ALC-Administrative Rules
Video
Transcript
48 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Speaker 1
1:00
Thank you.
Members, if you'll gather your seats, we will kick off Administrative Rules Committee. Thank you for being here today. We've
got a great agenda
for us, and thank you for the great people of Arkansas that we get to represent you and serve you well.
To kick us off, if we can have Representative Carr, would you open us up in prayer? Let's stand. Representative Carr, you are recognized. Hold on. Hold on here. Hold
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:24
on. Nope. Is it live? Here we go. Let's pray. Fathers, we gather before your throne of 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 father everything that we do to glorify you in christ's name i pray amen amen thank you members
Speaker 18
2:51
a 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 and pursuant to code arkansas code 10 3-309 and first
we have the arkansas judicial retirement system we'll call you to the today. If you will identify yourself for
the record and you'll be recognized. Good morning,
Speaker 27
3:43
Amy Fetcher with APERS. Thank you, you may begin. So the this first one for AJRS, the Arkansas Judicial Retirement System, is in response to Act 370 from the session, and it's just saying that a retired district judge can serve as a special judge without forfeiting their retirement. Thank
you. It looks like we have a question from Representative Dalby.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
4:12
Let's see here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amy, I pulled up, because this was my bill, and it came from the Judicial Council,
and I pulled up the bill, and the bill 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 when you look at the bill, it doesn't limit. 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 you all defining retired judge? because the intent is that it applies to any judge who is retired and not just district judges.
Speaker 27
4:56
So the district judges are the only judges that are within the APERS retirement system. Okay,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
5:01
so the others are in a different one? They're 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 going to have such a turnover, they're not going to have enough judges without being allowed to appoint.
Speaker 38
5:31
If you all identify yourself for the record as well. Laura Gilson, General Counsel, APERS. You can respond, yeah. Yeah, so as Director Fetcher said, there are two separate systems. Under the AJRS system, if there is an appointment that's not to fill a vacancy, if it's temporary, then their 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
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
6:10
made. Okay, so the circuit judges are covered under their plan, and it's not going to terminate their retirement if they get appointed as a special judge, say they retire December 31st and come January the 10th, somebody needs a special judge, then the circuit judges are covered under that already by rule. Is that
Speaker 38
6:31
correct? That's correct. And the distinction being whether you're appointing a judge to fill a vacancy.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
6:37
Sure. Right. But we're talking about special judges that somebody has a conflict and they need another judge. Now, both sets of judges now will be covered and can be immediately appointed, correct? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 43
6:53
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Co-Chair Shepard, you're recognized.
Speaker 44
6:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm right here in the middle. Middle. Middle, right here. Right here, up front.
Okay. The question I have is, and I believe
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
7:11
this is still the case, that one of the reasons that this is so important is that serving judges as they approach age 70, at some point they are no longer able to continue to run for election or they would forfeit their retirement. and so therefore the use of these special judges are becoming more and more important
because of the fact that the pool of eligible individuals gets smaller and smaller. Is that correct? Yes,
Speaker 24
7:49
judicial retirement system that at age 70 they can either complete their term but they can't run
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
7:56
again. Does that apply likewise to district judges or are they free to continue to run? there's not
Speaker 29
8:03
an age on the district judges okay thank you
all right members seeing no other 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
Speaker 27
8:21
employees retirement system yes 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
Speaker 29
8:34
around so we just deleted that language wonderful members
any questions seeing none without objection it'll be reviewed and approved thank you
you're dismissed all right next we have the auditor state team you're welcome
to join the table if you all identify yourself you'll be recognized you
Speaker 57
9:15
can start I'm Chalmer Whalen I run intergovernmental affairs for the auditor of state TJ Fowler legal
Speaker 59
9:20
counsel for the auditor of state Josh would assistant chief of staff and unclaimed property manager for the auditor
Speaker 56
9:32
state great you can present your rule. The auditor of state is proposing rules 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 think the only question that I have is it's
been operating 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 bring this through the rules versus just the normal procedures today?
Speaker 57
10:42
Yes, sir. Um, so the 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 law is 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 office, recognized it needed to be done, and started that process on day one.
As you 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. Okay. All right,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
11:25
Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the response to that. So 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 okay and and i was looking through to see any of the public comments did you uh 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 or concerns there
Speaker 56
11:56
was nothing significant there are minor technical changes okay all right all right
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
12:00
and so again no deviation from current practice no real deviation from current practice
Speaker 57
12:12
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
okay thank you gentlemen see no further questions any other members see nothing else uh this is reviewed
and approved thank you all right we'll ask um state insurance department department of commerce to join the
Speaker 73
12:38
table this is item b3 on the agenda i'm sorry b4 on the agenda
all right welcome if you all identify
Speaker 77
13:06
your your rule Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm Tasha Tidwell, Associate Counsel for the State Insurance Department. Here to present the proposed amendment to 23,
Code of Arkansas Rule Part 91, titled Funeral Expense Insurance. 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 Rule 30. The purpose of this amendment is to redefine funeral expense insurance
by increasing the permissible limit of funeral expense policies from $15,000 to $25,000. 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 $8,800.
Funeral directors in Arkansas now report that the traditional cost of a funeral is now between $10,000 and $12,000, with many services being between $13,000 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 to $25,000 allows funeral expense insurers to not only sell policies that cover the cost of today's funerals, but also for the cost of funerals that may occur 20 or 30 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, and the department certifies the proper notice of this rulemaking was filed with the Secretary of State on July the 8th of this year.
Public comment was made according to the Administrative Procedures Act and the public hearing was held on August the 19th of this year. There were no public comments received. 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 I'm more than happy to take on any questions. Thank you Ms.
Speaker 76
16:43
Tidwell we appreciate presentation and uh 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 uh
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
16:56
i wanted to inquire as to are you familiar with what the cost would be for that premium to
get the increased cost of premium from 15
Speaker 77
17:08
to 25 000 so so the methodology would not change It would just increase the limits that are allowed. Right now, it's $15,000 of what is allowed for funeral expense insurance. What is allowed now to be called funeral expense insurance is capped at $15,000.
If you will approve this change, that can increase to $25,000. So nothing would change as far as how premiums are calculated. That would still go on age, medical conditions, and all of those things. It's just the limits that will change. Okay,
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
18:08
so may I just ask it another way? What has been the average cost of a $15,000 policy previously?
Are you aware of that cost previously in the past, what it has? I was just going to ask you if you had any statistics on that and then what possibly it would be by increasing it to $25,000. I'm just curious as what increased costs that would be. That would
Speaker 77
18:37
vary, and that would depend on the insurance company. Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you. Representative
Steele, you're recognized. Oh, hold on. Did I get you?
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
18:51
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to ask a question in your committee. Attorney Tidwell, so you're bringing these increases because the cost of funerals have increased tremendously. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you very much. You know, we're very proud of the work that you're doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Johnson, I think I took you out of
Speaker 25
19:14
the queue. Will you light back up if you've got a question? All right. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
19:23
Ms. Tidwell, thank you for your testimony. At the end of your description, it says here 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 20, 30 more years from now.
Richard Madison
Unverified
19:40
That's kind of a long time, and I appreciate the fact we deal with inflation in just about everything. And I see some things happening now with our inflationary environment. Do you think, since this is a cap, I'm wondering, do you see the possibility that y'all might have to come back in a few years?
Well, the last time 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 to 17 000 is that kind of where we are and that's the first part of the question the second part is but this would uh i'll still allow the insurers to offer for example uh prepaid
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
20:37
or insured plans, say, for a cremation rather than a
Speaker 77
20:44
full traditional burial. Is that correct? That's correct. That's correct. So let me make sure I'm understanding the question. Yes, ma'am. We expect this $25,000 cap to hold for a considerable period while not encouraging overinsurance for 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. Okay, and I haven't calculated the
Richard Madison
Unverified
21:30
rate of inflation since 2011. This is probably very reasonable, but I understand the intent, and I appreciate you bringing it to us there. Thank
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
21:39
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
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.
Senator Hammer, are you recognized? Thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:54
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to 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
Speaker 77
22:09
and to be able to do it. Is that correct? For it to be called funeral expense insurance, it must be $15,000 or less for it to be called funeral expense insurance. And those policies are sold in funeral homes.
And the importance here is that 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 a benefit for the industry and the consumers, and that's why this is important. Thank you. You can
Speaker 103
23:07
recognize yourself. Good morning, everybody. Oh, one more time.
Speaker 104
23:15
Good morning, everyone. Sarah Ferris, General Counsel, Arkansas Insurance Department.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:18
Thank you. Senator Hammer, do you have follow-up? I did. So, I mean, 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? Correct. Okay. All right. My question is, and now I understand it, 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 considered in the cost that others are having to pay,
or is that there's no cost passed on to everybody else because of what these funeral homes are doing? They're going out of business and leaving bodies behind, or is it? Um, I'm personally, I'm not aware of any bodies being
Speaker 108
24:15
left behind anywhere. And if that's going on, Senator, I hope that
Speaker 105
24:19
you will absolutely call me and let me know about that. 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
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
24:28
from time to time where funeral homes go out of business and 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 isn't having to pay for that expense as the cost of funerals. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Senator. And last question, Representative Ladyman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's hard to hear over here.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:51
People to go outside if they're talking over here.
Well, the House has trouble following the rules sometimes, so if your members could please
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
25:02
get in order. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized. Thank you for that comment, Mr. Chairman. I'm over here. My question, I
don't know if I can form this right, but so if I buy a $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?
Speaker 77
25:27
No, there is not. You will use this policy. It is called a funeral expense insurance, but there are no funeral arrangements made with this policy. I think it often gets conflated with pre-need contracts. They can be used together. However, there are different parts of the code section that governs.
This is a funeral expense insurance, which is governed by a different section of the code. So it's different. But there's no limit on what the
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
26:13
money can be used for. Right.
Speaker 77
26:17
The 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 beneficiary,
Speaker 92
26:33
but the purpose is for a funeral cost. Thank you.
Speaker 18
26:37
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
Speaker 122
27:18
yourself 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
Speaker 122
27:29
today. You are recognized 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 biannual 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 in in federal law the federal poverty limit that csbg funds can be used to serve individuals they have to be 125 percent or less of the federal poverty
limit but that that percentage has been increased by temporary language in federal law or continuing resolution that started during the pandemic that raised it to 200 percent and this public comment was around you know could you let us do 200 percent so we had not made that change because that increase was time limited and at this point has ended as of September 30th of this year but
what we did for any future events that may be along those lines is we took the specific percentage out where it said in the state plan it's 125 percent 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 miss 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 uh b6 has been taken off the agenda we're passing over that today b7 um we will move to that now and let's see we'll invite a
different group of department of human services here as well
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
29:58
please identify yourself for the record hi good morning my name is melissa weatherton i'm the director for
Speaker 134
30:16
medicaid specialty populations at the department of human services good morning martina smith dhs division
of provider services and quality
Speaker 133
30:25
of assurance director thank you for being here you're recognized to present your role Thank you. So we're here today to present two different manuals. So during the last legislative session, Act 636 was passed, which changed how we license psychiatric residential treatment facilities, amongst other things that were in that act.
Here today, we are here to present permanent rules. We ran emergency rules due to the act having an emergency clause. So we ran emergency 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 a licensure manual that now has moved those facilities underneath the Office of Long-Term Care.
So Ms. Martina Smith here today, she is in her role. She oversees the Office of Long-Term Care. That's the same body that goes into assisted livings and our nursing homes and our ICFs. 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 psychotropic medications of these children.
We've raised the admission age from 5, 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 mechanical
restraint usage which is federally allowed but we are not allowing it here in Arkansas so
Chair
Unverified
32:30
those are the high notes and I'm happy to Martina and I are
Speaker 103
32:35
happy to answer any questions wonderful senator hammer kick us off thank you hey give me a
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:40
name of one or two institute give me a name of one or two institutions that this would apply to just so
Speaker 134
32:51
about yeah you want to know there's there's 12 of them sure Mill Creek PRTF yellow rock PRTF okay okay
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:01
that's good thank you um so tell me just keep me straight on something you know we're going the medicaid rate study program that's going on every 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
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
33:26
not at this time due to the fact
Chair
Unverified
33:28
this is a pass only payable service and they
actually changed their rate um miss stone went in and did a rate increase and required more metrics about a year and a half ago okay and
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:41
that that's what i want a little
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 feds direction that we're adding these things to them or
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
33:57
was it created by legislation so act um 636 um mandates now that
Chair
Unverified
34:01
they are regulated and fall under uh long-term care
regulations so those are federal regs um but we have put some additional state requirements on them okay because when we're
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:12
going to do these rate studies of what we're expecting of whether it's assisted livings nursing homes therapeutic centers or whatever you know we do the rate study and then if something comes in behind that rate study coming out and it's you know three to five 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 for three to five years because we put all these other things on top of them am 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 going to set your rate and now we're going to come in behind that and pile a bunch of stuff on top of you that's going to cost you more you're going to be you're going to be in the hole for three or five years till that rate study
comes back around and if i'm looking at it wrong i don't i'm not going to be embarrassed if you straighten me out am i am i
Chair
Unverified
35:09
looking at it wrong no sir and we'd have to look at 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
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:23
it's sufficient okay then last question what 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 necessitated the rule changes that were adding these additional
requirements to them in rule that they're going to have to comply with somebody get hurt somebody die what what is
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
35:53
it that forces this to happen no sir so prior to act 636 in the last session this
Chair
Unverified
36:00
um these facilities that are medicaid funded facilities were licensed under the child welfare agency 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 um and obviously the sponsors of this bill 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 long-term care and with that came all the federal
regulations associated with running a long-term care facility which is
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:55
probably going to increase their cost to operate we've
Chair
Unverified
37:00
we've been talking to them on a very regular basis um throughout this process we have not had a direct discussion with them where they have discussed an issue around money okay
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:11
thank you thank you for the
information and for clarity you you brought this
rule to emergency rules through executive committee um is it the exact same language that you've been
operating under or has this rule changed versus what was brought to the emergency um rule it has changed it and
Chair
Unverified
37:31
um honestly it changed because we've we got a lot of feedback on
certain things so you learned from the emergency time frame and adapted to
Chair
Unverified
37:41
this rule here i did and i will give credit to um lacy with the bureau um the thorough work that she submitted on things that we um had missed in the federal regs um we were really it was valuable to go in and fix some of those items
before running this permanent rule thank you
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
38:02
representative Kavanaugh you recognized thank you mr. chair I just want to say thank y'all this was the bill that I sponsored it's a bill that I sponsored prior session to that didn't quite do what we want it to do and for background the reason that these this bill came about is there were really no regulation around quality of care of these children in PRTS 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 regulations 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 you may not know a lot of other states are doing away with their prtf beds it's because it's a very difficult um treatment to provide and 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 concern so this came about because of those issues that we found um 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 the patients that they had. I commend you for that.
I also commend you that we went and had the emergency rules, but as we went into those rules, we were able to see there were some things that we needed to tweak. And I don't see this rule as always going to be stagnant. It's always going to be something that's going to 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 question.
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
40:18
Thank you. represent per year 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 how many individuals do we serve in this demographic
Melissa Weatherton
Unverified
40:33
i gave you the wrong number it was 13 sorry um so
Chair
Unverified
40:38
they have a total um of licensed um 884 beds across the 13 of them okay do we and i know this this uh
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
40:47
previous legislation kavanaugh is working on this kind of out of state versus in state but do we have a number of how many of our of those individuals how many are out of state versus in state we have not run that in a while but we can
Speaker 161
41:03
and get that to you just offline get that to me all right thank you that's
all chair thank you members any other questions see none without objection this is reviewed and approved thank Thank you. All right,
next we're going to B8, Southwest Central Regional Solid Waste Management District. All right, if you all identify yourself for the record.
Courtney Decker
Unverified
41:40
- Good morning, Chairman. My name is Courtney Decker, and I am the administrator for the Southwest
Central Solid Waste District. - Welcome. You are identified and
Courtney Decker
Unverified
41:53
recognized to present your role. - Yes, 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 I'm happy to take any questions, and thank you very much. - Thank you, Ms.
Decker. questions seeing none this is reviewed and approved thank you so much thank you
next members are going to be nine State Board of Election Commissioners welcome to the table if you can identify
Chris Madison
Unverified
43:01
yourself please good morning mr. chair my name is Chris Madison the director for the state board of election commissioners Jonathan
Speaker 167
43:10
Kendricks attorney for the state board of election commissioners
thank you gentlemen you are recognized present your
Chris Madison
Unverified
43:17
rule thank you mr. chair we We actually have 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. All right. A is rules for verification of voter registration, and this is in response to Act 593 of the last session, which requires third-party assisters 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 assister was and relied on that information,
And this provides some greater clarity as to who the assisters are. And I'm happy
to answer any questions. Members, any questions? I did have one question.
So on the assisters, so this rule would make them present ID as well, but they don't have to be a registered voter, Arkansas citizen, to any degree, correct? That is correct.
Chris Madison
Unverified
44:07
And the reason we wrote the rule the way we did was kind of three categories of assisters. You have a person who presents what I would call an Amendment 51 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 an Oklahoma resident, coming over to help their grandparent vote. They may have an Oklahoma driver's license. Again, we're going to 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 I say I am. wonderful thank you senator johnson you're recognized thank you mr chairman mr madison
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
44:48
and i i appreciate your answer a moment ago about the what the individual they can be anybody basically i i fear
Richard Madison
Unverified
44:58
if we don't have some kind of check 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 uh theoretically you could have someone who was 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 a 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 legal voter and I know that this 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, maybe snapping a picture of the ID or logging it in some other manner? so it's
Speaker 176
46:21
a good question in that we have historically and and
Chris Madison
Unverified
46:25
this is the law that has been we would just
ask the assister what's your name and that was the extent of it this now requires the assister to provide photo identification and the poll worker collects information writes it down on a log so they
Richard Madison
Unverified
46:43
log it in that's correct okay and that's probably adequate i just i just wanted to to make sure that you
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
46:49
know i could walk in and say you know i'm uh uh adolf hitler and i'm here to help my friend here vote uh it's okay mr
Richard Madison
Unverified
46:56
hitler y'all go here's your back his ballot i just want
to make sure that that there is some kind of record made of who that person was and that uh and that they did see their idea 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 those people are
Chris Madison
Unverified
47:17
creative absolutely and and 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 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 government 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 sign 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 assister didn't vote as they were instructed. And fortunately,
the poll workers knew the assister 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
Richard Madison
Unverified
48:15
identity of the assister okay well thank you 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 thanks senator um members i'm seeing oh we do have one more question in
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
48:32
the nick of time representative lademan thank you mr chairman i'm over here uh Is there any limit on how many people an assister can assist?
Chris Madison
Unverified
48:40
I mean, can I bring 100 people in there? No, we have a law on that, and the law has been established at six assisters. And, in fact, we recently won an Eighth Circuit appeal decision confirming the limit of six is appropriate. And that's part of the identification is verifying that you're sticking to your limit. And that's a permanent record
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
48:58
that can be reviewed later? Yes, and we do review
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:01
that when we do audits and do investigations. all right thank you senator hammer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:07
recognized and i think that was one of the primary reasons for this law was because up until this law you had no way of verifying if somebody was a people mover
that was actually which is nothing wrong with that until they come in and then they help assist this creates a mechanism for you to be
able to see if somebody is uh what is it they can help two or four you can assist up to six voters
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:28
six votes yes sir and the bearers if i'm hauling your absentee ballot i can only handle two of those but this is to verify the identity of the in-person assisters in the polls and so if
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:37
anybody goes over the six and you're able
to verify that that can be referred to the attorney general for prosecution then at that point that's correct 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
Chris Madison
Unverified
49:50
relying on the word of the assister as to who their identity was thank you
Speaker 186
49:56
thank you representative richardson thank you mr chair to your left guys no oh
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
50:00
we you're right over there. Okay. Hey, I was just, uh, 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
Chris Madison
Unverified
50:15
the affidavit. They collect additional information, like what state the ID is from and they get the name and the address. Cause that's what the law requires. Okay. The rule then adds for the poll worker to put, uh, a little bit of additional information and 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 a border
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
50:38
city over in oklahoma is the reason i was asked so thank you so much
appreciate it absolutely all right so you know further questions this is without objection this is uh reviewed and
Chris Madison
Unverified
50:50
approved you can go to b and once you do b and c together okay so uh 9b is a response to act 279 which is really just incorporating the act's requirements of complaints deadlines into our rule we expanded it from 45 days before the election and up to 45 days after to just 49 49 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 example uacava ballots or they print out on eight and a half by eleven well that won't run through the tabulator so they have to be remade and there was laws in place the 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 act 458 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 requires four officials and i would like to add that we made one minor amendment to this rule through the process of public comment previously we had it as just an election supervisor but the through the investigation and finding out some of our CBC members were not present. Uh, while this was going on, my board wanted to amend it to require a CBC member be present, which is the 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 rule. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Members, any questions on, on 9B? All
right. Seeing none on 9B, um, that is without objection it's reviewed and approved members any questions on 9c all 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 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 child care updates um oh thank you if you'll recognize yourself good morning courtney sellis for
Speaker 191
53:25
department of education thank you for being here today
i really just wanted 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 child care program that has had some federal funding changes if you wouldn't mind given
the members this won't really be open for questions but just really a time for an
Speaker 192
53:49
update from that program and what's 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 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 co-payments for parents those did 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. Nothing has changed on the federal level. We still don't know if any of that funding will be restored, if any changes will be made there, and so we are acting based on the funding that we know is available, but still open to continue having that conversation. Thank you for that
Speaker 23
55:04
update. And just one follow-up from myself
would be with the federal shutdown at this point, in your opinion, would you say it's probably next to impossible to get any
additional funding until we get clarity with that direction first? Is that correct? That is correct. And
Speaker 192
55:22
I'm going to look and look for a nod to make sure I'm saying this right my understanding is that about 25 percent 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 okay
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, um, 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, uh, 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 act 772 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 more time on that on that on that act all right if you'll identify yourself for the record
Chrystal Pphhelps
Unverified
56:44
good morning my name is Crystal Phelps
and I'm a managing attorney for the State Insurance
Speaker 195
56:51
Department. Sarah Farris, General Counsel, State Insurance
Department. Thank you. You're recognized. You can present your
Speaker 198
57:02
explanation. Thank you very much. Item A, Act 348 of 2025, 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 within 72 hours or less. Because we do already have this process in place,
Speaker 200
57:44
we are requesting to be excluded from rulemaking for Act 348.
Thank you. Members, any questions on IMA? Oh, let's see here. We have one. Representative Bentley, you're recognized.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
58:00
Thank you, Chairman. This is my legislation that I was passed, and I want to make sure that we are following through 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 the result of not getting that necessary care that had serious injury that would have not... Needless to say, if they had gotten the necessary care,
they would not have been in the serious situation that they were in. So I want to 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 determining how many treatments this patient gets. So give me
some assurances on that. This is not going to slow down what we try to do with that legislation.
Speaker 105
58:56
Thank you so much, Representative. 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 intent of the legislation will be met I appreciate just know that if if not I will be content make sure but I don't understand that
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
59:15
we already have something in process 72 hours but if we see this not covering what it need to be what we will be in touch so thank you thank you art members see no further
questions I do need a motion to approve
see here motion 92nd and there's a second and all in favor say aye aye opposed like sign all right motion has approved if we'll
Speaker 198
59:47
go to B at 390 requires a health insurance plan to provide coverage for lung cancer screenings and follow-up health care 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
Speaker 207
1:00:03
like the statute is clearly written and that we 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 and a second second and all in favor say aye like science said no all right item
Speaker 198
1:00:28
passes all right moving to c act 424 of 2025 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 health care 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 sorry I can either see everybody with my
glasses on or I can see text oh the second one requires excuse me the second one requires a health care 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 to a 12% penalty whenever they are late on a claim and we believe that that process which is in our unfair claim settlement practices rule would adequately cover this instruction for those reasons we would like to be excluded from rulemaking on this act All right, thank you for the description
members any questions Seeing none need a motion to approve in the second. All right. All in favor say aye
Opposed like sign. All right. It is approved moving forward.
Speaker 197
1:02:44
Thank you very much Act 512 creates the Arkansas
Speaker 198
1:02:47
Medical 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 well-defined terms and can be enforced without rulemaking thank you members you've heard description of
D item D any questions see none I need a motion to approve a
second I'm here in a second all in favor say aye opposed like sign all right
Speaker 215
1:03:25
congrats it's it has approved moving to e thank
Speaker 198
1:03:29
you so much acts 560 and 779 of 2025 created a more sustainable system of property insurance for public schools institutions of higher education and state-owned property one aspect of that rule was that it tasked the insurance department with being
responsible for adopting rules for a cyber security risk insurance program for public elementary and secondary schools education education service cooperatives and open enrollment public charter schools the department will facilitate an insurance policy policy for cyber security 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 a second all in favor signal by saying
aye opposed like sign congrats e has has approved moving to f
Speaker 198
1:04:43
thank you so much this concerns act 628 of 2025 which mandated that insurers cover severe obesity
treatments the act defines severe obesity and it recognizes associated comorbidities for them hypertension cardiopulmonary conditions 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? Seeing
none, any motion to approve? Second. All in favor, signal by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. Congrats, motion has approved. We will be skipping G. As a reminder, we're holding G over for more time to
Speaker 198
1:05:56
review that. moving to h this is act 60 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 evidence-based cancer imaging for an individual at an at an increased risk of developing cancer if the Imaging provides
Speaker 220
1:06:22
clinical utility and is recommended by a health care provider. The department is not aware
Speaker 198
1:06:29
of any additional clarity that we could provide for this rule and would appreciate being excluded from rulemaking.
Thank you, Ms. Phelps. Members, any questions? Seeing none, need a motion to approve. Second. All
in favor, signal is saying aye. Opposed, like sign. Congrats, it has approved. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. All right, members, last one
on C is Department of Health, the State Board of Health. We'll invite you to the table. Members, as Ms.
Hsu comes to this 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. Ms. Hsu, if you'll recognize yourself, identify yourself
Speaker 223
1:07:21
for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, I'm Laura Hsu. I'm general counsel at the Department of Health, and we are here today to ask to be excluded from rulemaking requirements and mandatory reporting requirements on Act 1021 of 2025. The existing statutory authority established by the act creates a fund to support emergency medical services.
The Arkansas Revenue Investment in Vital EMS Systems Act, also known as the ARRIVES Act, It clearly outlines eligibility requirements, application procedures, and disbursement standards. It also requires the Board of Health 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 the ARRIVES fund.
Speaker 221
1:08:16
The rules would be redundant, and we're merely just going to go ahead and implement the act. So
we would request to be removed from the requirements. Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing none, I need a motion to approve. Motion. And a second. All in favor of
the motion, signal by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like,
sign. Congrats that it's approved. Thank you. Thank you. All right, members, we are going to D on the agenda. And as a reminder, on D, the agencies stand ready for
any questions. If anybody has any questions for outstanding rulemaking for 2023 session pursuant to Act 591 of 2021 as well.
Members, any questions as you're reviewing those? Okay, seeing none. One 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.
Okay, this is the agency's monthly written reports pursuant to Act 591 of 2021 concerning rulemaking from the 2025 session. and let's see here no action is required um but does anybody have any questions or comments needed on on item e see none um 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
Speaker 1
Speaker 4
Speaker 5
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 27
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 43
Speaker 44
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 29
Speaker 57
Speaker 59
Speaker 56
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 73
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
Speaker 141
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
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 197
Speaker 215
Speaker 220
Speaker 223
Speaker 221