ALC-Administrative Rules
Video
Transcript
48 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Members if you'll gather your seats we will kick
off administrative rulesittee. thank you for being here today we've got a great agenda for us and thank you for the great people of Arkansas we get to represent you and serve you well to kick us off if we can have representative car, would you open us up
in prayer? let's stand represent car you are recognized Oop hold on hold on here hold on
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:28
let's pray fatherthers we gather before you thrown a grace we just thank you for your love and your mercy. Lord I just pray that you would just grant us wisdom as we work to do your will and a way of serving our constituents and all those throughout the state of Arkansas just pray that you would just be with us as we make these decisions Fa everything that we do to glorify you in Christ's name I pray amen thank you members a
Speaker 18
2:56
reminder to everyone in the audience that to
be sure to sign up we have comment sheets in the front if you'd like to speak on any of the rules on the agenda today. Make sure you you do that now
they will be taken up momentarily. Members go ahead and log in to your stations if you've not already logged in and we'll move forward on the agenda. So first we'll move after call to order we'll move to rules filed in pursuant to code Arkansas code 103-309. And first we have the
Arkansas judicial retirement systems we'll call you to the table today.
if you will identify yourself for the record
Speaker 24
3:48
and you'll be recognized. good morning Amy Fetcher
Speaker 27
3:54
with apers. Thank you. you may begin. So this first one for AARS the Arkansas Judicial retirement System is in response to actct370 from the session and it's just saying that a retired district judge can serve as a special judge without forfeiting their retirements thank you looks like we have a
question from Representativedalby. let's see here thank you Mr chairir
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
4:17
Amy I I pulled up because this was my bill and it came from the judicial council and I pulled up the bill and the bill is doesn't refer to district judges. it refers to judges all judges and so I think the intent of the bill and maybe there was already a section in there that allowed circuit judges upon retirement but this is intended for all and
umm and when you look at the bill it doesn't I mean when you look at your rule it doesn't limit it to district judges it just says all judges so I guess my question is how are y'all defining retired judge because the intent is that it applies to any judge who is retired and not just district judges so the district judges are the only judges
Speaker 27
5:01
that are within the apers retirement system so the others are in a different one they're
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
5:06
in the judicial retirement system yes ma'am. Do you happen to know how those are handled
I would have to call my legal counsel up to answer that. yeah we need to know that because the intent is that any judge that retires can then immediately be appointed as a special judge because they're running out of they're gonna have such a turnover they're not going to have enough judges without being allowed to appoint if you'll identify yourself for the record as well?
Speaker 38
5:45
Laura Gilson general counsel apers you can respond yeah so asrector Fetcher said there are two separate systems the under the AjaRS system if there is an appointment that's not to fill a vacancy if it's temporary then they benefit continues just like it would under this but apers covers the district judges and so that's why this amendment to the apers rules had to be made. OK, so the cir
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
6:16
cu it judges are covered under their plan and and it's not gonna terminate their retirement if they get appointed as a special judge say they retire December31st and come January10th somebody needs a special judge then the circuit judges are covered under that already by rule is that correct that's correct and the distinction being
Speaker 38
6:36
whether you're appointing a judge to fill a vacancy in which right but we're talking about special
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
6:42
judges that somebody has a conflict and they
need another judge so now both sets of judges are now now will be covered and can be immediately appointed, correct? yes ok ok thank you thank you
Speaker 43
6:58
Mr chairir co-chair shepherd you repred thank you Mr
Speaker 44
7:02
Chair. I'm right here in the middle middle middle right here Right here up front so OK so the question the question I have is it's and I believe this is still still the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
7:19
case that one of the reasons that this is so important is that s serving s judges as they approach age70 at some point they're they are no longer able to continue to run for election or they would forfeit their retirement and their and so therefore the use of these special judges are becoming more and more important because of the fact that the the pool of eligible individuals gets smaller and smaller is that correct?
Speaker 24
7:54
the judicial retirement system that at age70 they can either complete their term but they can't run again. Does that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
8:01
also apply to does that apply likewise to district judges or or they free to continue to run there's not an
Speaker 29
8:08
age on the district judges thank you members seeing no
questions without objection this will be reviewed and approved
and y'all can stay right there. no need to reintroduce but let's move to public employees retirement system.
Speaker 27
8:26
thank you so this rule is just to repeal some language that sets specific board date meetings for the judicial retirement system and they they do have quarterly meetings but sometimes those move around so we just deleted that language members
Speaker 29
8:39
any questions seeing none without objection it'll be reviewed
and reproved. thank you. you're dismissed right next we have the out of state team you're welcome to join the table
if you'll identify yourself you'll be recognized you can start ummholmerhalan. I run intergovernmental
Speaker 57
9:20
affairs for the auditor of state TJ Fowler legal counsel for the auditor of state Josh Wood, Ass assistant chief of stafff and
Speaker 59
9:28
unclaimed property manager for the auditor estate. Great. you can present your role the auditor of state is proposing rules
Speaker 56
9:37
before you today to formally codify long standing procedures governing the administration of our unclaimed
property while many of the practices contained in the rules have been used for decades they have not previously been incorporated through the normal rulemaking process this rulemaking effort just seeks to solidify these existing practices into formal regulation with minor adjustments after public comment and codifying these established rules the auditor aims to enhance transparency ensure consistency in administration and protect both the interests of the state of
Arkansas and the property owners of the unclaimed property. and we'll be happy to take any questions thank you. I
I think the only question that that I've I've I have is it's
been operating for for decades or
at least multiple years without this rule, without the codification of this rules can you help us understand why now maybe why the change or why the urgency to to bring this through the rules
versus just the normal procedures today? yes sir so the
Speaker 57
10:47
unclaimed property Act was passed in 1999. it's a uniform act that most of the states follow it has a provision in it for rules and the laws actually set up where it requires some rules for certain items like how businesses report unclaimed property to the state, how claimants make a claim to the state and for some reason we've only our administration's only been in office for two years. it just wasn't done until now. We came
into officerecod it needed to be done and started that process on day one it's a as y'all can see it's a pretty large process so it took us about two years to create a
rule set so we should have done this in your opinion well before today. Yes sir.. all right Senator Gilmore you're recognized thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
11:30
you Mr chairir and I appreciate the response to that so is there's no deviation yeah sorry I'm over here no deviation from current practice, no deviation from how things are currently being run and you're just putting in rule as you currently operate is that
correct? That is correct and and I was looking through to see any of the public comments. Did you looks like I see a couple here. I haven't had a chance to to really get into those. Were there anything significant in those
Speaker 56
12:01
or concerns there there was nothing significant or minor technical changes. OK all right
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
12:05
all right and so again, no deviation from current practice no real deviation from
Speaker 56
12:10
current practice ok real deviation or d
Speaker 57
12:16
I'll let the lawyer talk to you about that. No sir this is all standard practice the way we've been operating since before our administration was in the building. OK thank you gentlemen.
see no further questions any other members see nothing else this is reviewed and approved. thank you. all right we'll ask
state insurance department department of commerce to join the table. this is item B3 on the agenda I'm sorry on the agenda
right welcome if you all identify yourself and you
Speaker 77
13:11
. Good morning Mr chair and committee members umm Tasia Titwell associate counsel for the state insurance department here to
here to present the proposed amendment to 23 Co of Arkansas R Park 91 titled funeral expensesurance this proposed rule is submitted pursuant to the department's statutory duty to define funeral expense insurance is required under the code section 2364202 which was formerly known as Rule30
the purpose of this amendment is to redefine funeral expense insurance by increasing the permissible limit of funeral expense policies from $15,000 to25,000 dollars the last time this was done was back in 2011 when the limit was increased from $10,000 to $15,000 at that
time the funeral industry had reported that the average funeral cost was around $8800 funeral directors in Arkansas now report that the traditional cost of a funeral is now between 10,000 and $12,000 what many services being between 13 and $17,000 These averages do not include
expenses like flowers obituary costs and cemetery costs and for this reason raising the maximum benefit limit from $15,000 to25,000 dollars allows funeral expense insurers to not only sell policies that cover the costs of today's funerals but also for the cost of funerals that may occur 20 or30 years from now
the department has determined that the proposed rule does not impose additional costs on funeral homes insurers or consumers beyond today's requirements the financial impact statement that was submitted confirmed that there are no new fees or penalties created by this amendment in the department certifies the proper notice of this rulema was filed with the secretary of
state on July8th of this year public comment was made according to the administrative procedures actct in the public hearing was held on August 19th of this year there were were no public comments received. in summary this proposed rule is designed to redefine funeral expense insurance to ultimately better serve the bereaved families of Arkansas and so
we're asking for a favorable review of this amendment and approval and thank you and more than happy to take on any questions. Thank you Ms Tiddwell.
Speaker 76
16:48
we appreciate presentation and understandably funeral costs are
going up so thank you for presentation of that rule. Representative Springer you're recognized for a question
good morning thank you Mr Chair. I I wanted to inquire
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
17:01
as to are you familiar with what the costs would be for that premium
to get the the increased cost of premium from 15
Speaker 77
17:13
to25,000. so so the methodology would not change at all it would just increase the limits that are allowed right now is $15,000 or what is allowed for funeral expense insurance what what what what
is allowed now to be called funeral expense insurance is capped at $15,000 if you will approve this change that increase to $25,000 so nothing would change as far as how premiums are calculated that will still go on age medical conditions and all of those things it's just the limits that are changed
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
18:14
just ask another way? what would be what what has been the average cost of a $15,000 policy previously can you tell do you are you aware of that cost previously in the past what it what it has just was just gonna ask you if you had any statistics on that and then what possibly it would be by increasing it to 25,000.'m I'm just curious as what cost is what increased costs that would be there were vary and there would depend on the insurance company. yes ma'am
thank youpresentative Steele you're recognized hold on. did I get you
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
18:57
thank you Mr Chairman thank you for allowing me to ask the question in your committee attorney Titwell so you're bringing these increases because the f the cost of funerals have increased tremendously is that correct thank you very much you know we're very proud of the work that you're doing. thank you Mr Chairman. senator Johnson, I
Speaker 25
19:19
I think I took you out of the queue. Will you light back up if you've got a question? all right you're
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
19:26
recognized thank you Mr Chairman. Miss Tidwell thank you for your testimony it at the end of your your your description it says here that that it would allow insurers to sell policies that cover the cost of today's funerals but also the cost of funerals that may occur 2030 more years from now that's kind of a long time and I appreciate the fact we deal with inflation in just
Richard Madison
Unverified
19:50
about everything and I I see some things happening now with our inflationary environment do you think since this is a cap is it I'm just I'm wondering do you see the possibility that y'all might have to come back in a few years like youd well you've last time it was it dealt with was 2011 so we've gone 14 years with with this cap but is is what's happening that the families now they they get that benefit and then it's the
rest of it turns out having to be out of pocket when you've got averages running you know more 13 to17 1000 is that kind of where we are and that's the first part of the question the second part is but this would still allowed the insurers to offer for example
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
20:41
prepaid or insured plans say for cremation rather than a full traditional burial is that correct that's correct that's correct so
Speaker 77
20:55
let me make sure I'm understanding the question so We expect this this $25,000 cap to hold for a considerable period while not encouraging overinsurance for the for the a considerable amount of time that's why we think this is a
reasonable upper limit for now that's why we proposed the $25,000 OK and I I haven't calculated the low rate of
Richard Madison
Unverified
21:35
inflation since 2011 this is probably very reasonable but I understand the intent and I appreciate you bringing it to us there thank you thank you Mr
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
21:44
Chair thank you Senator Johnson and and to your point
Ms Tidwell, you haven't come since 2011 with an increase so I think that's very reasonable with
what you're asking today. Senatorhammer you're recognized thank you thank you Sher just
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:58
get my mind around it. the insurance companies can't go out and sell policies that exceed the current limits now and with this this would allow them to go out and to be able to do it
Speaker 77
22:14
is that correct? for it to be called funeral expense insurance it must be 15,000 or less for it to be called funeral expenses insurance and those policies are are so in funeral
homes and the importance here is that this is done this is done under the code section referenced 2364202 under exceptions or exemptions where there is no written exam needed to issue that license and that's important for the funeral home and the insurance policy for this product to be offered
with that exemption in place it's just that a benefit for the industry and the consumers and that's why this is important thank you you can recognize yourself 01
Speaker 103
23:12
more time good morning everyone Saraherris general counsel Arkansassurance
Speaker 104
23:20
department.enator Hammer did you follow up? I did. So I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:23
mean the the the necessity of doing this is because if we don't do this the insurance companies that are
selling funeral policies are at a limit that is not reasonable. so we're going to raise this so that they can continue to sell that product and be within the legal framework of what it qualifies to be a funeral burial expense correct OK all right. my question is then now understand what's going into the cost of the funerals these funeral homes that are going out of business leaving bodies behind those things we really wish wouldn't happen. Is that acau is that a
considered in the cost that others are having to pay or is that there's there's no cost passed on to everybody else because of what these funeral homes are doing they're going out of business and and leaving bodies behind or is it personally am not aware of any bodies being left behind anywhere and if that's going on senator I
Speaker 108
24:20
hope that you will absolutely call me and let me know about that
Speaker 105
24:24
we can investigate that to my knowledge there are no costs of that being passed on to the other homes well you know you hear about it from time to time where funeral homes go out of business and
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:35
then somebody goes in and investigates and they find you know we've had it historically happen here. I just want to make sure everybody else is having to pay for that expense as the cost of funerals. OK, thank
you. thank you Mr Chair. thank you senator and last question Representativeladyman you're recognized thank you Mr Chairman. it's hard to hear over here people to go outside
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:56
if they're talking over here the house has trouble following
the rules sometimes so your members to please get in order right Representative ladyman do
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
25:06
you're recognized thank you for that comment Mr Chairman. I'm over here. my question all that form this right but so
if if I buy $25,000 life insurance policy, can I use that money say the funeral costs 15,000 Can that money be used for other things or is there a limit on what that money can
be used for No there is not. you will use this policy it is called a
Speaker 77
25:36
funeral expensesur but it's it there are no funeral arrangements made with this policy. I think I think it's conflated with prene contracts they can be used together however there are different parts of the code section that that governs this is a
funeral expense insurance which is governed by a different section of the code so it's it's different but there's no limit on what the
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
26:18
money can be used for the
Speaker 77
26:22
purpose is for covering funeral expenses but it can be used for other things outside of the funeral and it could be paid to the funeral home or to the
Speaker 92
26:37
beneficiary but the purpose is for a funeral costs thank you
Speaker 18
26:42
all right thank you members any other questions and
without objection this is reviewed and approved. thank you so much for being here today and thank you
all right next we'll move into B5 Department of Human Services you're recognized
thank you for being here today if you'll identify yourself
Speaker 122
27:23
for the record Good morning I'm Mary Franklin I'm director of the division of county operations for the Arkansas Department of Human
Services thank you for being here today. you are recognized
Speaker 122
27:34
to present your rule the rule that we bring before you today is for the community services block grant and this is in conjunction with our biennual submission of the CSBG state plan and in that plan the
updates that have been made have been in large part just updating current services removing programs that are no longer in existence and cleaning up language there is one change that we made and we made this in response to a public comment and the public comment was around and and in federal law the federal poverty limit that CSBG
funds can be used to serve individuals they have to be 125% or less of the federal poverty limit but that that percentage has been increased by a temporary language in federal law or continuing resolution that started during the pandemic that raised it to 200% and this public comment was around you know, could you let us do 200% so we had not made that change
because that increase was time limited and at this point has ended as of September30th of this year but what we did for any future events that may be along those lines as we took the specific percentage out where it said in the state plan it's 125% and instead have just referenced you know current what is allowed in current federal law and that way there is flexibility so that if there are temporary increases allowed then the community
action agencies that we distribute this funding to can serve individuals up to whatever that limit that is allowed by the federal law. be happy to take any questions. Thank you M
Franklin. Members any questions? all right seeing none this is considered without objection
it is reviewed and approved. thank you thank you all right members B6 has been taken
off the agenda we're passing over that today B7 we will move to that now and let's see we'll invite
a different group of of department of humanman Services here as well
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
30:12
please identify yourself for the record good morning my name is Melissa Weatherton I'm the director for Medicaidpecialtyulations at the department of humanman Services. good morning Martina Smith DHS
Speaker 134
30:22
division of provider services and quality assurance director thank
you for being here you're
Speaker 133
30:30
recognized to present your role. thank you so we're here today to present two different manuals. So during the last legislative session Act636 was passed which changed how we license psychiatric residential treatment facilities amongst other things that were in that that act. Here today we are here to present permanent roles.
We ran emergency rules due to the act having an emergency clause so we ran emerg ency rules back in June of this summer and are here today to make these rules permanent. So two manuals are before you one is the medicaid manual that sets out what services we require be provided at a psychiatric residential treatment facility and the other set is alicenger manual that now has moved those facilities underneath the office of long
term carere. So Miss Martina Smith here today she's in her role she oversees office of long term care that's the same body that goes into assisted livings in our nursing homes in our ICfs it is we're raising the quality and the standards around psychiatric residential treatment facilities some of the high points is in these manuals we're now requiring a series of monthly reporting to monitor psychotrophic medications of
these children. we've raised the admission age from5, which was the previous age to 10 we now require reporting on any state that's here in Arkansas that has been placed here from an out of state entity and we're also asking for a restraint report if they are receiving any type of chemical restraint or physical restraint we did ban in these manuals the use of any seclusion
or any type of mechan ical restraint usage which is federally allowed but we are not allowing it here in Arkansas. So those are the high notes and I'm happy to Marti and I
Chair
Unverified
32:35
are happy to answer any questionson Senator hammer kick us off. Thank you. Hey
Speaker 103
32:40
give me a name of one or two institute give me a a name of one or two institutions
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:45
that this would apply to just so I can connect with who we're talking about you want to look there's there's 12 of them Sure,
Speaker 134
32:56
Millcreek PrTF yellowRock PRTF ok that's good. thank you so tell me just keep me
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:04
straight on something you know we're going the Medicaid rate study program that's going on every so so many years, you know, entities are being ranked and all that kind of stuff and we're adjusting their their rates. Is this one of those groups that's in that ranking or that's in that cycle to go through the
Medicaid reimbursement or evaluation so not at this
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
33:31
time due to the fact this is a
Chair
Unverified
33:33
passon payable service and they actually change their rate Miss Stone went in and did a rate increase and required more metrics about a year and a half ago. OK. and that that's what I want a little
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:46
clarity in my mind is because everything you
said sounded like we were adding more to them is that at the state's direction or is that at the fed's direction that we're
adding these things sumum or was it created by legislation so
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
34:02
Act636 mandates now that they are regulated and fall under long
Chair
Unverified
34:06
term care regulations. So those are federal regs but we have put some additional state requirements on them. because when we're going to do these rate studies of what we're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:17
expecting of whether it's assist ed livings nursing homes therapeutic centers or whatever you know we'd do the rate study and then if something comes in
behind that rate study coming out and it's you know,3 to5 years we are placing additional burdens on them that is going to increase the cost to operate but we've set the rate to where now they're going to be in a punitive setting for3 to5 years because we put all these other things on top of them. A I looking at it wrong because in future discussions going forward about medicaid reimbursement I think there needs to be some latitude granted that if we're gonna set your rate and now we're gonna come in behind that and pile a bunch of stuff on top
of you that's going to cost you more. you're gonna be you're going to be in the hole for 3 or5 years so that rate study comes back around
and if I'm looking at it wrong, I don't I'm not going to be emb ar ra s s ed if you straighten me out in my am
Chair
Unverified
35:15
I looking at it wrong? sir and we'd have to look at all all our providers that way right? So exactly what you're saying we want to increase care we're adding additional requirements we need to look at the rate to understand if it's sufficient. OK then last question what
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:28
is it that you saw that was of such concern other
than what I assume it comes down through the feds the feds said do it or we're not going to give you the money. I mean that's kind of the theory we operate under around here but what happened that necessit ated the rule changes that we're adding these additional requirements to them in rural that they're going to have to comply with somebody get hurt somebody die what what is it that forces this to happen no sir so
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
35:58
prior to Act636 in the last session this these
facilities that are medicaid funded facilities where
Chair
Unverified
36:05
licensed under the child welfare aggency licensure board which is an independent board under a statute pRTFs were the only medicaid payable service being licensed under that board that board oversees child welfare and foster homes adoption placements so we did not feel like and obviously the sponsors of the spill felt like a better place to house and license and
oversee these types of facilities because they're medicaid funded facilities that are only paid by passes and insurance that they need to be regulated by Medicaid. so that is what the bill did it moved them from an independent oversight board under the office of Longerm Care and with that came all the federal regulations associated with running a long term care facility which is probably going to increase their cost
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:00
to operate we've we've been talking to them
Chair
Unverified
37:06
on a very regular basis, throughout this process we have not had a direct discussion with them where they have discussed an issue around money. thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:16
you thanks for the information
and for clarity you you brought this rule
to emergency rules through executive committee is it the exact same language that you've been operating under or has this rule changed versus what was brought to the emergency rule. It has changed and
Chair
Unverified
37:37
honestly it changed because we've we got a lot of feedback on certain things
from the emergency time frame and adapted to this rule here I did and
Chair
Unverified
37:46
I will give credit to Lay with the bureau the thorough work that she submitted on things that we had missed in the federal regs. we were really it was valuable to go in and fix some of those items before running this permanent role. Thank you Representative Kavanaugh you're recognized thank you Mr Chair. I just want
to say thank y'all this was a
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
38:09
bill that I sponsored. it's a bill that I sponsored prior session too that didn't quite do what we wanted to do and for background the reason that these this bill came about as there were really no regulation around quality of care of these children in pRTFs and that was really a concern of mine as I went in and went down this rabbit hole and when we got into this rabbit hole we realized that there were really no regul ations dealing especially a loophole without a state kids.
Nobody really had any authority to question what how these kids were being treated and it created this issue with us as a state because for many of you may not know a lot of other states are doing away with their PRTF bids it's because it's a very difficult, treatment to provide in a lot of states have dropped out of it and Arkansas was having lots and lots of out of state kids and so it was beginning to be a a concern. So
this came about because of those issues that we found I will commend you because you worked with the providers very closely to come up with these rules and they were they were willing to accept this regulation because they knew that they needed it to actually provide the quality of care that they wanted to provide for their the patients that they had. I I commend you for that also commend you that we've went and had the emergency rules but as we went into those rules we were able to see there's some things that
we needed to tweak and I don't see this rule is always going to be stagnant. it's always going to be something that's gonna be changing as we see because we're going to look at these metrics that's really what we need to do is to look at these metrics and make sure that what we're doing is actually helping these children that we've got a plan for them after they're in a PRTF bed that they have a life afterwards and they're not just in this revolving door, which is what we had and I appreciate you taking the time to find that way to get that in there so that we can see that and I really do appreciate that. I just want to
say that don't you agree? Thank you. yes ma'am thank you there's your
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
40:23
question thank you. Represent P perrier you're recognized so kind of thank you chair so kind of following up on Representative Kavanaugh just kind of a statistical question. So how I understand there's 12 facilities across Arkansas that is correct we serve in this demographic I gave you the wrong
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
40:40
number it was 13 sorry so they have a
Chair
Unverified
40:48
total of licensed 884 beds across the 13
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
40:52
of them do we and and I know this this previous legislation Kavanaugh's working on this kind of out of state versus instate but do we have a number of how many of our of those individuals how many are out of state versus instate we have not run that in
Speaker 161
41:09
you thank you that's all thank you members any other questions? See none
without objection this is reviewed and approved. thank you.
all right next we're going to B8 southwest central regional solid waste Management district if you all identify yourself for the record Good morning
Courtney Decker
Unverified
41:45
chairman. My name is Courtney Decker and I am the administrator for the Southwest Central solid waste district.
Welcome. you are identified and recognized to present your role.
Courtney Decker
Unverified
41:58
thank you so we are here today just so that we were able to implement a certificate of need ruling this has no financial impact on the district whatsoever. It is simply for us to implement a uniform policy for accessibility and transparency for those wishing to receive a certificate of need from our district which consists of garland, hot spring and Clark
counties and this certificate of need will then be presented to AdEQ prior to the state issuing their certificate of need which is final so and I'm happy to take any questions and thank you very much thank you M Decker. M members
any questions seeing none this is reviewed and approved. thank you so much rightext members are going to be 9 state board of election commissioners Welcome you to the table
Chris Madison
Unverified
43:05
if you can identify yourself please good morning Mr Chair. my name isri Madison'm the director for the state board of election commissioners. Jonathanendrick's attorney for the
Speaker 167
43:15
state board of election commissioners thank you gentlemen you are recognized to
present your rule. thank you Mr chairir. We actually have
Chris Madison
Unverified
43:22
three rules in front of you this morning would you like me to discuss all three or one at a time we'll go one at
a time. let's go with A. right? A is rules for verification of voter registration and this is in response to actct593 of the last session which requires a
third party assistors to provide photo identification or in the case they don't have photo identification to sign an affidavit. The issue was is that historically we've just asked who the assistor was and relied on that information and this is provides some greater c lar ity as to who the assistors are and I'm happy to answer any questions there's any questions I
did have one question so on theistors so they this is this rule
would make them presentidd as well but they don't have to be a registered voter
Arkansas citizenizen to any degree correct that is correct and the reason we
Chris Madison
Unverified
44:12
wrote the rule the way we did was kind of three categories of sisters you have a person who presents what I would call an amendment51 qualifying Id Arkansas ID passport military something like that we check the box put the name and address down you may have someone who's out of state say anokklahoma resident coming over to help their grandparent vote they may have an Oklahoma driver's licensegain we're gonna get the name address the state that it's issued from a little bit of additional information
and then senator Tucker actually asked the question what happens if they have no identification with them that's the case we get additional information and then they sign an affidavit saying that I am who us I amonder thank you Senator Johnson
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
44:51
you're recognized thank you Mr Chairman Mr madison and appreciate your answer a moment ago about the what the individual they can be anybody basically I I fear if we don't have some kind of check
Richard Madison
Unverified
45:03
on it and I'm not saying this rule is bad it probably is just fine but
I'm wondering maybe we need to go a little further legislatively theoretically you could have someone who was a a registered voter had been for a long time and someone is nefariously identifying them as a eligible voter but this person who could be again I'm not trying to throw out a red herring but an illegal alien that could escort them to the polls and help them through the process
and in effect de facto cast the vote for that person without being a a legal voter and I I know that there's may be an extreme example but you know we always have to watch out for the extreme examples because sometimes they actually manifest themselves but so at this point are we using this in this rule we're using the same criteria we would use that the poll worker would not only have to
see the Id but would they have any method of recording that person's information may be snapping a picture of the Id or logging it in some other manner so so it's a good question in
Speaker 176
46:26
that we have historically and and this is the law
Chris Madison
Unverified
46:30
that has been we would just ask theesor what's your name? and that was the extent of it this now requires the assist or to provide photo identification and the poll worker collects
Richard Madison
Unverified
46:43
information, writes it down on a log so they log it in that's correct OKok and that's probably adequate I just I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
46:54
was wanted to make sure that you know I could walk in and say you know I'm Adolf Hitler and I'm here to help my friend here vote and
Richard Madison
Unverified
47:01
say ok Mr. Hitler y'all go here's yourba his ballot I just want to make sure that that there is some kind of record made of who that person was and that and that they did see their idea I I think that's fine
but I we always have to be careful because there's people get pretty creative when they're trying to steal votes people are creative absolutely and and
Chris Madison
Unverified
47:22
we would always log it previously so if I came in and where this came from is I was observing polls and I would see in a sister come in and they would say well my name is Richard madison and I was like well what happens if they wanted to come in later and say my name is Christopher Madison or if I wanted to come in and say my name is Richard Christopher and so at least this way we're
getting some governmentis issued photo identification and in response to Senator Tucker about well what happens if I'm coming to help you know my grandparents I don't bring my ID with me well then they signed an affidavit to their information and so we're collecting the data so that we can resolve it and really this also came from we had an incident four years ago where a voter alleged that the sister didn't vote as they were instructed and fortunately the poll workers knew the assistor so we're able
to conduct that investigation and it was kind of a miscommunication of stuff but
this provides just that extra layer of verification of the identity of this sister. OK well thank you
Richard Madison
Unverified
48:20
for bringing this we might need to revisit it if we have any problems come along with this but this is certainly a step in the right direction thank you for doing it thank you Mr Chairman forator
members I'm seeing oh we do have one more question in the nick of time Representativeladydermann, thank you Mr Chairman. I'm over
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
48:37
here is there any limit on how many people and a sister can assist? I mean can I bring 100 people in there and
Chris Madison
Unverified
48:48
now we have a law on that and it's it the law has been established that6ists and in fact we recently won 1/8 circuit appeal decision confirming the limit of6 as appropriate. and that's part of the identification is verifying that you're sticking to your limit and that's a permanent record that can be reviewed later yes and we we do
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
49:03
review that when we do audits and do investigations thank
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:06
you Senator hammer recognized and I think that was one of the primary reasons for
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:12
this law was because up until this law you had no way of verifying if somebody was a
people mover that was actually, which there's nothing wrong with that until they come in and then they help assist. This creates the mechanism for you to be able to see if
somebody is what is it they can help 2 or4 you you can assist up to6 voters sir and the bearers if if
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:33
I'm hollingling your absentee ballot I can only handle two of those but this is to verify the identity of the in personson assistors in the polls and so if anybody goes over the6 and you're able
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:42
to verify that that can be referred to
the attorney general for prosecution then at that point whereas before you weren't able to do
that as effectively or with as much proof as this is going to allow correct because we were just relying on
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:55
the word of the assistor as to who their identity was thank you you Representative Richardson
Speaker 186
50:01
thank you Mr Chair to your left guys oh we're right over there OK.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
50:05
I was just reading through this so an individual or a sister who comes in and has an out of state license. they can still, they just have to sign the affidavit to continue to help the individuals that are there sort of they don't have to sign the affidavit they collect additional information like what
Chris Madison
Unverified
50:22
state the Id is from and the the they get the name and the address because that's what the law requires. The rule then adds for the poll worker to put a little bit of additional information in the state and the type of Id that was collected and the purpose of that is if we want to follow up do an investigation, I need to know where to go look for this Id at Oklahoma or Texas or whatever and I'm I'm a boarder city over in Oklahoma that's the reason I was asking
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
50:43
so thank you so much appreciate it right so no further questions this is without objection this
is reviewed and approved. You can go to B and
Chris Madison
Unverified
50:58
wants you do B andc together. OK. so 9B is a response to Act279, which is really just incorporating the acts requirements of complaints deadlines into our rule we expanded it from45 days before the election and up to45 days after to just4949 on both sides so really the item B as
in boy is just a response to the act and incorporating that language and then the item C is an addition what happened was is during the November audits we discovered that ballot remakes which occur for exampleuakaba ballots or they print out on 85x 11. that won't run through the tabulator so they have to be remade and there was laws in place that governing how to remake but what we found was that like only two officials were doing it on election day during the stress of everything else trying to get it done for election
night so with the help of the secretary of state's office we ran Act458 and and Senator hammer and the purpose of this was is to you report the number of remakes that you have on election night and then you set a special time that you're going to do the remakes requires4 officials and I would like to add that we made one minor amendment to this rule through the process of public commentreviously we had it as just an election supervisor but the through the investigation and finding out some of our CBc members were not
present while this was going on my board wanted to amend it to require a CBEC member be present which is county board of election commissioners so it was amended to change it that one of the four election officials must be a CBc member present and with that I'm happy to answer any questions on either ruleonder thank
you so much members any questions on on 9B all right seeing none on 9B that is
without objection it's reviewed and reproved. Members any questions on 9C?
right. See none that is considered without objection it is reviewed and approved. thank you so much thank you for your time Mr Chairman. all
right members let's see here we're actually gonna I'm gonna add something not on your agenda. I'm gonna ask if anyone from the department
of Education is in the crowd that can join us at the table. I was hoping to
get an update on if you'll give me some leeway committee on some of our childcare updates oh thank you if you'll recognize yourself
Speaker 191
53:28
good morning Courtney Salisford Department of Education. thank you
for being here today. I really just wanted to a quick I saw you in the crowd and and was hoping
that we could have a quick update a lot of folks from from my district have been asking about the childcare program that has set some federal funding changes if you wouldn't mind giving the members this
won't really be open for questions but just really a time for an update from that program and what's
Speaker 192
53:54
moving forward yeah sure so following the last early childhood subcommittee meeting we did agree to extend the
implementation of the rate changes until November 1 so that we could have this additional time to meet with providers and try to collect and other information and consider alternatives we did have a meeting yesterday at the agency with the early childhood commission which consists of providers a few legislators and some other stakeholders. um, again continuing that conversation trying to navigate this process and how we know it is affecting so many families. I can't say necessarily that any
changes have been made we again we did implement the copayments for parents. those it become effective October 1 we're not implementing the rate changes until November 1 but the incoming funding as Secretary Oliva explained at the subcommittee meeting is just not there. The nothing has changed on the federal level. we still don't know if any of that funding will be restored if any change s will be made there and so we are acting based on the funding
that we know is available and but still open to continue having that conversation. thank you for
Speaker 23
55:09
that update and just one follow up from myself would
be with with the federal shutdown at this point it in your opinion would you say it's probably next to impossible to get any additional
funding until we get clarity with with that direction first is that correct? That is correct and I'm going to
Speaker 192
55:27
look and look for a nod to make sure I'm saying this right. My understanding is that about 25% of the federal funding will
still be able to be drawn down even with the shutdown for a short time period. um, but for the majority of the funding we won't have access to that and we don't have any communication regarding anything that might change. OK thank you for your time today. I'm
sorry that was ad hoc today but members thank you for that leniency you're dismissed thank you all right members we're going to move to item C on the agenda and as a reminder this is the section
where agencies we have two agencies today that have notified the subcommittee
of their intent to not adopt a rule stemming from the 2025 legislation and requesting that the rule be excluded from the agency's monthly written updates on the 2025 rulemaking and so first up we'd like to invite the state insurance department to the table. and
while they're making their way up, members I'm going to note that item C1g will be pulled from today that's xctxs772. we're going to hold that to next month and if you'd like to address that
you're welcome to but we had a member that asked for for more time on that on that on that act all right if you'll identify yourself for the record good
Chrystal Pphhelps
Unverified
56:49
morning my name is chrystal Pphhelps and I'm a managing attorney for the state insurance department. Sarah Ferris, general
Speaker 195
56:56
counsel statesur department. Thank you you're recognized and you
can you can present your explanation thank you very much. Item A
Speaker 198
57:10
Act348 of2025 concerns mandated coverage for acquired brain injuries. one of the things the department was asked to do through this act was to create an expedited process to permit an appeal of an adverse determination to be reviewed more quickly for this medically necessary treatment the department has an existing process available through our external review rule that would allow an adverse determination concerning an acquired brain
injury decision to be reviewed within72 hours or less because we do already have this process in place we are requesting to be excluded from rulemaking for Act348.
Speaker 200
57:49
Thank you. members any questions on IMA? oh let's see here we have one Representative Bentley
you're recognized thank you chairman this is my legislation that I was passed and I wanted to make
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
58:05
sure that we are following through with the with the intent of this legislation to make sure
that we had numerous testimonies in committee of our constituents in Arkansas that were not receiving the necessary care and res and the result of not getting that necessary care that had serious injury that would have not needs to say if they've gotten the necessary care they would not have been in the serious situation that they're in so I wanna make sure that we are moving forward with this and we will get the results we wanted from this legislation so I want some assurances from you that our constituents that need the necessary care they receive will not be having
insurance companies determine the number of treatments they get the physician will be determine how many treatments this patient gets so give me
some assurances on that this is not going to slow down. we try to do with that
Speaker 105
59:01
legislation thank you so muchpresentative. yes, we fully intend to enforce the law we have met with several different provider groups we've met with a carrier and I feel confident going forward right now that the
intended of the legislation will be met . I appreciate just know that if if not I will
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
59:20
be contact to make sure but I understand that we already have something in process was72 hours but if we see this not covering what we need to be we'll be in touch. so thank you. thank you all right
members see no further questions. I do need a motion to approve see here motion 9 2nd
and here's a second and all in favor sayy aye aye oppose like sign. all right
motion has approved if we go a
Speaker 198
59:52
B requires the health insurance plan to provide coverage for lung cancer screenings and follow up healthcare according to the American Cancer Society's guidelines. we have been in touch with the American Cancer Society to obtain their guidelines and we feel like the statute is clearly written and that we
Speaker 207
1:00:08
could not offer any further clarification through rulemaking. all right members any questions on item B?
seeing none, I do need a motion to approve in a second. second and all in favor say aye like sign said no. right item
Speaker 198
1:00:33
passes. right moving to C Act424 of2025 concerns breast reconstruction surgeries and this act requires an insurer to provide coverage for all services provided for these surgeries and to cover any surgery determined to be the best course of treatment by a healthcare professional
consistent with prevailing medical necessity and it also establishes prior authorization requirements and reimbursement for out of network providers to be on par within network providers The act directed the department to promulgate rules and had two specific rules that it wanted us to promulgate let's see the first all, first of all it wanted us to define any additional types of covered breast reconstruction surgery
through a rule. if when additional breast reconstruction techniques are developed we are currently not aware of anything outside the statute and we do not have a reason to promulgate a rule currently based upon that mandate. let's see the other thing that we needed to do was let's see weren't there two things? Sorry I can either see everybody with my glasses on or I can see text. let's see oh the second one requires excuse me the second
one requires a healthcare insurer to reimburse out of network providers at the same rate as in-network providers and it requires the department to establish a rule for an interest penalty when an insurer fails to pay that provider in a timely fashion The insurance department already has a rule in place that requires insurers to pay a tel% penalty whenever they are late
on a claim and we believe that that process which is in our unfair claims settlement practices rule would adequately cover this instruction for those reasons we would like to be excluded from rulemaking on this act right thank you for your description members
any questions seeing no need a motion to approve need a second. right all in favor sayy aye pose like sign all right
it is approved moving forward. thank you very much Act512 creates the
Speaker 198
1:02:52
Arkansasedical audit Bill of Rights. This is very similar to an act that was previously passed for pharmacy providers and this particular act requires the department to promulgate rules for implementation. However, we believe that the act contains welldefined terms and can be enforced without rulemaking. thank you members you've heard the description ofd itemd any questions?
seen none. I need a motion to approve. The second , I'm here in a second. all in favor say aye
pose like sign all right congrats it's it has approved moving to E
Speaker 215
1:03:30
thank you so much. Acts5:60-779 of2025 created
Speaker 198
1:03:34
a more sustainable system of property insurance for public schools institutions of higher education and stateowned property. One aspect of that rule was that it tasked the insurance department with being responsible for adopting rules for a cybersecurity risk insurance
programme for public elementary and secondary schools education service cooperatives and open enrollment public charter schools the department will facilitate an insurance policy policy for cybersecurity risks and the selected insurer will provide application and policy materials that describe eligibility for coverage and coverages. we do not believe that the department's promulgation of a rule would be particularly
useful for this program and we ask that we be excluded from rulemaking.
members any questions see none. I need a motion to approve. Secon all in favor signaled by saying aye pose like
sign congrats E has has approved. moving to thank you so
Speaker 198
1:04:48
much this concerns At628 of2025 which mandated that insurers cover severe obesity treatment.
The act defines severe obesity and it recognizes associated commorbidities,4 of them hypertension, cardiopulmonary condition, sleep apnea and diabetes but it also provides the commissioner with authority to designate additional preoperative conditions that qualify as associated comorbidities for coverage we contacted the American Society for metabolic and bariatric surgery and asked them if they had any further recommendations but we have not
been made aware of any other preoperative conditions at this time therefore we request that we be excluded from rulemaking on this act. Thank you Ms Phelps.
Members any questions see none need a motion to approve. Secon, all
in favor signal by saying aye pose like sign congrats motion has approved. We will be skippingg as a reminder we're holding g over for more time to to review that moving to h
Speaker 198
1:06:01
is Act of 2025 and this one concerns mandated coverage for genetic testing for an inherited gene mutation to an individual with a per with a personal or family history of cancer if testing provides clinical evidence it also requires the plan to provide evidencebased cancer imaging for an individual at an at an increased risk of developing cancer if the imaging provides clinical utility and
Speaker 220
1:06:27
it's recommended by a healthcare provider.
Speaker 198
1:06:33
the department is not aware of any additional clarity that we could provide for this rule and would appreciate being excluded from
rulemaking. thank you M Phelps members any questions seeing none need a motion to approve? Second
all in favor signaled say aye posed like sign congrats it has approved. thank you for your time today thank you thank you all right members last one on
C is Department of Health and the state board of healthalth. we'll invite you to the table
emb ers as Maie comes to the table if you want to look ahead to item D if you've got any questions you can prepare those.
We will probably be moving fast but now back to item C2. Missu if you'll recognize yourself identify yourself for
Speaker 223
1:07:26
the for the record thank you Mr Chair members of the committee, I'm Laurahu I'm general counsel at the department of healthalth and we are here today to ask to be excluded from rulemaking requirements and mandatory reporting requirements on Act 1021 of2025, the existing
statutory authority established by the act creates a fund to support emergency medical services the Arkansas Revenuevestment invital EMSystems Act also known as therives Act clearly outlines elig ibility requirements, application procedures and disbursement standards. It also requires the board of healthal to promulgate rules in accordance with these standards. However, the existing statutory authority already adequately addresses the eligibility and disbursement standards therefore, after thoughtful
consideration the department does not believe that additional rules are necessary for implementation of this act and therivesund the rules would be redundant and we're merely just going to go ahead and implement the act. so we would
Speaker 221
1:08:23
request to be removed from the requirements you members any questions see none. I need a motion to approve and
a second all in favor of the motion signaled by saying aye opposed like sign congrats that is approved. thank you thank you right members we are going tod on the agenda and
as a reminder on dee the agency stand ready for any questions if anybody hasn any questions for
outstanding rulemaking for 2023 session, pursuant to actct591 of2021 as well. Members any
questions as you're reviewing those? OK see none second here
we thank the agencies for being ready and able to answer questions and for their reports. All right members moving to item E
on the agenda OK this is
the agency's monthly written reports pursuant to actct591 of2021 concerning rulemaking from the 2025 session and let's see here no action is
required but does anybody have any questions or comments needed on on item E. see none no actions required these will be these reports will be filed with no other business in front of us members thank you for being here today thank you for the long meeting today thank you agencies we are adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Rules Filed Pursuant to Arkansas Code § 10-3-309
C. Agency Requests to Be Excluded from Reporting Requirements of Act 595 of 2021
D. Agency Updates on the Status of Outstanding Rulemaking from the 2023 Regular Session Pursuant to Act 595 of 2021
E. Agency Monthly Written Updates Pursuant to Act 595 of 2021 Concerning Rulemaking from the 2025 Regular Session
F. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 24
Speaker 27
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 43
Speaker 44
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 57
Speaker 59
Speaker 56
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 76
Speaker 77
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Speaker 25
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Richard Madison
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 103
Speaker 104
Speaker 108
Speaker 105
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 122
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
Speaker 134
Speaker 133
Chair
Unverified
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Speaker 130
Speaker 161
Courtney Decker
Unverified
Chris Madison
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 176
Speaker 186
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 191
Speaker 192
Speaker 23
Chrystal Pphhelps
Unverified
Speaker 195
Speaker 198
Speaker 200
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Speaker 207
Speaker 215
Speaker 220
Speaker 223
Speaker 221