ALC-Administrative Rules

Order. One remind anyone that wishes to comment on a rule to go ahead and get signed in and just be sure that you specify on which route you want to comment we're gonna be taking up that she momentarily I to be we have no reports from the executive subcommittee this month. And take this item C.. This month we have one report your packet from A. L. C. medical marijuana oversight subcommittee which review the medical marijuana commission's rules governing the licensure of medical marijuana cultivation facilities processors and dispensaries we will take up those rules under item D. today are there any questions on this item. I sing on without objection this report will be filed. Not take this along to item D. the agency rules members just a couple of things regarding regarding if you'll take a look at I. ninety eight C. please note that in addition to the information concerning this rule in the summary agenda your pack it also contains a revised description of the rule and a copy of the rule reflecting changes that As noted in the summary agenda. And we're gonna go to D. one the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Everyone of you just would introduce yourself for the record you can go and begin presenting a rule. Good morning my name is Angela Sartori and I'm the director of of pipeline safety for the general staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Michael Breckland Arkansas Public Service Commission general staff chief counsel. He would before you start going for your mind a little bit closer we have a little tough time hearing you go ahead again I thank you for. Today we have proposed amendments to the Arkansas gas pipeline code which is a set of rules that governs operators of natural gas pipelines and master meters in the state of Arkansas this is done under the authority of the Arkansas the US department transportation pipeline hazardous materials safety administration which grants authority to states to internally regulated gas pipelines and the operators. When the pipeline hazardous materials safety administration or films a amends their federal rules. States that participate have to mirror those changes are they can be more restrictive but in this case we only made the strict changes that films are required. I believe there's a set of six changes the majority of the changes have to do with regulations governing the use of plastic pipe systems. The transportation of natural gas the revision. At is to improve safety and allow for expanded use of plastic pipe products and has the potential to improve pipeline safety and integrity. There's also a set of changes regarding the maximum allowable operating pressure of natural gas pipelines and more frequent testing and documentation requirements. And there were some small changes to drug testing requirements I am just changed a set of a list of drugs to reference the federal code. And with that rapid take questions are members of any questions on this item. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized thank you Mr chairman yes how much how much of a for all the new changes how much are they going to cost. From my understanding it doesn't have any additional cost because gas operators are are are operating under two sets of regulations the federal side and the state side they've already been operating under these new requirements on the federal side for some time. so there's no new changes and what they have to do none whatsoever not not solely from the state side we we copy the federal changes we did not add any separate certified what about federal side you know what the cost of the federal. I don't have that information I apologize. After all we we are the federal government we pay the taxes it by the federal government so it does cost us just curious as to how much the new changes Mr bojack is put in place. Acosta's. and from from the Arkansas Public Service Commission perspective this does not require any new new staff or or other requirements we were operating under the same staffing requirements and. Essentially the same procedures. Thank you Mr. Thank you senator members any other questions. Ninety nine without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you for coming thank you. Members that takes us to item due to department of agriculture. Arkansas natural resources commission. Morning just introduce yourself for the record you go again. Wait hajj department of agriculture. Chris call closure director natural resources division department of agriculture. The more members what you have before you today we have two rules one rule is or water resource cost share program this is a program we work with conservation districts across the state to work with private landowners when they are trying to meet a resource needs on their properties and so what we're asking for is for what we've done is we've changed just some names of entities in the program as a result of transformation but the other thing that we did was we raise the cap the cap per landowner was twenty five hundred dollars annually with the cost of materials and everything else we really needed to bring that up to about five thousand these this program was established in the ninety so that cost that cost caps really not effective today the other thing that we did is we change the match component this is a hundred percent federally funded we we fund this program there are three nineteen grant program and the under the current rule the land owner has to pay sixty percent the grant to pay forty percent we'd like to reverse that we're at sixty percent grant forty for forty percent landowner and that just allows for flexibility most of these folks that apply won't qualify for equip or some of the other farm bill programs because they may not have enough practices under those programs and be seventy five twenty five so what we want to do is increase participation in that program so I the other program is our wetland riparian tax credit program established back in the nineties really to repair or repair and protect riparian zones and wetlands today most of it is repairing and so on so for example if you have a stream bank erosion in those sorts of things affected property owners if they pay for some of those costs out of their pocket they work with us then they can potentially get a tax credit cap on that tax credits fifty thousand dollars over ten years and claim five thousand dollars a year. but what we're changing in there is again just like the other rules were changing just some names and other things but we are making some emphasis on reduction in settlement because that was the that was the intent and so we did add that to the rules and we're adding a recommendation on streamside corridors that we go from thirty feet to fifty feet it's not mandatory but that's a a general recommendation. With that I'll take any questions that you might have. Sturch thank you the members any questions on this item. Actually any questions on items a or B. saying nine well we'll both consider these rules reviewed and approved thank you very much. Rooms at Texas down to item three department of finance administration medical marijuana commission. Good morning to you would just introduce yourself for the record you can get started with your role Doorly Chandler director of alcoholic beverage control this rule change is to add to the APA procedures into the existing medical marijuana licensing rules provide guidance to the public as to the rulemaking procedures to a clear Tory orders an adjudicative hearings. Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you do you have no right off how many of active investigations you have against of the dispensary center dispensing of medical marijuana secondly we have opened the bi annual the enforcement has opened by annual investigations that are pending and I believe that there are less than five open investigations aside from our standard checks and procedures okay and how many the last time around did you find violations with you member that number or know how many found last time off of the bi annual invest in yes. I would say that we found at least seventy five percent we found minor violations off of the last financials okay or I'll get that from you thank you. You Senator members any other questions on this item. Ninety nine that objection this rule reviewed and approved thank you. Texas members down item for a. I'm of health of the state board of pharmacy. Good morning John you would just introduce yourself for the record and you can begin presenting a rule. Matt Gilmore department health. John currently with Arkansas state board of pharmacy. Thank you Mr chairman this morning we have some proposed changes to rule seven these changes are specific to veterinary needs of compounding there are some federal guidance given that started as a draft earlier in the year and then in August became a permit or a final draft piece that would actually allow pharmacies to help but merry practice by compounding specifically needed medications for those veterinary patients any questions I'll be glad to answer. Our members any questions on this item. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized chairman what drugs we talking about compounding but it's actually an extensive list of potential medications would be needed for emergency use many of the drugs it's not a new drug it's the fact that a specific animal would need it in a different dosage former dosage strength and would be available because this would be for treating everything from dogs to cats to also lizards reptiles birds and other things so it's is not a so that its new drugs but changing existing drugs and being able to compound those in the form needed and provide them to their practice it was previously not allowed by federal rules and so when they open that up we want to be sure pharmacies could as well so these these drugs would not affect horses equine I mean it could also be for equine use yes Sir. All right thank you Mr chairman. Thank you senator members any other questions. Nancy number that objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you John. Thanks is down the department of health state board of examiners of alcoholism and drug abuse counselors. All then we'll just introduce yourself for the record that you can get started with your rule. I'm Carol Moore I am of past president and current board member of the board of examiners state board of examiners of alcoholism and drug abuse counselors. Panel fight board ministry Make him or her know. All right we are here just for one change and our language regarding the continuing ed hours although you know we provide berries we license for very specific training related to substance abuse we wanted to bring the number of hours required down we reduce that to be a similar to other like boards we also included the ability for those that are teaching workshops or publishing journals or articles and serving on a professional leadership role to. We also added and are requesting to add the taking of particular college courses to qualify for those continuing education hours. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized thank you Mr chair I'm over here to your right I believe on the continuing education at thirty hours where do we fit around the states that surround us. It's income it's income good comparison with the surrounding states in regards to this particular type of license okay what is good comparison mean are they hire they lower than us equivalent okay thank you. Did you have any more to add to rule that it. Did not answer any other questions on this rule. Ninety nine without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you. All right we're an item six department Human Services Division of aging adult and behavioral health services. Members rule six a as you can see probably on your agenda has been pulled we're going to six be. Good morning just introduce yourself for the record you present rule good morning J. hill director for aging adult behavior health department of Human Services I rule this morning is to present to you a. Change to deduct my treatment registrant is maintained in the division under the doctor services to allow for a process for removal from the registry for qualified applicants. we have other registries at DHS France we have a child maltreatment registry which also which has a process for name removal we did not prior to with the dog registry we're seeking to make these restaurants congruent with that effort we did receive a few comments public comments from the attorney general's office which we were out able to incorporate into the rule and with that I'm happy to take questions. Members or any questions on this rule. Ninety nine without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you Sir. Our members are down the item seven seven eight apartment Human Services Division of county operations. Good morning to you just to introduce yourself for the record you can begin your rule. Good morning I'm Mary Franklin director of the division of county operations for the Department of Human Services. This first rule is stream was the way that we do child support enforcement referrals in the snap and Medicaid programs basically this rule allows us to. apply section at any case section if the client has not declared a reason for good cause to not cooperate with the child support requirement or if they have just told is that they They don't intend to cooperate we expect this rule to save some money because it reduces before this we had to send all of the referrals to the child support enforcement unit regardless of whether the client it indicated they would cooperate or not so that they would make that final determination this rule allows us to do that and should prevent somebody necessary referrals. With that I'd be happy to take any questions our members you any questions on this item. All right saying nine The will consider item seven A. reviewed and approved a Texas item seven B.. Seventeen this this act of. Changes as a change to the former foster care Medicaid category foster children who age out of foster care are already in Arkansas are already covered under this Medicaid category this changes required by the support act and what it will do is allow a child who has aged out of foster care in any state but who lives in Arkansas to be eligible for that former foster care category. Be happy to take any questions. Cochair Hammer you're recognized thank you we we have kids that age out and then they you know they'll get out and then they decide they want to get back in does this cover those that age out get out by their own decision but then decide they want to get back in. And and get put back in. Senator Hammer that is a good question I will have to get you that answer I'm not certain I would think so but I don't want to tell your name correctly which check on that represented Fuhrman ran that bill last time that when a when a child when a young adults ages out and if they decide they want to get off foster care and then they go up the scene is not use a thought and they want to get back in would you just of a firm that those that want to get back in will be a will be covered as well please yes I will do that okay thank you well. Thank you senator Hammer representative Dotson you're recognized thank you Mr chair so I'm I'm trying to wrap my brain around this this this says that adults up to age twenty six can get back into the foster care system you're saying now anyone from eighteen to twenty six. From out of state can come into Arkansas and then get on our foster care system. No Sir this this this rule we have this category as a result of the affordable Care Act where children can be covered up to age twenty six on parents insurance regardless of their marital status or or situation well when children are in foster care and they age out essentially the state has that role of parent and so this category covers those children who age out of foster care until they're twenty six us similar to other insurance for other children so it does not mean that children who are beyond the age of foster care who move in Arkansas can go into Arkansas foster care it's just saying if they had aged out and they were in foster care in any state they can get this Medicaid category not foster care. So you're saying that if they are currently on Medicaid say twenty three year old mmhm. Live in by themselves in another state in in Tennessee or something they decide they're going to move to Arkansas. Now Arkansas's going to pick up in there the responsibility of their Medicaid health insurance till age twenty six because they were a Tennessee foster care kid. Before age eighteen. In that in that example yes that that is true if if the child aged out of foster care in another state and they move into Arkansas in there now an Arkansas resident there under age twenty six they would meet the criteria for eligibility for this category never having ever been an Arkansas resident as a child or prior to eighteen. Yes one. Why are we doing this this is a there was a change in the federal support act that opened up foster care Medicaid not just for children who age out in the state but who aged out of foster care in other states and that also means then that if an Arkansas child ages out of foster care in Arkansas and they moved to Tennessee then they can apply to be covered in this category by the state of Tennessee so what's the financial impact on this for Arkansas our estimate is small because we don't have a lot of people in this category but we have estimated thirty nine thousand for this year and about seventy eight thousand three hundred ninety dollars for next year. We don't have our own winner of people in this case. All right thank you Mr. Senator Hammer you're recognized. It's just going to be a reciprocal among states by the same token we could have some it would move to another state and they're going to have to play by the same set of rules that were playing by this isn't just isolated us is covering all fifty states yes Sir okay thank you. President of all you're recognized thank you Mr chair how many of the fifty states have already began the process of this. We have it some of the states that are like. This is kind of crazy I don't know the the requirement is effective January first of twenty twenty three and I don't have the information about how many other states already implemented it or are prepared to implement it January twenty twenty three this and if so what they have to age out after January first twenty twenty three that. I think I understand what you're saying but I'm not clear on. Why our state would have to pick up the tab for a kid that lived in a different state. Then move to our state just because they aged out in their own state so if we have every state that touches us they all popped out of this and all those kids moved Arkansas that's a very low balled number seventy eight thousand I would think. Well. This of it's a requirement from the children's children's bureau this is a federal requirement so it it it is not something that states can opt out of. Okay well that's different than what you just said just a minute ago. Because I ask my very first question was how many states have opted out. I don't I don't well the the the law is not it's not optional but I don't I couldn't tell you for sure how many states have actually prepared to implement this I don't know that for sure but it is it's not an option I'm sorry for the confusion Hodges thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized. Is this a hundred percent federally reimbursed are we picking up any of the tab on no it's not a hundred percent federal it's it's the typical match it does have state general revenue attached to it seven seventy thirty or okay so for the thirty percent that we have. Say a state say a resident comes from state doesn't do this. And we end up picking up the tab is there any Avenue for us to seek reimbursement from that state that the child has come from. If another state doesn't comply with the federal requirements right. I don't know the answer to that question and what happens for states that don't implement this rule what's the repercussions. I am not certain what the repercussions would be a it could it could affect could impact our funding I've had in. Just introduce yourself record you can chime in. Thanks chairman of mark like to I. centers Martin services doesn't say I think my expectation is there's two possible consequences if we did not compliance requirements one is seen this could bring enforcement action and so that could involve them either taking match away from us or taking some of the consequence related to the the funding we receive we receive in federal government the second thing is that it would open a such litigation by these individuals not to say that they want to certainly win that but I could see someone following suit trying of court force us to provide that benefit for the now with that said we'll certainly will check with the states and if we see there other states they're declining to implement this they will certainly will re look at this and consider if we need to back off as well with those of states by same token if if for none of the states are implementing this without a problem I think that would leave us hard pressed to say no we're going to not implement this. And that this may be a question represent Vaught asked awhile ago but you know how many states as of now have passes or we the first one out of the chute I have not heard of any I'm I do not know I will say I've not heard of many states resisting this and so my expectation with the most states are moving to implement ox typically if there's something like this that states are going to push back on it we hear about it and we just we've not heard anything on this bill. Okay and if you have any idea about how many this might impact on either historical. Historical that are where we are right now. I mean we talking one two. One or two hundred her. Jerry way for you to forecast and now. It's our best as may be a few dozen people it's just it's just not not a lot of people we have in this category about say a few dozen maybe thirty to forty would be the Max that we would expect and I will add just just to be clear one direct flight frankly gave the fiscal impact estimate that first number was four six four was for six months for six months the fiscal year the second was for a full year that's why the numbers are different. Okay and this is foster kids only we're talking about the right kids that have paged out I'm out on the road correctly grade age out that are that are still being covered under foster care yes are these kids yeah that in another state the age of that state's foster care system reach the age of eighteen and then come to Arkansas I'll be done any other states have a higher age bracket and we do for what. Constitutes aging out like I if we're twenty six are there some there twenty two and they're just moving to us because they've aged out another state and they get four more years of service here or is that a constant number across the board I believe that's a constant across the board because there's from federal legislation that addresses that in man S. to the best of my knowledge every state follows that federal state okay so we're talking about foster kids here they've aged out they want to stay in the program and these are the services they would get yes Sir. I see this in a sense what what it if the they may or may not continue to be a foster care if the staff yes I'm I'm I'm sorry okay our thank you. The representative gene you're recognized. My questions are being answered. Thank you representative Cavenaugh you're recognized thank you. Just do we have any idea that of your projected that if we bring these kids from out of state they get on this Medicaid because they've been foster care they twenty six they go off of it do we have any indication how many of those are going to continue to be on our Medicaid because chances are most of them are going to continue so that makes our you know enrollment climbed do we have any indication about that we don't have any firm indication I mean you are correct that typically children who age out of foster care are more likely to be no low income the more likely be on Medicaid but we don't have firm numbers to be project on that okay thank you. Senator Rapert you're recognized. Yes mark what I don't understand is one as is twenty six years old one is it not twenty one. Because federal law allows for children who age out of the system to continue receiving foster care benefits up through age twenty six and there's federal funding this attached to that age range. Mark this is the traditional Medicaid the seventy thirty matches is not anything that we're doing because we expanded Medicaid population from the private option or what we call it now right correct this is the this is because they required category that states have to cover this is covered under the traditional seventy thirty matching okay Senator Dismang you're recognized and just to make sure that I understand what we're talking about so a normal child that has parents consent on their parents insurance until the twenty six yes we're debating whether or not a foster kid that does not have parents that doesn't have the option to have insurance with their parents are going to be allowed to utilize Medicaid exactly right. We stay one more time so if you live with your parents and you go to school. You stay on your parents insurance to twenty six if you don't have parents and we don't move forward with this they were simply saying good luck. Okay which would be in an incredible burden for a child because we keep calling kids in the room to be able to go to college so I'm I'm I'm a little confused on where we're going with all this but thank you yes. Thank you senator Dismang for that clarification. Members any other questions on this rule. Ninety nine that objection is rules reviewed approved thank you. Our next rule is regarding the team program and it is an increase in the income limit from two hundred and twenty three two five hundred and thirteen for applicants to qualify for the program. This is part of the package of maternal child health initiative and the prior to this the income limit for TV to twenty three is regardless of household size and the five hundred thirteen will also be regardless of household size but that income limit has not changed since the team program was implemented back in nineteen ninety six. Mr Feist add just members may not know that for the T. program we process eligibility for it but the program itself is under the direction of the division of workforce services and they do have representatives here to answer questions if needed as well. Thank you members any questions on this rule. Ninety nine without objection rules reviewed and approved. And that takes us to item seventy. Our our next rule is clarification of policy when it is related to a woman applying for Medicaid who is pregnant we are clarifying that we count that unborn baby in the household size more determining income eligibility so this is not a change this is we're just clarifying our processes here in this policy. With that I'll be happy to take any questions. Cochair Hammer you're recognized. Share and I'm I'm trying to pull up the An email that was sent regarding this do you happen to have knowledge of the definition. This is on eight add an unborn children of pregnant women the right that's what we're on yes Sir all right do you happen to have a working knowledge of what the definition of unborn child is in this. Well in this we simply means the baby or babies that have not been born yet to that woman it it's. They're not born yet but we are still going to count them as if their household member which increases the income eligibility standards for that household. Okay because in the definition I was reading it and would you research this if you don't mind and And get back with me but in the definition I'm reading associated with this it defines a child as quote an individual under the age of nineteen including the period from conception to birth that would mean that the end this all stems from federal guidelines is that correct. Yes Sir okay so in the medical definition what I want to check out for me in a firm for me is that in the medical definition of that which we are about to pay a reimbursement for medical treatment their definition of the child is an individual under the age of nineteen including the period from conception to birth would you would you verify that for me that that's the definition that the federal government is using that qualifies for reimbursement for medical treatment for unborn children of pregnant women. Yes what will verify verify that I'm I'm ninety nine point nine percent sure that is the case we will will verify that okay it's just sitting it specifically states from conception one verify that few would yes thank you. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized thank you Mr I just want this is a process you're already doing correct all you're doing is making the real electric current process yes your process does it make it easier for someone to get Medicaid or harder. So if you get a pregnant woman. So it's going to raise their income is that I'm trying to it makes it easier essentially because otherwise if we didn't count that baby that wasn't born yet it was mom and dad could be a household size of two so that income standard and it by counting the baby it's a household size of three or four if it's too late right and we look at that and come state okay I just want to make sure it is making it easier for that pregnant woman to be able to get the care yes okay thank you. Hi sing or the questions without objection this rule is reviewed and approved the taxes item seventy this last rule is also part of our maternal child health initiative and what we're doing with this rule is eliminating are limited pregnant women category that doesn't is not full Medicaid it's limited to services necessary to treat the pregnancy what we are doing is increasing the income limit to our full pregnant women category that that offers full state plan services to pregnant women and we are raising the income for that category to match what the limited pregnant women. Income limit was so This this is improving services to pregnant women. Mr I'll just add that we're we we're hopeful this will help improve our internal mortality rate and health outcomes by ensuring that we have heard women come on Medicaid they'll be getting treatment for all the medical conditions which hopefully will reduce the likelihood of complications preterm births Nick you use and so on. Thank you mark members any questions on this item. Maxing number to junction this rule hang on just one second Senator Stubblefield you're recognized thank you Mr vice I would question were we right mark. I don't wear the exact rate were in the bottom five one five okay thanks you're. Thank you senator members no other questions all right without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you membership means that takes us down to item eight department of Human Services division of medical services. Good morning you just would introduce yourself for the record you can begin with your rule. Good morning my name is Elizabeth and I'm with the Division of Medical Services. And the first of all I have for you today is regarding the Arkansas independent assessment also known as aria ends are nineteen fifteen on a which is the state plan amendment for home and community based services for individuals with behavioral health. I'm ready to proceed if you're ready. And this role is an a state plan amendment related to our past inner adult behavioral health services that we provided for you for service is doing four main things its restructuring the client appeal process for those individuals right now if they choose to appeal a decision made by either their pass or by Medicaid their benefits are all alter automatically stopped until that appeal is completed if they win the appeal they resent what this change will do do is they are they are benefits will continue and less they choose to stop them and then if they lose the appeal we would stop the benefits. So that's what this rule is that part of the road during the next part is to permanently put in place independent assessments via and video conference or telephone when it's a reassessment initials assessments would still have to be done in person I'm but we have found through the pandemic that that is a and effective way to do reassessments and allows us to schedule them more easily so we are going to continue that. And we're also adding level one and level two therapeutic communities and we have implemented the rate increase for those therapeutic communities and that goes back to October first and then we're also adding and definitions for assertive community treatment and intensive in home services which are team based evidence based approaches to providing I'm home and community based services for individuals with behavioral health needs and I'm happy to take any questions. All right members any questions on the side of. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. It moved down to item eight B.. Add item eight B. as a rule change only there's no CMS approval required on this rule we currently have two at pharmacy boards that advise us the drug utilization review board and the drug review committee the drug utilization review board helps us decide utilization criteria for drugs when they come on the market and they review those criteria every so often the drug review committee helps us to set our preferred drug list which is how we get our rebates I'm in determining which drugs we will automatically cover verses which we will cover with an authorization on it is made up of of pharmacists and physicians I'm right now those boards meet separately and a lot of people serve on both boards so that means that several people come to two two four hour meetings eight times a year by combining these boards it will limit the amount of time to two to four hour meetings four times a year I'm which is a fairly significant time commitment for these professionals I'm it also will make it easier for us to fill those positions on that board because there will be a more limited number but we will still meet all federal and state requirements for at the make up of the sports. Remembers any questions. I'm seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved items see the prosthetics rate review. This role is a state plan amendment in a manual change to increase the rates for prosthetics and orthotics Services which is part of our durable medical equipment benefit we are going to ninety percent of the Medicare rate these providers have not received a rate increase in about twenty years so the prosthetics and orthotics for providers are very excited about it we did receive from some public comments from seven medical supply providers regarding enteral formulas that is part of durable medical equipment and will be looked at in the rate increase for that category it is not part of this role so we are not changing that rate right now and it will still be reviewed and come before you later. How do you come up with a ninety percent so when we looked at and we are looking at going to a percent of Medicare across all of our services and we looked at those rates it seems like that was a good average for these particular services across the board what rate would you say they're at now at date we have not change this rate in twenty years so I don't have that report in front of me but it significantly lower thank you members any questions. Not seeing nine without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Item D. has been removed from the agenda will be item H. E.. I this is that another role that does not require any CMS for approval approval or a state plan change and we are simply adding modifiers that match the national drug code billing updates and this allows us to have better transparent parents in our billing and it also allows us to ensure the collecting the federal and state supplemental rebates as we need to. And my pharmacy director is here if you have any questions on the sponsors. There was any questions. Mansingh nine without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Takes down item eight F. living choices waiver rate adjustments welcome back mark. Here but I'll be reporting the own counsel on this rule so I thought I was going to report to you on this one as well more quite at or premium services this is the rule changes necessary to increase the payment rate for assisted living services shall may recall I yelled includes special language in our preparation directing us to increase that rate and so we retain an actuary the cost survey and we have our employment in a higher rate for cisplatin based on the results of that cost survey an actuary work I do want to mention one thing I I think several you've gotten some emails from constituents about some increases on the private pay rates for long term care facilities and just from from all ones that I've seen that is all related to nursing home and that is something that will work with healthcare association to address I will go on the whole story was you want me to bottom line it goes back to some language that was put into the manual twenty years ago we think we know why it was put in we don't know this necessary so we're working with healthcare association to revise that or maybe instrument that language all that said that does not is not relevant to this rule this rule does not have any impact on the private pay rates for assisted living facilities it would that be happy to answer any questions. Members any questions on this item. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. Mark under the rule it was you remember the rate was eighty. It's over a thirty three we're currently paying a rate of I believe it's eighty fifty five right now on temporary basis the earlier will. Was that based on the emergency order it was based on the emergency order we're no longer under the emergency wards at correct no we are still under that is tied to the federal public health emergency and the federal government has kept that going. So one of the new under the new you're asking for ninety. It's ninety six fifty six and fifty six yes Sir I can tell you where those increases come from that include rule facility rates. It without applied to the rule as well in the in the in the current emergency version which included a five percent bonus rate for rule facilities with thought because we knew the CMS president of the situations without that be an additional way to help but actually in talking with the facilities in this process well we've learned that release the urban facilities that higher and higher expenses rather than the rule and so based on that feedback from the industry we did not include a real bonus in this new right so what though the rule Services rate would remain the same yes service same as the or thank you Mr chairman thank you senator. Members any other questions on this item. Representative dot recognized thank you Mr chair Mark. Maybe I'm just not following this completely but I know we we had a lot of. A lot of back and forth on this a few years ago when this was was lowered and. the biggest concern the reason you guys told us the time for lowering it was was the concerns that we were overpaying and that's our thing our week absolutely certain that if this goes into effect. We won't be overpaying and get ourselves into hot water going forward. I think this this rate can be justified and those were the issues with the going back to that rate those in effect as of twenty eighteen before we start this process that rate it had no no legitimate actuarial basis it's as best I can tell from the history and I'm fairly certain this essential that was just a negotiated rate with the industry. Since then ever right we've done we've done based on actuarial work in a call survey to see what are the actual cost incurred by these providers to deliver the service and one thing we did see in this most recent call survey is as in much the healthcare industry we saw significant increases in the cost of labor as well as some other factors that increase so all that say because we do have this hard data this rate is tied to. I'm not and I'm not worried about CMS coming back on us and say you're over pay for the services okay thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you and just add to that a little bit the. The the things that were factored into the arrival at the rate that is being recommended all those things are allowable expenses under CMS guidelines. We well there is one that we had a question about that at that earlier we thought the CMS we would not be likely to per that was based on some expertise we received from so the folks that were here at that time for us as well as just member we receive from some consultants mothers I will say but with the the solution reached was we itemize those specific components and listed it very explicitly in the paperwork submitted to CMS of the C. misunderstand we're including these things in the rate and includes things like mill preparation to this point CMS is not question that and so if they approve it then we'll take that as that we're good to go on that how long is CMS had this and I know she misses like moving motor appeal but how long they had. It was submitted I believe in November because we had a good and with a public comment period of some of the steps before we can submit it to them but we've had we had the initial call was CMS and then we had a call with CMS and their rate contractor that reviews rates for them they asked some basic questions they ask for some technical changes to the waiver amendment but nothing affecting the substance the rule they still have under consideration based on our usual experience I'm expecting. I think if they would've had a problem with it we would her already so I'm expecting to see approval fairly soon and then last question these rates compared to states around us are we comparable above below in the middle of the pack or the you know. I it's in this report I don't recall off hand but I can get that for you okay or if you would I'd what I remember is were middle of the pack or below other states around us but if you'd verify that correct me if I'm wrong please thank you Sir. Thank you senator representative Cozart you're recognized thank you Mr Clark we talked briefly will go about this I just got a question so when medic when Medicaid raises up or Medicare whatever this is Medicaid could rise from read as little the press so Medicaid raises their rate the private care have to be within eighty percent of that is that correct for nursing homes yes there is a nursing home so let's talk when you're ready go this rate goes up they have to bring the rates up to be within that eighty percent on the personal side but for this rule yes I know I'm just looking or CSS for my constituents have complaints were from and so I'm just trying to be able to go back and tell him what the problem is so yes there is that is language in the rule it was as I mentioned to you I think that was willing to put in there twenty years ago back when we adopt that that tax I think we understand why they would put that in there I think our experience has shown that wasn't necessary so we're still in discussions healthcare association but just based on where those are headed right now I'm expecting us to come back with all the change sounds good thank you thank you Mr thank representative Senator Irvin you're recognized. Thank you and I had stepped out so you may have already covered this and if so I apologize but and. If if we so this ends what we are currently paying This ends twelve thirty one is that correct if it continues with the public health emergency and so that's to clear by federal government right now it's set to expire January tenth but based on the statements they made it will be extended again I would expect for April. Okay so all right okay so that that's different when they were what I understood so there's there's no amendment that we had submitted to CMS that said that these rights were going to end that we're currently paying of eighty eight in around eighty something dollars depending on the site where the local location is for a felony for this right no that would is amended appendix K. to continue paying the rate but that rate under the terms that appendix K. it continues through the in the public health emergency and tell the public health emergency is is over so so there's no okay so it's either what said so they would not be going back to sixty seven twenty five if we didn't approve this today and if we held this over just for a little bit of review that would not be affected they would still be being paid at that public health emergency rate of eighty one ninety eight fifty nine per person an eighty five sixty seven per person is that correct corrected be for that yes bill be that that hire temporary we continue set least through the end of the public health okay okay and then if if it was held to January is there a provision to where it could be then retroactively applied to January one. Yes. No not under the way we're doing this rule this is that I've home and community based services waiver and because of the way CMS writes the rules for those waivers on like the way they write the rules for other rates it can't really be applied retroactively and that these fallout us to do that or not that he's by the appendix K. allowed us to do that for. Before because we're doing this the real. Real but I permits and waiver no we would not be able to do that but we can make it effective as soon as it was approved by CMS in this body okay you can just make it effective as soon as it was approved so if it was a pre like say if we help the server just on January then it would be approved in January and okay. All right okay thank you. Thank you senator Clark really and we're going to keep paying. What we're paying now eighty one dollars and fifty nine cents per person per day and then right now I guess we're paying eighty five sixty seven for rule because of the health emergency yes so if we approve this rule only talking about fifteen Bucks a day more rightly correct give or take some pennies right and if we approve this rule today does the new rates go into effect. January one or does the. Health emergency rate stay in effect until the health emergency ends and then the new rate goes into effect our intent is for well what we asked for was for going to affect January one that's what I expect Siemens would approve okay Senator Hammer you're recognized. Just patient with all the numbers being thrown around what's the what's total cost to the state for this to go up I'm looking at our hand out and discuss the numbers and can use verify what the what the total impact for our portion is going to be to the state I will not vote I let my binder but back in the chair slimming. We fund that number. And I'm sorry I don't have this on the streamliner. It's a ayrsley the. Mark the packet we have should be at your table it's page fifty eight fifty eight. Also forty seven. Thank you. Okay so for the first year which is a six months of the fiscal year the total spent as one point nine five million we estimated that state shall be five hundred fifty five thousand dollars and then for the first full fiscal year total cost three point nine million state share one point one billion. And last time they had a rate increase that you remember is what. This will This Is had. There they had a rate that was said we lower that rate effective January one twenty nineteen and we started down the step down process so that wasn't all once it step down I think three steps all together and then we froze it at that point because the pandemic and then increase with the temporary right and so this would increase over that char net cost status five fifty five the first year one point one and how many individuals have a Medicaid individuals are there an assisted living with the got a slot for what twelve hundred it's about twelve hundred and so just to any given month we run a lease between eight hundred thousand okay program thank you. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman I have a motion. Proper time. All right. Right back to you Senator Irvin did you have a comment or. All right Senator Stubblefield you hang on one second I'll come back to you for that motions for vision you're recognized thank you Mr chair thank you senator Stubblefield. If CMS does not approve the lake meal preparation some of those how would that affect the rate. We would pull that out of the rate and that's that's in how much it would be. Yes some may not so that's ninety six seventy six and there were two provisions that you said were added meal preparation and something else it's in the hole for its nine sixty eight per day that's what we pull out for meal preparation so. Nine sixty eight per day so we won't know. Nine sixty eight per day that almost get you right back down to your public health emergency rate right the just a little over the service or over that yes and we don't know of CMS is going to prove that are not so this actually may not even be the final. Announcmenet it's with the final amount would be whatever CMS pers and so it's a rule would allow up to the maximum but if CMS says no or limited to this amount then we would we would limit for that amount okay so they're it. Okay so so it actually even if we approve it today and CMS doesn't prove that portion of it would it would go down anyway so. Okay we have no idea when they're gonna tell us yes or no all I'm expecting that the we will hear by the end of the year. Okay I can add a little bit to that so our state lead has told us they're looking at everything and we should have answers by the twentieth of this year on whether they think it could be approved or if they're gonna put it on what they call a request for formal information which would stop it. Well for me I mean to me I just think it would be beneficial if we actually can approve a final amount that CMS approved. To me that just seems cleaner. I understand that Sir allowed for to the committee as to how how you offer to handle it yeah I mean that just seems cleaner to me but that's all deferred to the members of this committee but you know because because I wouldn't want to approve ninety six seventy six and then let people think that that's what we were paying and then CMS comes back and says no you can't have nine dollars and sixty eight cents of that we're taking you back down but then this is out there that this is been approved this number has been approved and we may have done it this way before in the past I'm not sure and I understand we're waiting on CMS but. It makes it a little wonky to be honest and I don't want to put information out there approve the and then CMS says no but then it comes back to on us that well but you all said this is how much you're going to Pat you know right I understand in this in this is the kind of a dance we have to do with having to know line up the CMS rule process with a state promulgation process in which is this is this is not unusual for us to have that discrepancy between the two yeah I will say that there are procedure is that we even when you all review and approve a rule if it's depend on CMS CMS approval we don't follow the rules make effective until we've heard from CMS okay and and so and so we we try to make sure we have both approvals before making a fully effective in force role right understand but you could always call I mean there could always be in eggs an executive. Committee subcommittee emergency rule approval. Yes ma'am we we could emergency rule an exact subcommittee could could approve an emergency rule okay that would be a at the discretion of that body okay thank you. Nice Senator Hammer you're recognized. A quick points do you know if the other states have approved what we're asking for we gonna be the first to ask for the for the meal prep when when our actuaries looked the other states I don't believe they've found in the state where of those activities were explicitly covered in the right and that's in the person that committed to the the concern about the CMS would would be hesitant to approve that so I think the best we can tell if CMS approves that will be the first state to have that explicitly approved in the right certainly other states they may have included and just not called out no that wasn't me it wasn't a parent from on the surface but will be the first one that we can tell that explicitly call that out and see miss that okay okay in are the providers aware of that I mean I the Bill other discussions are the providers are aware that that is a risk that may happen that CMS may come back and that rate would be adjusted down according to what's disallowed is that correct yes Sir we had a wide work group of both sociais Haitians that have members in this area as well as several owners we talked through that extensively with that with that group with our staff with Arkansas opens then worst case scenario is we're not going to whatever CMS decides it's not going to cost us more it would end up costing us lest you forget this out here today correct okay thank you. Thank you senator Hammer are seeing other questions Senator Stubblefield you want to push your button again there you go you're recognized thank you thank you Mr chairman I want to make a motion that we hold this until the next meeting until we get a a hard number from CMS and also find out for sure what to these rules still too right you're going to be. So just make a motion we holders until next meeting okay just if we hold it my understanding is if we hold it in this committee this committee this is our last meeting we will not this by this committee not meet until the next and from. Your motion should you so desire to be could be to refer to A. B. C. rules we can do that so they can meet during the regular session correct rules committee correct so your motion to refer to hold and referred to the JBC rules listed yes listed by a motion filed for the J. B. C. maybe okay I members the the motion best I understand is to hold this item. four of the Joint Budget Committee rules subcommittee which will meet during the session. We need a second okay we have a second any discussion. All right seeing none all those in favor this motion signify by saying aye. All those opposed. The nose have it. All. Roll call that a change. Say that again several calls about injured C. three hands. All right. That that a hander waiver all right we have three hands are we're going to roll call divided by the chamber. Just give us a second status gonna get ready. Okay members we're going to do this divide by the chamber we're gonna start on the Senate side the roll call a yes vote would hold this rule and send it to joint budget committee rules subcommittee. no vote would be against his motion and then we would review and approve this rule that makes sense. Okay. Senator Caldwell. Senator Caldwell. Senator English. Senator English. Senator Stubblefield. Senator Stubblefield votes yes. Senator Hickey. Senator Hickey. Excuse me I'm to go back to Senator English I neglected to call her first alternate Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker. Going to Senator Hickey. Senator Hickey. Senator Wallace. Senator Wallace. Senator hill. Senator hill. Senator Hill votes yes. Senator Irvin. Senator Irvin for votes yes Senator Rice. Senator Rice. Going to his first alternate senator Beckham. Senator Beckham. Senator Hammer. Senator hammer votes now. All right members the motion is fail due to lack of a quorum in the Senate so without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Members that takes down the item G.. A primary care case management. Go right ahead all right I this is another rule that does not require CMS approval there's no response at this rule is changing our reconciliation on primary care case management to annual instead of quarterly I due to a legislative audit that found that we did not make our annual and reconciliation on time this will ensure that they are done on time and will allow those providers to receive those reconciliations more frequently happy to take any questions. All right members any questions on this item. Icing on without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thanks as to item H. long acting reversible contraceptive rate increase yes this is just simply a rate increase on the rule it does not change any coverage of that larc devices at all and we are going to wholesale acquisition cost plus six percent I were following the North Carolina model CMS has indicated that they will approve the Senate's and not process but we have not received yet. Our members any questions on this item. Ninety nine without objection this rule is reviewed approved. Now the item I the three forty B. modifiers. This role I'm also does require CMS approval and that is pending and this rule comes at the recommendation of the Attorney General's office Medicaid fraud control unit as well as the office of Medicaid inspector general and I believe that Elizabeth Smith secretary Smith is here to help me with this role today if you have any questions related to that the rule itself adds modifiers to drugs purchased on the three forty B. program which allows pharmacies and that includes pharmacies at hospitals physicians offices federally qualified health centers and actual pharmacies to purchase drugs at a lower rate but we are not allowed to take the rebate on those drugs because they're purchasing it at a lower rate anyway and that would be considered a double discounts for the federal government so we're not allowed to rebate those drugs so we need to know what those drugs are and through the investigative process it was found that hospitals were not billing this correctly in receiving the full charge price for the drugs and so we are asking to include both the modifiers and the invoice price on this role however we have also learned it was brought to my attention yesterday so I'm sorry for the late notice that federally qualified health centers and the way they bill cannot comply with this rule so I am asking that they be exempted from it at this time and we would have reached out to some of Q. agencies to work with them I'm and bring back a rule that work allows them to comply with those requirements. All right. so you want you're gonna of the real you're paying now you're wanting to add an exemption for the FQHCs and and I guess the community health centers. Just a federally qualified health centers that the FQHCs that are three forty B. providers the way that they bill services and they don't bill for the drug when they provide the service and so they're not able to comply with this rule as it is written so we have reached out to several of them including the one that representative booking introduced us to yesterday and we are going to work with them to write a rule that they can't completely trying to second. Our members any questions on this item. All right without objection this rule is reviewed and approved with the exemption for the FQHCs and you'll come back to us later with the rules regarding those correct yes okay thank you. There that takes down item J. three live three sixty home program. Yes first thank you to everyone who helped us with the our home and life three sixty program and sensor Irvin was very instrumental in that but I don't see her anymore. But I am thanking her for that today I'm CMS has approved this to go live on January first and it does allow us to implement the life three sixty homes for the our home population and that includes the maternal life three sixty homes for women with high risk pregnancies at this will also include women who are not in our home population that have a high risk pregnancy so all Medicaid clients who have high risk pregnancy will be included in the maternal life three sixty home upon CMS approval of that expansion I'm and as of right now maternal after sixty four our home is approved at the real life three sixty home for those with serious mental illness or substance use disorder in rural areas as well as the success like three sixty home for those individuals that range from nineteen to thirty that are considered at high risk of continued poverty and continued dependence on social services such as former foster youth former DYS an informant cars right and happy to take any questions. Members any questions on this item. Seeing none without objection this item is reviewed and approved. I don't K.. Some people will be joining me Friday night as. My name is Paula stone and I work for the department of Human Services the Division of Medical Services okay. You want introduced the other area. Patristic and deputy director division of aging adult may have a lot services. I am unless the weather ten division director for developmental disabilities services thank you go ahead present your real. Thank you the first thing that I would like to do is that to say that the rules that we bring before you today our results of in what led by and the barrel health task force which was bred by let representative Vaught and I also wanted to mention her and the subcommittee chairs so that was representative Vaught representative Cavenaugh representative Gazaway representative Pilkington representative eleven representative Warren and representative McCullough so we want to thank them for their leadership and for assistance as we move forward with developing these roles. Today we're here to present preview nine manuals and related state plan amendments these manuals amendments and enactments and repeals are focused on shifting away from the current fee for service methodology for those individuals with high needs and moving toward a team based provision of services that's lessening the administrative burden on providers supporting the efficient use of current work force and we've added additional licensure is to increase availability of services and to assist with our work force issues and raising the quality of care in impromptu the implementation of evidence based on evidence inform service models this state conducted multiple stakeholders meetings and individual and group meetings with providers during this process we posted our draft manuals on her website and continue to work with providers during this process and we receive multiple and public comments during the public comment period and upon changes made to the manual we again review these changes with our providers to ensure that we had address those comments. The specific areas of concern that we had included facility requirements for a service call to re have day which we M. adjusted the manual to ensure that those services applied to rehab day and then we also had some issues around clarity and the flow of these manuals and so we re arrange the CSS P. manual to address those issues. And that is all I have we're happy to take comments. Does this have a of an effect for the human development centers. This home based yes Sir so this is just a homing Committee based services for clients that want to live out in the community okay all right thank you for that clarification members any questions on this item. Culture Hammer you're recognized thank you is this all centered around the reimbursement and the ability to reimburse those that are providing services that pretty much. All about this or is it more than that. the short answer is is more than not immediate changes reimbursement for some of our services but it also adds services and we think it opens the scope of services for our clients that are intellectually disabled and or have behavioral health needs. So it's limited to just that population only this is really focused the package before you was really focused on the high needs population that primarily served by the pass okay our thank you. Thank you senator members any other questions. Insing number that objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you. I take this to the last item under number eight go ahead. Yes thank you so much for your time today and this last rule is regarding cost share for Medicaid clients and we are changing the way that we do cost share and this does require CMS approval and again they have indicated approval at this time but we are still waiting on that and this will apply cost share to the our home population as well as to the working disabled and the transitional Medicaid categories only I'm I don't know if you're aware but we work we did determine that we were not compliant with CMS requirements regarding cost year in October of twenty twenty one I believe last year and so we then had to shut the cost share program office so we have not been collecting carshare or reducing payments for cost here since that time this role will bring us into compliance with CMS requirements and allow us to turn our share back on for all those populations I'm not just our population and I'm happy to take any questions. All right members any questions on this item. Seeing none that objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you again. moving on item nine department Human Services Division of provider services and quality assurance. Good morning. We just push a button there and introduce yourself and we'll get started the morning Martinez Smith director for the Division of provider services and quality assurance DHS. Thank you the rule that I presented to you today is regarding revisions to the certified nursing assistant training program this particular rule in these revisions I'll tell you we worked with the workgroup over a series of weeks that work group consisted of two different associations as well as industry representatives and a college. This particular rule revision will include virtual instruction we currently do not have virtual instruction with the CNA program but we will add that to this curriculum additionally we explain the process for our military members of spouses and veterans to become CNA's here in this state and then we updated some terminology and definitions as well. With that I'll be happy to take any questions I'm members any questions. C. number doubt objection this item is reviewed and approved thank you. All right members that takes is down to item E. X. sixty five a twenty twenty one provided agencies with the mechanism to repeal rules that the agency has determined to not meet the legal definition of a rule under the Arkansas administrative procedure act. In accordance with the act the agencies have submitted a written request which details the agency justification for its repeal of each rule those requesting your packets along with a copy of each rule to be repealed. And we're going to start with the department of finance and administration. Morning you just both would introduce yourself for the record we'll get started. Good morning my name is Jan Bartlett I'm general counsel for the department of finance and administration and above it a different a office of accounting. The agency's justification for repeal of this rule is based upon DFA's determination that the financial management god is not a statement of general applicability and future effect but is instead a statement that concerns the internal management of the state agencies and does not affect the private rights or procedures available to the public. We'll take any questions how did you did how did you find that that was not needed with or you don't like an internal review or. I'm sorry yeah how did you come across this you know just now that was I need it yes Sir we were in the process of trying to update the financial management guide and through that process we identified that it had been promulgated and need to be repealed okay thank you for that clarification members any questions. Maxing none of a motion to approve the request to repeal. Anyone. The motion. Members without a motion to repeal this is going to stay a rule this time. Hi we do we have a motion the Senate woke up to a motion on the Senate side. We have a second thank you. The agency's axe sixty five request to repeal is approved. Thank you hang on just one second I've been instructed by step I screwed that up. Yes. We have a motion to repeal requests we have a second all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed the ayes have it thank you the agency like sixty five request to repeal is approved. Goodness. Thank you Ricky. All right I take this out of me to department Human Services. Hi members this pay attention here we're getting close to the end so let's let's get through it. You would introduce yourself for the record you can begin short good morning Serra Collins lane M. I'm chief counsel at the Department of Human Services and we're requesting the repeal of three rules today for the same reason as the department of finance and administration they do not meet the definition could you put your microphone a little closer if the person I apologize they do not meet the definition of the rule at of a rule and they are pertinent to the Administration of internal management of the Department and do not affect the private rights or procedures procedures applicant will to the general public and the three by three rules I'm pertain to the equal opportunity policy the Americans with disabilities act and the DHS DRC cooperation policy and with that I will take questions. Thank you representative Springer you're recognized. Thank you Mr good morning I guess I'm not understanding so are you getting rid of these rules and there's nothing to replace them I guess if you would give me an explanation on that so have you revise these to say something different are these are just going to be done away with it completely they will they will remain internal DHS policies they will just not be public rules so it was so we will we will maintain them is DHS policies that are applicability DHS. employees and DHS work that they just won't be public rules I've got would you explain what is meant by a public rule Springer what they're saying is that the the rules that they have a currently do not meet the legal definition of the of the rule under the administrative procedures act so okay so that's what I'm trying to understand so well they revise these rules to make a meet that definition. But those the words are going to stay in place they just don't meet the legal definition of a rule so they're not really they're not going anywhere okay I that's what I'm trying to get clarification on that these will be part of the policies of the Department that's right that the documents are. That they're not going anywhere they're still going to be policies of the agency they're just not rules okay it's still gonna be there policy it's just not gonna be technically a rule because it doesn't meet the legal definite that's what he's going to stay in place as policy that's correct thank yes very very important policies that need to be in effect equal opportunity policy Americans with disabilities and the sum of cooperation rule very important for the operations of your department thank yes ma'am thank you representative all right members you've heard all all three of the rules that are going to be policies are there any questions. I have a motion to approve the request repeal these three. Motion the second all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed the ayes have it agencies act sixty five request to repeal is approved on all three of these items thank you. I members that takes us down item F.. this is aye aye aye at ten seventy six of twenty twenty one concerns agency reports on rules pertaining to milk and cattle production the final rule report from the department of agriculture and the department of health or considered by the house and Senate committees on agriculture forestry and economic development and after hearing from agency representatives in their reports both agencies seek to continue to enforce all rules and reports the committees have recommended that the agency reports be accepted and that the recommendation and the reports are in your packet no one from the public has signed up to speak on agencies final rule reports. So do I have a motion to accept agency reports such that the rules there and shall remain in effect the motion the second. The second all right all those in favor signify by saying aye. All right oppose ayes have it so those reports are accepted and we went remain in effect thank you that move this long item G. E.. This is agency updates on the status outstanding rulemaking our next item will include updates from those agencies have not completed their rulemaking in accordance with Arkansas Code as amended by act five ninety five of twenty twenty one we'll have each agency representative to come to the table and provide the in person update required by the statute we're going to start with once again department of ag welcome back wait. Wait hajj department of agriculture thank you Mr chairman members of the committee this would be the plant boards hemp rules under the Arkansas him production active twenty twenty one and I've related to you multiple times progress on that rule I won't re hash that it would will you state that the plant board is meeting as we speak and that the temporal is one of the items for discussion. All right. Thank you way members any questions on this item. Ninety nine thank you for for your parents and free update. News that takes us to the part of education. Good morning good morning for a solace Ford chief counsel for the department of education and we have three rules still outstanding the rules governing school safety are in the promulgation process but were delayed due to the addition of a section on school safety grant funds of those are currently out for their second public comments but are also being promulgated as emergency rules and will be considered by the executive subcommittee at noon today so we anticipate final filing of those rules in February. The rules governing the school counseling improvement act are also in the promulgation process and the public comment period ends for those on December twenty seventh of this year so we anticipate final rules also in February for those. And the does the rules governing professional development and those are actually undergoing a much more significant revision process and so and they have not gone out for public comment yet but we do anticipate having that was for final promulgation and later in the spring following the session and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you members any questions. Ninety nine thank you for the update thank you. Texas item three department of health State Board of Health. Thank you Mr chair members of the committee on large shoe general counsel for the department of health troublesome Senator department health. All right go right ahead we appreciate the opportunity to update you all as you know we had one hundred eighty five health related acts to implement from the twenty twenty one sessions and M. as of the summer I think they were ten outstanding rules we have whittled that down to the last three they are the the three most controversial rules and some of them have been dealing with litigation throughout this year the rules for abortion facilities obviously under the jobs case many of the statutes have been aggregated to the extent that they have not we're reviewing those rules and at wild at twenty twenty three legislation may affect those facilities we're gonna be at providing updates to the committee as requested with regard to the rules regarding medical marijuana these have been revised twice this year as they've also been affected by a lawsuit that was filed in February concerning actually been twelve of twenty twenty one and our interpretation of that law the second public comment period started in November of this year and ended on December twelfth and we are revising pursuant to the public comments and at the rules will be updated as soon as possible and at some pending litigation may also affect the final rule filing with regard to medical marijuana with regard to the rules for cosmetology body are permanent and semi permanent cosmetics ACT nine hundred a required identification of additional members to the committees we've addressed a lot of the stakeholders concerns there for the revisions that have been provided for and there maybe twenty twenty three legislation that would affect those rules that would be incorporated as soon as possible so that concludes my report for today we're happy to take any questions thank you senator hill. You're recognized we are asked to Mr Gilmour come to the to the table again explained I used the question of that includes research on the ice cream. Absolutely you would come one damn. Mr go on my question is that it's like for you to reiterate with your research that you did on the question of the day from the health department I screen issue. Matt Gilmore department health Senator Hill no disrespect but I don't remember specific request about. Research analysts talk about the. Deserts but can you I will follow up if you have a specific request for research. Is actually on the other desert you were talking about about frozen versus non frozen. I will see what I can pull her will it loss of what you want exactly with a follow up with you. I think we all kind of feel that way with Senator Hill at times thank you for that our members any questions on the three or four. All right seeing nine thank you for your update thank you Mister Moore. I members a takes down item for office of Arkansas lottery. Good morning. Good morning Mr chairman members of the committee. So under Act six thirty six of twenty twenty one the lottery was to establish the Arkansas academic challenge scholarship of. Lottery hacked. And that has been done and we have an emergency rule that's in effect and that became effective ten twenty one of twenty twenty two. And since I was here last time what we have done is to file the emergency rule as a permanent rule along with their other revisions to operational and retailer rules we have a public hearing scheduled on those coming up next week and then assuming we haven't received any comments at this point in time we've actually already had one public hearing with respect to these rules before where we didn't have any public comment or anybody really for against this rule or any of our other rules and after that period of public comment assuming that there's no objection no issues then we will be asking to have this rule as well as our other operation one retailer rules that we have out there that we filed to be approved by this body at the earliest possible opportunity. So that's the current status of the rule call for by X. six thirty six twenty twenty one as well as the other operation retailer rules that will be asking approval for all right thank you for that members any questions on this item. They're saying nine thank you for coming down thanks for the thank you. that moves right along to item H. as you may recall from last month the department of agriculture's Arkansas bureau of standards had one outstanding rule which concern twenty nineteen legislation that had been in litigation and has since concluded we have resume the monthly in person updates on the status of that rule so if we get an agency representative I'm assuming it's gonna be waiting. If you could just provide us with that update. Thank you Mr chairman Wade Hodge department of agriculture done this is rules that were required to be promulgated from a law that was passed in twenty nineteen regarding the labeling of certain agricultural food products just a couple of days before that law was set to go into effect lawsuit was filed in federal court and the court did issue a stay of any enforcement of that law pending the outcome of the litigation and then in September the court did rule and rule the challenge to provisions of that act to be unconstitutional so based upon that we just don't feel like we're in a position to be able to promulgate any valid rules from a law that's been ruled unconstitutional. Members any questions. Wait thank you for that update. I'm in the final outcome we are December monthly written update from the department of corrections pursuant at five ninety five of twenty twenty one. This update is regarding the status of the department's rulemaking implementing twenty twenty two legislation and is in your pack the agency has a later deadline for these rules than June first so it has more time than those agencies were heard from earlier are there any questions on this item. All right seeing none we will file the December month the written update and before that's the last item on the agenda before we go. Just a moment of personal privilege I just want to give up of a big thank you thank you thank you to the staff here in the back and super Lacy Jason and Gina there the staff that that gives us Senator Hammer na the ability to at least act like we know what we're doing so thank you all very much for all your help thank. Senator hammer you have anything to add. I don't say it's been a privilege service capacity thanks to members for everybody showing up on a regular basis appreciate you very much. Our members with that we are adjourned.