ALC-Executive Subcommittee

The we're going to start in. Adam business is brought bring cons of. Consult a contract and I'd be Secretary hers. If you guys would introduce yourself for the committee and you're recognized to present your contract good morning I'm Secretary Stacy Hurst. Good morning unless like this can. Good morning jim Hudson department commerce. The executive and legislative branches agree that with the opportunity we have with substantial federal funds a statewide plan for broadband deployment would be both timely and helpful. Because I believe governor Hutchinson's broadband working group within the cabinet I have been tasked with leading the effort to secure a consultant for this project. Working with input from legislators. And through the office of state procurement we created a scope of work and opened in our S. P. on August sixteenth. Proposals were due on August twenty third and we received three proposals. Secretary Larry wall third secretary Mike Preston and myself along with our staff experts and our American rescue plan consultants C. T. E. H. were involved in evaluation and discussion of proposals. Following extensive discussion and negotiation we determined that broadband development group offers the most advantageous proposal for Arkansas as we endeavor to undertake this important work. The broadband development group's proposal details a comprehensive master plan for state wide deployment of broadband including a multi faceted an extensive approach for gathering data to access current connectivity in Arkansas. A boots on the ground component of service validation. A detailed and extensive community outreach plan that includes all seventy five counties and additionally through negotiation broadband development group reduce their original price offer by nineteen percent. We found other respondents to be qualified certainly but their proposals were deficient Arlene in certain areas that we deems were important for a comprehensive plan there was a qualitative difference. These areas included such items as the steps needed for service valid the validation and community outreach. I'm happy to answer questions thank you. We have a few. Representative Beatty you're recognized for a question. Secretary of one of the hand out so we have is actually the R. F. P. proposal tab that shows the scoring all the three vendors. and it also identifies the cost. Looking at this broadband development was the highest bidder. And the low score. eight they should also shows that the other two proposals were rejected. Can you give further clarity on why they were rejected. As I noted in my presentation we found that there was a qualitative difference in the proposal so when we originally I'm when the evaluation of originally card based on the scoring it wasn't an apples to apples proposal and in conversations with legislators we understood that the scope of work would be comprehensive and include things like a boots on the ground approach a an outreach to communities across the state of Arkansas to avoid duplication of effort and really streamline our approach to connect to increasing connectivity in Arkansas so upon further evaluation and discussion amongst our secretaries are experts and with the help of our consultancy tech we made the determination that broadband development group was the best proposal follow up. I know some qualitative differences the do they account for two point two million dollars and more expense to the taxpayers of the state of Arkansas. The I'm a substantial difference was the community outreach pays and the boots on the ground piece which are expensive and labor it ten X. labor intensive pieces of the proposal that they were in the RFE yes Sir those places. I just have a problem with that when there's a low score the highest cost. And. I mean it it it just doesn't make sense to me and with that decision unanimous by all three. Yes Sir. All three agreed that this was the proposed yes Sir. I'd still like further justification on that two point two million cost all the qualitative side. That your answer is not sufficient for me. It should be sufficient for the other members of this committee. So the three that were voting are the three that did the scoring. The scoring it was an initial phase and then there we we went into discussions after that initial phase you're not answer my question I love the way you do this you do this in every committee it's a lawyer thing I think but I'm asking you a point blank question to do three people that voted to accept this contract did they do the initial scoring yes or no no who did the scoring we had a representative from each of our departments that representative I don't eat our I. T. departments so what you're telling nine is your representatives that you elected to do your scoring don't think or react the same way you three do. correct okay. This representative Eubanks. Thank you Mr chair I have the same concerns that representative Beatty has there's a wide discrepancy in the price and I'm finding it hard how you can justify that but I have a question for the share the staff. are you gonna take a vote on this this morning when there you have so many members of your committee that are not here. We're going to listen to the questions and we'll make a decision at the end. Thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you Mr did you go against the recommendation of those who reviewed. Did we we chose M. A. we chose the vendor that offers the most comprehensive proposal that was based on our understanding of what is needed and that is in conversations with legislators and people who are in the business so to speak we took instruction from the broadband summit those things that were mentioned in there were I boots on the ground validation of service community outreach components that were deficient in the first two proposals okay but let me go back to and maybe I didn't state my question clearly enough the evaluators that determined the scores did they put forth a recommendation to the three that made the determination or did they just present the evidence and you made the determination now they just scored and then we to those scores and went into the discussion phase okay and then with the gap in the funding that has been identified Did the other two companies leave anything out that they should have had in that had they added it in. Would possibly have brought their prices up higher. Yes Sir I'd like what those things are because that to me is the big issue right there if they left something off the table we get an inferior product even if we paid less would come out with. What we're not looking for and so I mean it's a disparity I'm sorry would you please identify what those disparities are I'm the pieces again were or the community outreach pace which and involves Meeting with stakeholders and leaders across the state of Arkansas and also a a service validation pace which is referred to as boots on the ground one of the proposals did not include the bits on the ground pace they said they could do it but under strict permit law they cannot increase their price offer. I'm the other vendor did have that as an option but it was a rather lean option we didn't feel like it was sufficient so did they know that they had left what what were those not all part of the requirements that were stated in the R. F. P. and did they submit their proposal with those things being absent as required by the R. F. P. M. were they given an opportunity to amend their contract price in order to bring it more realistic with with the top top bid I'm the proposals were different but in one case the vendor offered and did not think that the boots on the ground would be needed in terms of service validation they also had a their community average pace again was pretty lame and the other proposal there was a community outreach pace that essentially created a plan and then the boots on the ground was offer the service validation was offered but it was we did not think it provided I was not robust enough for the state of Arkansas if I remember the guy at the summit from Missouri I can't hear what state was he specifically stated that in their plan in their state that boots on the ground was a critical component to being able to get a good plan moving forward in my mistaken on that or I remember it was the the guy from Mississippi or Missouri that made that statement or do you remember that sorry I wasn't at the summit I don't recall that but I think it is there's been a concern about service is supposed to be in some areas but it's not and so there is a minority of unnecessary I think is the general belief that it is needed in Arkansas to really validate where service is thank you thank Mr. Centerman you're recognized thank you I'm just following up and I understand. I appreciate the fact that you negotiated and save just nineteen percent when the actually this legislature voted to approve up to four million dollars for this consulting contract is that not correct that's correct yep so this legislature expected six spends about four million dollars for this contract it was negotiated down with the work that you off done at down nineteen percent follow up on what senator Hammer said if you attended the connectivity summit it was very very very clear to us from the representative in Missouri through our legislative committee meetings that boots on the ground and being able to conduct actual community assessment with in person meetings is essential to getting us the data and information that we need in order to make the best decisions we can on spending our money for expanding broadband because if we do not have accurate data we will not have the ability to have eyes on how much money we're spending and if it's actually going to matter or not so this is an incredibly important component. Cost quest associates is located in Cincinnati and Seattle Deloitte is another consultant that is located outside of the State of Arkansas do you know how many times I have sat here and approve contracts of out of state vendors who then come in and subcontracts with our Kansans that's crazy and I'm tired of it and I can also tell you that will put in a low bid and then as soon as we turn around on review and peer subcommittee there is an extension for that contract and that is such a way that a lot of our vendors get in their their foot in the door is a low bid and then they come back and go oh we need more money if you want to do that when it was originally in the RP to begin with so let's be very clear about what we're doing here we have a one time opportunity to get this done rights and time is of the essence because we've already expended how much money Mr Hudson has three has gone through. The Arkansas rule connect grants and the rule ID broadband grants how much money of already we've already sent out the door with actually knowing that the information that we actually need to make the best decisions not sure about the real ID number I think with we'll under three hundred million four arc seventy five to seventy five two hundred seventy five million dollars we've already expended in broadband grants which is great and we support that but why this group of us push so hard on getting a state wide strategic plan for broadband and ensuring that boots on the ground and community outreach I actually was going to happen is because we're spending unbelievable amounts of money to try to solve this problem we cannot solve a problem if you don't have accurate information accurate information has to be obtained by going to these places and actually finding out what is available and what's not available so I appreciate the answers that you gave to senator hammers questions because he's exactly right on target and I believe it's important to note that this is what other states have done and has been recommended also the FCC commissioner that came and spoke he actually also recommended this and and so I appreciate that I noticed this can was there and attended the legislative committee hearings and I appreciate Mr Hudson Mr ports was also there as well as see you back there thank you Sir and and so I appreciate the recommendation you've brought to us and I'm fully fully supportive of this and I appreciate the work and due diligence that all of you have done on it thank you thank you. Two echo a lot of what Senator Irvin has said my only issue is is why did they score and the low forties or the high forties. Interesting scored in the eighties when someone else look the proposal other than yourself. I'm not as worried about the money as I am the actual school or they put in a proposal off of an RFP you had non biased people from your agency we've already established look at the proposals why was a score so low. I believe that a big factor in the overall score was the price there was also okay so you say that normally these proposals have thirty percent the price is that the same way this proposal was looked at. I'm sorry what was the question. Normally these proposals allocates a certain percentage of the proposals to price certain percentages to procedure what was the percentage of price so we want to use that I want to know what percentage it was a price I think it was thirty percent okay so we can start office seventy all right so we're at seventy how did we get to forty six I believe was the actual number. So Leslie price out of it now because we've taken that factor out. So how did we get to forty six Represent Wardlaw I wasn't in those discussions but I am in further discussion I can tell you that the components that were missing were the difference in the qualitative difference there was. We had two consultants that are and. Seasoned in this business and doing data collection they are and they do proposals across the country they had to add proposals that were prepared in terms of data collection and how they do that from a very virtual and I. T. savvy way broadband consultant group is brought in Altman salon which is a partner and global partner that does that sort of data analysis as well but they weren't on the call so to speak so that might have influenced some of the decisions honestly I can't tell you because I wasn't in that part of the evaluation. Dotson you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair Yes I've got a. I'm trying to I'm looking at this our the proposal to have break down on if you have that in front of your not. But it had it shows the three different vendors here and I apologize if this act was covered before I walked in the room but the dissolved the the Deloitte and the cost quest Associates proposals did they meet the R. P. requirements. For consideration you yes yes all three of the vendors met all the qualifications that were in the R. E. yes. And then I'm. Maybe you can help me understand this weighted technical proposal score and the costs for I mean is this like a golf score where the low score is the best orders at the it's because. The broadband development group had the low score all across the board but that's the one we're choosing to go with is the one as the low score over the high score at help me understand that. Well as as noted the score was based on the proposals the interviews and then we went into discussions and during the discussion phase with secretaries and the experts were back at the table with us as well as see tax we talked about those qualitative differences in the proposals and those were substantially defined as boots on the ground service validation and community outreach which are and necessary pieces we believe are a and effective in substantial plan in Arkansas so the but that wasn't in the original R. F. P. request that was just an act in the scope of work yes Sir okay. And then the service validation the Bill Gates on the ground pays it is a part of the I identifying what connectivity is available in Arkansas so the the proposals had different approaches and. As I mentioned earlier one of them did not include of abates on the ground component one of them had a an option but it was pretty lane and then broadband development group had the most extensive boots on the ground approach. So finally here the I'm just looking at the costs for here because it looks as if the costs for for. The law it was the Max three hundred. And then cost quest was next at two seventy five. So would it have the higher. I mean the higher price got the higher the lower score according to that. I'm not. I'm trying to make sense of the the numbers we've gotten from its course I wasn't in the room for all the the discussions of the various proposals but it it almost sounds to me if you've substantially changed the request the other two vendor should have the opportunity to at least match that proposal and give you at a cost estimate based on that so we have apples to apples comparison on what's being asked for. I'm there some constraints under the procurement law under the most advantageous proposal process our understanding and working with S. P. is that once a vendor makes a proposal submits an offer they cannot increase their price so and one of the vendors there was there was essentially no option on that community outreach pace that we thought was important. They did note that they could do that but it would require an increase so the base on the ground validation and community outreach phase the other proposal did include that as as an option but it was we felt it was too Lane. Okay so if I understand correctly just. Procurement wise you started off with costs quest because they have the highest score correct did negotiate with them and when they didn't meet the the requirements you went so this if you do award this to someone other than cost quest I'm guessing cost question probably be challenging at. And then then you go down from there because they did have a high score. I'm that it that is the process and we go and we have to defend the decision to not accept that proposal and then we go to the next highest scoring vendor and there is a challenge period yes of fourteen days okay thank you. Senator Beckham. Thank you chair. Over here. Initially when this was put together wasn't that wasn't the intent to award this to broadband development without going for a fee. Isn't that accurate. M.. Two I'm to to your your original intent was not to put this out for or if the correct well yes to to do a procurement process that was described as a special procurement with without RRSP and that does yes there was and development group involved in writing the or if the. Not to my knowledge no. Was there any dissension among the three people that made the decision to go with broadband development group and concerns. There was there was a lot of discussion Senator back but it was unanimously approved. And the boots on the ground component you keep mentioning that a community outreach during the broadband summit Amendment many members here were in that that meeting during the broadband summit the broadband manager Stephen porch was there is in the back here he mentioned that they have hired a third party to handle their ministry of duty so they can get out and start community outreach as well we duplicating that with a another vendor and using that as the reason why we're paying. Over double. That seems to be the only point of difference you have those boots on the ground community outreach. This is worth. What four times five times six times what we're paying with the other bills or. I'm at I don't think that the broadband office with its current staffing could conduct the extensive community outreach that is planned through this proposal they are I'm planning three hundred to three hundred and fifty meetings across all seventy five counties the base on the ground validation again is very labor intensive I do not saying the broadband office perhaps Mr Hudson could address that could accommodate that yes thank thank secretary I think that's an accurate statement you know given the folks the broadband office right now is about grant processing in so just the size that office even with the supplemental you know help coming into seatac Haggerty in the contract that so that's been appropriated by the legislature it would not be enough for them to go out there and do that if there's enough work to get done is getting those those contracts out the door so the level of work that we're talking about the the concern is understood he was much discussed about the differences in pricing but our sense of it was based on all the conversations that I think we've had with you having some the frustration you've expressed to us about the quality of the data that you see and you know all the maps accurate or not accurate and I think for the team that was reviewing as is I heard the conversations going what we did not want is to take the time and spend the money and give you a product that you are not satisfied with that we know you need to have good data for you to be able to make policy decisions about where this is going to go next your continuing approving grants and spending money without the data correct. Now we know that there is a need Sir for that that might go out the door the question is what else needs to be done as well as not in lieu of I don't think we never need to pit the ark program against other potential opportunities to help you get broadband state. Thank you. Centerman you're recognized thank you just a follow up I think there's some confusion about C. tech Haggerty and that they were if you will describe Mr Hudson what they do because they are actually the ones tracking they were brought in during the carriers carece task force which I was on and date were brought in to track accountability for those grants that we're going out the door in different a grant grants that we authorized and so that's when they came into play with the FNA and commerce is that correct yes ma'am yeah so you're used and if you'll just describe that and how you're using that contract with the current grants is that correct through art to make sure that there's accountability there is that right yes ma'am you Mr tonight concert with few weeks coming there is confusion about you know C. tech AID versus this this consultant it's probably because we're using the conf the term consultant for both of them and I'm really not the same thing I would release kind of say C. tech Harrity is more of a state of a contractor who is just extra arms and legs and hands to the work to administratively process and get out the door the grants than you get out the door they are not the same thing as a broadband consult an expert who's gonna come in and do a holistic analysis about what the needs are state I I don't know them super well but I don't think that's what they're prime expertise says the auditors auditors and just kind of processors right well auditors not architects yes but there's a big difference this amendment what we're trying to hire is an architect. Right I mean we're really that's what we need we need an architect to create a comprehensive approach to expanding broadband to all areas of the state of Arkansas that's going to have to be technology agnostic because we know that there's going to be certain technologies that are going to work better in certain areas of the state than other areas of the state we know that we've got to think about economic realities of certain areas of the state of Arkansas that's what an architect that we're hiring is going to do and so when you think about two hundred and seventy five million dollars that we've already expended the governor wants to spend another two hundred fifty million through the art programs or grants I think two point five million pales in comparison to what that's how much is that two seventy five plus two fifty. Approaching five hundred we're we're approaching five hundred million dollars over five hundred million dollars in grant money without an architectural plan to see where we're actually spending the money where we need to spend the money so in my opinion and the reason why I'm so supportive of doing this in this concept and I've been talking about it along with Senator English along with senator Hammer along with senator Caldwell Senator Hickey many of us is because we're building a building without an architectural plan. That's what we're doing right now in my opinion and so we as a legislature want to make sure we have an architectural plan so that the building that we're building is going to last and it's going to be a sufficient. For our needs and for the citizens needs. Because that's what we have to understand I know and I'm okay with paying more for that because I think that's what we have to do we have to have a comprehensive understanding of what is needed in all these areas of the state because it matters so much on economic development for the state of Arkansas it matters so much for those kids to be able to do their homework at home. And if I have to spend two hundred two point five million dollars to make sure these kids don't have to Senate McDonald's parking lot to do their homework I'm willing to spend money think about the economic return to the state of Arkansas if we get this right. Thank about how many people are going to be able to run their businesses from their front porch. In the middle of rule Stone County Searcy County or Chicot county or to say county or Ashley County your Miller County. Thank about the people and Sheridan right now Sheridan who has zero broadband access. My hair stylist does not hear lives insurance because I would never brought this bought this property had I not known that there was zero broadband access to my house. I never bought this property. So it increases your property values it gives you the most economic impact that you could ever imagine that we need right now and rule Arkansas it provides students with access at their homes to be able to do their homework it provides entrepreneurs the ability to run a business from their front porch and from their home it provides incredible economic growth opportunities it provides telehealth opportunities for patients to be able to to contact their doctors and or specialist from their homes. All of those are incredible benefits and I think it's incredibly important that we understand the differences between seatac Haggerty as an administrative auditor and this as an architect we're hiring an architect and I don't think we need to hesitate and I'll be ready to make a motion of the property Mister chair. Senator Hickey you're recognized thank you Mr eyes I want to change directions as little bit as far as go back to just a contract in the in the money so we approve this we approve this are you gonna write a check for two point seven million dollars immediately to that to to that vendor that contractor for lack of better words you're going to have a you're not gonna do that you're gonna have a draws based upon all this work is going to be done out here as they're going into the communities that we develop that draw schedule so that we know that you know how much they're going to get you know as specific work is done have we done that yes Sir the FNA has worked on that okay so is it is it I would assume that if the if nays worked on it as commerce been involved with that I mean the not to my knowledge Allen do you. Okay yeah so whatever they've done X. number of community projects or or been out there that we like to call boots on the ground that we're going to disbursing that money based upon that draw schedule. Don't pay for reports okay. So you know I think that's going to be a large part of this I mean I look at this that you know if if they don't perform then we're not going to pay that money so it's almost like what you've got out here is a you know a building project that requires these draws to be done as the work is being performed so as long as we've got those Drawsko does you know been done right the way that they're going to do on then this they should proceed and then if they don't then we're never going to pay out this money would have to turn into something different so that's the way that's the way that I see it and if I'm wrong please tell me now since you're correct thank you. Representative will you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman I have questions for both Secretary Hearst and the department of commerce I'd like to know why all of a sudden we did a three sixty turn relative to who was over saying broadband all of a sudden the US department of heritage most all the other grants had been through the department of commerce is that correct. That is correct yes Sir at I don't know there's been a change in who's overseeing broadband I think the. Secretary her speak for kind of what her role is but the Department commerce still houses the broadband office we still have responsibility for being a facilitating and implementing all the broadband grants that has not left the department what what is heritage in law now. Eventual handle of we've been asking her I'm asking you well Sir minor just come out of the governor's office my understanding services come out of the governor's office yes no yes or no the governor yes the governor recommended that the heritage had a. Handle the working group for studying broadband yes okay is that not all of the. Great deviation from where we've been before. Where did not yes or no it is a deviation there's a reason why okay now the next question is. This is a. For Secretary Hurst two of them first one is. Of all the others the other of the other two. We have a contract and grant disclosure and so so as to make a certification form it has to be filled out. And on this one that I look and I see an attorney that has a relationship with the brother I see a relationship directly to the state legislature and then a city where we have the chair of the member of the how we commissions spouse involved can you tell me or any of the other two companies did they have certification today have people that were connected to state government like this one show. No sending things wrong I'm just saying do the. Not to my knowledge they didn't have it. Not there was no no connection to relatives brothers cousins uncles aunts or anybody in the other two. So we selected this. All right the next question is from my time as chairman I just want you to be aware of got about six eight people in a cute okay just one quick way was the was a contract proposal would put out was it a specific items that they could address or was it a subjective nature where they could interpret how they wanted to respond. It was a general scope of work this was a specific on areas or was it in general there were some specificity and they're it but it the by design there is that scope of work as general and that is under procurement law in this most advantageous proposal no the law. Is is asking was a specific it was specifically spelled out exactly how they were to perform and not subject. Relative to your evaluation you're scoring and then your committees vote. The scope of work did ask for how they would create the data creates a mapping find the validation of service and it did ask for community outreach yes Sir thank you Mr chairman. Representive right you're recognized and if members would remember that we are all getting close on time and we've always been our into this representative right you're recognized okay thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman I would just like to get an answer maybe jumping ahead just a little bit but as far as I know at this point we're only talking about federal money. But at the end of that when the federal money actually plays out Sir. What would we do it what do we do in a situation where we have people that might be hooked up that might not want that service or might not can afford that service what do we do I mean you know right now the cell phones have a place for anyone that actually wants a cellphone. But at the you know at the end of this what do we do it is a government hi eighty four the internet service are what where would that money come from Sir. Do we have any idea. If I may take a stab at that represent have you know I think we heard this at the if the broadband some in a couple weeks ago in hot springs there is a large amount of federal funds and I think the challenge that we have is making sure that we get the right stream of federal funds tied to the right need they'll probably come a time when we run out of federal money on this thing but I think we're probably several years down the road. Your question is is a good question is the right question what we do about affordability and that is component to this study is that we do want to broadband consultant to look at you know is broadband once it's put in place once it's made available can somebody actually afford it and what are some things that we may need to consider doing to help with the affordability and their federal programs on that as well so it is an issue that we look. Follows what what I would like to know though is at the end of this at the end of this we help people now on their cell phone bills or paying for free phones is that what we're going to have here. No Sir I don't think so I think you know there will be programs to assist in there already are programs to assist people with acquiring the hardware in there's programs to assist from the federal government to discount at with federal funds there is no proposal for you know us using state general revenue or another state you know funding source to give people free internet that's not what we're talking about here so at this point we know that with cell phones you are getting. And the people that have cell phones are paying for people that don't by. Is that going to happen in this situation or can you have any foresight on. You know I. I wish it was a fortune teller not conceding the future I came into this incredibly complex topic but I do think that what we the problem we have from us right now is maximizing federal money and that's a server your process thank but to your point there are people who do have cell phones who may think that's good enough and maybe I don't have broadband the House. Yeah that's choice they get to make we do think that institutions need to have access to broadband because that's how you poor people hospitals you have access to broadband because the bill read MRI's and so it's not just the residences it's also you know the institutions that are in those districts as well many have accessed right now what I'm getting to is we just don't want our existing people to have to play on their cable bill or whatever. We we need to know that is. Representative Crawford you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. A in my former life I was a grant writer. And I was never given a grant that I did not score in the top percentage. so I was wondering could we get copies of the scope of work maybe a copy of the R. F. P. electronically to where we could look at what you ask for and then see all three of these what they read what they put as or scope of work. Yes ma'am certainly I believe that is available now I'm Leslie has it been posted. I know that the intent to award all of that documentation is been posted on the office of state procurement website but we can follow up with you to make sure your similar commercial there thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you Mr DO you lower score if somebody left something out of the proposal that was required to be in there or they came in lien as you've reference two three times does that put a black mark against him or lower the score. And. Not necessarily if they were deficient and if they didn't meet. Specifically something in the scope of work that might not that would show up but in the discussions phases when we get into more of the detail on implementation how they're going to execute how they're gonna validate service all of that sort of information comes out during discussion okay because that that's what raises a concern to me because on a couple occasions this morning we've heard that they have come in lien Senator Hickey brought up the point that we're going to pay up to the limits of the contract you're gonna proportion that out by the same token if we hire vendor that you've already knowledge is lean and one of the key areas that we're looking for and they get up to the limits of what they have proposed they could come back and also go above that up to the appropriate amount if we as legislators determine your you're not giving us what we want that we've already seen has been done successfully in this state in other counties is that a fair assessment. I'm yes Sir the broadband development group provided a robust approach to both the boots on the ground and the community outrage so we are we are not concerned that they are laying in those areas. The other proposals we considered to be either not having an option written into the scope of work are the option was insufficient. Okay then how did the other two score so high. If they left that out we're talking about we're talking about a low score and high priced. But we got also a little a lot of high priced and low score what did the to leave out that. That did not drive their price up to where it would be a apple to apple comparison with the high price. I'm I'm I asked jim I've tried to explain that but Mr Hudson could you take a stab at it I'll try a quick set of thank you yes Sir It is the the degree to which the boots on the ground would be deployed you know the new arising how many don't have needs County you know how many means they can do in each county to the degree to which we get a lot of feedback from the county increases the level of by and our product and we felt that broadband group was the one that had the most robust presentation that and without that was a significant component to making the decision to award do you know well the three that a bit have any of them ever been found to be deficient in contracts previously in dealing with business in the state of Arkansas I don't have access to information center I don't know if any of them ever done work like this in the State of Arkansas before. broadband group has I don't know about the other two will cost less is done some work that they supported the broadband office in production of the maps and so they've done work on broadband Arkansas but as far as what this our if he calls for and the experience that we expect to have any of the three done the similar work already in the State of Arkansas as your lace the boots on the ground component you know I think broadband group was on when he was done that so far have you had any complaints about the work that they've done in the State of Arkansas then I'm not aware of any now no Sir okay thank you. Representative Beatty is a last question. I do mean the last question yes Sir thank you Mr chairman I think we all agree the timeliness of this project in this proposal and and meeting the US also understand the you know the the senator's point about an architect and design you know just looking at the R. F. P. proposal tab and just look omitting the call sign in just looking at the technical scoring that was done by your experts in the people that you felt the most comfort with in your particular agencies to score You're going with the lowest of the low score I have have issues and concerns about that excluding the cost. my question is I would I would like to hear from Mr porch his opinion and his thoughts on this proposal if that's possible. I think that's fair to hear from a judge for. If you would a judge if you would introduced so for the record and you're recognized answer questions from representing. My name's Stephen porch I'm the director of the Arkansas will connect program as well as chief legal counsel for the department of commerce. Your your question was could you repeat that please I would like it in your position capacity I would like your opinion in your thoughts on this R. F. P. and the selection of broadband development group and their ability to discharge the responsibilities that that are incumbent on fulfilling of the R. if the. There's one thing I will never do I will not lie to anyone. And I don't plan on ever line because my credibility is always in a state okay. That's why I ask you to speak. I have my concerns. I am I concerns. Personally I think there needs to be. Probably know there are a few. And Just one second. All right here it is. BTG has the most Of the three they do have a better boots on the ground approach. However my concern was this. That. I was in the meeting with them and I ask them some very pointed and direct questions about. My my key question that I've asked was whether or not. You've ever done in a statewide plan before. Because that's what we want we want a holistic plan. The answer was no. To me that's a big deal if we're going to spend that much money. One eighty our programs so important Arkansas and I'm very passionate about it. I know that Senator Irvin Senator Hickey Senator English Senator Hammer everyone here at all Wardlaw I'm not trying to leave anyone out on it is very important but I don't think BDG. Is the one I think there's a reason why they were scored loan I think there needs to be an R. F. P. I think they need to become more or less than what they were doing they've not done a statewide plan and I have not Nicks words about it And this is too important we don't know if we get money in it before they've done some boots on the ground in communities where they essentially Went out there and and did engineering to see where some of the things were that's very helpful in doing that but their their approach is this and I'll give it to you I'm not trying to take up too much time but I'm trying to be as thorough as they can with everyone. Their approach is this we're gonna electronically look at all the data on the know that the FCC that is flawed on we're going to look at it and then we will look at other programs US for a reconnect and all those we won't look at all those programs and we're going to state or we're going to say that if most of them hitting the same areas that those areas are going to be served and if there's a one that there's conflict in the information on the federal mass we have that there is not going to be served and we're going to go in there and we're going to do that's you know check and see whether or not that is actually service there or not that's what's what they're going to want to do so is not going to be one a boots on the ground that's going to be essentially statewide it's going to supplement I think the cost to do a statewide is going to be more it's going to cost more in order to do that so with The the one that scored the highest I believe it's. Our cost quiz consequences actually putting together a plan that is that they're executing in the state of Texas which is a lot larger than what we have here in Arkansas is population and as wild as well as ground wires they the Have the people to do that but there boots on the ground support was a little weak If if I must say that if if that was a. A little more robust I think we would have someone with the experience with the team in the town. With the low weight I have to agree with the Secretary curse that their boots on the ground was a little bit lean in my opinion as well I was not overall in impressed by their Presentation. And so That's how I felt about that. But I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done with the R. F. P. process needs to happen again so we can get the best things for Arkansas so that we can do this once and do it right as these three parties in addition others want to resubmit a more robust plan that's in line with what you have required in demand in what Arkansas deserves in so be. Those are my opinions. Judge thank you for your candid comments in Austin sorry for putting you on the spot today. That's what I'm here for. So. I have to committee members have questions and I have to honor committee members request so I'm going to recognize Senator Hickey first. So you're saying the RFP process was flawed. I think we I think it was a long we can probably get people to put together better programs but what my I would my question Sir. All right RT was put out is that correct it was and who did that. I'm not sure I was in control of that okay so you're saying that was flawed with what the state of Arkansas needs. Because you're you're in agreement with what the legislature has been saying. And we keep saying this boots on the ground that that needs to be more interactive process so you're saying that you're in agreement with that but the or if he was not written to include that is that what you're saying I'm saying that the candidates they were there needs to be fed up to meet the R. F. P. standards in my opinion it's just my opinion the oath which which or if the standards are you talking about the one that was put out of the one that should be put out the one that's put out it the boots on the ground as an expensive component on we got up to four million dollars to do then is to be a large team is willing to do it so we can have accurate data and be able to Director blows in a way that's going to be prudent now well with that I know that there was a statement made about the art program what we do is when the maps seem to be flawed or there's an issue with it we contact the community and try to find out exactly whether there is actual service of their so I don't want anybody here to think that the two hundred seventy five million dollars of this been allocated graciously by this committee has just went just everywhere we take our time to try to make sure that that what's done is done is done in the best interest of Arkansas for the people who need it. What struggle with that with your other comments just to be blunt because you know you sit you sit down and say we need this we need is more interactive a planned we need this plan in place you know for the people of Arkansas and then we've already disbursed all this money out ahead of that so you know those two don't line up to me one let me see if I can try to try to line it up I appreciate it what we do we're not doing it on a large scale we're doing it application by application. So we're we're directing Abalos application by application. When you have somebody that's going to do it on a larger scale they don't have to do what we do wait on application and then check and verify and see if there's truly service there someone can be doing it on the larger scale we're we're just doing it by application is this community services application the if the if it says is served let's how much is it served by let's let's call the mayor let's get some information let's do some speed test in the community to see what's there but with a broadband consultant they're going to do with why they're and they don't have to wait on application by application in fact what they can do is they can which is anticipated work with me and I will tell you where the areas we know that services by our work okay one other thing do you know what the percent score what the maximum was for the blues on work boots on the ground component do you know what that wasn't or if the. No Sir when I was there for was always a part of the meeting to. In the interview in portion of it that's what I was a part of I actually look at their plans also and I reviewed those but as far as the scoring and things that was left with the Secretary hers. Not not with me. What percentage do you think that should be of an RP. As far as boots on the ground yes sure that's what I thought that you're saying that forty percent forty percent okay thank you. Hi Senator Irvin are recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair your referred to cost class they hurt currently have a contract with the department of commerce is that correct. Department of education that benefits department of commerce okay and you said that they created the current maps that you presented to the legislature yes they they created those maps as well as A online map that we use those were paid. From the department of education we use that to try to figure out what's a good in Arkansas and what's not. It's a massive difference well they're meant several members of the legislature including representative Wardlaw said that those maps were completely inaccurate. And that's the that's the point of the day I question the ones that created those maps that are completely inaccurate site correct I wouldn't say they're completely inaccurate is based on the data but I would say that if they have the boots on the ground approach to it then we can have more accuracy I think that any map that anyone receives here absent a good boots on the ground effort is not going to be what you're what you're looking for there's always going to be someone you say my area is not serve and saying it served so the boots on the ground component should be a high thing and thinking about it and they did not do that and I'm not gonna. In a hospice did not do a robust of boots on the ground if they did do that and I would say that that's a. That's a better plan of Arkansas I see even better than the ones in in California which I don't know exactly all that they're they're doing over in California but I know they're they're doing or why plan over there when I think of boots on ground approach here in rule Arkansas I think. That will really ferret out what is needed for more accurate data in more direct blows of service right but I guess what I'm confused by is that the conversations that we had was Secretary hers to presented the proposal said that that's why they picked the other one because that was part of the R. F. P. those are part of the R. F. P. standards some confused as to why you would say we need to to repeat and R. F. P. when those standards were already part of the original RSVP and one great just did better than the others and that's how they were selected because that was a priority that was given in the discussion and the decision making process so I guess that's I mean it it's I mean I guess if I were the other company I could come back and go will Hey we if we had known that if we had known that this other company did well then we would we can go back and adjust ours And we could win it. I'm not sure if that's really the rights are a few process to take place after the informations already been out there and presents in this discussion so the R. P. standards seem to have already been appropriately applied in the R. F. P. seems to be of appropriately Processed and and run by the state of procurement office. So I guess I'm I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree that we don't I don't believe we need another R. F. P. I do agree with your comments that the boots on the ground component is an incredibly important component I think that's very consistent with what Secretary Hurst said which is why I feel like. Their proposal they brought to us as appropriate. In let me be unequivocally clear. the secretaries are smart people I will work with whomever is chosen to make sure that we can get the best outcome for the state of Arkansas that's my word on that thank you. Cochairman rice you're recognized. Thank you. We've had the good information this morning had some good questions. In the light of the testimony and questions this morning and I'm not calling for a new or if the at this time I'm going to make a motion in order to have time to digest the information we've just gotten this morning That when the info is coming in that we the executive committee meet next week were expected to be in session. this executive committee can meet when we're in session and my motion is that we delay the vote on this until next week. Have. You senator Michael I have a second all those in favor of the motion it has been seconded say aye. All opposed. Is have it with that will move on to next item agenda thank you judge. And our next item is a presentation from eighty eight. If miss miss Tracy Anderson. Two six okay thank you. If you would introduce yourself for the record miss out Anderson and you're recognized to present your power point good morning madam chair Mister chair my name's Tracey Ann Nelson executive director Arkansas education association I'm really I was hired to make comments on the process that we're having to ensure that public school educators have access to health insurance So I just wanted to make sure I put that in context before I go into any detail I'd like to thank each of you on behalf of all the educators who are currently in our school buildings with our favorite people are students for educators I'm sure you are aware it is an especially difficult time with the uncertainty of covid but no that they continue to show up every day for our students our organization has lost members to COVID but more significantly is the loss of educators and classrooms school buses and all the other jobs that serve to make our schools function. as you know earlier this year the public school employees health insurance I hit a major bump as the solvency of the plan was in question with a seventy million dollar deficit on behalf of public school educators and their families across our state I want to thank you for not just addressing the deficit but for also committing to identifying how to make a health insurance plan that is viable sustainable and worth it to school employees I know Senator Hickey was really the impetus for making that happen and the work has gone on and we appreciate all that you're continuing to do we believe your investment in the work of the sea of Siegel demonstrates that commitment to our schools and to our educators. ATA has had the opportunity to hear directly from Siegel this week and we were able to ask questions about their findings and recommendations and I want to thank representative Wardlaw for his clarity during that presentation. Quality and accessible health insurance is a key factor for the public school work force we know the challenges that already exist in attracting educators to work in our state insuring a healthcare insurance plan is in place. Is in place allows our state to to recruit and retain good educators which in turn serves our students this year this year's legislative session included an increase in the per pupil state funding. In ACT six fourteen. This represented the largest increase in state investment in public education and fourteen years additionally at six eighteen acre increase the median teacher salary by two thousand dollars. This effort to read redesigned the health insurance plan along with the investment to diminish the shortfall allows educators to actually realise does increases and that means something as they collected their first check last week. I'd like to acknowledge some of the recommendations from Siegel that are welcomed. State funding increases need to out pace future employee increases to realign the benchmarks. Arkansas needs to implement a reserve policy that allows the plant to absorb fluctuation in claims. Public school employees need pharmacy coverage which they haven't had and this recommendation is one that can have significant impact on employees and families. we're aware of the findings of the wellness benefit hands its current reduction status. In the consultant's recommendation it is to have a wellness benefit but to have it results based versus self service so in so so it's incentivized so it incentivizes the outcome with a possible increase in participation. Rapping Medicare advantage program can increase the plan's viability reducing the cost of the urgent care copay. The clinical recommendations around oncology diabetes and wellness can serve to improve the overall well being of educators and their families. I'd like to share a little bit of our research about health insurance in other states for public school employees and we hope that as the redesign and recommendation goes forward we work to ensure the plan is on par with educators contributions in other states. So this is where we were with the wellness program the basic plan the classic plan and the premium plan. as it stands now. Our employees contributed the largest portion of their health insurance. The districts the lowest and the state was in the middle. In Alabama employees contribute twenty eight percent. Of. The health insurance contribution in Ohio employees contribute fifteen percent in Vermont twenty percent in Alaska thirty two percent in Arkansas public school employees contribute more than forty nine percent of their premiums. This leaves us in a less viable position to attract and retain educators. It would be disingenuous of me to use some of the other data that I have gathered because state employees and school employees are combined in many other many other states I've only used to states that don't that separate the two well I know this is a work in progress ADA's recommendation is the shared cost of the premiums be divided into thirds on. Oh sorry so here is an example of the Alabama plan versus where we are we're Alabama pays this employees only pay twenty eight percent. Of the premiums but here we are in Arkansas with forty seven percent. Well I know this is a work in progress. We recommend in the shared cost of the premiums be divided into thirds of one third contribution from school districts one third contribution by the state and the third contribution by the employees. I would also like to point out that when people were made in as an eligible for health insurance because of their employment status the data show significant lost employees and school districts and we've seen the impact shortage of school bus drivers and other non certified positions. In in closing I just want to say health insurance is an essential part of our workforce needs and without it people are less likely to consider the opportunity of working in our schools. in the recommendation from Siegel there is a need to ensure that we do robust communication to the community and Education Committee and ATA looks forward to being a part of that information process thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony not seeing any questions we appreciate you being here. We will now be going to the single group. The. Waiting to get your phone screen. Patrick are you with us. There we go. Patrick you're recognized. You Yes you will. Hello yeah we're gonna start off with the of the pharmacy decent that's okay we have a couple of short follow us but I think that's that's the main reason for us being on this morning so we'll start there. There's or Jackson. Go ahead thank you. It's. Okay so Dr. Yeah. so good morning everyone the next day was a First Baptist leader you know yesterday we we listened to the comments on the conversation your acts the pharmacy association and before I kind of dig into some clarifications once one make in our slides just want to clarify a few points up or based anyways just today or I should say is it what were not accurate if you are to be counted so um I do live in the state of Ohio I born and raised here I live in Columbus Ohio is educated in Ohio there was a comments about the Ohio Medicaid program it issues with pharmacies. You independent pharmacies closing of the state of Ohio it is true and you know it isn't a known issue here and like millions of other people I have been reading the Columbus dispatch on the articles and the dues I do not have any engagement whatsoever with the Ohio Medicaid program or any public entity in the state of Ohio I don't consult with them I never have just wanna make sure that this it's understood that there is nothing here with me and correct despite a third there's no conflict there's nothing but some you know related to Ohio other than I live here The The other thing I wanna make sure that is Henderson is that from single standpoint we are completely independent of any influence from the industry from the about the industry we do not work for PBMs would accept no commissions brokers fees finders eighties. Payment from the mediums and at our work our work is solely at the request of our clients and all or fees and revenue anything that we would charge is paid by our clients to us there's nothing you know from CVS or the industry so I just wanna make sure that some of the understudy regarding our. moving on to the next slide there was a significant discussion yesterday around benchmark of benchmark that we provided back in July during the July twenty second meeting with that was a probe preliminary benchmark comparison between data that we have a single data warehouse and information we had on ETC's performance that way. We were still assembling data or collecting data there was delays doing that so in that benchmark we did rely on that the eighty plan paid amounts member per month or PM PM as reported in that impacts business financial review for the account or your twenty twice a so those numbers word directly from that reporting. yes based on the comic of the benchmark there's a and during the meeting yesterday and pressure on whether to find a house or included stuff fifty five miles from the numbers we went back and did an additional review to kind of determine yeah the value of the coupons and is that the bomb in that number that was provided to I will say that is a second but we are confirming that the seaplane of the House are headed out of the plant paid amounts in the ETC's numbers however they were not included in the single data warehouse benchmarks so there is no specialty coupon data that was included in that benchmark analysis so there is a difference there also as we were kind of reviewing back through the reporting that was provided we believe that the eligible members were overstated by fifteen thousand of people and on a GMC on bases but overstayed by fifteen thousand eligibility and if you yeah I'm here I'm calculated by empat and that impact was creating a lower GM yeah on the what is actually in place that fifteen thousand number overstatement is directly related to the public sector employee Medicare retirees that do not have pharmacy coverage but we believe they are excluded and those House that side after. So on this is that it we kind of expanded on what was presented was was presented in July and then trying to take and and presented yesterday in the presentation the law the roll and blue highlight there at the three feels plan paid rebate for science and that plan eight mile That is directly what was present yesterday the left hand side is the original bill was presented against the benchmark and then the right hand side is the revised on the left we wanted to show kind of the additional if you will waterfall from total costs including member cost sharing the coupon value of this they're on yeah bases so how to get to that eighty two dollars and ninety two cents yeah number when you factor in the readings that were earns we get all the way down to the seventy two dollars and fourteen cents that original do resolve that we showed. On the benchmark again total class member cost sharing which is significantly last as we have stated there is a pawn include in that we get down after about read eight percent twenty five percent we get down to a seventy eight dollar difference it was yesterday that you know the. Concepts that. by following the civil benchmark it would cost the state eleven million dollars additional you look at these numbers now when we revised down and count for that correct. Asian of members in the plan that is on the right hand side and you see ET their number changes two seventy nine sixty six it in our benchmark we have included the coupon value that we would assume what you know carry forward while Europe's now under your plan or any other plan going forward actually live as we gave a quote one value for that and that would result in the benchmark being seventy one dollars and ninety five cents on a basis for about thirteen million dollars that are that what you did is currently performing at the so that's the revision and yeah the the chief why started you find value in a member's house a county correctly in that revision. By we do I also add additional information which we have reference but we wanted to exit for Yale these are projections based on recent performance in the last six months we have conducted in the public sector space So based on meeting these data and information received through research for months we are and and we estimated top five categories of your trucks that would generate thirty five billion three dates of US thirteen million more than your current rebates and just these categories. when we look at the four state level bit so we've done a last six months rebate percentages of total gross this contract costs range between twenty five and thirty five percent of that cost so you know kind of putting that into the XO hello eating the yeah numbers are listed there total class member I sharing other Page amount or the issue finds this plant a ninety one fifty six the we calculated by thirteen percent total cost read a as a percent of total cost those read eight dollars on the on the on basis or about fifteen dollars and fifty one cents what is that that plan pay about seventy six dollars I read a level twenty five percent we estimate that you would be around sixty one dollars and seventy three cents on a county on bases or about twenty almost twenty five million dollars savings over your current and added a thirty five percent rebate level you could potentially be as low as forty nine dollars and eighty cents RTMP up basis or US forty five million dollars additional right I will say that these are projections comment was made yesterday that yes you will have to review this and they would have to make the determination of do they you know if you do go out to bed do they wanted on this business however and this is what we are seeing that's available in the market and the server current enforce contracts or. So. A couple additional items that were stated we summarized clarification yarises status you will provided protection certificate rebate by the absence of the actual claims experience the valuation we did receive claims and evaluate the actual claims looked a little bit more than two point four million claims so we do have that information we didn't include that and you know kind of our houses You are saying that you know in the absence of you know drug coverage policy evaluation we did not receive the current drug coverage policies however in a recent procurement we have a client who had their own coverage policies and access of a thousand printed pages of clinical drug coverage policies those were provided as part of the R. P. any of I. N. the dating Q. guns were able to evaluate and the bark comments that is it did not impact the Lovell read a generation also we will be very Koppel saying that it should be somewhere between twenty five to thirty five percent even with you know custom or you know the coverage losses that you have placed at. Our consideration of an entity's excluded drugs our evaluations were based off of actual claims that were process to determine the estimated rebates and excluded driver should have no utilization and therefore no impact on the rebates so the underwriting is based on the estimates are based off of you know actual drug utilization and projections looking forward so if there are any planes than those are not included in any kind of rebate generation. either say that the overall recommendations promote the larger PM's and as I said before it is sent to the larger yeah hi generally aligned with the state's pharmacy benefit management philosophy we're simply recommending that you go to market to see what are the best options that are available in the current market and you know that may be a true statement it may not be it's or to simply recommending to look at what's available market. What a special have concerns around reimbursement levels of independent pharmacies and really any pharmacy not just independence but yeah definitely there's. We acknowledge and appreciate the the need to value you place a pharmacist are operating very raw or is staying it may be the only pharmacy the available for you know for some population You know when we look at this and how we structure would recommend structure they are the the state reimburse you know Arkansas based independent pharmacy separately from Jane's and other pharmacies so that should have no bearing and reimbursements from the PD you can tell if you got what you want to reimburse Are Best Buy savings analysis is based on approval rating revenue that we do not reflect any reduction reimbursements any pharmacy independence. Rules are there is a discussion around specialty drug coupons and you know that this was a custom program was developed specific to you the by one particular pharmacy these programs are widely available on the market but from PDF's but as well as standalone vendors who specialize in patient assistance program so we have clients that utilize a mix of different process sees that and programs to maximize the amount of manufactured dollars are available out there market. these programs are really plan design based and what that means is the idea is you any you artificially increase the member okay so that that is offset by using a manufacturer. Bob all of the programs that we would recommend or that we evaluate we have with clients or designed to have a zero number dollar out of pocket costs so members Hey no more and many cases they a last zero over there correct okay searchers inspection drones which are. Reference to guarantee discussion your accent contact or comment that the pharmacy reimbursement rebate axes such guarantee shift control plan the the of our viewpoint and it's important to your point out that is somewhat misleading for ET D. as it is self insured and you have full control of your plan you decks a plan designed for military utilization management protocols and how you want the media the administer your plan so this is the nature of what we do with our class today is allow them for all of their plan and it they have control today. read a guarantee is or for the benefit of ET and will be based on the specific drug utilization so you're not shifting a control your yeah this is for your benefit how will budgeting help knowing you know what to expect the. There are review it and our understanding of Arkansas is really the only state that we know of that does not have minimum guarantees on week days or operates discounts off of trucks to the the reduction. we are calling in reference to a pharmacy reimbursement reading isn't burning Siegel the central plains concerns restaurant retail pharmacy reimbursement and may lose some control out for or utilization management decisions whether it axes will will play knowledge and that these are potential concerns we want to be sensitive to that yeah you have these concerns and we do as well and they can be addressed through the R. P. design and requirements around pharmacy reimbursement that you would require as part of our feet if you. Sh. Westar. talking about for a third management's ET R. S. has been yeah. Talking about their approach to using evidence based review of drugs and yeah we yeah we apply this approach and we support this approach but I do want to say that is not much difference then what is currently in the industry standard for a few hours that use an independent pharmacy and therapeutics committee also this is a committee of physicians and various expertise across the country and pharmacists to review all former editions and new trucks of the formula erring as well as the clinical protocols that are. Created and recommended that clients and roll and so things like prior authorization programs yeah we we are supportive of this the other thing the the of these DNC committee meetings are often done in very transparent said in and we see as consultants and many of our clients have attended PNC committee meetings that are conducted by the the House by a quarterly basis to review the observer process and we have access to the materials that are present in reference that in the past that the ET had used Optum our axes as a PDM Optum our axes that very public about inviting their clients and consultants that work with their clients to attend they're publicly available in the committee yet so that is in the market and is something that we would you know requested require that you know you have access to do that about that you go out to a our. We are reference their clothes from their plan design this is certainly be included in our city and we have conducted recently are fees for there was a custom for married or drug list that was included in the R. P. so that the TV on that specific to that preferred formulary were closed for military rebate guarantees are reviewed projections will be based on the form to sign and your drug utilization so there is no issue was you know how this is done it simply yeah this is our Friday that we want to use and we're going to put that market to have someone that are. Comment was around high cost drugs and you know having to include those to chase three dates and not of our recommendations and we would never recommend that you chase rebates particularly high cost low value drugs is quite common routine that plans are excluding many of these drugs that you know are extraordinarily high cost said really no value or there are other alternatives that must you for cost so I just want to call a. yes some questions around transparency is those guys have transparency and concerns in the past about transparency in our review of and I work with state plans transparency is generally not an issue that state level plants this is due to their procurement rules and contract requirements for disclosure and if you guys have agreed read a seller manufacture revenue is often a hundred percent pass through the state and can be audited by an independent auditing firm so you know you have for a lot of rates and an access to view what is being passed through. and you know many states like Arkansas have passed numerous laws regulating the outcomes that require very slow what levels of disclosure including yeah what is being referred the fireman sees and manufacture rebate revenue so yeah this is a good thing entity Sturch responded that we have yeah we can confirm that they are complying with these laws and regulations. there are so reference based pricing yeah you are recommended comment is still recommended the removal reference based pricing in order to attract large your there's the lotus Leding we recommended that it be removed stew yeah a tract of other bettors not sizes are relevant we want to further clarify the statement that are experienced with other plans these programs are difficult to operate and communicate to patients we would recommend if it's an absolute requirement to allow to be optional for a better if they have a a process is supported they can make it a part of their their proposal and if they don't then you know they could be stored and and evaluated without that in our proposal We do have concerned that Yeah this reference based program does shift costs to members who may not be aware of lower cost options particularly under categories that habit that are predominantly generic drugs operate so yeah ninety four a higher percent generic dispensing rate in those particular categories of house the reference based pricing. We know is that Arkansans that concerning the removing the reference based pricing program may lead to increased plant costs however it does result in lower member class will not impact any local pharmacy reimbursement for these trucks. All right well you know our overall a recommendation to the market the program there is no harm in evaluating what is available market if you notice so it's a fair and opened by Leeson and you can make a determination to change what you do or not that's that's the purpose of yeah kind of checking the markets yeah we were recommended by since last or if the FOR Edie would include this is examples your custom for malaria clinical rules reimbursement requirements for pharmacies your requirements for transparency audit rates Your body so your plan design strong termination rates so that you can access the contract with no penalties if you so desire to do that regular market check provisions so that you can ensure that your pricing as best in class or what what's available on the market bodysuit you know we recommend financial performance guarantees to protect the immunity and share some of the rest and then you know that are the would have well defined terms that would become part of the contract so there would be terms of the GDS would read so as to stuff that we subsequently become just part of the contract. all you got combinations the evaluated to determine what is the best interests of the state also we we advocate for no TV on work particular model S. what is in the best interest of the state and who made the announcmenet on the opportunity that fits the bill in our last recommendation is really. Recommendation around a diverse group to provide feedback on the development process of the R. P. and you know what's included and the evaluation so obviously there's multiple so interested us and we would welcome if we were so you know if we were to do the R. fee for you would welcome a collaborative effort to develop that our feeds of meeting the needs of all parties all interested parties all of our kind of prepared slides and I'll stop and see if there's any questions. Senator Hickey recognized at just just one which would you mind kind of going back and expanding on the part about the independent pharmacies you all had mentioned something about that I think you B. D. could possibly tell the PBM what type of rebate they wanted I didn't quite understand that totally so you could you could you all. The explain that a little better. Can you are not accessing can't they can't hear us. We're not actually getting your backs it is there is there are questions or loss to proceed forward on the the financial. Give us the. I know you can't hear us but give us one second we're going to let. one of the. There's there's silence muted. So there are questions Joe just taxing me so I think so thank you Sir for the LRT insta I knew there so we can hear what's coming through. There were so now. Can you guys here's now. Yes okay Senator Hickey you're recognized for a question yes of you audit mentions something about the as far as our independent pharma pharmacies ones are in the rule areas that EBT could actually worked with how much the discounts would be for those particular ones do you all remember discussing that. I have a very hard time hearing what that question was okay I'll try again can you hear me now is it coming through I can't yes okay. All right of. I usually don't get to people usually say they can hear me good but the the thing is is you all discussed about independent pharmacies about especially out in our rule areas and you had made some comments that we could actually have a be due to work directly with the PBM as providing what type of discount. To those pharmacies I didn't quite understand how how that would work could you also expand on that a little bit. Certainly and good question It would be you know it can be in conjunction with the PDL to kind of go she ate a a reimbursement level you know we have the experience with you guys are willing to negotiate directly with you know pharmacies reason our state and so it could be done that way and it could also be done where you just directly. The you're ready to reimbursement rate what the reimbursement levels should be so there's a couple ways to attack it but you know. The idea is that the reimbursement to be set at a certain stage three sure and you know that's it that is an issue with Arkansas because it is a you know concerned with the one independent pharmacy that's operating out there to cover you know eighty miles from there however I I guess I don't really understand you know how the how we can do this Hey get to the fairness issue with that or how how we would do to how would we decide that the EBD was just going to negotiate with. One pharmacy down in northeast Arkansas not negotiate with one in southwest Arkansas for the same same reimbursement so. Okay sounds good in it you know helps may help we were. I would recommend doing it on an individual pharmacy based I think it would be L. N. and one state particularly they looked at all independents that are based in the state and that they to go share in overall rate for everyone so everyone was reimburse whether you got the drug and you know one county versus another it was the same reimbursement rate. And and can I add in here of the way that we did it in the most recent procurement qualifies when we went to that we had the bitters provide us back information separating independence from all others. So we got that information and and and they were happy to do it that way they have all of that information so when we receive that information back we were able to an analysis make all of the independence the same because we near whoever that we that wasn't was the winner was awarded the contract would be receiving the information from management as to what is reimbursements will be so we were able to do an analysis that was comparable and fair by having those two things separated. Interesting thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized. Thank you Mr one thing it was brought out yesterday I'd like to hear your response to it was how much interaction did you actually have with the B. R. action the staff and the workings of the B. R. X. with regards to how they currently are doing business in Arkansas what was your interaction involvement with them. yeah we we had a meeting with them you know at the start of this and requested information and understanding and you know of we also met with Matt impact as well separately to have their insight understanding set up and structure and we relied on and you know information is provided to us claims data and records provided through backpacks and contracts yeah the the contracts that are in place to rely on those items the high and look at this valuation some. Okay and then the second thing is it seems as though your presentation is leaning toward moving the business to wear a PPM would oversee the pharmacy aspect of it we had quite a few problems and in Arkansas which several of the PBMs already with our insurance department having to hold them accountable finding them the reputations just aren't exactly stellar and yet you are proposing that we engage in negotiations with them and given the historical past and the the tone across the nation how is it that you feel that it can be justified shifting the business over to a PBM given the historical problems. Yeah. Well that are stand and you know when you look at one PM contract you saying one you have contract there's not yet a contract with a bunch of different entities through different requirements and so it's a pretty broad strokes to make yes option that just because the negotiated one way it was one and since you that that'll be the case with another asset state yes so again we're not advocating A. one model anyone P. today you do use if you go that impact and you know if if we want to go down the path we can say that ET our acts also operates and provides the online services because they negotiate rebates and do not hold radio and for merry design the other thing is yeah the PM's have changed dramatically because of legislation because of yeah the focus and the attention on yeah how they contracted in the past the industry's consolidated considerably and you know I reference that Ollie back in July that there is it is it is truly difference today than I was in the past so. And then there's any and you have many laws that are designed to hold that the ballot title and they would you know operate against a contract a solid yeah clearly defined contract with terms and conditions yeah of what they do when they do and how they do it and what the repercussions are when they don't do those things or if something would not go according to that contract. Okay and then let's sing as you mentioned about our of P. awhile ago and and I just want to clarify what I. Make sure what I heard awhile ago when you talked about they are fee would would Seagal be participating in any future RFP process or what was it you said about you and your involvement with R. F. P.. Yes like my comment there was we were hired to kind of give a valuation of you know based on our experience working with you know over twenty states across the country and our experiences you know to go shooting different types of agreements our recommendation is that you market the program we would love to do that work but in the event and you know if we do it we're order that do that work yeah we will lead that process and and you know work with various stakeholders and that if we're not award that business that you know but technically we would not be involved in some. Thank you Mr. It is the for clarity and comfort We do have many situations where there are you know to consultants involved you know what the process and other balloting you know and you know making sure that you know there are you know everything is tying out as you know being of and so you know we do work comfortably and that Bayern and you know we have no issues about. Okay. President I guess what you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman my concerns are along the lines of senator hammers you know when we talk about the PBMs and specifically these three. We've had lots of problems with them in our state I think there there's lots of reasons for us to be concerned. About how these benefits might be managed going forward but I do have some specific questions. The like to hear the answer to. when we look at kind of what the bottom line most important a cost consideration for us is that's the per member per month a spin on the pharmacy benefits and so if you consider apparently to my understanding EBR Act service lied yesterday were the per member slide or whether per member per month cost with our plan is less than the average cost per single clients in other states these other clients almost all do not include retirees the S. as they have moved to Medicare plans if the Arkansas retirees were on the medic you are or on Medicare instead of the state plan what would the real per member per month for Arkansas state employees versus Siegel clients be who also don't have retirees and their plan. Yeah but the question I think the person if you could comment on that And maybe we go back to the benchmark chart we were shocked. Sure Thanks very or or costs vary by state based on many different things and this was part of what we went back to look at yesterday it can be. How many you know what percentage of your population is R. actives early retirees sixty five retirees it can be a function of how did that you have on the plan obviously the more children you have on the plan and the lower the PM PM it can be a matter of different utilization and the risk of your population. Five I would not say that we don't have client we definitely have state clients whose. Here is that eight PM PM is lower than yours the same similar type population. We look at this chart again on yeah bush showing at and we talked about this the other day that the original benchmark here the one four is based on Siegel's national data warehouse and we even have state clients that are lower than that so. Error it's got a very by state but we have a state and we just record your that has a very tightly managed formula area Vaught very tightly managed clinical programs and we just cared the and it came through the same way we're seeing other. bids come in currently impact apple's FOR UP last night looking at them to say what we're seeing over the last six months as Nick said the industry has changed tremendously certainly from ten years ago definitely from five years ago and I think we looked at one planned where in two thousand sixteen they were getting twelve percent rebates in your later it was twenty four and it's continued to grow. So yeah this is a part of the market and lowest net cost. Does include better yeah we applaud Lois net cost I think it is acceptable for we want we don't want any lower value high cost drugs on a formula airy we thank clinical roles are important these are high cost drugs but you it is very difficult to compare the dollars PMT um um based on all types of reasons so I hope that answers the question to some degree in this let me know if I had I like this China little bit on the slide so I spent a lot of. people as far from the original slide deck and and showing that it is more cost effective that's kind of what the the would you respond to the Senate has so the main problem with that is that the number of calculating correctly in an active for now the. Modelers at ten point seven percent difference in the way we realized as we start breaking up I'll different groups in the help you build the for the yes the group included the Medicare tire group so averaging zero dollars fifty thousand people in calculation. Major level of lower so that the robot. That. that exercise you know you don't end up lower addition to talk about buying things the group is not out of your number but it's really not in the right data and that's so thank you know that the original back Marcus is not to be quick look at in our our data before we got all the detailed information and you know the original estimate was like it was relatively in line you know and that both presented NO didn't show a lot of components so I mean you go through this this analysis shows okay the top line cost a little higher. Three and then you walk through eleven okay it's a little higher but member cost sharing is you know twice what our bond market in our database so that backed your coffee and and your your top line actually. This push your members and their pain difference. Through good vote plan would have a copay Nicks said both would happen just so you back that out and then you do the analysis of the thirteen twenty five an hour aspect twenty fives or low low end of our in house and by president delta. with the houses so the recast of it so and it doesn't in sync with other slide this is not to be a bachelor so we actually we stating numbers in there. Page to or from your own wrong numbers so I mean this is an this is your own numbers so market shows you know our okay business nationally and our data warehouse is a little lower than the shows that we calculated based on our current procurement is what we expect and the numbers we believe in the right order your results so I'm confused about the Little contacts around this And I will add one more comment after if we go back to the previous slide please. And when we looked at this last night and found that the membership was wrong we went all the way back to two thousand eighteen and the membership was wrong so I never say that happened I don't I don't understand how that happens how nobody noticed that over the last three years but at this point you have everything split you have met impact he's given the role that numbers there to pay claims so perhaps they don't really know and then you had ET our acts who was working on. Formula area clinical roles perhaps they don't know but who knows who knows who's looking at these reports to say these numbers are correct three year. The. Right we also suspect though you know we don't have detailed line by line administrative costs this summaries for years for under the it is likely that fifteen thousand straight out those paid to member state might very well be paying for those people Mr Lee noted. Number just the. You're recognized. Thank you Mr chair you know I think. The point that was made and and that I agree with this who knows. I mean it's it's clear to me that we're not really comparing apples to apples here you know you have that you're C. group numbers you have our numbers and when you look at those things clearly you know you're not include similar populations are talking about Medicare populations that are included in some groups and aren't included in some groups and then you represent these as being accurate figures for purposes of comparison I think the point is is that they're not and as you said who really knows and that's a big problem going forward especially when you're talking about three PBMs who have given us You know a number of reasons not to trust them in their practices and so there's lots of reasons for us to be concerned women for this is my opinion thank you. President will your recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. We're we're charged with the responsibility of. Ensure that the employees of the schools and the state employees are well served by the the programs and benefits so that we we offer and I've got a little bit of a concern I think for you to respond to a couple of three questions one is are you all aware of the case went before the US Supreme Court Rutledge verses PCMA are you all familiar with that. Yes we're we're familiar with a. Okay and who is that uh lawsuit filed against. Then to PM may's. I'm sorry can you repeat that. My next question is chairman is. You're not necessarily involved in I'll. We're all the pharmacies are closing. You may not be doing business there but these PM Mercedes that you're recommending here are doing business in the state of Ohio. So follow up to that is it's my understanding that the Federal Trade Commission is currently investigating PM use and also the our state insurance agency has been pointed out our legislative all it has been involved in the AG Attorney General's office so what what and then and then you made the statement while ago that we have rules and laws in place to cover misbehavior what would you go into something and ask for them to then when you know you have all these problems before hand and now your turn right around and saying that you need to do business with these people I wish you clarify or give me a good solid reason of not only mine but my colleagues here have asked the same question other will be redundant but I I can't get a normal I can get my arms around that would you respond. Certainly certainly you know I think Written every state that PDRs are operating all of them are operating in and. C. zero runner up to you but I'm not worried about the other states. I'm worried about the state of Arkansas more about AOL we all for healthcare is former pharmacy care drug care for our people in the state of Arkansas the question is why would you all recommend PM may's over what we currently have when we have all this given evidence that you're headed for trouble one way or another so how do you how do you respond to that. Hello NO one over the other states. Our response that is is simply to its market and see what's available right you have marketed you the the perception is that what you have is better anything that's available and that is not necessary to be true and how do you now and so for you know for clarity and you it could very well validate what you're doing today is the best for you it's just how do you know that and I think that's the that's the basis of the recommendation is that the industry has changed the locks doesn't change the requirements for disclosure and you know the credit in the pharmacies and registering what insurance Mr and all of those types of things have changed dramatically since you set up and created this program if anything it will validate what you're doing is after and what will be no questions about. Mr. You know we saw with all kinds of different employers and we seen several be successful with PBMs so you know we see it firsthand every day and that's what we want recommends yes we think it's flaw. What ensues grew this is another follow up question Mister chairman are not all these PO moneys most of them online insurance companies. owned by various organisations Gazaway and beyond by them as reference. They own a home or the question is are they old by insurance companies. Yes. Model. This German in in in last week's testimony I ask you a question about have you reviewed the effects of the act seven ninety six of loan the plan the calls the contributions if if if we should be able to remove four hundred and seven oh well of thousand positions with this just say have a more budgeted positions we're talking about the removing roughly five to five to six million dollars the al of the plan so have you looked at the way we handled contributions to the plans in Arkansas and the fact that we keep coming up thirty to forty to a hundred million dollars short. Have you looked at the budget budgeting in the short. Yeah yes we are we we dress that last Last time we were there I mean we've we have incorporated some recommendations invited to to close that stop gap hi as well as recommendations around this in funding and he's to come into the program to to find the the program an adequate level to continue benefits over the long term all recommendations around longer term financial planning and and a lot of these changes the the mechanism that is being funded currently based on budget position verses fill positions is something that we've looked at and talked about over the course of the the few months that we've been working on this and the fact matter is there's a there's a lot of funding I need to be there if there's changes that occur to the budget positions over the course of. Over the course of the next few years that's something that needs to be considered and looked out to make sure that this act funny program that would be I will be incorporated into the longer term projections or don I as as part of the analysis that we've done with passive months. Thank you Mr chairman also I would like for. To hear from judge the relative to their position all this at some point at some point just a difference if that's all right Mr chairman thank you it is and we're not gonna do that today what we are going to do that So any further questions from the committee on the presentation today. No questions all right Committee without objection. yes yes almost forgot the most important part of when you guys go through the governing structure that. From the other states we ask for. Sure. Our financial protection to section we're need to go through yeah but in general regarding the governing. Bodies will compared the make up that you had in you have a lot of good components in your ear recommendation that the J. four couple things we're looking at it's very typical to have you know representatives from mom all this state groups like you it's great to have your coverages in place that a state employee there are other retirees you retired teacher retired state I know that Jett recommend all of the for the I think that's all good recommendation the main question I have and that is you know some of those are appointed positions and some of our elected thank you I don't remember the legislation you're recommending one but We soon more common Blake the but laws representatives and in general. And then the other component in this is yeah ninety or your or and usually for plan members is a I have a lower percentage of the group we typically seen. Nine membership is usually like a group and like you know ten people expect rear three representatives I think from your current make the I think you should add a couple recognized a couple more so that it's more like a. And representative appointed positions and for the plan members. And component pieces that are common in other words the what we have like a budget director on their or treasure. Controls the finances higher level of the state the other component would be some clinical aspects of the record a medical doctor or pharmacy specialist on their help with making those decisions and educate board board members on that but in general the claiming of information of working there all of the board. Over and over board but in general I think the the thirty to forty percent of the group make up I think is a good number when you get closer to fifty percent sometimes be problematic the get tough decisions path that impacted the members of the group. Person or anybody else any comments for covered. Well. Questions If you. At a high level what we see. Or make us. Any questions or committee members on the governor's board presentation at this point. See non. Thank you guys for being on the same day and with that without objection we're going to instruct the beer to start. Okay but I'm sorry did see centerman at which just kind of a discussion one other recommendations on page four on other talks about governing board that continuing legislative oversight of plans including funding for Planned we have a current legislative committee that oversees the insurance plans. Is not fall under anybody's jurisdiction. I know we have retirement. Right now personnel subcommittee handles it at the moment there's some discussion to use the health care market place subcommittee kinda redesignated to EVD okay check okay yeah I mean that was just my question because you definitely want. I know we have like a retirement committee and that's really important and their their recommendations above this is similar to retirement bills for actuarial studies and for And deadline for bills that's very similar to the work that retirement committee does on it so just maybe a consideration that we might put retirement and I don't know we might have. Something together to where people are used to that kind of the system of a deadline for a bill and then an actuarial study it's just something that I just thought I'd throw out for consideration the thing is these good thing about all the yeah thanks. Senator you're recognized yes Mr before they leave did they mention they had another like a financial component that they wanted to present. I thought they said they have one other one other item amended to give. They they may have on I didn't hear it but call can is there something else you guys would like that. is to. We have we do have a presentation and now if you want to present this or another point. It. It's the financials of the combining the two funds is that correct. Yeah yeah this is a few slides. Everything separate and a combines look. We'll go ahead and present now Patrick if you want. Be brave heroes early so that some of this is Regina from prior discussions that we have this as part of our previous meetings and you can jump ahead to the exactly Sommerstein so is this is consistent just on status quo basis in terms of what we expect to look like if you're to do nothing with the program so based on our projections related to the program current funded basis on our understanding of the the different metrics and protect the claims of the course of a five year period what that would look like and in addition to that we've incorporated some of the recommendations are all of the recommendations that we provide show what that does to the bottom line long term projections that we provided I we've done this is project noted on a separate basis for U. S. C. I. S. C. and PSE as well as on a combined basis of both of those funds were to a court being corporate together to take a look at what I what that saw. Just a reminder of a revised slightly based on common conversations you had business eating but this is generally consistent with what we provided in August presentation we're down there I just took a look at what the the numbers of like for agency on a sensible basis and and over the course of the five year projection period I we're expecting the that's all I says the followers or during the this hard to serve on the twenty twenty three period and negative sometime during the course of twenty twenty four if no changes are are made to the program. Like here we incorporate by the recommendations that we talk about during the course of our meetings with you over the past few months including side by side Medicare advantage approaches to the seventy five percent roll into the program the Division rebates that we were expected calm as part of the program in in this this pharmacy conversation fat and implementation of diabetes management programs all of these changes are projected to come into play and then start twenty twenty three so there's no changes the numbers for twenty twenty one twenty twenty two ASA is been changed income that come into play for the course of the area as well as claims expenses due to the reduction costs related to you the incorporation record bands of the eighties programs are recommending you'll notice in twenty twenty four is actually a ticket down in in projected rebates or other income and twenty twenty five this is due to the fact that a portion of your Medicare population in movies Medicare advantage I would no longer be counted rebates to those income dollars of an adjusted our but the fact that you'll be collecting rebates for those participants those those reviews to be incorporated into the race that we received as part of fully insured Medicare Basco one of the things that we see here over the course of that five year period as is that the the income level looks looks pretty strong over the five year period this does not incorporate any additional state funding for the the state employees that is included as one of our recommend a simple we've capped our state funding flat just give me a sense of what it would look like if you did make those changes I know that five year period you have already asked a license that would be in excess of the reserve target fourteen percent that we talked about over that five year period. So yes recommendations for their the Equifax's this is the the financial issue all the way throughout twenty five. Right. Story on PSE much more of a sure all over the five year period that that's that grows over that period of time total assets turn negative or during the course of twenty twenty three and and that that negative as projected to grow over over the time time rising that we look at and then there's significant shortfalls or the out years of the five year projection that we looked at again the numbers have a slightly based on some conversations we've had we've had some clarifications on some of the additional funding that would come in through the course of the the early years based on what's been let's say that some of these numbers haven't been included into the assets as of yet but will be available so they've incorporated into the twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two projected numbers as well as an ongoing issue no projected funding from the DOE will come into play for twenty twenty three and beyond. Yeah. It the. This is the problem and it really has to do with a lot of the one time funding so if you notice the Department of Education line it's a hundred thirty million that John Steiner sixty five million the baseline you learn as a hundred ten and so you're losing fifty five million dollars in funding and have other line medical trends going up so that's why you know that is not worse line you have a game in twenty twenty to get significant loss twenty twenty three and that just gets worse and worse over time so Thank you here is that we got to find a way to you know replaces finding something that's ongoing I think you know we've had several conversations of the. Use your. Slides were a S. C. incorporate some of our recommendations or the five year period this national recommendations here in life or PST which the you are aligned the medical and prescription or are programs of the asking employees which is a slight cost you that one after searching drug expenses that built in here I also note that that the savings and see as significantly song as the side largely due to the fact Medicare advantage program that we're recommending or operate a drug program it doesn't exist today I would increase our overall costs slightly for the purposes of this our projection we're still in flat dollar amounts for the yes the residents are we believe that we can get a five dollar amount either through slightly different by design for the yes the employees or just Arkansas raising the process we have increased the dollar amounts they are for the yes the retirees relates to make your bath there is no cost savings associated Jackson relates to operate at that chain are in addition to that you don't see that that drop in rebates over the course of five years there are no Medicare resistance bands that would be removed from the prescription drug rebate program since they are not currently in the prescription drug plans and what we these are the House SDLC that same fact or yes even this is that you get for I ask you. I'm here is on the the invoices I will projecting based on his recommendations are not as significant as what we're seeing as these are largely driven by the make a matching apples mechanics work ground savings there that the the net income or loss that we see in the out years is a bit smaller it's been reduced or still driving a license and and falling below target reserves in twenty twenty four and and negative **** one point five. So I think it's badger noted there would be a need for additional funding for this program in order to make the makes learning levels consistent with the reserve our fire. Okay these last two slides that will go through just briefly I chose this are combined basis so things are. A status quo projection I'm sure will still exist over the five year period but relatives are deserved and small are the the funny protecting is required to incorporate this is a little bit last. Due to the fact that S. the isn't that more well funded and PS you program accents this the work program as a whole a little bit better by now I'm still issues and needs were injured and well being operated in order to make the program work a bit better on the longer. final the final piece justifies these on a. Recommended basis so we incorporate all of the recommendations that we talked about and and bring them in this is what possible Black Rock five year period I again you'll see our they're all assets fall below sorry reserves in twenty twenty four although it is a bit closer to our objective range and they would fall negative one point five our this is something I will need to be aware of these dangers will be a lot that and and rectify our legal finding basis you get I level up to adequately fund the program even with these changes there's our office to someone inspections bonding largely on yes these are the addresses it's not pass it on any concerns all right Wardlaw. And just to reiterate. There's no. Rejected any of this so you know we're showing by the savings will be returned to the shortfall is that you know none another presentations we shown we talk about how we need to this time uh future findings and an accent have that have regular increases not at this is John as discussion on the raw financial is and how things work and worker shortfalls are. That's all we have I guess the pros thing about the combined the funds One of the pros is is it things are just more stable because. Yeah AS the group that's a financial or signs so I can help us out that yes the side from the others there's not a more stability there by a yes some of the okay during raids do you really want to cross subsidize that's really. You know that you guys needed to sign Leicester your programs. See no questions are a committee members thank you guys for all your presentations a day in your hard work Members without objection I'm going to instruct from the chairs the bureau to go ahead and draft bills that would mimic all the recommendations presented by the consultants on the October seventh meeting all these bills will be on your desk for consideration and there we would take motions on what recommendations to I mean the six I'm sorry Stoptober six there we would take met members recommendations on which adoptions we will take. So without that and seeing no further business we stand adjourned.