two to get getting approval from the secretary of state I mean I just think that's sure burdensome and I mean I do agree that we've got I'm not disagreeing with you that you know that it's not to. Not hard to find a name I've done that before with some of some of my stuff I understand all that is just you know we're we're being so specific right here that I just I think that we could run into some issues but again. That's where I'm at thank you thank you. Centroid. Right. Any other questions on the bill. Seeing none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. sing NO one what's the will of committee motion to pass hello motion. I have a second centreboard. All in favor say aye opposed same sign. As set. The Bill pass. Thank you Mr. Senator Irvin I just received a Texas at your we run a bill one seventy eight. Senator you're free to present your bill. Okay Mister chair thank you number says she has some handouts that we need your approval if it's okay for the membership. Thank you. And members I'm gonna let them primarily talk about this bill and senator Hammer words with a a number of people on this on this issue of creating this psychiatric collaborative care model I've I think it's really important policy to. To to really costs I think fill in any gaps or missing pieces so that people are able to really get exactly what they need when it relates to these these types of issues so I know there's there's been a lot of work done on this with the folks from the medical society is as well as a lot of others so I'm going to just go ahead let them describe to you the bill please introduce yourself for the record. I'm Patti Gibson and I'm a physician a psychiatrist the president elect for the Arkansas psychiatric society. And I want to speak sorry. About this bill it seems deceptively small and a small factor in terms of all the things that you all are doing right now with education but I want to stress that this is an important of bill to pass and I can explain any of the details about the what collaborative care management is but I really want to point you to first page this this handout that I've got that has highlights the highlights you could just scan through there and see what would be the benefits of a passing this bill and basically this bill is to require Medicaid and all insurance payers to pay for this type of care Medicare Blue Cross and many commercial payers already pay for this and the reason that we we think this is important is what this does is it increases access to mental health care we don't have enough psychiatrists or counsellors and this is a way to bring access to mental health care into primary care there's also on the last two pages five and six of the same handout. it gives you some of the financial benefits on the first hand there is a cost whenever there's a service done there's a cost for that service in the greater value for this bill and this type of care is that it is been shown to save money six dollars for every dollar invested. Particularly because and if you look at at the bottom this bar graph. The the seventy percent of our healthcare dollars are spent on ten percent of the population and five percent of those are people who have a behavioral health problem. And because there's not enough access to psychiatry and mental health people don't get care and so Medicaid and other payers are having to pay for the care overall care of that patient so in the long run this is going to save the state and save Medicaid money but the most important reason to pass this bill is to provide access to mental health care of right now in this state there are sixty four child and adolescent psychiatrist that's only nine for every one hundred thousand students so as you all are working really hard to improve the education system right now there studies are showing that forty to fifty percent of use our report anxiety and depression. And then they're trying to go to school and then you talk about their parents have an anxiety and depression and then the teachers so what this does is it provides a way for primary care providers family physicians pediatricians OBGYN to be able to take care of patients in their office because it gives them a care manager who's trained in behavioral health who has a psychiatrist to supporting them as a psychiatrist in private practice full time I would take care of about three hundred patients in this model I could supervise up to ten care managers that would be able to in each care manager could support us three thousand patients like a primary care doctor with a thousand patients so as a psychiatrist I could supervise an impact the care of thirty thousand patients I wouldn't see them all but we would have a care manager and a primary care provider pediatrician who would be doing the assessment and then it would be up the complete psychiatric consulting either psychiatrists psychiatric nurse practitioner or PA would be consulting on all these cases. It provides access would quickly within a couple of days to a couple weeks as opposed to waiting if a pediatrician sees a patient who needs they think needs mental health care if you they try to refer them to a psychiatrist or counselor is going to take weeks to months to see someone so I just wanted to encourage you to pass this bill it makes sense financially but also in the big picture it it gives access to mental health care which is going to continue to be a struggle and I'm glad to answer any specific questions about how the models done or or anything else. My first question to you is if there's already a shortage of these numbers that you're referring to all the houses going to benefit if we need more of a. The what why we're not trying to take care of that problem we're kind of more of those doctors into the system your exact we are trying to get more of those kind of doctors in you'll see even in Arkansas there's several new psychiatry residency training programs so this bill doesn't stand alone it certainly this type of treatment it's along the continuum of care and what it does is it brings It's kind of a levels of care so if the pediatrician or the family dhaxeysa patient then they can do an assessment like right now it is supposed to be the standard of care that every use has anxiety screening done in primary care but a pediatrician or family doctor don't want to screen because they don't have anywhere to send the patient or they're not sure what to do because they don't have the mental health training we still need the mental health training but what we need to do is to give some support and to be able to to take care of those who may not need to see a specialist because a lot of people can get care in primary care and don't need to wait the three months or six months to see a psychiatrist so it's both it's it's both in. Senator Boyd then Dismang. Thank you Mr chair so you're right about education and what you know that that's going to cost but the next thing on the agenda is what we're going to do with public safety and so I just was curious if you had any insight into how many people might be incarcerated that you know somehow wound up in the path of prisons versus health care and how this might impact that yeah. Fan fantastic and if you look at page two this table is from a recent report last year that was improving behavioral health care for youth and collaborative care expansion and what this table points out is that mental health problems Sturch in kids and you can see anxiety disorders usually start by age eleven post traumatic stress disorder starts by twenty three bipolar schizophrenia so what happens it's with any disease if you can treat it sooner best thing is to prevent it but if you can treat it sooner then there's less consequences just like treating heart disease or diabetes and unfortunately one the consequences of mental health problems our incarceration or crime and dysfunctional behaviors incarceration and unfold once they get to the stage of incarceration I don't have the statistics on that but we could get that for you if you need but there is a huge percentage of people use juvenile adults who have a mental health problem if we could have gotten help sooner so this program it is to treat adults but it will specially make a big impact on the Houston those who are transitioning to adulthood like eighteen to twenty five. See Senator Dismang. Okay. What would have Hickey Senator Hickey. I guess some of read this bill alone. Course on page to appear on line twenty it says that the insurance health care insurance shall provide these reimbursements and then we go over here on page three. And basically. We say that they can't cap it in any way shape or fashion is that the way I'm reading that or my reading that wrong because it says the care for this shall not. Place a limitation. They should not place a limitation on it they can't do anything as far as the number of visits or any of that is that the way we that what written this the reason why I believe it's written like that is to allow The broadest the use of these because what we've seen and we research what's happened in other states and what we've seen and there's these codes there's only three codes. And what's happened in some states is they'll say we approve these codes but you can only bill bill them to price or you can only bill them for four months but what's been shown in other states and in you know right now Blue Cross is paying for these in the state and other players or is that if the care is allowed it's not the kind of Care that will escalate just you know indefinitely well. Thank you seven. I'm not saying I mean I understand the need for this type stuff was just whenever you say that it shall not then you're not going to place a benefit limitation or cal a cap on the amount of time number of units or the amount of reimbursement for care I mean that's just discuss a limit the way I see this. Yes and no I'm not I'm not familiar with the and then minutes I'm running this for Senator Hammer so I want to get all the questions asked or answered as much as possible and then we can hold the bill that's fine with me because there is a Medicaid impact to it and we need to understand that fully so I'm very happy for us to have those answers to those questions thank you centreboard. Thank you Mr chair this is a follow up to the last question I asked that I kind of want to bring up so the other issue that and other certain parts of the state we have an issue of homelessness I mean in your practice do you find homelessness a choice verses it's an issue of mental health issues and would how might this impact that issue. As a psychiatrist when you say choice you know that's the ethical the ethical thing but very few people are going to choose who who have full mental health capacity are going to choose to be homeless so the reason why I say it's ethical that we treat a lot of people who have schizophrenia chronic mental illness and we will try to get them a place to be but they choose to not take their medicine they choose to be homeless but yes mental illness is a huge factor in homelessness and especially I keep going back to the use but if you can help people to be able to get their education and get training and to function well young then they're less likely to end up homeless or in the juvenile system or in the adult incarceration system. Senator Johnson. Okay who is employed. So just then follow up to that question and and the other one so when we're looking at what things might cost and we put them in buckets over here even though it might be hard to quantify the cost to public safety. But there is a clear in your practice you would see there's a clear cut correlation between public safety and what we might spend their and this cost here for Medicaid definitely so public safety and then the other thing for Medicaid if you look at that that table on page five. This is long term cost savings what this is showing is that there is evidence based research that showed that when they invested one dollar and it's the impact program cost intervention group cost what they found was that they save six dollars for every dollar on inpatient medical costs not inpatient psychiatric cost treating people required fewer inpatient hospitalizations for treating their physical health problems and so that's where the savings comes is a little bit of cost on paying for the mental health treatment and access but the savings in so if you're thinking of Medicaid or the state budget it's that you're paying for all of the the physical health cost through going to into the hospital into the ER but it's been shown that if people's mental health can be treated they're less likely to go to the ER inappropriately less likely to stop taking their medicines that they're so their physical health is better and so that's why I'm saying in terms of cost savings over all that there is a benefit to to the state and to any budget and you can see that Blue Cross is already evaluated that in terms of on the last page of what they saw is that when they began to treat their members and they have more programs that they're responsible for the patients when they begin to treat their members after six months the total cost of care for those patients went down so Blue Cross across the country is highly invested in these programs and the reason why that happens is the table at the top of the of that page six that whenever like let's just say you take a as mom if somebody has asthma and a behavioral health problem. The cost to take care of them is a hundred and forty one percent more. And so that adds up especially when your talking about the whole Medicaid population. Senator John. Thank you Mr chairman And I'm of Senator Rapert J. you're willing to accept questions even if you don't have an answer today but you can get this one up follow up on what Senator Hickey said about on page two I'm sorry Page three line six seven eight. I'm concerned when you don't have some kind of limitation cap but if I read this I could be somewhat mollified if you tell me that while this is saying in any month. You might have a whole lot of intensive interventions and expense in one month. But that keeps him from limiting what can happen in that particular month but is there a possibility to have some overall caps because I while I appreciate the fact that this help is needed by many people we just can't write a blank check for every single patient in the state of Arkansas we are still a balance budget state yeah can you get in and yes I will whether or not yes there could be up up for patient or yes and your some of that gap we'll do our thank you very much thank you yes. Any other questions. What are we gonna get to ensure the agency are they going to weigh in on this also if you wanna come up or we will I would like to I want to hear I want to hear their take on the sale so that would be H. yes but we do have THSR as well Sir school at the age is referred to Senate is mainly. And please identify yourself for the record. Good morning I'm Elizabeth payment of the director for the Division of Medical Services. Good morning I'm Paula stone I work with the Department of Human Services behavioral health services. Hi thank you and and I do want to talk to Blue Cross blue shield says they're going to vote a couple different times and then also I want to make sure I understand if they are limiting of the state what impact that has on page six okay but just specifically in the I think we're running a tight budget it's getting tighter with more this being added elsewhere have you all prepped this year budget my understanding is the request maybe the dollar held flat this year if your help flat addy absorbent or we just eating into the reserve to be able to pay for this is it it does look like there's potential substantial increase in expenditure for it right here the sixty one and that sort of thing was it something else took into account is it not quantifiable and that's reason it wasn't taking to get kind of what what is perspective from DHS about the program in affordability long term sure and I'll start with the answer the questions around our budget yes my understanding is we are being held flat this year I'm sorry your we are asked to remain flat with our budget we do have a reserve and I trust fund balance anything that increases our budget eats into that trust but balance faster right now I think we're protecting it and in twenty twenty six the more budget increases the faster that goes away and we have a shortfall in Medicaid now we do X. anticipate some savings often being able to do the PhD on lines but that's very hard to quantify right now just because we don't know if we're gonna lose fifteen to thirty percent of the population and that's fairly significant so will you know will know more about that after that six month PGN one period and what we're really looking at it right now based on our forecasting we anticipate that trust fund balance being gone by around twenty twenty six and like I said anything that increases our budget. At shortens that time frame. Whatever that might end up being in in so this then specifically for the program would increase your manager decrease that balance you know making twenty twenty six arrive sooner correct okay and we did do initial impacts based on limits we we used some modeling based off at their Medicaid states and using the rates that they pay and the limits that they have in place and and I would have been the first fiscal impact and submitted when they did the amendment to know how to pardon me I didn't know this was running so it's on my phone and tiny give me a second to look at it and. But. We did a range of anywhere from ten thousand clients using at two hundred and thirty five thousand clients using it because without any age limits it could be any one of our clients and and it ranges from a state general revenue impact as anywhere from about three million to about forty million dollars depending on how many people take it out so it is very hard to quantify we landed right in the middle there with about twenty million with about fifty percent I take. Okay in in so that twenty million that's the stage here yes that's a stage and gross that up and we're spending as seventy two point four billion total in total. is the anticipated range or cost that's mid range yes that's midrange. Okay immune so to the caps on services and we've had issues in the past in mental health when there was a caps yes in in in that it is pretty good and I think it that the patients also that we'll what what is your thought on that looks like amended legislation is a downsized on those the the removal law caps for the program. So I'm gonna differs to Paulette stone missed on is the clinician here I'm that administrator seventy different cost. So I think when we look at the population we want to make sure that we are targeting the population that is not a high need to have a whole population that population is the population will go into that pass and so we know that they have those high needs and they have care coordination and those things is that what we looked at was the population outside of the pass which is our Medicaid population that's that's not being served elsewhere and so you know I think there's a couple of important things there is is one is the age range for for that those services and availability of those services and and I think the second thing is the existing program so one of the things that we did for behavioral health We have a new policy where physicians are able to hire we have a health clinicians to provide counseling services so we we have that is new that was January first and so the care coordination that would be provided here could link to services I think you know one of the things we want to do you know back to doctor Gibson's testimony as them quicker you can access people can access services and get those services and get stabilized the lesser gonna see expenditures in the long term but we also wanted to look to see how we can link this and with our existing programs one of those being the PCMH program so we're already paying physicians in some ways for some services or some range of services that include care coordination and so how could we use these programs we also have some work going on with the association of pediatric positions for very young children using another model very similar to this but release guild for young children and their parents and so we really want to look at how can we link all of these programs together to make it seem less and so we're not creating separate programs for separate populations for duplicating anything that's going on currently the PCMH program were already having expenditures. So let me just jump in here because I'm not gonna house for a vote we're not going to say that what this this really is a way to highlight in my opinion and one of the reasons I wanted to have this discussion today it was to have this full discussion about the Medicaid budget and how we have to look at this impact that's happening within Medicaid given everything else we have going on but the ability for us as a state to really focus in on the Medicaid program in its entirety and look at the sustainability of the program what we're doing now versus what might be happening in other states and where those changes may be made we just can't do that during the session it's going to really take us at least I think a six month review of Medicaid and so I think it's important to have these discussions and then you have us be able to do that more intensive review and that work. And I'm not so part of the reason why we're having this discussion today. I'm not so some women be done discussing it's my question though is but everything this bill do you have the latitude latitude to do without this bill that sounds like that may be partially re read it anyway. I would agree with that yes I think we can we have the authorization to provide behavioral health services we've been meeting with Afghan and with the American pediatric I can't remember their name but the Arkansas chapter of the American pediatric association to try to put these things in place in a cost effective way that builds awesome value based and outcome based programs okay thank you. Senator Boyd. Thank you Mr so just how many come to understand how the most my questions were answered with Senator Dismang but. Thank you back to the past program help me understand how this intersects with the past program and. So for people that have behavioral health concerns that are not do not cause the as serious functional deficits then we can have them be treated through programs like this one and through outpatient counseling medication management that can be done either by a primary care physician or by psychiatrists and so our ideal is to make sure that those people get treated quickly assess quickly and and get those services in place. If they need more than those services that they need some services that are more home community based type services delivered them what could happen there is then that that positions could make a referral for that assessment and then they can go into the past so we we have that population is being served there that has a high need so long term needs around their diagnosis of mental health condition. Thank you have a I've got a question for you as well as single the back on what Senate is manning said just wanna go if you already have the latitude to do what this bill requires why we're running it. That's a question that senator Hammer would have to answer okay thank you sorry I mean I. I'm just thank you for the question but okay I understand. Senator Dismang you want someone from the insurance commission's a corrector. Okay Blue Cross blue shield okay thank you very much ladies. The reason why this bill is being run through is that what it is you're selling record of this doctor Patty Gibson this bill adds access to a psychiatrist Medicaid has been working hard to get integrated behavioral health counselors at this point there's not a way to have a psychiatric consultant as part of primary care but this bill would add to it and so that's what we were trying to do is to bring in the psychiatric consultant which most physicians are going to want of information consultation with a psychiatrist or psychiatric provider to prescribe meds and make diagnoses we definitely need to therapists and at the VA when we were doing this we called it a blended program you had this psychiatrists CEOs CM and then you had a therapist who is also in the clinic so to do both so this bill is adding something that won't be provided nam I'm sorry I probably just haven't you know explained that well enough. Thank you ms Gibson. Any other questions. Thank thank you very much I guess we'll as for Blue Cross next. Is anyone here from across. I'm not sure of my screen what is here or not but. I mean if she's not here we're not going to ask for a vote today so right. Okay that that's fine and is there anyone else I have. Okay all. That's fine. Thank you Mr chairman three general counsel of the Senate discussion I'll be glad to ask all of our private carriers what rate impact this may have on private rates just as soon as I get out of committee we have not asked for that information in the private commercial market as opposed Medicaid I think there's a concern over the fact that there's no limitations utilization Senator Hickey indicated what sort of cost impact that might have I do not know the answer before find out for you try to get back to you as quick as possible Senator Dismang in just make sure I understand we're talking about the state cost are we taking into account the A. R. home population two that's in a BlueCross BlueShield plan or one of the I would include that in my act I will conclude that my request your survey to care because it may be a greater state impact and what we've got reflect on the creaci okay. There if you can just just. Granted no my thing whenever you're you're talking with them and I don't know if you've got a copy this handout I would hope that we would if you could to get that because again at the back it shows that there may be a point you know I guess my thing is is is at what point should be cap to be done and what those should be done we do get those diminishing returns or whatever's right decision that I think we all understand there will be a an impact but some of these handout salute allude to the fact that you know is going to save money I guess we just. I will I want us to delve into the deeper okay also just to add while you're sitting at the table because I've request as to if they're already doing this we would need to know that information because there may be a good reason why they're already doing it that maybe we need to review and consider as well right. Okay thank you thank you is there anyone else Committee needs. So we're going to pull down. S. B. one seventy eight for the time being. Senator Ricky you're here to present HB thirteen sixty. Thank you Mr chairman members. Start with the committee have brought with me the world's greatest lecture shin. Go ahead Sir. This is a very simple bill that simply expands the ability of residential additions to go from being able to wire a single family and duplex is to try places and four plexus according to the world's greatest logician it's the same thing. And and I would I would I would be remiss if I did not allow him to express his support for this bill. You. Representative Richard. Thank you committee and representative Richard McGrew actually this week it's eighty spans it but there's two classifications under elect Alaskans one is a full commercial and one is residential the full commercial allows you to do anything and they left school the residential limit you to residential is I had understood in the by years of practice which for many that that means that the residential master Richard German could do anything as long as it was residential I had a constituent that called me and said that he was wearing a quadruplex exactly to duplexes side by side but they were connected by roof with carports so therefore is classified as a quadriplegic and he was stopped from wiring and I said that's not right let me check I called two different contractors they said no you can do anything residential I call this the chief electoral inspector and questioned him he said well that's kind of the way we're doing it but technically the definition is that they can only do single family and duplex is so I ask him if he had any trouble with me changing that definition he said he didn't relating contacted policy contact me back and said there was no problem. In the in in putting the bill together the attorney Dan Parker with the flattening board asked me to to add that bottom lands that clarifies dwelling means a building or other structure used exclusively for residential purposes so they didn't have any trouble with the bill to me it's something that we've already been doing it just clarifies a mistake that's in there to make it clear okay thank you any questions for. Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman and senator McCain representative group. I was absolutely cool with that too you said one last thing at the end and I want to make sure I brought on this strictly residential however we passed legislation two years ago to encourage home based businesses and which should have nothing to do with like do you need a you know a hundred amp service for that home because of whatever but I just wanna make sure this wouldn't affect what we would use to call a quiet home business it's not as owning issue this is about this is a residential structure I know exactly what you're talking about I agree with the intent of the bill and if you got to buy two units that's no different than the larger single family all from electrical standpoint my brother was elektrische and I learned more about it than everyone remember from him but am I seeing that correctly that this would shouldn't do anything to affect what we did to encourage home based businesses it's my understanding you would not The classification when you go above a quadruplex then it becomes a commercial building and so that would be classified commercial would require a commercial license okay but anything residential would not I think it's a good bill I just want to kind of touch on that because I don't want to do anything that could be construed say well because this is a. Four plex you can have a. Senate in business or something like that in your house no that should that should not affect it's a residential structure thank you representative will grow thank you Mr sentry. What a to give representative coming Senator Johnson credit there. What I'm going to. I agree with what you're trying to do but on line twelve right there we use at work exclusively. Maybe it should be primary just make a hundred percent sure. Because whenever you say exclusively. That does seem to go on with what Senator Johnson is saying that that somebody could say no if there's any type of home based business or anything else in there if that's not exclusively for residential purposes so I understand what you're saying my argument would be that when the building is being built it's being built for residential purposes to residential specs and by residential standards if somebody comes along later than that that's when the building is being wired and that's when the electricians can be involved if if somebody comes along later and turns it into a business that doesn't affect the initial wiring and where this bill would would would apply and I would agree but I I do not mind pulling it back and make amendment. That's what we have so really we're just talking about new construction here what I thought we were talking about maybe limitless a resident Germany needs repair repair maintenance renovation and the other issue I have it again. I understand a more than a more than that's good with your bill or on here you have we say after structure we have used we don't say originally built we have used exclusively so. Agar Agari I didn't see that that way but we've got some inspectors out there that are very so I think changing that education due primarily would be a good exception and I'm willing to put that down and make them in me with the committee's per will pull this back and make some changes as I think Senator just another question that's okay more of a comment this bill is here because you all had some feedback that was nitpicking in my opinion it's a good bill because of this and that make it but I think Senator Hickey United wanting just to to take that and it just a little bit more and make it unquestionably that the inspectors can't come down on some one doing this work such a great bill and I think that will minor change would make it I'd say any bills perfect but more perfect that more perfect union we're all working for thank you thank you Mr thank my. But in the just for clarification even if that changes made. I thank the city's at least right now it doesn't matter what the what what the law says on which can again not do and who's allowed to do what on their own yeah that's they're making that determination at the city level right of an inspector has that latitude I was tell you regardless of how you word this or change this or in home office whatever it may be they're they're exercising that authority right now it's I think you're looking at a deeper conversation of do we take away so the authority that we've given to an you know. Folks on the city level. I can tell you the definition for contractor between little rock and north rocky Stassi different. Yes Sir. So. Senate is bank thank you. Does that mean you want to continue running it you want full. This is my question for you I can say this did happen because one inspector. In his study and found that in a definition throughout the rest of the state a residential wireman could do residential wiring it was one inspector that. My word you're doin. Okay we'll we'll we'll just make some changes and come back thank you okay so we real cool H. B. thirteen sixty four Amendment. Thank you thank you. That being said I see no one else here to running bills today we stand adjourned.