Insurance & Commerce - Senate

Because of the hour I know I've got the member stepping in in the second chairs going to see a quorum Senator Rapert if you would like to come to your bill I want to do one thing before we start members in the audience that without objection we would like to present house bill seventeen fourteen from representative Durex it's in front of you they say it's an agreed upon bill will here we have a Senate sponsor for it so we'll put that at the bottom of the calendar today without objection okay this. Let's catch senator Teagan senator Hammer of when they're ready to roll you ready. Okay gonna stay up here that's fine Senator Rapert you are you are recognized to present your bill yes Mister chairman if it pleases the chair of like Amendment Arkansas insurance department general counsel and chief deputy the joint statement that would be that would be right do you have an amendment to president yes Sir let's go ahead with the amendment while they're coming up yes it members this this amendment actually resolves all of the the concerns that stakeholders that spoke against the bill had I'm told they've been communicating that to you but they're here if needed for them to to state that for you and basically what it does is make sure we were wrestling with how to deal with the license issue in other states and so that is required unless there is proof that is not necessary and so be happy if you have a question for the Department because they've been able to come to the table and help with the bill as well so what I've been told is rolling good shape okay we are let's let's what's the will of the committee on the amendment I need to I have a motion do pass and a second from Senator Ingram. A discussion on the amendment saying none all in favor please say aye same side opposed your amendment has passed let's enter into the Senate bill two O. three Senator Rapert you're recognized members I thank you all and got a letter from Commissioner McLean I hope that you've been hearing from the other other stakeholders on this as well the bottom line is is there's a four hundred billion dollar opportunity and run off business available around the country and the Arkansas insurance department is positioning itself so that we can attract opportunities for businesses to develop here in our state that gets into this arena and so the main hold up had been literally the licensing so that that there were some assurance that we didn't have a guarantee fund problems here and so again I apply applaud everyone it's been a long time coming but they tell me everybody is agreed and hopefully that's been communicated to you with that I'd be happy to answer questions so the Department could weigh in for you okay are there any questions for Senator Rapert members. I guess I will start with the first one let's introduce sure Arkansas insurance department folks and so we know they're here in support. Go ahead GM for the record please. Thank you Mr chair I'm generator general counsel with the Arkansas insurance department. And I'm rescue over the chief deputy insurance commissioner for the Arkansas department okay and I guess first question is led to believe this is an agreed upon bill by you folks and so is that a correct statement so we can then see if there's any other questions with the amendment yes Sir thank you members are there any other questions. We've had this debated. Yes do I have the will of will is there anybody that would like to speak against this bill. For this bill. We've improved in that category from last time Senator Rapert would you like to close for your bill Senator Rapert indicates he's closed what is the will of the committee. I have a motion do pass Senator Elliot do I have a second. I have a second from senator Hammer all in favor say aye. Same sign your bill does pass thank you. As amended. We will move on with that passage I know we're kind of moving I don't see Senator Dismang in the room. Since representative wrangling we will jump over to House Bill thirteen ninety one if you are ready. Right. Thank you Mr. With your recommended weight you're recognized thank you very much Mister chair with your permission I'd like to bring up a couple of folks to help with the presentation of this that would be great okay. Please identify yourself for the record and you may begin then sun representative ****. I'm Shannon Holly on with the Arkansas attorney general's office. Laurie Trogdon presidency of the Arkansas bankers association. Okay representative when you may proceed thank you this is a house bill thirteen ninety one and this is the safer Arkansas active provides a wonderful acronym safeguarding against financial exploitation of retirees I think that's why the word was was made so that we could use that for this effort what we're trying to do here is to address a problem that has been around for a long time but is now growing our retirees will do everything right in their lives they will save for their retirement for their last days so that they can do what they want to do when they want to do it and then what happens is a moment of weakness can come when scammers come and can take away that financial nest egg that they have had for years and years and after doing everything right their entire lives a moment of weakness can cause them to lose everything I have seen it I've dealt with it personally and that's how I got involved with this bill we have put together a wonderful a group that has addressed all of the needs and that's why the attorney general's office is here we have the Arkansas bankers association the Arkansas credit union association the securities department the Arkansas Alzheimer's association also involved as well as law enforcement which gave us some great insight. To what we're to addressing is two different things with this bill we found that about fifty percent of the fraud takes place from people out of state unknown to the victim just contacted them via email via social media or things like that I see a Senator Dismang has a has arrived as well if you. Okay good bill. The fifty percent of the people are are are from unknown victims are unknown perpetrators but also fifty percent of the victims of the care givers their family members or people who are actively taking care of these people and so this bill addresses both of those and I will let both of these people tell us a little bit about how it works with them so whoever like to go first okay. Sir thank you senator representative **** what this bill does is it puts a statutory scheme within the Arkansas deceptive trade practices act that's in force by the Arkansas attorney general's office and and it creates a way for mandated reporters who are already reporting to adult protective services and for situations like abuse neglect and exploitation they continue to report their so there's no change for our industry to continue to report and suu ATS and ATS is then mandated to report to the Arkansas attorney general's office within forty eight hours if there's a situation that involves and a financial exploitation incidents that perhaps we can take a look at and do something about and I will say that in the past week and a half our success rate once one fifth sort of became public we were able to get back about twenty five thousand dollars so far in the last week and a half just by publicizing and that we have and we can work together and really add to some get person Arkansas at folks and so APS they can only act in the Arkansas and is impaired and they're not designed to investigate as Arkansans that have been standard victims that and deceptive trade like the Arkansas at deceptive trade practices act allows and so thank you so this is a and a good way that also includes the Holden reports mechanism so that banks have the ability just like investment advisors and and security security folks and to hold the transaction and let us that it and determine if that retiree is actually being scammed or if it's a legitimate transaction so with that I'll turn it over to his truck and she can talk about the bank's. I'll just act quickly unable had a long day but currently and last an adult is showing Is not composition again impairment banks cannot intervene what this bill does is add the elderly definition that they may come in and seem very cognizant that the bank knows their customer and I know this is some sort of scam it allows them to place a temporary hold on the transaction just the transaction so that they can investigate further and possibly I turn it over to law enforcement. Okay. Are you done presenting your bills representative when. I think everybody okay the let's open it up as questions Senator Ingram you're recognized for a question. I just want to be on the record that I take exception to the Page three line twenty one and older person means a person who is sixty years of age or older note that we all know we've got a look at after you Sir. I think an amendment is required to ensure you Senator Elliot you're recognized for a question. As good as an elder. an elder plus comfortable comfortable are you that when you intervene that you are certainly not putting that that person's somehow may be of sound mind and everything else that you're not interfered with something that's legitimate if you just talk me through that because I could qualify for this. Right now. This this bill also allows that the bank can contact either someone else on the account or someone else reasonably associated with the account so it does allow them to reach out to find out some more information they they obviously as a valued customer don't want to if they want this to be temporary unless like I said unless it has to be turned over to law enforcement but usually you can pretty quickly figure that out because like I said they do know their customers and I I just don't see a situation unless it needed to go for an investigation that it wouldn't take very long to clear something like that up. Okay any other questions. Committee members. Senator Teague you're recognized. I know that the. I'm going to be an imminent minority on this but personally I think it's too late the session to be bringing these big bills that or legal documents and that the the are hard for parole country insurance agent. Let me to understand. Would you agree. No comment answer there are there any other questions. We have anybody to speak against the bill. For the bill was there anyone signed up. Having none Senator Dismang are you close for your bill. Yes Sir I just wanna Preciado I mean there's a lot of folks that kind of got together on this bill to have where we are today this is an issue it's growing and it's becoming more sophisticated it's a really just proud of the industry and really leadership represent wing as he kind of brought everybody together to get to the outcome of this bill that is if you'll vote yes thank. Representative winger you closed as well. Okay what is the will of the committee I guess Senator Dismang you're on the committee do you make the motion we have a motion do pass do we have a second. I have a second from Senator Elliot is there any discussion. Seeing none all in favor say aye. All opposed. Okay house bill thirteen ninety one has passed. We will move. I thought that's what you're talking and lets move to that different bill Senate is making are you ready for Senate bill six oh one. No okay we'll go to that one next. Six oh one members it's next in your line of bills. Mr chairman we call it other bill backs I could vote for it. It's. Okay and this what. There's an amendment being passed out on Senate bill six oh one I think. For. Senate is mine while they're doing that would you like to introduce the The Amendment so we can get to that. And so I mean this amendment is the result of attorneys all over the state have been taking a look at this bill clarify anything need to be clarified it said multiple sets sights on it in again that's what that's what this and actually not just in the state some attorneys throughout the country to be able to get to where we were or where we are on the bill. Okay are there any questions on the amendment only. Senator Elliot you're recognized for a question on the amendment yes it because Senator Dismang Dismang I can't. Reconcile the two things real fast you're. So could you say anything else about kind of what the amendment does you know the whole thing like where you see lots of black and white you might interpret that well I mean in general again these were all recommendations that were made from various industries and folks that do this type of work or involve throughout the country state in particular I think we have some folks that can speak to that I guess really publish one here's the dialogue how it led to the amendments thanks yeah so we can yes if we get some folks would like to come testify on if you like to bring them to the end of the table it's too much to. Please identify yourself for the record and you may proceed with questions. My name is Carol go forth I am a law professor at the university of Arkansas in Fayetteville and I'm here both of my half of myself and the Arkansas Bar Association I think part of the amendments you're talking about related to something called the operating agreement and that is the green at that it It if the people who form an LLC want to have in agreement that changes some of the statutory default rules this provision clarifies they can change things that relate to the business relate to the affairs related to the ongoing operations and it was a matter of terminology that the Arkansas lawyers thought would be easier for them to explain to unsophisticated clients and the dialogue back and forth with the folks from the uniform law commission. Primarily related to the desire to keep our statute consistent with the uniform law to the maximum extent possible so that we can have folks from out of state comfortable in relying on our statute rather than a statute that nobody else has ever seen before. Okay. Are there any other questions about the amendment still. Seeing no other questions on the amendment do you want to make the motion to motion to adopt I have a motion to adopt the amendment do we have a second. We have a second from senator Irvin is there any discussion on the amendment only. Sing none all in favor please say aye. Same side opposed your amendment is passed you may now proceed into the bill something on this chairman had any and I think we can I mean I was turned over and she can explain the bill that are not cannot clearly drew the short straw you know on a hundred sixty four page bill so or whatever it ended up being at but I mean I think I mean I to sum it up I think are a little C. laws were in some ways incomplete there were there was implication there was it was unclear and what they're trying to do with this and again Secretary statesman of all of the folks involved is really provide the guidance that we need regarding LLCs in statute. I think it is a matter of of some irony that as a law professor who trains lawyers to be and as member of the bar association that I am here in support of a bill that is designed to enable small business owners to have a form of business without the assistance of sophisticated legal counsel our current statute. As traps for the unwary has rules that if they only knew about them they would want to change but just as this is a lengthy bill our current statute is a lengthy statute in fact the first fifty pages of the luminous materials that have been submitted are in fact our current bill being. Deleted so eight having a statute that is uniform that has been well thought out that doesn't have traps for the unwary that sets out rules that are most likely to be beneficial for small unsophisticated business owners without the assistance of counsel that's what the LOC the uniform LLC act is designed to do and that's why I'm here speaking in support of it do we have any questions on them on the bill. I mean in there is this I'm assuming you don't have the summary okay I wouldn't some projects we have an account go article by article about what you know what what is specified in each one of those we can go through that are I know it's a loss we can. I mean one of things we could do because there is so much years if you all want to minimize your ready when we could kind of let this marinate through the remainder of this meeting some other bills from being present and bring it back up or have you talked to it is the will of the committee I mean we do have the death in a statement and we do have some right members what's the wishes to one of our we ready to. Here here a motion. I think they're ready to move on we have a motion do pass. Do I have a second I have a second Senator Dismang is there any discussion. I need to back up a second. We have the motion but do we have anybody signed to speak for against so we're going to roll is there any discussion Senator Irvin did you have discussion okay. Then we have a motion on Senate bill six oh one all in favor say aye. Same sign opposed. Your bill as passed. Thank you Mr chairman committee members so we're going to move on we're gonna skip over Ballinger ray is in the room who's presenting the bill for you you representative or a. Okay. We are moving to House Bill thirteen eighty Senator Gilmore you are recognized thank you Mr members committee center Gilmore district twenty six. And I have with me representative Rachel present the bill a little managers and sell you're recognized representative right okay thank you Mr chairman and members of the committee house bill thirteen eighty it's pretty simple just repeals the Arkansas legal insurance act this is basically obsolete Leising licensing language that doesn't serve a ton of purpose the sole these licenses are for folks to sell what's called legal insurance so if you have a small business and can't afford of an HR team or general counsel you can buy a monthly subscription that gives you access to an actual law firm that you can use to ask HR questions and get drafts of basic legal documents like nondisclosure agreements non competes things of that nature the licensing the license doesn't have any training that's required there's no testing requirements no education requirements that go along with it the only requirement is a fee an annual fee and it's so it's basically just a license for the sake of licensing there's thirty three states that never even created a license like this and of the ones that they did create a license half of those are repealed there's within the last six years so at this point we're one of just nine states that has this language left on the books spoken with the insurance department and my understanding is they have no no opposition to doing away with this language okay are there any questions for representative ray Senator Irvin you're recognized for a question the fiscal impact statement states that there's a revenue impact of a hundred twenty five thousand dollars is that thank you and could you to address why yeah my understanding is because we'd be doing away with the with the fee that goes with the license there's a believe it's a seventy five dollar annual fee for the people that sell these types of legal insurance and so eliminating the act would eliminate that. The and so that's why there's a small fiscal impact and where does the figo right now my understanding is that it goes to the insurance department. Is there somebody from the insurance department that can answer. I don't believe they're still in the room. Okay we'll point out that it is agreed to language they're not concerned about that impact yeah I I I spoke with commissioner McLean about the bill and he said he said he had no issues with doing away with this language at. Are there any other questions. We have anybody in the audience would like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Seeing none Senator Gilmore are you close for your bill I'm closed thank you Committee representative ray are you close for your bill yes Sir appreciate your time and attention what is the will of the committee. I'm. I'm afraid I see no motion and for the lack of a motion this bill will be turned down. Okay thank you Committee thank you. Well moved to house bill ten twelve. Representative right you're recognized. We have an amendment on this bill. Do they have in the packet. Okay you have an amendment and there was a hand out late on the desk for this bill and this is house bill ten twelve. Ray find the hand out in the amendment. With. We are on ten twelve. House bill ten twelve. Okay everybody found it. This amendment and a hand out. Representative arrives. You are recognized to present the amendment only will start with that amendment yes Sir thank you thank you very much much Mr chairman this amendment is actually to make a few additives in corrections concerning the catalytic converters across our state center are being stolen and it was just something that needed to go answer that would make things a little bit better as far as with our shares across state of Arkansas. Okay. The Amendment has been presented are there any questions on the amendment only committee members. I have a motion that we adopt the amendment to I have a second. I have a second from senator of Irvin is there any discussion on adopting the amendment. Saying none all in favor of of adopting the amendment police say aye. Same sign. Your amendment is adopted you may now proceed into your bill house bill ten twelve yes Sir Mr chairman and it's very a very basic bills or basically across the state of Arkansas we've got an epidemic Kelly converters across our state are being stolen they're being stolen off church buses automobiles it's just a statewide epidemic that's getting worse all the time and we felt like we needed a bill to actually put a damper on this and the way that we thought was a better way to do that was to have a of a lining up between all pawn shops sure Shall we charge all that type of people that deal in that type of of equipment. And I think that I think they even noticed us a county shore bill I think that all things have been covered. And which is it any time that you guys may want. Asking questions ways we'll do all right we're just trying to solve a problem all right are there any questions for representative right about his bill to house bill ten twelve Senator Ricky you're recognized yes Senator right to be heard over the weekend that there was the industry the salvage industry had some issues with this bill and that you have and work with them as they have you have you worked with them since we can yes Sir and that's that's this amendment okay so you all got together service on the Monday yes we did okay thank you Sir yes thank you senator Graham did you have a question. The chair. We adopted the amendment we're on to the bill. are there any other questions for representative why rye house bill ten twelve. Saying no further questions is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak against the bill. For the bill here for the bill come on up interdit aux. You want to speak on the bill are you let's let's be clear are you speaking for the bill or against the bill. What we're not sure okay we're speaking on the bill please identify yourself for the record. Hold on we need to turn the microphone on there my name is Walter Reid M. general counts the Arkansas restockers sociais tional. Josh and per president Arkansas recyclers Association you may begin yes Sir we we just want to clarify of. What we assume the amendment and we were just handed the amendment but we assume that this amendment still requires that non of scrap recyclers also complete also comply with the lead system also register with the sheriff if they purchase catalytic converters because otherwise the situation is that anybody can basically of. There would be no requirement to register with the sheriff anybody could purchase catalytic converters except for scrap recyclers who again they comply with the electronic system they register the share of they have six but fixed base. We're hopeful that this amendment would only apply to someone who is purchasing a catalytic converter converters to be used for per parts. If not then the it's it's a real problem. Okay that's the question we wanted our that are there any questions for. Mr Reid and Mr shopper shop for close represented the Senator Hickey you're recognized that so on the amendment. Does the part under two a is that not. Is that where it says so does vehicle repair part. Is that coverage Senator Hickey and we were just handed this a couple of minutes ago and that's why I was asking for clarification if this is only applicable to someone who is purchasing a catalytic converter to then be sold as a park we have I don't think we have any problem with that as long as it it remains that whether you're a scrap recycler for your anybody else if your purchase Senate at first you know scrapping to be sold as scrap then they all need to be subject to the lead system and the various registration requirements and again we've just been handed this and that's what we're asking for clarification does this amendment only accept of those folks that are purchasing catalytic converters to be resold as parts. Okay. So they need to ask questions of the Speaker first Senator Hickey would you like to re direct your question to the actual sponsor I see he's brought an expert to the end of the table I would I'd like to get just a little bit if I could Mr I'd like to get a little more information because my experience with catalytic converters by dates back to the eighties whatever paperwork cutting off the vehicles a. We run that it would be still a regular gas you didn't have to use in ways you can put reverance so is our catalytic converters are those are they still on vehicles I guess I just would like to have a little more information about what's **** representative right to introduce the person to help fully shed some light on this to your list yes Sir Mr chairman how would you introduce yourself for the record and then you're recognized stance of the question or the hopper a past president of Arkansas recyclers association and I already the international models recyclers association now cheer for the A. R. A. government affairs announced the news items that would Jacksonville Arkansas you may proceed with answering the question do you need to repeat S. R. the converters. Of the answer your question converters are still used the exact same today or they were in nineteen eighty five they have the same use they heat up and burn contaminants in extra fuel that slipped over to make the air cleaner when they come when they come out as exhaust cars have more of them more converters on the now than they did and they have precious metals and so the used ones or bring in five or six hundred dollars right now so of the we this amendment. Is a just to make sure that we can still use one as. The gentleman's question right here if you look at the way there if the sale it says a sale on page two this is yep this sold as a repair parking compliance with the EPA so with this amendment only applies if it is sold as a repair parts and we also agreed to put that identifying number on this part the re referred back to the car that came off of it we give a receipt to the purchaser with the vin number of the car that comes off of so we're going to sell as a repair are going to put an identifying number off the with the number off of it we're going to give them a paid receipt with the vin number marking which car it came off of so auto recyclers of Arkansas will be part of the solution of this problem we could just ask for an exemption but we put something on there because we are also a member of the international Auto that the sociais should in in what we had it is from the on for for their points okay does that answer your question yes Sir and and again I apologize for us jumping up here but it looks to be like in other words the word purchased you're simply carving out an exemption of and as Mr Cooper said yeah for spare parts and the verbiage down there I think he's quite correct I mean it there are a number of requirements to be able to to purchase that for that purpose and if that's the way it's going to read I don't think we have a problem with that okay well very good are there any other questions for the witness. Seeing none thank you for your testimony thank you are there anybody we've had speak on the bill that we have anybody speak against the bill. Mayberry speak for the bill. Thank you for your testimony may return Are there any questions I'm going to take a latitude here are there any other questions for representative or I. Seeing none representative right would you like to close for your bill yes Sir and I would hope that this right here this mechanism this tool will stop this across the state because we have got an application and thank you very much for that may appear before you today. Okay. The representative rise indicated he's close for his bill what is a recommendation or will of the committee. We have a do pass as amended Senator hammer and a second from Senator Hickey is there any need for discussion seeing none all in favor say aye. Same opposed your bill has passed thank you representative rights we will move on to House Bill nineteen oh seven. And we have an amendment on house bill nineteen oh seven Lowery Senator Hammer is going to present. Have the. And we have an amendment so let's make sure everyone has the amendment. I think I did I see. Senator Ballinger in the room. I us Army's got our last two bills. Okay we'll take them that he needs to be back. If you want to the degree. Senator Hammer why don't we start with introducing the folks with you and then we will proceed I'm Kim Hammer say senate district thirty three. State representative Mark Lowery. Melissa massing Gil with car tie cancer centers. Very good you may proceed Senator Hammer. Thank you Mr and I'm gonna hit the hundred thousand foot view and then let Melissa and represent Lowery get down in the weeds because they've presented on the house in and I think you're going to find that this is an actual bill that will provide to the needs especially those that are cared for by car tie who is one of the promoters of this bill so for the second time this year I'm on differ representive Lowery he can be more expeditious about presenting it be excellent representative Lowery you're recognized thank you I I believe we still need to represent the amendment we're doing it well I'm so my apologies we do have an amendment from the committee members do wanna explain them Amendment first of all go get that dealt with I believe the amendment when we ran this in house committee there were a number of members that were certainly moved by some of the testimony and even by their own personal testimony of dealing with cancer and chemo treatments but they wanted to see if there was a possibility of expanding of this the coverage of this and and we've attempted to do that or actually I guess to narrow as as much as we could and that's really what the amendment does is make sure that we don't get too far afield that we're clarifying Legislative intent which is to deal with the oncology and hematology services and then there's some other language in here but the the the amendment basically is to deal with what the members of the committee wanted which was our attempt to try and and why this is much as possible. Okay very good are there any questions about the amendment only from committee members. Seeing none what is the Wilson centre Hammer make a motion to pass on the amendment we have a motion do pass to adopt the amendment is there a second I have a second from Senator Teague is there any need for discussion seeing none all in favor of adopting them Amendment police say aye. Same opposed your amendment is adopted let's proceed on to the bill thank you Mr. The the bill is brought to you today deals with treatments that sometimes insurance companies really and involve themselves in the diagnoses and and the administration these days will say that. There's a treatment that a chemo patient might need that they could self administer at home and of course card tie is a great concern about that because of the number of these treatments and and millet Melinda skews me the list of can can give you a better description of that but obviously some of these treatments you need to have proper blood counts in and lab work and so we feel like you know it's a it's a traumatic enough situation that are chemo patient is going through that they don't need to be worried about whether they're giving themselves the proper dosage or not or even really going through self administration of if it also involves an injection so at this point I'd like to turn to our witness in and let her just give me a little bit more background from the FOR Kartheiser perspective. Please that we had yeah we've identified you for the record please. You're recognized. Thank you Mr chair again my name is Melissa mass and Gil and I represent cards I cancer centers of the largest cancer provider in the State of Arkansas I will be brief I know it's getting late Because I provides cancer treatment services to patients through out Arkansas and surrounding states as you can imagine cancer treatment is very difficult on patients and their families and their caregivers. We strive to make treatment as easy and compassionate as possible. When a patient comes in for treatment or team often draws lapse almost on every visit. We also often prescribe and administer pre chemotherapy medications these pre chemo medications are used to help stimulate red blood cells are white blood cell counts to treat nausea. And for other serious purposes and side effects. Once those are administered we will then administer the chemotherapy itself. Recently some insurance carriers have begun excluding coverage for some of these pre chemo medications if they are provided at medical clinics which car tie is it's a medical clinic it's not a hospital. The insurance carriers are still providing coverage for these medications they are just doing it through their outpatient pharmacy coverage. The carriers have stated that they are making these decisions because they have determined that the medications can be self administered by patients before they come in for their chemo treatment. We've even seen a couple of extreme examples for some key moments themselves are excluded from being covered with in a clinic setting. The carriers are still paying for these important medications they are just doing it under a pharmacy benefits. Well this might be okay for some patience this causes many patients to struggle to obtain these medications often from an out of state mail order pharmacy. And they struggle to teach themselves to calculate the right dosage quality control for duration and also on top of that injecting themselves with this very strong medication. It can also cause delays of administration of chemo which can be detrimental to care and patient with advanced disease. These patients are often very frail immunocompromised and sometimes unable to expend the energy to perform normal daily activities placing the burden on them to obtain these medications and to attempt to inject themselves is simply not feasible for many patients. House bill nineteen oh seven is a bill that simply says that the healthcare provider gets to make a decision in the best interest of the patient with the care is provided in which part of the patient's insurance they submit a claim to either the medical insurance carrier or the pharmacy benefits manager. This doesn't change anything about the patient's benefits other than getting the provider the professional discretion to determine the best location for the patient to receive treatment and to submit the insurance claim to the portion of the patient's insurance that fits the care that the patient requires. Thank you so much for this time and respectfully ask that you pass H.. House bill nineteen oh seven thank you thank you for your testimony are there any questions for the witness. Seeing no questions thank you for your testimony is there anybody else to speak against the bill. For the bill. Senator Hammer are you close for your bill. Yeah State share was just conferring with the. A representative Lowery some of this is going to be reviewed or looked at in rule making so that'll give us some ability to kind of look over it but I think from the testimony heard just from having Personal family members and people that I pastored just people in community I know that go through Kerr tie think this this is a good bill to tip the balance with the amendment that will will provide to the best interest of the patient and with that at the proper time I'll make a motion do pass as amended number well hang on for the proper time a representative Lowery are you close for the bill. I have to admit it is my great privilege to bring this bill Members of the insurance and commerce committee over the house included you know I said testimony from some of the members of representative Fred Allen representative wouldn't talked about their experiences of of cancer treatment representative Kenneth Ferguson even talked about the years that he spent and administering and helping his his wife who had suffered from a different diagnoses and that was one of the reasons why the conversation came up about is it possible to make sure that it It ministration is done in the proper setting there is one. One piece here that talks about an ambitious per purely But it is not mandated language but it does say the divisional dies the disease states or diagnoses that the insurance commissioner may include to the promulgation of rules it's not it's permissive language it may or may not happen but right now the intent of this bill is to cover oncology and hematology hematology diagnoses so I appreciate your your patience and allowing us to present this and to appreciate your support okay Senator Hammer is closed for his bill what is the what are the wishes of the committee Senator Hammer has motion at the proper time or Terrel recognized and now Senator Teague. We have a do pass motion and a second was there any need for discussion. Seeing none all in favor of passing out spill nineteen oh seven police say aye. Same side opposed your bill has passed we will move on. Senator Ballinger I believe we're going to start with your house bill first eighteen thirty five and several folks are coming back to the room. But we will we will start with House Bill eighteen thirty fives representative Payton we have anything on that now okay. Senator Ballinger you are recognized to present house bill eighteen thirty five. Thank you Mr thank you committee so house house bill eighteen thirty five provides for a fix in and we law so that I think that is long overdue and surprised that we haven't haven't changed this but what it does is it it doesn't take away the ability for a contractor to go after any other remedy they obviously without providing the notice they don't get the lead but they'd still have the ability to to file for bridge contract restitution any other remedy after that and I'm happy to answer any questions real simple bill are there any questions for Senator Ballinger. We're on house bill eighteen thirty five. Senator Hickey fully understand this Commission if you don't mind sent about would you give me an example of what we're talking about here so as the initial contractor. He's supposed to provide a is this for a. Mechanics materials lane will be talking about yes before work starts or before he starts working as to get signed off on a notification of the potential of lanes right so it's a common thing that but I provide to my clients everything well what the law says specifically that you lose all ability if you don't get that the lease ability to go after somebody for bridge contractor work or other means so this doesn't change you still lose the ability to get the lane but it's it's not a breach of contract doesn't pay you for the construction or or you know that converts it takes something of your property or whatever you still have the ability to to it to go after the person under under the law so you don't get the lien on the property that's gone if you don't buy the notice but you still can go after for bridge contract thank you Sir. Are there any other questions for Senator Ballinger. Seeing none is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak against this bill house bill eighteen thirty five or for this bill. Seeing none Senator Ballinger you close for your bill time close not appreciate a good vote what is the will of the committee. I have a do pass motion on house bill eighteen thirty five do I have a second Senator Dismang is my second is there need for any discussion. Seeing none all in favor please say aye. Opposed your bill has passed thank you Committee all right I will move in. We'll go back up to Senate bill I won't even say the same number hi my understanding she remembers she said no this is what I read it either yep Senator Ballinger you are recognized to present Senate bill six hundred sixty six yes so the the Senate bill with the number for which we won't speak of it is if the bill that deals with the the right of subrogation and very limited areas so one of the things that I wanted to make sure that everybody understood is what the supplied to so the reason why the legislative intent to select probably the first time legislative intent is is what I said it is relevant here to let you all know that we're only talking about five thousand dollars of that day and so so there was a. Common law you know axiom and then or philosophy in Arkansas law that the of may hold occurring right so so we know about that it's it's kind of become a little bit of a holy grail for the for trial lawyers and then we are touching the holy grail to the extent of only the five thousand dollars of med pay so what this says is essentially is that if you you get an accident you pay up to five thousand dollars of med pay the the insurer does if they go and they collect all the medical bills then the five thousand dollars is paid back in several data goes back to the insurer who provided the med pay if they decide not to file suit and not collect against the the insurer then this would give the right of the of the insurer to go after them and and collect the the med Day. It's pretty basic pretty straightforward and we have a a court created doctrine and in Arkansas that's changed what what was statutorily created we're not fixing all of that we're not changing all that but we are just for this five thousand dollars and I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Senator Ballinger. Seeing no questions we've got several folks here to speak against and for this bill we'll start with against Senate bill six six six I Mr Raub. You'll have to identify yourself for the record please I can't read the the last three digits letters. Thank you share I apologize for my sloppy handwriting you're fine identify yourself for the record though please absolutely my name's rob beard I grew up in a small town I guess Arkansas live in little rock and to practice law in Little Rock M. son of a father who was a plant manager for thirty years and got the benefit of retiring involuntarily during covid but he's safe and healthy income parents so I tell you all that because I know you've been here but I want to know that I'm not just some guy that grew up in Little Rock Arkansas grew up in a small town I also appreciate you being here all day so I'm trying to be brief I want to address a couple things first. This bill would address the med pay which the insured in the people that purchase insurance are actually paying a premium for they pay every month I paid mine for months and you probably do years and you probably don't know it unless you've ever had to use the important fortunately I've never had to. But what it does is then it takes the insurance company I move them to the front of the line in front of the person that is pay those premiums for years in a case where there's not enough money to go around that's what made all is about made holes protecting those scenarios where there's not enough money to go around and the only thing about this bill that matters is that there's it only applies when there's not enough money to go around and to address Senator Ballinger point that it's only about five thousand dollars will remember our limits in Arkansas or only twenty five thousand dollars so you're talking about putting five thousand dollars to the front of the line the minimum limits case. Before. The person that paid for that so the insurance company is getting opportunit double digit they're getting the premium and then they're taking money away from their own client they're saying it's coming from a third party but it's not because there's a limited amount of insurers and from that limited amount of insurance and a limited amount of funds they're taking the money away from their own clients to put it back in their pocket I can imagine a single individual constituent the understood this bill that would support this bill because this about put in a big company and from a small injured person. And again it would allow in this scenario the insurance company to double dip because they get both the premium. And then they get to go back and collected back in moved to the from the line now that listen if all they want to do. It have a way that if the the injured person doesn't want to to bring a suit to go collect their money in that case if that's you take out the main goal is to take out everything else the only thing they want me to do is allow an insurance company to collect money back when they're insured doesn't want to we kind of problem that we go back and we we could probably all get together on Amendment with that but when you're putting a big insurance company ahead of an individual insured I can't imagine one single constituent individual constituent that would say that that's a good idea I'll take questions sure sure are there any questions for Mister bond beard beard sorry. Senator Hickey you're recognized I don't care because you some of these other but I want to make with drawl statement in here make sure I understand sure so okay so you got you got any insured out here that has a the EP that we're gonna use it what you're saying they're insured and they have made pay that is up to five thousand dollars yes Sir okay and on their insurance policy and I'm sure this is different is there any type of language within that that stipulates that if The recovery is made if the recovery is made that they're going to pay back the insurance company is that language involved in anything that you've seen in there I'm sure there every policy has a different language depends on how it's written out there but right now what would happen is so let's make this scenario suppose I'm on my way to Sunday services Senator Hammer sure church in a drunk driver runs me over not lose my leg we had to go to a bar and the driver the other drivers in the center and it's been know that I have called party is a is a drug party Sir and and I'll lose my leg I've got and that party happens upon the minimum policy which is twenty five thousand I did the right thing and I bought a five thousand dollar met pay. At that point you're going to allow the insurance company to come in and collect about five thousand dollars. In front of me even though I've been paying these premiums for years to the insurance company for this. And so now then the fact that the drunk driver had twenty five thousand dollars in insurance is going to allow the insurer the the the med pay insurance to get their money back and we're saying Hey in those scenarios where there. If it's a Richard driver we got no problems this bill would be here if it was a Richard driver because the insurance company can come and say the injured but made whole everything's great but here we're talking about a scenario where you got a limited amount of time and we're trying to figure out how then we're gonna slice of pieces and the biggest piece five thousand twenty five thousand a minimalist policies about to go back to the insurance company and for you don't forget for years I've been paying them a premium every month for the med pay. Just follow up if you can so. But the insurance company has has put out the five thousand dollars is that correct. I mean the because by the way they had that they could do okay that would be correct because I've been paying in premiums every month so in this case I'm fifty years old so I've been paying premiums since I am twenty four years old and I've never use my med pay so at this point I paid those premiums every month thank god the benefit of those and now they don't get their money back that they paid to so why would I buy the provided I by med pay. Why would I continue to by med pay if they're just gonna take it away from me okay and the insured through this bill there's no way that they're supposed to get their premium back. in any way shape profession is that correct yes Sir that's correct agency do not they don't get it back it is a state insurance company gets to keep the premiums and they get the pop House thank you. Thank you senator Hammer you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr I'm sorry I was trying to finish up some outside and I was in here for identifying purposes could you tell me please yes Sir my name's rob beard your your your wifi to bring this up to my favorite teacher in high school okay I have known for a long time nothing like being leveraged okay. Well I got to use it when a conveyance. I get it I get insured insurance agent or consumer attorney attorney. So let me ask you how this woods would would tie into it because I actually talked to the insurance commissioner's office I think twenty five thousand in the state is too low for minimum insurance but I was told that you don't based on where we are in the region and we would be hard to get increased because. Twenty five thousand today's world doesn't touch what happens in a bad accident you think we ought to look at raising the minimum amounts so that that would maybe absorb some of this issue or is there a relevancy between those two points to what this bill does because I've heard five thousand. At twenty five thousand but I know some people have had some accidents that's that doesn't matter because it went up way higher than that thank you vested to questions of like trump are some ideas okay Sir yeah so first I carry more than twenty five thousand and I think a lot of people would would do that too I couldn't speak to the bility of what that would affect people that being able to afford to drive and I haven't done the study so I would I would hate to go out there how they relate I think that's probably not the case because still you would still be charged the premium for your med pay. And the insurance company would come in and take it back it would affected in this incident thirds I'm not to cover it then this wouldn't we wouldn't even need this bill because he wouldn't see the language that you see in there about the made whole doctrine because clearly the insurers could come back and say company could come and say we're entitled to our med pay money back because the injured party's been made whole so in that way clearly it would. Help because there be more money there be a bigger pot okay follow Mr. Your follow granted thank you so far is is this about the med pay portion which is only the five thousand or is this about the whole twenty five thousand which is the minimum in the state of Arkansas right now from right my understanding of the bill is that it is for them to be able to recruit the five thousand dollars worth of med pay my point in making with the twenty five thousand is Senator Ballinger said well it's only about the five thousand dollars and I said that's a pretty significant portion when. The the majority of insurance holders in Arkansas only have the minimum limits which is twenty five thousand that was my point about the twenty five thousand. Thank you Mr chairman apology to Senator Irvin I didn't see your name on the list you're recognized for a question. I'm I'm happy to defer to other members so just from an attorney's position right your attorney under the so you. Is there every a scenario with where an attorney is going to be representing an injured person or an injured party. Well sure sure we. So. What are what are those typical attorney fees when you're representing an injured person I'm glad you asked that because I'll tell you what I tell my injured consequence to me because I always want to ask where they fall where my fees fall as they come in and I tell them the same thing I'm asking you to do here I tell them that if there's plenty of money to go around. Then then we expect to get our full fee hi fees are percentage and that varies but returning to attorney in case the case. But when there's not enough money to go around. Then I wouldn't be in a very good business model of I didn't moved anywhere but to the back of the line. And so I'm not going to get repeat customers are repeat clients if put my interests ahead of there's an impact at the Klay I'm obligated to do just the opposite so often times moved to the back of the line and reduce my fees when there's only twenty five thousand dollars in coverage because I generally do of people that are catastrophically injured and I'm I would say so. I only get paid when there's money going to my client's pocket when I agree to what that is so I'm willing to move to the back of the line that's all I'm I'm not asking for anything that I wouldn't do myself okay so and you may not want to ask for yourself personally but would it be a fair argument to say that we would to be opposing to this bill because it would cut down on the amount of money that the individual would have to pay for attorney fees no ma'am I don't think that's fair at all because this in effect how much money I get one iota. I mean it would affected to the extent there's not enough money to go around but I already reduce my fees so this doesn't affect me or how much not percentage I get the charger will or what or what percentage I get to charge this only affects what goes into my client's pocket. And then the last question would be when it goes into your client's pocket and the insurance pays a certain amount to the doctors or the hospitals or whatever but they're still deductibles so they're still portions that aren't covered by those contractual agreements is there a guarantee that that into a person's gonna be able to pay that. Is there a guarantee that that money then still goes to the people to perform the services on on the injury I'm not sure I understand your question so so the insurance has a contract for basis so we talk about the liability or the health insurance fund us I'm not trying to be argumentative trying to make sure stand what you're just talking about the portion that may not be covered by insurance whether it's. And like the health insurance bills that are covered by health insurance retirement health insurance bills are covered by the medical medical bills if there's medical bills in our covers then Are you asking if the med pay would be used for those bills I'm asking if there's portions of portions of the medical bills that are paid. Is there any guarantee you may not be able to answer that question that's okay I think I understand I know I know the answer the question it's okay thank you okay. Are there any other questions for the witness Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you and Mister I'm I'm wondering an indication of where they're not made whole is that the common practice of attorneys to waive their fee or is that just your personal policy. I can't speak for every other attorney but I imagine and to say I weigh them all together I wouldn't do that because I go for. But I will yeah I mean I but I will say we reduce them and and what we feel is the equitable manner and I think that I'm I'm in a position that I mentioned that that happens across a cross our occupation and. Okay thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr Baird. Seeing none thank you for your testimony thank you Mr we have a Mister Brian wall or to speak for this. Please identify yourself for the record and you may begin with your testimony. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee my name is Brian Waller I'm the vice president of government relations at shelter insurance that's one to quickly go on record as being in support of the bill and there's an industry expert here with him or let him introduce himself and I think you'd be a great one answer some of these questions that's be fine please identify yourself for the record. Thank you Mr chairman my name is Mel say's a trial lawyer I practice here in Little Rock and have done so for forty four years now okay I want to be clear on the record with. Okay for I do have a shelter insurance Mr sages represented one of my companies at one point in time such that in the record okay we have a disclosure noted for the record I want to be clear were in the speaking for the the bill will leave it to the committee members whether they have questions to your comment so Mister Waller if you would present your testimony or either one whichever like to go first alternate on this bill. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee I'm here speaking on behalf of Senate bill six six six I'm here representing the American property and casualty insurance association as well as the national association of mutual insurance companies and as I said I have been a trial lawyer practicing here in Arkansas for the last forty four years and I want to address some of the things that Mr beard said at the outset first of all I know that we all understand we go to a lawyer for an accident case where there's an injury involved the first thing that that lawyer is going to do is have you sign a few contract and that feeds typically is a third of what is recovered on behalf of the injured party the payment is made from the Athol insurance company that check is then sent to the lawyer that represents the injured party and then the first cut that is realistically given at is to the attorney for the contingency fee. And then the rest of it is used for compensating for the injury or to repay health insurance medical insurance medical providers who have a lean and up until the Supreme Court last year legislative policy change then the medical payments on the car policy the no fault provisions were then address and the insurance company was paid back for the medical expenses that were advanced in the very beginning. At. He mentions about paying for a premium to get policy coverage will that's what we do with insurance we pay a premium to get insurance coverage if what he says is to be taken as true and we take it to its logical extension then the fact that I have that no fault coverage and pay a premium for on my automobile insurance policy but never use it. am I to come back to you to legislate that all to get my premiums back because I never use the insurance coverage it just doesn't make logical sense to make that argument that secondly the med pay benefits insurance company who advances the medical benefits for medical bills incurred does not come in front of the injured party as I indicated earlier that compensation checked from the at fault insurance company goes to the attorney first and the split is made there and so the insurance company who advanced the medical costs does not get paid first does not stand in front of the injured party or even the Attorney if you want to make that argument then realistically when that meant pay benefit is paid under the no fault coverage it goes to that attorney who represents the injured party more often than not. As a practical matter that attorney representing the injured party then takes a cut out of that medical benefits payment. So the vague stand first in front of the injured party not the medical benefits payor. Then there are other you know health and medical insurance that most of us have either through work or personally in addition to the no fault coverage on the auto policy the medical benefits and so some medical is paid by that medical insurance privately or health insurance privately so it to say that there's somehow some disparity with the twenty five thousand dollar liability limits in a five thousand dollar met pay obligation it doesn't tell the whole picture because there is other insurance that is paying medical expenses as well. Now having said that let's talk reality for a minute. This legislature and I think it was in nineteen seventy three a past these initial acts of they are twenty three eighty nine two zero two which says that each auto policy must have medical payments benefits as a part of the no fault coverage in every auto policy that pays up to five thousand dollars of medical expenses incurred in an accident in an automobile no questions asked fall does not apply. Along with two zero two this legislature passed two zero seven two zero seven gives a right of recovery to that insurer who advanced the medical payments under that coverage. It was designed as sort of the hand in glove operation they were meant to work together. And for many many many years of my experience it works and operated just as this legislature intended originally. The injured party got paid the medical benefits on the front and the injured party recovered damages by a judgment or settlement the attorney got paid as well but then also when the injured party got paid an after the attorney got paid there was a right of recovery up to whatever that medical expense that was advanced was then re paid to that medical benefits insurer or. Everything works smoothly everything was fair nobody got hurt and there was a level playing field that all changed when the Supreme Court less legislated in an opinion a policy change. And instituted the application of what we call may hold to this right of recovery or right of reimbursement that was the original intent of the legislature and statute two zero seven. Now what happens. Is that the medical benefits are paid the attorney more often than not takes a cut of that payment whatever the medical expense payment is. Then the injured party recovers from the at fault insurer and the attorney takes another cut out of that payment. And then. The insurer who advanced the medical expenses under the no fault coverage does not get a right of reimbursement because everybody haulers made whole and the only reason made whole applies now in the present instance is because the attorney's fee. Dictates that the injured party then is not made hold because they've had to pay an attorney's fee. And so that's the way that it operates now and it has some unintended consequences if you will consider the fact that not all people hire an attorney if they may be injured in an accident and their medical expenses are a thousand or two thousand or twenty five hundred dollars that medical expenses advanced paid under their no fault benefits coverage on their auto policy they don't have a lawyer they don't need a lawyer well they can't argue made a whole. And so the right of recovery applies in that situation if the med pay carrier wants to get a recovery. But that's different and they are treated differently than somebody who has a lawyer who can then argue because you paid an attorney's fee you are not made whole. The other intended consequences this and. It's based on my forty three or forty four years of experience doing this day by day I represent insurance companies an at fault. Insurance company at fault insured who runs a stop sign. When I deal with an attorney like Mister beard and his injured client I know that they're going to argue made whole when they recover and so they're asking me to pay them money but I know they're not going to have to pay that med pay back because they're gonna holler made whole. And so I know that they are attempting to get paid twice for the same medical expense. I know they're going to go to a medical provider and try and get a discount. So I'm not going offered them near. What they want me to offer them because I'm going to use this situation as leverage. I don't want them to get paid twice for the same thing. On behalf of my client. And I'm going to leverage that because I know they're not going to have to pay it back to offer them less money and so their client actually gets hurt in reality by this situation that they have created. Now this. Senate bill that is proposed. Is designed to take us back to the way the legislature intended this coverage to operate originally the medical benefits or pay. The injured party gets a recovery the attorney takes his free. But the repayment of the medical costs that was advanced comes only after. That injured party has recovered their damages. Secondly this bill only applies to medical benefits payments it does not apply to pain and suffering it does not apply to wage loss it does not apply to permanency or any future damages that an injured party is entitled to recover so in actuality when that injured party gets twenty five thousand dollars and has medical expenses of five thousand dollars let's say. They actually have been made whole. Because we are limiting our discussion to the medical payments only and no other damages so if that injured party recovers anything. Then they have been made whole on their medical expense by that payment by the at fault party insurer. And lastly. Actually. If for instance the insurance company that I represent has advanced the medical payments and they want to get a ride recovery out of their insurers injury the damages that they recover. I have an incentive my client insurance company has an incentive to help their insured get as much money as they can possibly get from the at fault insurer thank you at Mr yes serving you're recognized for a question for immediate consideration that is a proper motion. The okay. The motion was for immediate consideration but I understand we have to have a do pass motion and be in discussion at this time so I will take the time. Okay we'll move on do you have anything else with the testament no you've been very patient I appreciate the time the are there any German questions Senator Hickey has questions I've got one so under this two oh seven that's that's what's under section two hundred twenty three eighty nine tool seven that you're referring to yes Sir and. What you're saying of course that's the old language that was in place. This is the the insurer paying the benefits has a right of reimbursement so that's what that's were that's where you're coming up with the answer okay let me ask you this and I or I could ask the Senator Ballenger what what does it mean appear we struck through on line twenty nine and if you have a copy of the bill this is an end to recovers what is what does that mean. Do you see that. Twenty nine on the first page yes Sir Page one line twenty nine. We've we've struck through says whatever recipient benefits under 23-89-202. And to recovers. Of the two has been marked out which refers to another session action okay. And so I see is just on a rock. Okay it was just odd the way that goes over to the right yeah thank you. Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question thank you. Fortner testimony everything was Rock along good until spring court got involved made the made whole. Ruling and that's where the apple cart got upset in brief answers that. What your position is yes senator thank you and if I may add very quickly if we read the Supreme Court decision and Rider versus State Farm which is a discussion of the made whole and this particular instance the rider of the opinion invites the legislature. To address their intent and correct the problem and that's what we are asking this body to do now follow share granted. I do you know what I think I've heard more about made whole this session or maybe I just wasn't paying attention in previous sessions but I come I come lawyers don't get together and the insurance companies and everybody and attacked the made whole issue. And and deal with that or is it your testimony that this is a bite at the apple it's not the whole apple but it's a bite at the apple. This proposed bill as a bite at the apple because it's limited only in its application to medical benefits payments under the no fault coverage. Thank you all right are there any other questions. Anyone to speak that's all the we have signed up to speak for this bill is there anyone to speak against the bill for the bill. Senator Ballinger thank you for your testimony Senator Ballinger would you like to close for your bill. Yes I appreciate all your time your patience you know it I I think that that the end was a pretty good segue you know the. The main hall doctrine is a lot bigger fish it's a big issue it was made up out of whole cloth out of the the judiciary. We something legislature should should address need to address but this doesn't do that this just makes one little park where a person if they receive the benefits of all for health insurance in this little five thousand dollars gets paid back and I would appreciate a good vote. Okay Senator Ballinger has close for his bill what is the wish of the committee. I have a motion do pass from senator from do I have a second. I have a Senate second from Senator Dismang is there any discussion required. Seeing none what is the will all in favor of passing Senate bill six six six police say aye. Opposed no. Chair is going to call that as a your bill has passed thank you we have a requested roll call I only need one hand to do that so Emily let's get the roll call sheet out. Senator Elliot. Senator Elliot. Senator Irvin. By Senator Dismang I Senator Ingram. Senator Ingram. Coming in. Name Senator Hickey. I Senator Hammer I Senator Teague. Now. Share votes I and your bill passes with five votes thank you chair and thank you Committee. Okay we have one last bill if you remember at the very beginning of the session we had without objection to here House bill seventeen fourteen Senator Dismang you're presenting that for representative Brooks this will wrap this up. Yes. Senate is mine you're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr chairman the bill does three things it allows for a line of credit to be used as source of cash revenue provides of the board of directors does not have to have their address is disclosed to public although the administrative plan still does last organization. I must only be around for one years of two as previously in the rules that matches the federal requirements the goal here is to loosen some of the rules that have been buried in the past Since the law was passed in two thousand nineteen and language was agreed upon with the insurance department hope is to encourage folks to participate in these multiple employer welfare arrangements. This act. Are there any questions for Senator Dismang. Saying no questions is there anybody who would like to speak against this bill. For this bill. Senate is manning are you close for your bill I'm close what is the will of the committee. I have a do pass motion from senator Hammer do I have a second. I have a second from Senator Dismang all in favor of passing house bill seventeen fourteen police say aye. Same signed. Moshe the bill is passed committee members that cleans our docket we had if I could have your attention for one second we have to bills that I don't believe we're going to be heard on your excel sheet and then we had one bill today that died for lack of a motion in the sponsors already asked if there's a chance to hear that again at the very least Thursday looks like a very small day there also might be some House bills I think we have three or four at the bottom of the excel sheet so at the very least Thursday will be very quick so