Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (47)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1440
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AL HAIR (CROWN) ACT. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1440 Pilkington TO MODIFY THE CURRICULUM OF MASSAGE THERAPY SCHO…”
|
TO MODIFY THE CURRICULUM OF MASSAGE THERAPY SCHOOLS; TO ALLOW REMOTE EDUCATION TO MEET CURRICULUM … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1068
Act 767
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1068 Pilkington TO CLARIFY THE TELEMEDICINE ACT; TO SPECIFY THAT…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE TELEMEDICINE ACT; TO SPECIFY THAT THE HOME OF A PATIENT MAY BE … | Pilkington | Notification that HB1068 is now Act 767 |
|
HB1871
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ENDA *Bills in Red added 04-13-2021 Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1871 Scott TO ESTABLISH THE CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR (CROWN) ACT. | Scott | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1233
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SSIONAL RELATIONSHIP REGARDING COSMETIC AESTHETIC SERVICES. HB1233 Penzo TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN LICENSU…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN LICENSURE ACT. | Penzo | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1247
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1247 Gonzales TO MODIFY PHYSICIAN DISPENSING; AND TO ALLOW DELEG…”
|
TO MODIFY PHYSICIAN DISPENSING; AND TO ALLOW DELEGATION OF PHYSICIAN DISPENSING. | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1263
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HILDREN, PREGNANT WOMEN, AND POSTPARTUM MOTHERS AND BABIES. HB1263 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSIS…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANT ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1324
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL SAFETY TO PREVENT CHILD DROWNINGS. HB1324 Gazaway TO GIVE PREGNANT WOMEN PRIORITY ACCESS TO SUBSTANCE…”
|
TO GIVE PREGNANT WOMEN PRIORITY ACCESS TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY SERVICES; AND TO … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1366
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARE MIGRANTS FROM THE COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION ISLANDS. HB1366 Penzo TO CREATE A RAPBACK PROGRAM UNDER THE DIVISION OF ARK…”
|
TO CREATE A RAPBACK PROGRAM UNDER THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE. | Penzo | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1428
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STER MASSAGE THERAPIST TO MEET THE CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS. HB1428 Miller TO CREATE THE MEDICAID EXPANSION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2…”
|
TO CREATE THE MEDICAID EXPANSION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2021; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Miller | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1498
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EATMENT AND RECOVERY SERVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1498 Gazaway CONCERNING THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN CAUSES…”
|
CONCERNING THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY BY … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1547
Act 977
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1547 Lundstrum TO GOVERN MANDATORY COVID-19 IMMUNIZATIONS OR VAC…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM MANDATING A VACCINE OR IMMUNIZATION FOR CORONAVIRUS 2019 (COVID-19); TO … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1547 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1564
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1564 Hawks TO AMEND THE TEACHER MANAGER INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION…”
|
TO AMEND THE TEACHER MANAGER INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION RELATING TO BARBERS. | Hawks | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1580
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…INK PRODUCTS FROM LICENSURE, CERTIFICATION, AND INSPECTION. HB1580 Scott TO CREATE THE COMMISSION ON RACIAL INEQUITIES IN MATE…”
|
TO CREATE THE COMMISSION ON RACIAL INEQUITIES IN MATERNAL MORTALITY. | Scott | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1584
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1584 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT. | S. Meeks | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1644
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1644 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CHILDCARE FACILITY LICENSING ACT; AND TO … | Bentley | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1667
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T A LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY BY A RESIDENT OF THAT FACILITY. HB1667 Furman TO CREATE THE UNIVERSAL LICENSING RECOGNITION ACT. H…”
|
TO CREATE THE UNIVERSAL LICENSING RECOGNITION ACT. | Furman | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1676
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1676 McCollum TO AMEND LAWS RELEVANT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UN…”
|
TO AMEND LAWS RELEVANT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW. | McCollum | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1681
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BERS FROM LICENSING RESTRICTIONS BASED ON CRIMINAL RECORDS. HB1681 Payton TO CREATE THE FOOD FREEDOM ACT; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAI…”
|
TO CREATE THE FOOD FREEDOM ACT; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAIN PRODUCERS OF HOMEMADE FOOD OR … | Payton | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1746
Act 957
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1746 Underwood TO ESTABLISH ANNALYNN'S LAW; TO AMEND THE COSMETO…”
|
TO ESTABLISH ANNALYNN'S LAW; TO AMEND THE COSMETOLOGY ACT; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND … | Underwood | Notification that HB1746 is now Act 957 |
|
HB1757
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICAID PROGRAM FOR ALL THIRD PARTIES WHO ARE PRIMARY PAYERS. HB1757 Penzo TO REQUIRE CERTAIN INFORMED CONSENT WHEN PRESCRIBING…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN INFORMED CONSENT WHEN PRESCRIBING OR ADMINISTERING ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES. | Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1759
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1759 L. Johnson TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR CHIL…”
|
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN, PREGNANT WOMEN, AND POSTPARTUM MOTHERS AND BABIES. | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1762
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1762 K. Ferguson TO CREATE THE CANCER PREVENTION AND CANCER PATI…”
|
TO CREATE THE CANCER PREVENTION AND CANCER PATIENT NAVIGATION ACT; AND TO IMPROVE THE CARE … | K. Ferguson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1764
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…708 Eaves CONCERNING REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER TRAINING. HB1764 F. Allen TO EXEMPT BARBERS FROM LICENSING RESTRICTIONS BASE…”
|
TO EXEMPT BARBERS FROM LICENSING RESTRICTIONS BASED ON CRIMINAL RECORDS. | F. Allen | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1799
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1799 M. Gray TO ALLOW AUTOMATIC CLAIM CROSSOVER IN THE ARKANSAS…”
|
TO ALLOW AUTOMATIC CLAIM CROSSOVER IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR ALL THIRD PARTIES WHO … | M. Gray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1847
Act 923
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1847 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE ELIGIBILITY FOR LONG-TERM CARE MED…”
|
TO AMEND THE ELIGIBILITY FOR LONG-TERM CARE MEDICAID ASSISTANCE; TO ENSURE THAT BENEFICIARIES ON THE … | J. Mayberry | Notification that HB1847 is now Act 923 |
|
HB1852
Act 922
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ITION TO OTHER CATEGORIES IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM. HB1852 M. Gray TO SET STANDARDS FOR PRESCRIPTIONS DELIVERY. HB1855…”
|
TO SET STANDARDS FOR PRESCRIPTIONS DELIVERY. | M. Gray | Notification that HB1852 is now Act 922 |
|
HB1855
Act 986
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1855 Cozart TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BONDING PROCEDURE FO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BONDING PROCEDURE FOR PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE BONDS ISSUED UNDER … | Cozart | Notification that HB1855 is now Act 986 |
|
HB1857
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1857 Gonzales TO MODIFY THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL…”
|
TO MODIFY THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL BOARD AND THE ARKANSAS STATE OCCUPATIONAL … | Gonzales | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1880
Act 989
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENTS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1880 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS INTERVENTI…”
|
TO AMEND THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS INTERVENTION PROTOCOL ACT OF 2017. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1880 is now Act 989 |
|
HB1890
Act 1092
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1890 Ladyman TO CREATE A STUDY ON THE COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF…”
|
TO CREATE A STUDY ON THE COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY TO RECLAIM AND REPURPOSE … | Ladyman | Notification that HB1890 is now Act 1092 |
|
SB259
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB259 Bledsoe TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVER…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HEATING, VENTILATION, AIR CONDITIONING, AND REFRIGERATION … | Bledsoe | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB262
Act 773
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT BENEFITS UNDER THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW. SB262 Hester TO AMEND THE LICENSING OF OPERATORS OF SOLID WASTE M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LICENSING OF OPERATORS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES; TO AMEND THE LICENSING … | Hester | Notification that SB262 is now Act 773 |
|
SB295
Act 780
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL LICENSE RENEWAL; AND TO ADDRESS RECIPROCITY IN ARKANSAS. SB295 Flippo TO PROMOTE INTEGRITY IN WELFARE PROGRAMS; AND TO AME…”
|
TO PROMOTE INTEGRITY IN WELFARE PROGRAMS; AND TO AMEND THE MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION SYSTEM. | Flippo | Notification that SB295 is now Act 780 |
|
SB332
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NDA (Revised 4/12/2021 @ 10:32 AM) Removed HB1553 and Added SB332 to Regular Agenda House Committee on Public Health, Welfare…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC HEALTH READINESS ACT. | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB395
Act 891
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB395 Irvin TO MODIFY THE ANNUAL CAP ON DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SER…”
|
TO MODIFY THE ANNUAL CAP ON DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM. | Irvin | Notification that SB395 is now Act 891 |
|
SB466
Act 772
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB466 Hester TO CLARIFY THE REGULATION OF PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE REGULATION OF PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES. | Hester | Notification that SB466 is now Act 772 |
|
SB547
Act 947
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB547 T. Garner TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF INITIATED ACT 4 OF…”
|
TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF INITIATED ACT 4 OF 1948; AND TO REGULATE A DIRECT … | T. Garner | Notification that SB547 is now Act 947 |
|
SB590
Act 1002
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…C AND PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY. SB590 T. Garner TO END MANDATORY FACE COVERING REQUIREMENTS IN TH…”
|
TO END MANDATORY FACE COVERING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | T. Garner | Notification that SB590 is now Act 1002 |
|
SB607
Act 782
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REGULATION OF PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES. SB607 K. Hammer TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PEER SUPPORT SPE…”
|
TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PEER SUPPORT SPECIALIST IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB607 is now Act 782 |
|
SCR7
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SCR7 Irvin TO ENCOURAGE THE PURSUIT OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE…”
|
TO ENCOURAGE THE PURSUIT OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE DESIGNATION BY THE WINTHROP P. ROCKEFELLER CANCER … | Irvin | Approved by the Governor |
|
HB1016
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1016 Rye ALEX'S LAW: TO IMPROVE RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL SAFETY…”
|
ALEX'S LAW: TO IMPROVE RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL SAFETY TO PREVENT CHILD DROWNINGS. | Rye | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1266
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1266 M. Gray TO CLARIFY THE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP REGARDING…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP REGARDING COSMETIC AESTHETIC SERVICES. | M. Gray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1378
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1378 Penzo TO AUTHORIZE OCCUPATIONAL OR PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE F…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE OCCUPATIONAL OR PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MIGRANTS FROM THE COMPACT OF … | Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1553
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/12/2021 @ 10:32 AM) Removed HB1553 and Added SB332 to Regular Agenda House Committee on Public…”
|
TO CREATE THE EARN AND LEARN ACT OF 2021; AND TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO WORK … | Bryant | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1708
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1708 Eaves CONCERNING REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER TRAINING.”
|
CONCERNING REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER TRAINING. | Eaves | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB514
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB514 B. Davis TO CREATE A LICENSE TO AUTHORIZE A COMPANY TO PROV…”
|
TO CREATE A LICENSE TO AUTHORIZE A COMPANY TO PROVIDE SKILLED NURSING TASKS. | B. Davis | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB585
Act 839
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB585 D. Wallace TO CREATE AN ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM…”
|
TO CREATE AN ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND A COLLECTION RECOVERY PLAN; AND TO PROVIDE … | D. Wallace | Notification that SB585 is now Act 839 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
in red will be added to the consent agenda. I don't think we have any today, but I want to make sure I don't miss that. So we're going to get right to the agenda. As I said on the floor a while ago, we're going to give house bills priority, but if we have a senator come in the room to run their bill, we may go ahead and run that if it's a small bill. So that's where we're at today. So first item on the
agenda is a concur amendment, HB 1068, by Representative Pilkington. Representative,
you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
0:34
you, Mr. Chair. The amendment that we got from the Senate
was one requested by DHS. This bill deals with telemedicine with behavioral health for group therapy. They wanted to make sure that it was just limited to 18 and older. The way the current bill was written is it was anything from a newborn infant all the way till deceased patient so they just wanted to keep it 18 and up and so that was no problem for us so we we added that amendment on the senate side and it passed and now i'm just bringing over here
for concurment there's no known opposition to this and that's it all
right members you do have a copy on your desk there of the amendment so any
questions on the amendment Seeing none Anyone here to speak against the amendment
For the amendment Seeing none You ready to close for your amendment I'm close for my amendment
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:37
You got a motion I forgot I'm on the committee Motion to adopt
the amendment Concur with the Senate amendment Yes that's right Okay the motion is to concur with the Senate amendment all in favor signify by saying aye all opposed nay motion carries congratulations your amendment has been concurred you you may want to stay there we're going to pass over hb 1871 by
representative scott so are you prepared to run hb 1440 representative i am mr chairman
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:13
there is amendment to 1440. Okay. Has that been passed out? All right, members, we'll
be passing this amendment out, so I'll give you a few minutes to look at it once we get it passed out. Would you like me to
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:32
start to explain the amendment while it's being passed out? Well, let's wait just a minute
let me get a chance to look at it no problem
Speaker 23
2:39
it's a small amendment Okay, Representative Pilkington, if you
want to start explaining the amendment.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
3:20
Sure. As I'm sure many of you have gotten emails about HB 1440 dealing with massage therapy. Working with massage therapists who approached me about that bill, trying to make it better and improve it. of the things that we came up with was to recreate the Massage Therapy Advisory Committee and State Board of Massage Therapy. And so, or to create the State Board of Massage Therapy and abolish the Massage Therapy Technical Advisory Committee. And so, this was something
that happened with transformation. The community of massage therapists have been very upset with how they think it's gone and they feel like they haven't had an adequate voice. So part of trying to reform the industry of massage therapy in the state of Arkansas, I'm wanting to add this to my bill so that they have a board and have a voice. And that's the essence of what this amendment is, is creating a board. And that's why it's so extensive and long because we're constantly having to strike out department and put in board throughout this whole section of law.
So that's why it's about 16
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
4:36
pages long. Representative Ferguson, you're recognized for a question. So where will this board be housed, and how will it be paid, and where will the records be kept, and all of that kind of information? I mean, some of these smaller boards struggle to have a budget and a place to, and administrative functions and all that. Is that already being done through the technical advisory committee and they'll just assume this or is?
That is my understanding. Or will this create new administrative duties? My
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
5:07
understanding is it currently what's getting, the advisory committee that's getting paid, that money will then go in to pay for this board instead. So instead of being though under cosmetology, which they're currently under, it's just creating them their own board. Does that make sense? Yeah, I guess I'm just... that are currently paying for those people who are on that advisory committee that per diem that things like that they'll be paid for the new board that's where the and i get where will they
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
5:35
department health i mean where will they meet no you
know i'm just trying to figure out functionally i'm not opposed to it i'm just trying to figure out functionally how the board's gonna is there someone from the potential board here to explain how they administer it and where they meet and all those no i don't i don't think
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
5:54
anyone's here from it um and i didn't lay out in the in the amendment anywhere where they would meet or anything like that i think that'd be up for the board once it's created to to determine that so i honestly i didn't think that we
get into that far the weeds of telling the boards where they need to meet but i'm i may
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
6:15
be wrong so it's fine i just you know it's always sort of a administrative and cost question with these smaller boards if they have to rent space to meet and if they, who's going to send out the notices for licenses and I don't know. I don't know how
it's being done now, but I'm okay with it. Okay. Any
other questions from committee on the amendment? Representative Bentley, you recognize?
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
6:41
Thank you. Representative Pilkin, does this include what we talked about in your previous part of the bill as far as online, allowing some online courses if they chose to? That's in the original bill. Okay. That's not part of it. But we're not deleting that with this amendment is what I'm asking you. Correct. Okay. That's how I can get all the way through
it, so thank you. Yeah, yeah, correct. Representative Wardlaw,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
7:06
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, a lot of these boards and commissions set under Department of Health
or they set under Department of Labor. I think it's going to be important that you lay out possibly in your amendment that this one sets under Department of Labor or under Department of Health, or if it sets out on its own, similar to the Medical Board. So, Representative Pilkin, I guess the question is, can you tell us how you've envisioned this to set out and where you expect them to set and the staffing and the
lawyers and all that that's going to follow? Sure. My understanding was it was going
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
7:42
to be going underneath the Department of Health.
That was my vision of how this would operate. is underneath department of health but has their
Speaker 26
7:52
own board mr chair can we i'm happy to have yeah
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
7:56
i'm happy to have someone from the department of
health come over here can we have somebody from the department of health answer
Speaker 59
8:04
that uh yes please identify yourself and who you represent charles thompson attorney at the arkansas department of health represent uh appreciate um being allowed to come up i haven't had a chance to see representatives pilkington's amendment The Massage and Technical Advisory Committee exists under the Department of Health right now.
They are actually their own advisory committee that has their own statute, and they were actually moved under us, I believe, in 2015. So the legislature had already moved them under us. They were their own separate board. Prior to that, had an attorney general attorney that advised them. They were moved under us as kind of a pre-transformation, I guess you could call it, for administrative purposes. So we actually administer matters regarding that board now. They advise the Board of Health when it comes to massage therapy issues.
They are the ones that originate the rules that the Board of Health will promulgate when it comes to issues related to massage therapy. So to answer your question, Representative Ward-Law, they exist under us currently right now. I'm not sure. I don't know if there's some clarity needs to be regarded where they actually physically reside, but they are in the, there's one of our sections, we have the cosmetology section and the massage section that are under the same section, but they're not,
they don't co-mingle, they're not mixed. They have different, they do have this, we do use the same personnel sometimes to do inspections in that, but that's an administrative function to save money and efficiency. Be happy to answer any other questions.
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
9:35
Follow-up. You recognize. So budgetarily, you wouldn't need any more appropriation corporation are financing for this amendment and i realize you haven't saw this great big amendment that we have right
Speaker 59
9:45
here um i i don't believe so representable right now we we do do
the we do do the all the massage um we do all the massage um uh the the um inspections and all that um of all the different and do the licensing and all that stuff and the massage technical advisory committee advises on that in fact they also have they do the administrative portion for hearings for adverse licensure actions. So I don't, again, I haven't seen the amendment. I don't know if it's just moving them out to give them more autonomy, though they do have quite a bit of input right now
as with when the legislature moved them over under us in 2015. I'm
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
10:35
good. Representative Ferguson, you recognize? Yeah, on page 10, It does seem to talk about remote education. Can you sort of explain how this is different than the bill? It says the curriculum established in subdivision E of this section completed through remote education in an online format. Can you sort of explain how that will proceed?
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
10:59
Sure. So, and I'll be honest, this is a big amendment, and I forgot
this part was in it. I mean, essentially, the bill that started out was to allow for some remote education for massage therapy. You know, we've got so many hours that they've got to do, and not all of it is hands-on training. It's business ethics. It's business management, hygiene, certain things like that that you can take, you know, almost like you would do like a health streams course in a clinic or
something like that. And so kind of my thinking was trying to pump more students through some of these massage therapy schools or through a student program with a massage therapy master massage therapist or a massage therapy instructor, which is to kind of take some of that burden off without reducing the amount of hours, but allowing them to do it on an online fashion the way they've been able to do it with with covid and things like that so not all of it had to be in person so there's nothing stipulating that it has to be in person but there's nothing saying that uh it could be online so we just wanted to give them that option if they want to provide some of those
services through online that training through online they could do it well
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
12:09
i guess i guess my concern it says it that if a massage therapy clinic or massage therapy spa cannot find a massage therapy school willing to collaborate. In other words, it would not have to be done through a school. It could be done through a clinic or a spa. Is that the online training? Representative, what
page are you on and what line? This is page 10. There's not a line B, 2B. Yes.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
12:37
So with that, it's, and I thought that was on an earlier amendment to the bill that I did on member's own, but I think the bill drafter just combined it all into one so excuse me for my uh for my overlook at that so yes so part of this was in certain parts of the state there's a lack of massage therapy schools and so some of these massage therapy clinics would like to be able to do kind of in-house training if they had a massage therapy instructor or a master massage therapist who could train it they can do some of it online but some of it has to still be hands-on I mean there's just no way that you can teach
certain techniques um adequately through an online program so it's and in the original bill i remember because i was speaking this with some of the massage therapists it's it's not um an and or it's it's it's uh oh it is it is an and or they it's an and they have to do online and in-person training so they couldn't just exclusively do like an online training course and then send them out to start working on patients. They have to have a portion of that being hands-on training.
So it's not an or, it's an and. So we wanted to make sure that they still get that in-person, hands-on-the-body training with massage therapy. Just some of the things, like I said, like business ethics, business management, hygiene, things like that. If they could do it online, we wanted them to be able to do it online. Will the board then approve the
Speaker 64
13:57
curriculum? Yes. Yeah, the board has to approve the curriculum. Yeah, that was
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
14:00
a big component of it as well. and that's kind of how we got to the point of thinking that we needed to create a board because they wanted to be able to say what was okay curriculum and what wasn't. Okay, thank you.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
14:13
Representative Bentley, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. Representative Pilkin, if I look on page 15 of the bill, section 19 talks about them being under the Department of Health, so I would, it looks like with this amendment you've left them under the Department of Health on section 19 of that, 18 and 19. I'm not 18, but 19. yeah yeah so i would just say that yeah to me that they're still under they're still yeah that was
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
14:39
my intention so i just okay i didn't know what part it said in but yeah you're right that's
exactly where it says it any other questions on the amendment seeing none
you read close for your amendment i i'm close for my minute you have motion motion to adopt to adopt the amendment yes okay motion on the floor is
to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye aye all opposed nay
motion carries your amendment's been adopted you're recognized to run the bill as amended
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
15:25
thank you um committee members i think a lot of what this bill now is
more of this amendment than the actual original bill, but because of it was, you know, creating and changing and creating that board, it just got so cumbersome. But let me kind of explain the history of this bill. Obviously with COVID, things have changed and the massage industry has been hurt significantly because, you know, you have a lot of in-person small areas, you know, work. And so one of the
things is when they looked at their industry was they realized there's a complete lack of massage therapists. I think in the past seven or eight years, I think we've actually lost about 8,000 massage therapists in the state of Arkansas. And so what we're trying to do is just maybe relieve some of the burden, be a little more inventive. That's why I wanted the part about doing some parts online. So in Clarksville, Arkansas, there's not a massage therapy school, but there is in Russellville. And so if you're a single mom or you work because you're low income,
You know, my idea was if they could do some of their hours online and maybe have a little more flexible schedule, then they could go through and do that training and utilize technology to be a little more efficient, you know. And one of the things I just think is great is people being able to do school online. And so that's kind of what kind of genisoned that. But then, of course, it was, well, okay, so what if, you know, there's not even a school around you? you're in Mountain Home, which I don't believe has a school, or some other parts of the state that's pretty rural, but there is a massage therapy clinic, and there is a massage therapy
master or instructor who works at that facility. They are trained and have the knowledge to train someone else, and so that kind of created the idea of maybe creating a program in which they could get a temporary status to be trained underneath them within a facility, using online to do certain courses, but then the hands-on training, do it in person in the clinic or spa or whatever you call it. And so that's kind of how we came to this larger bill. So it kind of snowballed. We just wanted to open it up and do some online to, okay, well, what can we do to
really try to get this industry back on track that's obviously been faltering here in the state? And so that's how we kind of got to this point. Obviously, we don't want to hurt schools. And so, you know, that's why we have it to where they have to have some sort of, it's kind of like a collaborative agreement with a school in the area and unless for some reason they can prove that there's no schools in the area they can get an exemption but for instance let's say you're in Russellville which has a school they need to go to them and have a sort of an agreement to do that training so we're not trying to cut schools out we're just trying to be a little more flexible so that we can get people trained and and into a job that that honestly is a good stepping stone
for a lot of people uh you know for about eight thousand dollars you can go and get trained and this and make a decent amount of income and uh you know maybe move on to other things in life but But for some people, it's a really good way to make a living. So that's kind of how this bill came into being. I know you've gotten tons of emails about this. I've worked with a massage therapist to try to get this better. And we've had a lot of discussions. And, you know, I believe they're good with this. You know, this, like I said, it's been a long slog.
I think I filed this probably at the beginning of session, and now we're almost near the end. And so, and that's kind of the jettison
of what this is, the gist of what this
is, I should say. You know, the questions from committee? I'm seeing none. We have one person signed up to speak against the bill. Andrea Wilson, if you would come to the table, introduce yourself.
She may be in the waiting room. Please go to the table there
Speaker 86
19:29
and introduce yourself and who you represent. My name is Andrea Wilson. I own the Salon Professional Academy in Sherwood. I'm also a member of Sea Tech. I do not have a massage therapy school. However, they are under the same board as we are, and I'm very passionate about the education of service providers in the beauty industry.
With that said, I do not agree with this bill prior to the amendment, which I have not had a chance to review completely as well. But prior to the amendment, the portion that basically says you can gain a license by apprenticeship as well as online training only, I do not agree with. I feel like there are, frankly, I feel like this is a self-serving bill and that there are massage therapy franchises that are putting this out
so that they can train their own people and have an employment contract. Representative
Speaker 89
20:32
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You just made a statement that this was
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
20:38
a self-serving bill. So would you please explain that
Speaker 86
20:43
to me? So as he was saying, like the massage therapy businesses that are having trouble hiring people,
and in my opinion, it's going to be retaining people. There are 2,000 massage therapists in this state. So if we're losing employees in any way, that needs to be looked at, not finding an easier way to train them.
Chair
Unverified
21:08
Representative Ferguson, you're recognized for a
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
21:10
question. Yeah. Tell me the requirements to be a massage therapist. I mean, it's just, is it a, is there a national board, a national exam you pass? Is there a criminal background check?
I mean, what all is involved in getting licensed if you go to school,
Speaker 95
21:26
I guess? I don't know all the details as far as
Speaker 86
21:31
is there a background check, to be honest. It's similar to cosmetology in the fact that you have to complete so many hours and then take your
Speaker 95
21:38
state board exams in order to become licensed, but I don't know all the
details of how that works. Representative Pilkington, she asked the question about all of the training being required online. Did your amendment change that?
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
21:52
yeah there's it should not do anything about making it all online it's like i said it's
an and not an only online i don't i don't know where where that's from okay so were you aware of that ma'am yes okay any other questions from committee seeing
none thank you for your comments okay is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to speak against the bill
for the bill seeing none are you ready to close for your
Speaker 11
22:32
bill i'm close for my bill you have motion oh motion
do pass it's been a long day as amended as amended yes okay we have motion on the floor do pass as amended representative
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
22:42
bentley you're recognized for discussion just a real brief discussion thank you chairman um i have visited with a number of massage therapists in my district are very in favor of this bill allowing them to do some of their education online they're very remote would be helpful and I'm also a huge
proponent of massage therapy I think would be very helpful for our constituents to help with pain and everything so I think we do need some more training I appreciate bringing for this bill representative Pilkington definitely support it. Thank
you. Any other discussion? All right, any other discussion? Seeing none, motion on the floor is due pass as amended. All in
favor signify by saying aye aye all opposed nay ayes have it congratulations your bill is passed okay committee we're gonna move back up the agenda I had promised representative Eves that I would get SB 262 on the consent agenda he's here to run that bill So, Representative Eaves, you're recognized to run SB 262.
Representative Les Eaves
Unverified
24:00
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence on this bill, and I know you guys have a long schedule, so I'll be as quick as I can. This is an agency bill brought to us from the Department of Environmental Quality. It makes a few changes. Notably, it allows an apprentice to keep working as an apprentice until they pass their test to be a journeyman. After two years, they have to quit now if they can't pass their test. It also allows them to pay for a license for two years instead of paying that annually. That is the majority of the changes in the bill. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Any questions from committee? Seeing none. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Anyone here in the audience to speak against the bill, for the bill? Seeing none, you ready to close for your bill? I'm closed, thank you. What's the will of the committee? Do pass. Have a do pass by Representative Gray. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. The ayes have
it. Congratulations. Your bill is passed. Thank you, committee members. Okay, the next item on the agenda is HB 1428, Representative Miller, are you prepared to run that bill? No, sir. I'm going
to run it out. You want to pass over? Okay.
Next item is HB 1676, Representative McCollum. Is he in the room? I don't see
him in the room. Okay, we're going to move on down to
the next House bill, HB 1746, Representative Underwood. Oh, he's in another.
I need to text him. Representative Cozart, are you ready to run your bill? Mr. Chair, I have
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
26:26
someone in the waiting room that is willing to help me with this and if Jay Robbins will have him come in at this time, I would appreciate that. And I forgot his name, so I can't even tell you what his name is. Okay.
Committee, it's HB 1855. I do have an amendment, sir. If there's that, sir, are you here to speak on the, okay, members, there's an amendment coming around. Sir, if you would introduce yourself and who you represent. Hey, can you, do you have another one?
Speaker 130
27:06
I'm David Grace. I'm a lawyer from North Little Rock. I've got it here. I'm a member of the construction law section of the Arkansas Bar Association. I
I had a hand in drafting this bill, and I'm
Speaker 132
27:17
here to answer questions about it, explain it, speak on its behalf, whatever it
is required. Representative Cozart, you're recognized to present your bill. All right. You want
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
27:31
me to present the amendment first, sir? Yes, please. All right. On the amendment, it's Amendment 2, House Bill 1855. On page two, it deletes the amount, I believe $20,000 goes to $50,000, we're changing that amount.
On line four, it deletes line four and substitutes if a payment bond is filed as provided under. Page four again deletes line 35 and substitutes or materials or equipment supplied by the contractor providing a payment of the bond under the real estate construction contract on page five at the lease line 25 and substitutes the contractor shall file payment bond with page five at least line 30 if the contractor fails to provide the bond payment bond on page
five at least line 35 files the payment bond and uh also on page five line 36 it deletes bond or and just substitutes bond and page six it deletes line one and substitute to the person letting the construction contract public on page six it deletes line 18 through 20 and substitutes years from whichever the following first occurs first in the day the principal contractor or the performance bond receives final payment on the construction contract public construction contract or real estate construction contract or and then it immediately following section it adds a section
It reads the following statutory liability, an integral part of the bond, limitation of action, the liability imposed by Code 22-9401 or any bond furnished by a public work contractor shall be deemed an integral part of the bond, whether or not the liability is explicitly set out or assumed therein. That is the basis of the amendment.
I have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Motion carries. Your amendment has been adopted. You're recognized to run the bill as amended. I'm going to let Mr. Gray go ahead and do this. I
Speaker 125
29:46
think he can probably do a little quicker
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
29:49
than I can if you want to. Are you okay with that, Mr. Gray? sure okay i'm here to serve whatever if you want to just discuss the bill everything i'll let you
do that and uh sure thank
Speaker 130
30:00
you guys uh thank you thank you for uh letting me come to speak about this today as i said i'm david grace i am a member of the construction law section of the arkansas bar association and i along with several others uh drafted this bill uh the purpose of the bill is to eliminate, eliminate, excuse me, eliminate fragmentation, duplication, confusion, and a serious contradiction that exists amongst the various statutes that have been promulgated to
deal with construction bond surety. Right now, as today, there are two places where you can find statutes about construction bond surety in the public works section at 229401. And in another section that deals with general construction claims and liens at 1844-501. Don't know how that happened, but one of the things we wanted to do was to create a uniform structure for the enforcement of payment bond claims, which is the primary consideration of these various statutes.
The other thing we wanted to do was to establish the statute of limitations for performance bond claims. Today there is no statute of limitations for performance bond claims except the general five-year statute of limitations. There are four major changes in what we have done. Right now there is a sharp contradiction between the statute of limitations for payment bond claims in 22.9.401 at SEC and 18.44.501 at SEC. One establishes a 12-month statute of limitations,
the other a six-month statute of limitations there's no real way to distinguish between the two statutes and it creates quite a bit of confusion especially when it comes to private construction projects we have established a uniform one-year statute of limitation for all payment bonds public and private uh based on the day the final payment or the day the contractor ceases work whichever first occurs um that was the primary reason why we started to work on this revision was to eliminate that contradiction because it creates a lot of confusion in the world
that i work in we established a performance bond statute of limitation for the first time it's two years from the date of final payment or the date the contractor seizes construction that is consistent with most uh construction bond performance bond forms many of the bonds that that are used in the state of Arkansas come from one of two or three places that deal with just bond forms. And the typical bond form provides a two-year statute of limitations from the date the contractor ceases work.
That is consistent with an Arkansas case that permitted contractual variations on the statute of limitations to be two years from the date the contractor ceases work. That's the City of Hot Springs versus National Surety Company. So we tried to be consistent with what the practice the state is basically to create this performance bond statute of limitations. The third major change or change, I don't know if it's major or not, the law has always been that there was a requirement that the bond, the payment bond, be filed of record in the county real estate records. It's been the
law ever since I've been the lawyer, which is a pretty good while now. There's been no enforcement mechanism to make sure that bond gets filed, which means it doesn't get filed. We decided that we needed to have a way to get the bond filed. It's very important to a bond claimant to know what the bond says. Despite what statutes may say, all bond forms have conditions and other requirements that you have to know to comply with to make a bond claim correctly. And if you don't have a copy of
bond and you can't get one easily then you have to go ask somebody for it and sometimes these things are time sensitive it creates problems which is why you're supposed to file it in the first place so what we have done is we've made a provision uh that the con the the owner the construction project owner whoever that is can refuse to pay the contractor until the bond is filed Filing the bond is a simple process. It costs $30 or $40 to filing fee. So this way we're sure the
bond is going to get filed because obviously the contractor wants to be paid. As a positive inducement for the same reason of getting the bond filed, we also provide that once the bond is filed, construction liens cannot be filed against the project. The bond is the only source of recovery. that incentivizes the owner to get the bond filed as well as the contractor and it takes a lot of pressure off of everybody as far as dealing with these complicated construction lien requirements
the uh it's much easier to make a bond claim than file construction lien anyway the uh this is also consistent several of the states do things like this so that's sort of where the idea came from But it basically provides a uniform remedy on private jobs. If the bond is filed, then that's the remedy going after the lien. The last thing that we did that would be considered a change from current law is to do something that most payment bond forms already require, which is to require a pre
filing notice of claimants who are not in privity with the bond principle. For example, the AIA bond form requires a notice from those not in privity 90 days from the day the last work is performed or materials are supplied. That's consistent with the Miller Act, which is the federal law all across this country. Most other states also have a statutory requirement for a pre-claim notice. And as I said, a lot of payment bond forms have this requirement, and it's enforceable as a contractual condition.
putting it in a statute gives everybody a warning that they have to give this notice to protect themselves and perfect their claim so those are the generally speaking the four changes we've made in the current law and we've also tried to get it all in one place so that everybody can find the law without having to search for it and i certainly
Speaker 132
36:21
entertain any questions i'd like to also i'd like
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
36:24
to also add a couple of things if you don't mind go ahead here i just want you to note that none of these revisions applied to RDOT because their construction products they have always been and
remain exempt from the status of applicable to bonds for public work and private construction so those do not apply to them and also we have all of the large commercial contractors are on board with this there's not any
Speaker 130
36:46
that oppose this. I should have said that as I understand it our proposed bill is supported by the Arkansas Bar Association the Association of General Contractors and the uh i forgot the name of the other
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
37:00
one that's not good is it the association of builders and contractors i'm sorry
okay one question uh in section two there why the change from twenty thousand to fifty thousand that was at the request of
Speaker 130
37:15
the state uh we tied our our twenty thousand dollars to what was the the previous law, which is $20,000 for bonds on state jobs. They've changed it to 50. They ask us to change it to be consistent with them, and we certainly want to be consistent with the University of Arkansas. Yeah, I think the University of Arkansas
system did it. All right. Any questions from committee? Representative Allen, you're recognized.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
37:40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's go back to that. You were raising the bond from $20,000 to $50,000. is that correct it's a requirement it's
Speaker 147
37:49
a requirement when the bond is is is required yes that's to renew your license
Speaker 149
37:53
is that true no no no okay it's actually a
Speaker 151
37:59
project oh okay it's the amount of the project okay i'm glad you
Speaker 154
38:03
clarified that if you heard it i thought
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
38:06
it was a project yes it applies to public construction projects in excess of now fifty thousand dollars instead
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
38:12
of twenty okay uh uh thank you representative
close off. You saved yourself a lot of questions. Any other questions
from committee? Seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Anyone in the audience here to speak against the bill, for the bill? Seeing none, you ready
to close for your bill? Mr. Chair, I am closed. What's
the will the committee. Representative Allen. Do pass. I have a motion do pass by
Representative Allen. As amended. Do pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed nay. Motion carries. Congratulations. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you, Committee. Okay. Okay. Representative Underwood, is he in the room?
Speaker 160
39:35
he's gone again okay all right representative fight
did you have a bill which bill did you have i
Speaker 164
40:00
guess you're recognized to run that bill S.B. 466.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
40:11
Mr. Chair, may I bring to the table Mark White from the Department of Human
Speaker 167
40:17
Services? Yes, please introduce yourself and who you represent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark White
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
40:29
with the Department of Human Services. Okay, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 466 proposes
to do three things. One, it requires all newly licensed providers to obtain a permit from the Health Services Permit Agency regardless of in-state or out-of-state clients.
Previously, a gap existed allowing a licensed program to serve only out-of-state clients. Secondly, it would also require existing licensees to obtain a permit from Health Services Permit Agency for capacity below the currently approved capacity for both in- and out-of-state clients. And then third, it allows the Child Welfare Agency Review Board to close or terminate a license that has not been operational for the past 12 months, and operational is defined in the body of the bill.
All right, committee, any questions on the bill? Seeing none, we do have someone signed up to speak on the bill. Tanya Williams? You're okay. All right. Any questions from committee? Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak against the bill, for the bill?
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
41:52
Seeing none, are you ready to close for your bill? I am
closed and appreciate a good vote. What's the will of the committee? I have a due pass by Representative Eubanks. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Congratulations. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 172
42:19
Thank you, committee. Michelle Gray is going to run this, and if they're in agreement with Medicaid, there's
no opposition. Okay. If you get to it. What number
Speaker 157
42:27
is that? Okay, Representative Mayberry, are you in the
room? We can get them if you go to the table.
Okay. yes do you know her name shannon long long shannon long if you're in the waiting room if you would come to the main room okay committee this is hb 1847 by representative mayberry Please go to
the table there where the mic is.
all right if if you would please introduce yourself
Speaker 178
43:58
and who you represent okay my name is shaded okay sorry
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
44:04
time to jump again that's okay i'm so glad you're here shannon Members, I'm Julie Mayberry, District 27.
Shannon Long came to me with a problem at the beginning of this session, and I listened to her, and I said, yes, we need to fix that. And she even came with some ideas on how to fix it. I went to BLR, asked them, you know, what are other states doing? How can we address this? And we came up with this idea. So I'm open to suggestions. If you don't like this idea, please let me know what you think. I'm just trying to solve a problem
Speaker 182
44:35
for her. So I'll let you take it away.
Speaker 178
44:39
Shannon? Okay. Chairman, Representative Mayberry, members of the committee, thank you for allowing
Speaker 183
44:44
me to be here to testify on House Bill 1847. Can everyone
hear me? Yes, if you would, please introduce yourself again and
Shannon Long
Unverified
44:57
who you represent for the record. My name is Shannon Long and I'm here on my behalf and also for those others with significant physical disabilities who are currently on Arkansas's Medicaid buy-in program. As you're likely aware, this program is very generous to people with disabilities.
It allows us to earn and save without any earned income restrictions or resource limits, unlike many Medicaid programs. This also includes people who are on a home and community-based waiver, such as myself. I currently have a fulfilling job, a fantastic employer, a 403 retirement plan, and savings for my future, all while maintaining the services I need to live independently in the community.
This has been my long goal since graduating college in 2009 with a Bachelor's of Science in Sociology, and again in 2014 with a Master's in Rehabilitation Counseling, to become a contributing member of society, despite my disability, even with the limitations that I do have. Prior to enrolling in the buy-in, I've worked my way off both SSI, Supplemental Security Income, and SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance.
And I've continually abided by all of the income guidelines in order for me to keep my insurance and waiver. As a matter of fact, most of the accommodations I've requested from my employer have not been related to my disability, but rather having to cut back my hours or turn down bonuses, all of which I've been forced to do to stay underneath the total monthly income guideline for waiver eligibility. I no longer have to ask for such accommodations,
and I've finally reached the point of self-sufficiency and financial independence under our buy-in. I no longer have limitations placed upon me besides the potential of my own abilities. This self-sufficiency is penalized, however, when I retire or when I no longer qualify for the buy-in at age 65. I will still need waiver services in order for me to live independently in the community. A far better choice than living in a nursing home, which is my greatest fear.
However, I will then be subject to the same income limitations and a resource limit of $2,000 a month, just like I had before I was enrolled in the buy-in. The assets that I'll be allowed to draw from, my 403B, my savings, will make me ineligible for waiver. House Bill 1847 addresses this issue. It directs the Medicaid agency to exclude employer-sponsored retirement accounts as
well as assets accumulated with determining eligibility for long-term supports for individuals with significant physical disabilities such as myself. This would allow me to enjoy the fruits of my labor at retirement age and beyond while still maintaining the supports I need to live independently. According to DHS, there are only 194 people who are on the buy-in right now. Only five of them are on a home and community-based
waiver. Passage of this bill will only affect a small number of people, but the significance of it for those people cannot be overstated. This change will cost the state pennies compared to what it would afford me and contribute to my future when I retire. I hope the success that I have achieved through hard work and much support will not mean the undoing of my care.
Supporting this bill will send a consistent message to people with significant physical disabilities by allowing them to achieve their work goals while enjoying the fruits of their achievements, not just now, but throughout our entire lives. So I urge you to vote in favor of House Bill 1847. With that, thank you for your consideration and for this time. Thank you for your comments. Representative, did
you have anything to add? Just isn't she amazing?
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
49:42
I'd be happy to take questions quite honestly. I'll probably call Mark White up here to help address some of them. I'm not an expert on this and he certainly would know more. So I did run it through them. They are very
Shannon Long
Unverified
49:59
well aware of this bill. Okay. Can I? Yeah. So this resembles the Medicaid buy-in in Wisconsin where I had a contact and what it will do is people who are on the buy-in, they will register their accounts, whether it's a 403B plan,
savings, whatever they have established with their financials while working as an independent account with the DHS office. So when they retire, any accounts that's registered as an independence account will be excluded as a resource when determining eligibility for long-term supports. I've brought with me the simple registration form that the Wisconsin Buy-In uses, and it doesn't request for financials. It just requests for the name on the account,
obviously what bank it's through, and then it'll just be registered with the state. So at retirement, the assets in it would be, you know, not counted against myself so that I don't lose waiver eligibility. Even though I've worked this hard my whole life, you know, and been allowed to save under the buy-in, it's unfair to be penalized when I retire. Okay. All right. Any questions from committee?
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
51:27
Representative Ferguson, you're recognized. Well, I guess I mainly have a question maybe for you or Mark White. I mean, absolutely. I think it's sad how underemployed, really capable people with disabilities are. What was the concern from, does this go require a waiver or is this something they can do just on their own or does this bill take care of it? Mark, would you come
forward? You can, and please introduce yourself and who you represent. I'm sorry, I turned it off instead of on.
Speaker 198
52:03
Mark White with the Department of Human Services. Representative Ferguson, just in glancing at it, certainly we will apply for a waiver if necessary, but I think at our initial glance, we didn't think a waiver would be necessary for
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
52:15
this. Is it necessary to pass the bill, or is this just something you can elect to do? I mean, I'm okay with passing the bill, but I mean, is it just something you do in rules, or what is the procedure?
Speaker 198
52:27
I think we could possibly do it in rules, but I think since this is an eligibility category that was created by the legislature back in 1999,
I think it would be much cleaner for you as a legislature to enact this change. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. We
don't have anybody signed up, do we? Okay, we don't have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Anyone in the audience here to speak against this bill, for this bill? Seeing none, are you ready to close for your bill, Representative?
I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Representative Miller, you're recognized. Motion. What's your motion? Motion do pass. I
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
53:23
have a motion do pass by Representative Miller. Any discussion on the motion? I hear it. I do. Yes, you recognize me. I'm going to discuss my own motion because I like to hear myself. I should be over in the Senate. Anyway, I'm, hey, Ms. Shannon, it's good to see you. It's been a long time. Good to see you too. Folks, I just want to say kind of what she's talking about
right here and the program that she's on is, is what has, I've been a beneficiary of as well. And some of the issues that she's brought to light, which I'm so glad that she did, are kind of my fault. I worked on this back in 2013, and we got the income and asset caps removed from this program so people could actually go to work and make a living. I never figure that I'll live long enough to retire actually anyway.
So, you know, the thought of fixing this at somebody's point of retirement never crossed my mind back then, or I would have done it. So I'm really glad that you brought this up. And Representative Mayberry, thank you for your work on it. I know we've talked about it, but this is the right thing to do. And hopefully we can have more people join us with the way technology is going and get in the workforce and live a productive life.
And this is a big step towards making Arkansas very acceptable for that. So I would ask everybody to vote
yes. Any other discussion on the motion? Motion on the floor is do pass. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion
Speaker 209
55:04
carries. Congratulations. Your bill is passed. Thank you, all. Thank you.
Thank you, Shannon. She did it. Representative Underwood, you're recognized to run HB 1746.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
55:25
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had an amendment last time I was here on this bill that just added a Senate sponsor. I would like to expunge, that was adopted, I'd like to expunge that and then I have a new amendment that addresses some other things and also addresses that Senate sponsor? You
don't have to expunge the other amendment. Okay. The new amendment is coming around, so we'll give the members a few minutes to read the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All right, you're recognized to explain your amendment. Some
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
56:26
of this may make more sense on the explanation of the bill, but I came before you a week or two ago, and I got some feedback from you guys on some amendments that you guys might like to see, and so that's what this amendment tries to accomplish. There's
a registration component, and there's also a supervision component. I can go into more detail into that if the committee would permit me to adopt the amendment. Representative Cloud, you
recognize? I have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries. Your
amendment has been adopted. You're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, committee. If you recall,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
57:09
I was here, like I said, a
couple weeks ago, and this is the bill that would exempt people who are providing shampooing and simple hairstyling services from the cosmetology license component. What I've done in the amendment, or what I've changed since I was here last, was I added a registration opponent. So if you are a registered hairstylist, you would be required to register with the Department of Health. You would have to pay a $10 fee. That fee is simply for covering any kind of administrative costs. And then if you could not perform these services, if you lost your
registration. So, you know, if somebody files a complaint against you and you're doing something negligently, the Department of Health could then pull your registration and you wouldn't be able to provide the services any longer. Secondly, the other change that I made to provide, to address some of the health concerns that you guys had was added a supervision component. So component. So if you're a registered hairstylist and you need to, if you're going to provide these services, it would need to be done under the supervision of a licensed cosmetologist. And so I hope that that
satisfies the committee's concerns. I don't want to belabor it because I know I was here a long time last time. But if you have any questions, I'm
happy to try to answer those. Representative
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
58:23
Gray, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know we've discussed this quite at length, and so I'm just now seeing this amendment for the first time. I think our biggest concern, or my biggest concern, was untrained people opening up their own salon. So does this cover that? This would have to be underneath, they would have to work underneath someone
who has an establishment license, is that correct?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
58:45
So, yes, so that's what I'm trying to accomplish here, is that you would have to do this under a licensed cosmetologist. and then I also want to address the training component. So, you know, I think I mentioned this last time that I don't think that having a license means you're untrained, so I still think you would have an ability to have a training component, but obviously, you know, if you're starting your own business or you're under a licensed cosmetologist, this most likely would
be training you, I would assume, if they're going to take on that liability, and then I will also stress that there's nothing that prohibits a school from providing any kind of additional training if there's a course that they want to do that with. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from
committee? Seeing none, we do have a number of people signed up to speak for and against the bill.
We have five people signed up to speak for the bill. And 13 people signed up to speak against the bill. So to speak against the bill and... Representative Bentley, you're recognized. We've heard this bill at an extent,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:00:08
so I think we could limit debate to two minutes per individual on this. We've got 20 people to speak.
I have a motion to limit debate to two minutes per person.
Chair
Unverified
1:00:21
Any discussion on that motion? Representative Allen, you're recognized. Does
Speaker 230
1:00:29
that include question? No. No. The representation, yeah. I got
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:00:33
a substitute motion. Representative Wardlaw, what is it? Mr. Chair, these
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
1:00:37
people drove here today. My substitute motion is we allow them five minutes that includes questions. that means they would speak three minutes here and there and then we would have a couple minutes to question them. The motion if I understand it correctly.
You can with a substitute motion. We have a substitute motion. The motion is to allow five minutes including questions. Any discussion on that motion? Representative Ferguson recognized. Yeah I mean certainly I want to
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:01:10
give the public an opportunity to
speak, but we did hear this pretty extensively already. I would just, I mean, take your five minutes if you want to, but I would encourage anyone speaking for or against not to repeat information that's already been said or that is someone before
you. Maybe get together and not repeat the same information. Any other
discussion on the motion? Seeing none, the motion is to limit debate to five minutes per person, including questions. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. Ayes have it. So each speaker is limited to five minutes,
including questions. First person to speak against the bill is Andrea Wilson. If you would please come to the table, maybe in the waiting room. We need to have Jennifer McWhorter ready for next speaker. Can you make sure that Jennifer McWhorter comes to the room? Okay. If you would, please introduce yourself and who you're here to represent.
Speaker 86
1:02:31
I am Andrea Wilson. I own the Salon Professional Academy, and I am also the cosmetology school owner of SeaTac. I spoke last week, I believe, against this bill as well. I am still against this bill for multiple health and safety reasons. I understand that they say simple hairstyling. However, simple hairstyling, you can be burned by blow dryers, brushes, hot tools of all kinds. Also, you know, shampooing is not just shampooing when you're dealing with the public.
When you're doing it on yourself, it's one thing. or family members, but when you're dealing with the public and they may have skin conditions or other things that you need to recognize, that comes down to extensive training, and we do that in the schools. I would still go for a limited licensure situation rather than a simple $10 registration. And I also appreciate all of you and how much you have spent time on all of this legislative session.
I, for one, am exhausted, so I don't know how you guys are doing it, and I appreciate you listening to me today as I do have to go pick up my children, so
I'm keeping it short. Any questions from committee? Seeing none, thank you for your comments. Jennifer McWhirter, if you would, please go to the table and introduce yourself and who you represent. We need to get Wade Strawn in the room. Please introduce yourself and who you represent.
Speaker 237
1:04:06
I'm Jennifer McWhorter. I'm Anna Lynn's mother advocate. As we know, Anna Lynn wants meaningful employment in the community, working in a hair salon versus sitting at home doing nothing. We want her to be productive. Some that oppose this idea say it's dangerous to the public. However, I have one question to pose for you all to think about. as a pharmacy technician in the state of Arkansas a person does not need to have formal training
all one has to do is pass a background check and pay a fee to the state board of pharmacy when the person is trying this person will then be trained and supervised by a licensed pharmacist and assist in dispensing all prescriptions including mixing liquids medications and dispensing narcotics. Which is more dangerous to the public health? Assisting a hairstylist by washing and drying hair or assisting a pharmacist dispensing drugs to the public? And for the
cosmetologist who feel like this may jeopardize their job, hiring an assistant to wash hair is totally optional. Salons will not be mandated to hire assistants if House Bill 1746 is passed. So please consider changing the law so people like Anna Lynn do not need to be fully licensed as a cosmetologist just to wash and dry hair and do simple styling. Thank you. Any questions from
committee? Seeing none, thank you for your comments.
Thank you. Wade Straughn, if you wouldn't go to the table, introduce yourself. We need to
get Morgan Grenard in the room.
Speaker 242
1:05:58
Please introduce yourself and who you represent. Wade Strong, Arthur's Beauty College, Jacksonville, Fort Smith, Conway, and Jonesboro. One of the things that was put in the bill was under a cosmetologist supervision in the schools.
And part of the things that we're mandated to do, sorry about the gum, by the way, is all services are performed under the direct supervisions of a licensed instructor. We're instructors. I'm an instructor. I teach the program. Cosmetologists are not an instructor. There's two separate programs. One's a 1,500-hour program to get your cosmetology degree. The other is a 600-hour program. I am not opposed to figuring out some way to come with some kind of
curriculum that a student would have to go through to do but putting it as who's the fault going to fall on if something happens is it going to fall on the owner of the salon because there's no education i have insurance people here that i had to fill out information on what i do are your people properly trained talking about your instructors what are they capable of what did they have to go through to get there? This particular individual of this program
that we're talking about is not licensed at all. Who's it going to fall on? Is it going to fall on the state because the state said it was okay that
Speaker 243
1:07:23
they could put a person on someone's head who had a terrible lesion? I don't know. Is it going to fall on the salon because they took them on? I
Speaker 242
1:07:34
don't know. At the end of the day, someone needs to be trained. it needs to be underneath the CTEC, the Cosmetology Technical Advisory Committee, through the Department of Health. And at that point, then we can come up with something. I have no problem
coming up with the curriculum. I have great people and staff that are highly trained through my lady program. The lady who spoke earlier, Andy, she has great people through Pivot Point. But there needs to be an education program that someone has to go through to understand and recognize if I'm cutting on someone's hair or I'm giving a shampoo that there may be an issue. Not that we're doctors. We will never diagnose. I do not diagnose. But I will say, I suggest you go get this looked at. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comments. Okay, Morgan Grenard to speak for the bill. We need to get Paul Wilson in the room. Please
Speaker 247
1:08:33
introduce yourself and who you represent. I'm Morgan Grenard, and I'm for the bill. I am a seventh grade math teacher at Rivercrest and I also work in a salon after school and on the weekends. So I have a little bit of both worlds. You know, in school we have to implement
504s and IEPs. That helps, if you will, level the playing ground. You know, success for kids who are struggling. And then what happens whenever they get out of school? Is there careers that have 504s and IEPs? There's not. So are we setting them up for failure? You know, I think that this would somewhat help with a 504 IEP in an actual career.
Much like in school where I'm a guidance to kids for IEPs and 504s, a licensed cosmetologist. Whenever I'm at the salon, I can be a guidance to Anna Lynn if she wants to work in a salon. Hairdressers have assistance all the time. Whenever I got out of cosmetology school, I worked with my sister for six months in her salon. I didn't touch hair. I swept hair. I did laundry. I washed color bowls. I shampooed her clients. I had a license,
but I didn't touch hair because whenever you get out of cosmetology school, you don't know anything. You're scared to do highlights on your own. And I think if I would have had the opportunity to be an assistant beforehand, I would have been better prepared after school too. So this is not just for people with disabilities, but I have an assistant working at my salon as well right now, but she's already licensed. They could go ahead and start their career as soon as they get out school. This is just an assistant. It is not working on your own solely. It is just
assisting a cosmetologist. Thank you. Thank you for your
comments. Okay, Paul Wilson to speak against the bill. If you would go to the table and introduce yourself and who you represent. We need to get Sue Pappens in
Paul Wilson
Unverified
1:11:02
the room. Hi, everyone. My name is Paul Wilson, and I'm representing myself, Andrea Wilson, my
wife, as the Salon Professional Academy school owner. I'm going to speak on her behalf a little bit as SeaTac. And really, for a lot of people in the industry, not everybody that is a licensed hairstylist is for this or some here that are against it, but we'll get to that later. Just a few quick facts. I did send out a mass email to everybody on this committee, so I won't regurgitate all those. But basically, the Professional Beauty Association states that, you know, 77% of the public want a licensed beauty professional.
81% license are there for that. And 84% of the states have a licensing requirement for beauty professionals. And that's a source of NDP analytics from 2019. Y'all can look that up. Here's a couple other things. This bill originally was ran by Representative Underwood as a jobs bill. And on the surface, it may appear that removing these licensing requirements or lessening that would create more jobs. However, I have a counter argument to that. You can look up the median
incomes for barbers and cosmetologists, and they're about $14 to $15, $16 an hour across the country, but I doubt that includes tips because we all know people that receive tips don't always count the tips, but that's a different conversation altogether. So I asked Kelly Kersey, who is the Section Chief for Department of Cosmetology, and I also talked to Rex Bailey, who is on the barber board. Kelly Kersey told me in the past 11 years there haven't been any inquiries for the shampoo
license, which is what CTAC is going for, a limited scope license, how we're trying to solve this problem to include people like Annalyn, anybody else that wants to work in a salon but doesn't necessarily want to go through the full program, or an assistant type program like Ms. Gennard just spoke about. Rex Bailey from the barber board, they've had a technician's license from the 70s on there. But the free market isn't saying that we need those licenses, namely because nobody's applied for them over the last 10 years. So if the free market isn't doing it, then I would
argue that Mr. Underwood's bill isn't going to create any jobs if there's not an overwhelming demand for this type of license, or limited scope license, shampoo license, however you want to call it. Now, Kelly Cursey did say there was one request this year, but it's probably because of the NLN bill that we're talking about. So my point on the jobs bill is that there's not a demand for this type of bill. Therefore, no jobs would be created. Other states have a limited scope license. Maryland, Kentucky, and a few other states have this. So this type of limited scope
license is already out there. It's already affected other states, and it's being productive, and it's doing the things that it wants however there's not an overwhelming demand for that type of license in those states as well the other downside of this is that if this bill was to pass you know the department of health is already strained in its resources in inspecting and ensuring sanitation and so on and so forth and i'm not saying that all arkansans are aren't law abiding citizens but the opportunity does exist if this bill passed for people to do practice
the art of cosmetology, cutting hair, shampooing, or highlights, colors, chemicals, what have you, and not have the proper training and license, that opportunity is going to be even more magnified if this bill does pass. So, and a few other points, the insurance liability. In our school and other salons, we're required to report to our insurance agents all our people are licensed and properly trained. If a bill like this passes, then it opens up to a liability for those salon owners.
They then have unlicensed people who aren't trained working on guests. You have one minute. So that allows, that opens a liability for that business owner. And also another point is that schools have IEP programs. Our school has one. Wade's school has one at Arthur's. And so So we're accustomed to dealing with students that have IEPs and 504s to deal to help these students achieve. And the best way for people like Anna Lynn to succeed is to give them a program, let them earn it themselves, teach them how to be productive, and earn a living on their own.
That's the best way to help people who have Down syndrome, any other type of disability, or that just want to maybe not do the whole thing and just work in a salon and be an assistant. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:15:59
Miller, do you have a question? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sir, I appreciate you being here and your feedback. If this bill passes, I mean, I understand you and your wife have a salon, have a business.
Does this bill, with its passing, does it, I mean, in all honesty, is it going to or does it have to hurt your business? Yours. Right.
Paul Wilson
Unverified
1:16:19
I don't believe that it's going to because the consumer demand for a limited scope license isn't there. So if it did pass, it's not going to affect our bottom line. And it's not about that. What I'm here to say is that I want to strengthen the professions of cosmetology and barbering. Anything that's going to dilute those professions.
We battle this all the time that people think cutting hair is just cutting hair. You're just, you know, doing whatever. We've always battled the stigma of cosmetology and barbering as not being a legitimate profession. But any time a person is touching another person, there's a sense of trust and accountability and things like that. And that's what I want to strengthen is we want to be recognized as a legitimate profession, not just, you know, something that you do on the side. And that's really the reason why. All right, your time is up.
Speaker 58
1:17:10
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sue Poppins, please go to the
table and introduce yourself and who you're here to represent. We need Brandon Johnson in the room. You're speaking for the
Speaker 262
1:17:33
bill? Yes, I am. I'm Sue Poppins, and I'm here to support Anne Lynn and her family.
I've been a hairstylist now for 44 years. And I have never had an assistant, but I think it would have made a big difference in my career to have and made it a lot easier to have an assistant. Just to have somebody to shampoo for me, cape them, cape the clients, get supplies for me, take care of the towels, wash them, all that, sweep the floors.
you know, just get stuff ready for me when I get ready to go to work. Anna Lynn's been in my salon, excuse me, several times, and she is really eager to learn more about working with hair. But with my supervision, I think she could succeed in the hair salon environment. I think Anna Lynn would have a sense of accomplishment and purpose in her career of choice. And that's it. Thank you. Any questions? Representative Payton, you're
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:18:50
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my question is, was there something that prevented you from having an assistant in those
Speaker 262
1:18:59
years? No, there wasn't, but I've never, I mean, I more or less want somebody like Ann Lynn to come into the salon and help her is all i'm saying i think it would be in her best her interest to bring her in to a shop and let her work if i could have a follow-up yes you can um there's a component in
Representative John Payton
Unverified
1:19:29
this bill that says the supervision can be by phone could you speak to that i mean how you would supervise an assistant by phone oh no no i would
Speaker 262
1:19:38
not do that i think that they need to be in your salon okay thank you thank you mr chair thank you for
your comments brandon johnson if you would please go to the table introduce yourself and who you represent kathy sursa needs to be
Speaker 275
1:19:58
in the room how you doing my name is brandon johnson i'm representing
Goodfellas Barbershop, Goodfellas Barber College, and I work with United Cerebral Palsy also. I'm against this bill, and there's a few things in the language that pertains to this bill that kind of affect me personally, okay? As y'all see, I have a head full of ethnic hair, okay? Ethnic hair is a little bit different, okay, because you have to, it's an S pattern that is evolved, okay? It comes out in a trough from the crest. It's very wavy, okay? Now, here's where
this pertains, this bill kind of pertains. When you say simple washing, there's no such thing as simple when it comes to ethnic hair, okay? Because the simple fact is that when you, when hair goes through a process as of chemical treatment, you have a thiol base and you have a hydroxide base, And we even have a semi-straightened situation. So when you're straightening a wavy hair, it's a certain look to it. And if it's semi-straightened, it's a certain look to it.
So we have to wash that out, is what this bill is pertaining to, right? So when we wash that out, we need to make sure we have the right shampoo. Now shampoo isn't just shampoo. We have what you have, a neutralizer. We have shampoo and rinse. We have a shampoo that has an actual chemical to it. We have medicated shampoos. So my thing is when I take my daughter to a salon and she has treated hair, are they going to be able to identify the difference in between that treated hair and untreated hair?
And will they be able to identify and will they employ the right shampoos on that treated hair? because if something that naturally has an S pattern or a trough and a crisp and it's semi-straightened, then that hair is treated. But it takes hours to be able to feel it. It's not just the sight, it's the feel also. I'm an instructor with Goodfellas Barber College, and I tell a lot of my students, it's not just the numbers that's on the clippers. It's not just the way it looks.
It's the actual feel of it also. And it takes 600 clock hours to be an instructor, and then you have to have a year into the field to be able to identify the certain things that you will come in contact with. I've heard in this bill that it's under a cosmetologist. Well, a cosmetologist and an instructor are two different things. Another place, I'm in the barbershop all day, and I teach also. So, when somebody comes in and wants their hair washed, I'm not looking around for somebody else to do it.
I want to take care of it myself because I know that if you're my client and you're coming to me consistently, I know exactly what's going on in your hair, okay? There's no mix-ups or mistake that can happen. And if that does happen, it's on me. I wouldn't want to delegate that to anybody else. So, any other questions? Any questions from
committee? Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Okay, Kathy Sursa to speak for the bill. If you would introduce yourself and who you represent.
We need to get Amy Lance in the
Katie Sursa
Unverified
1:23:29
room. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. Hi, again, my name is Katie Sursa, and I am from Gigi's Playhouse. I'm the site director. Gigi's Playhouse is a Down Syndrome Achievement Center, and our whole goal is to change the way the world sees Down Syndrome, and that's why I'm here. because 30, 40 years ago, people would never have even considered bringing this bill. Nobody would have thought to write this bill. But I like to think that when we look at today
and we're looking at the people that are looking for jobs today, we're not only looking at people that are looking for jobs today, but those people that are five and six years old that will be looking for jobs in 20 years. And what kind of world are we creating for them? if people 30 or 40 years ago would have looked at people with Down syndrome and said they could never achieve anything, why even try? My daughter, who's seven, would not have the opportunities that she does today. So as you're looking at this bill, I do challenge you that this bill is not just about
the cosmetology industry. Yes, it is. It is about the cosmetology industry and about, you know, what happens when a person comes in to get their hair cut or get their hair shampooed. But it's also a broader spectrum of that. It's how do we look at employment for people with disabilities? How do we look at what jobs they're capable of versus what jobs they deserve? And why are those two different? And so just consider that today. I challenge you to think about this in a broader perspective of, yes, it could influence, you
know, the way that salons treat people as they come in. but it could also create that um it's going to create an opportunity there there is no there's no opportunity right now to be filled and those states that have those people it may not matter it may not be a huge um what am i trying to say it may not be a huge population of people that are looking for this kind of job but for the people that are looking for this kind of job it's a huge opportunity and so it may not matter to everyone but it matters to a few
Speaker 78
1:25:34
thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your comments. Okay,
to speak against the bill, Amy Lance, if you would go to the table, introduce yourself and who you represent. We need to get Dennis Dixon
Chair
Unverified
1:25:58
in the room. I'm Amy Lance, member of the cosmetology advisory board for district one. Um, I currently hold a license in aesthetics
and electrolysis. Um, I'm an owner of a salon. I oppose this bill, um, basically for sanitation. Um, COVID was unique this year and changed us in many ways. Our human touch isn't the same anymore. Um, we learned that the hard way. We, um, are in contact with many people and that's a very important thing is sanitation school taught us that there are ways for us to go through even if it's a certain number of hours to teach us how to properly sanitize and second being an insurance
liability when you bring on someone that is not licensed they just have a permit that's a liability to the salon if something were to go awry and they got a chemical in someone's eye on contact skin, different things, the owner of that salon could be sued for that. Lastly, the biggest thing, I think skin disease and contraindications that could occur. I have an example that just happened last week. I have a new esthetician that went to work for me. She came to me with a skin blemish, is what
we thought it was, washed her face, started looking at it, and she went to med express to get it checked two days later she had staff so she was trained to know there was a problem and had that taken care of immediately that was addressed with you know knowing the proper channels to get that taken care of go to the doctor but we didn't have another person in that room getting a service and possibly spread that infection to to another client and the
teacher that spoke earlier made a good point but she was she had gone through training and was licensed and understood what she was coming into the salon ready to go even in the smallest ways thank you guys for listening to us and taking the time with all of us to be able to speak today any questions
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:28:11
from committee representative ferguson you recognize well and i said this at last committee meeting you know i i live
close to memphis so i mean i what what happens when i go in the
cosmetologist sets me in the chair she looks at your hair she you know and then she sends you back and you have someone to shampoo and do all of that it actually facilitates her to be able to make more money i i guess i'm trying to understand why that wouldn't in some ways be an advantage to a cosmetologist to be able to, you know, actually do what the, the higher technological procedures that you're getting paid for. I see that
Chair
Unverified
1:28:49
as a benefit to someone that's been in the industry
for a long time, but a new person coming out of a 1500 hour program that they've worked really hard for, and they're still trying to build those shampoo sets, that would take away from someone that's put in 1500 hours of training. So that's the kind of the difference in that.
thank you for your comments dennis dixon if you would come to the table introduce yourself and who you represent
we need to get shanta bush in the room
Dennis Dixon
Unverified
1:29:26
hello my name is dennis dixon and i'm representing over at forayana um i'm a person with down syndrome mosaic balance thank you man and I've worked all my life I got you know everybody deserves a chance to work and so I believe passing this bill would help everybody you know you don't need to run downgrade people with disability just cause they might be slower or whatever everybody deserves a chance if
If they want to try it, let them try it. That's what I think I'd say. But anyway, I thank y'all for listening to me. Any
questions? Seeing none, thank you for your comments. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Okay. Shantae Bush, please go to the table. Introduce yourself and who you represent. We need to get Donald Teague in the room.
Speaker 289
1:30:29
Hi, I'm Shantia Bush, and I represent myself at CB Natural Collection, LLC, and I am here to oppose due to I'm a cosmetologist as well as a non-surgical hair replacement specialist. I deal with cancer patients, leukemia patients, and it's more than just shampooing hair. If I'm dealing with a cancer patient that's coming to get their hair shampoo, you have to understand the chemicals that we use to shampoo the hair. It cannot interact with any medication that they're on.
If it do, it will cause harm to them. So it's not just shampooing hair. They have to be educated on what hair is, what hair is made of, and what it can do to each client that comes into the chair because everybody's hair is not the same. So if they're not trained right through school, they would not know. And as well as we also have to get educational hours outside of school. So even though once we graduate for some 1,500 hours, we still have to get extra training to keep our license.
So if they're just coming just for shampooing, they still have to understand and go through that to learn what hair, the scalp, and
Speaker 290
1:31:42
any lesions or anything is made of. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for your
time. Thank you for your comments. Donald Teague, if you would go to the table and introduce yourself and who you represent. We need Lee
Speaker 292
1:31:58
Blank in the room. Good evening, how you guys doing? I've seen a few of you guys a few times. My name is Donald Teague. I represent Goodfellas Barber College and Goodfellas Barbershops.
I think what we're all missing is we're not opposed to those guys understanding to do shampoos, but we feel that they do need some education. I teach class, I cut it in the shop, I've seen it. If you put in a relax or a perm in someone's hair, and you're not educated to put neutralizing shampoo, then what is going to happen? The hair is going to fall out in the sink. So I say if they're going to be able to shampoo, I feel that they're smart enough, and if they're able to shampoo, then they should have some qualifying hours. So many would have become 250, but you just cannot put someone in there and say shampoo
their hair. It's impossible. You don't have the knowledge. There are so many other things. The minute you drape this client, and if the other client has, if you don't have the neck strip on and the proper talon, then you can pass, you know, head lice, ringworms, anything because the capers touch the skin. I'm not like she said. She's wash hair. No, we shampoo hair. This is not just, you know, and it's not to downgrade our craft and it's not to downgrade them. I would love for them to have the opportunity, but they need some proper education. You just cannot go tell somebody to shampoo everybody's hair. If you're putting certain chemicals in there, you need the chemicals to stop working.
You know, you just, you can't do it. And I understand both sides, and I feel in my industry, I don't want to hold anybody back. I feel we can educate anybody. And if you're able to shampoo, then you're able to learn what shampoo is, what shampoo is necessary for certain things, and as far as draping and sanitation purposes. You know, it's not always about we don't want to get an opportunity. Yes, we do. I would love to have them in. I would put them in one of my shops if they have the education to perform the service. Would you want somebody to, if you come in to get a perm and they don't know to stop the product from working,
And if they don't put neutralizing shampoo in there, then what's gonna happen? If you don't know to put the proper conditionings in here, it is dry. If you see that they got a scalp condition, do they need a therapeutic shampoo? It's so many different things that you need in our industry that I wish you guys will respect our energy, like we respect you guys, and we want them to get educated to do what they do. So that's the only thing I have to say, and
I do appreciate you guys. Any questions? Any questions? Mr. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:34:12
Miller, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Number one, you probably shouldn't respect us that much.
Yes, I should. And number two, here's my question. I've wanted to ask this two or three times. As you read this bill, do you see anything in this bill that is going to legislate that you and your barbershop or salon or whatever, that you have to hire someone who you feel like is not properly trained? Is this bill forcing you to do that? No, it's not. And
Speaker 292
1:34:40
in the industry that I'm in, I feel that the bill can get out of hand, not for what the Anna rule is,
but how it would open the door for so many other people to start in our industry without getting a proper education. We went through it with the Braiders. I feel anybody that does here needs some education on sanitation and different things. I just feel that way. I've been cutting hair, doing hair for 20-some years. I'm from Chicago. I don't open my business here. I love it. And I respect our field. My only thing is educate them. You do not let no one just go sampling somebody's hair. Just give them some education. You can give them some type of training to let them know what they need to do. It's for your safety and ours.
That's what our barber board is for, to protect you guys. And when I put them out there, I want them to have the proper sanitation. I want them to know what products. Back in the day when they shampoo somebody's hair and you see all their hair in the sink because they didn't use a neutralizing shampoo to stop the product from working. But if you don't know that, well, if I come in there with sores in my head, I need a therapeutic shampoo. Not necessarily send me to the doctor, but your hair is dry. What do you use? You need some conditioners. You need this. It is a lot of education. And I believe you guys, I understand her. You go to that shop and they got somebody illegally in there as they shampoo her.
That's not right. And then you're taking it from our industry. You know, I've been in this forever. I supply my family. I do everything. So I do respect it and I do respect you guys. And like you said, if we don't like a bill you pass, we're supposed to come down here and fight it. You know, and that's just like if it's a bill that's good. I love the bill. Even with the apprenticeship bill, there's certain things that you got to tweak up, but you can't let nobody come in a shop with no education. That's just impossible. Representative Miller,
Chair
Unverified
1:36:15
you recognize for a follow-up? Just real quickly, do you feel like right now that folks come to your shop because of the quality of work that you do?
Speaker 296
1:36:22
I believe so. I believe so. All right, thank you for your comments.
Speaker 297
1:36:29
I thank you guys. And I know you'll be happy
for this. Lee Blank. Lee Blink, if you would, go to the table and
introduce yourself. We need to get Michael Lance in the room.
Lee Blank
Unverified
1:36:54
You're recognized. Good evening, everyone. My name is Lee Blank. I'm a student of Goodfellas
Speaker 301
1:37:00
Barber College. I'm currently working to complete my 1,500 hours, which is required. in order to be a licensed barber stylist just stating that it's okay to cut well to arrange dry style flat iron blow dry hair there are details to it we have to know what products to utilize when cutting styling shampooing hair that's something that i take theory for every day
that's something that we're required to understand and caring for someone's hair. It's more so about hair care as opposed to a hairstyle or a haircut. Saying it's just fine to be able to shampoo someone's hair is let's see, what's the best way I can say this? it's not the best method for utilizing a service and saying it's just okay to
shampoo someone's hair whether I mean let's say you some yet some have short styles some have long styles but if it's required that I shampoo your hair it's a one-on-one situation as opposed to having someone in a shampoo room who may have never who may just be getting into it and it backs up on that young man or that young woman and they don't know whether they need a neutralizer or a medicated shampoo for someone's hair are you okay with someone that that's
just getting started doesn't know what's supposed to what's supposed to be applied even though they they've got someone in a salon is backed up or someone is very busy are you okay with someone just saying hey shampoo their hair and they don't realize they need a neutralizer to stop the process so now you go through now you're going through this process where your hair has been there's been a perm or or curl applied to your head and now your hair is falling out are you okay with that situation I myself even as a student I'm
no I'm not okay with that situation saying oh well I didn't let you know there was something there's supposed to be something put in your head to stop it so it's about this this is why i'm against this bill it's about it's yes we're our first the one of the things they drive home with us is our job is to take care of the public our job we're required to maintain and care for the public being barbers stylist cosmetologist that's job one for every
last one of us. So I'm not to take anything away from the young lady who this is her dream but if I've got to do 1,500 hours I think it's necessary that she do the very same in any capacity. Representative Miller did you have
a question? Okay. All right we're seeing no other questions. Thank you for your Thank you, John, and ladies.
Michael Lance, please come to the table. Introduce yourself and who you represent. Miriam Piccolo,
please come to the room.
Speaker 305
1:40:29
You're recognized. Good afternoon, Michael Lance. I'm an independent insurance agent. I'm going to try not to bore you. My wife is a salon owner, and through our independent agency, we insure salons. Two words that I keyed in on from Representative Underwood as he was
giving his opening remarks was liability and negligence. And we, of course, as soon as we get up in the morning and as soon as we walk outside our door, we take on a liability. We can do things to lessen that liability. And we all strive to do that, even in our professions. We strive to lessen the liability. One thing that we try to stay away from completely is negligence. Negligence is an ugly word and something that none of us want to be guilty of.
On the insurance side, as we're looking at filling out all those thousands of questions on the accord forms, and even certain companies have their own questionnaires when it comes to certain professions, in this case, salons, there are two key questions that are always asked. Are you properly trained? Are the people that you hire properly trained? And are they licensed? If we check that question, no, then there's a problem.
Because insurance companies like to insure good risk. good risk are those those risks that really do a good job taking care of their business making sure that the proper protocols are taking place making sure that their their staff is properly trained and so on an insurance on the insurance aspect of this bill we want to make sure that all people are properly trained and licensed and I think there's a process There has been a process to get to that point already.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I'm seeing no questions.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:42:45
Okay, thank you. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. We had a motion. What's your motion? A motion to expunge the vote
in which the amendment, the previous amendment was adopted. Do
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:42:54
we need to end debate here? We take these motions before we do that, I think.
All right. Motion is to expunge the vote on the last amendment.
Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries. The vote's expunged. Mr. Chairman, if we
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:43:13
could have the sponsor of the bill to the table to introduce the new amendment, it's in his name. Representative Underwood, you're
recognized to introduce the new amendment. Do we have that amendment for the
committee members? Okay. We're going to pass that out. It was just a minute.
Representative Underwood, you're recognized to present the new amendment. Thank you,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:44:13
committee. Based off what I was hearing during testimony, I had BLR draft. A new amendment should be the same, except it removes the supervision by telephone aspect. So I've removed that from the bill, and I won't belabor it anymore. You've heard all the arguments up to this point. I just appreciate a good vote on the bill and the amendment. Thank you. What's the will
of the committee? I have a motion to adopt the amendment by Representative Wardlaw.
Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries, the amendment's been adopted. Representative Warlaw, do you have another motion? Motion to end debate. There's
a motion to end debate. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion has passed, debate has ended. motion do pass as amended i have a motion do pass as amended any discussion on the motion
seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye aye all opposed nay no guys have it motion carried we have a roll call please call the roll There it is.
Speaker 317
1:45:59
Representative Wardlaw. Representative Eubanks. Representative McGee. Representative Dodson. Representative
Speaker 322
1:46:28
Miller. Representative Payton. Representative Bentley. Representative Gray. Representative Gonzalez.
Representative Boyd. Representative Allen. No. Representative Coleman. Representative Coleman. No. No. No. Okay. Representative Pilkington. Yes. Representative Wing. Yes. Representative Penzo.
Unknown speaker
1:47:05
Representative Penzo. Yes. Yes. Yes. Representative Perry. No. Representative Davis. No. Representative Cloud. Yes. Vice Chair Ferguson. Yes. Chair Ladyman. Yes.
Speaker 336
1:47:38
congratulations representative your bill is passed thank you mr chair thank you committee appreciate
it all right committee we're going to go back up the agenda here a
little bit let me see representative lundstrom are you ready to run hb 1547 committee let's hold down the noise
she's got the sign up sheets over there representative lundstrom you're recognized to represent to present hb 1547
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:48:37
thank you colleagues you recognize thank you house bill 1547 is an act that simply allows or ask the state not to
mandate the covid vaccine and this is only for the state government and you do have an amendment I believe we have that filed already. Yes, it's been filed. We need to pass it out and approve
the amendment. Yes. All right, members, there's an amendment coming around to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:49:07
this bill. I believe it's been filed and signed. It's not engrossed,
evidently, so we'll pass it out. Oh, okay. Do you need a copy of it?
Yes, I'll take a copy. Okay. Okay, we'll give everybody a few minutes to look at this. Yes, you recognize.
Does anyone have a phone charger? I do. Okay, Representative Lundstrom, it's getting late, so go ahead and present your amendment, please. Thank you.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:50:21
This bill basically removes the business requirement to mandate a vaccine and leaves it with the state not manding the vaccine to the state departments. And with that, I'll take any questions. I will say that
we did put in a clause here for the state hospital and state nursing home that they could come back to public health should they need to vaccinate. We left that clause or put that clause in there for them to have that protection should they see the need.
We had quite a discussion last time, so I didn't want to belabor it this time.
Chair
Unverified
1:50:57
Representative Ferguson, you're recognized for a question. Yeah, it seemed
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:50:59
like the big concern last time for most people was the unemployment aspect. Has that been removed or are they still qualified for unemployment? No, ma'am. It's been removed. It's been removed. Okay. Yes, ma'am. So
Speaker 42
1:51:08
the requirement for private businesses has been removed? Yes,
sir. Okay. Any other questions? That was the request of the committee. Representative Boyd, you're recognized.
Representative Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:51:23
Make a motion to adopt the amendment.
Have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All
opposed, nay. Motion carries. Your amendment's been adopted. You're recognized to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:51:41
present your bill as amended. Thank you, colleagues. We went through this last time. Those items have been removed. And I will call your attention to the fact that we did add basically a parachute for those agencies of the state that may feel they need that, again, that issue if they feel they need to have the vaccine.
This does expire once FDA approval in two years so that the legislature can be back in session. So if they feel they need to extend it or if they need to close it out, they can do so. I would also call your attention to page three, that should the virus mutate and if there
is a possibility of attacking children, Children's Hospital asked for an escape hatch that they could come and before both the Senate Public Health and present that issue and I thought that was wisdom on their part and included that
and with that I would ask for a good vote. Any questions
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
1:52:42
from committee? Representative Gray you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair just a quick question and I appreciate your amendment like human the human development center which you know functions kind of like a long-term care institutional would they
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:52:55
be allowed to mandate it in that setting is that what you said just make sure that on page excuse me on
page two line 20 through 25 that is specifically for any entity like uams or the nursing home if they felt they needed to come before the public health
house and senate they could come before us and say we need to do this and then y'all could make
Speaker 367
1:53:17
that decision. Are you in the bill or the amendment? I'm sorry, in the amendment. I'm sorry. I already have it underlined
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:53:31
in the bill. That would be in section two, a state home state controlled medical facility. It
goes down into section three. Some of them may need that.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Ward-Long, you're recognized for a question. We don't have any other questions. Well, we do now. Representative Donson, you're
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:54:05
recognized. Sorry, I'm just a little confused on the amendment that we have in front of us. Has this already been engrossed into the bill?
answer that, hold on. Okay, the amendment has been engrossed in the bill, so
Representative Gonzalez has made a motion to expunge the amendment that we just, expunge the vote on the amendment we just voted on. So this is to expunge the vote.
Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries. The vote
is expunged. The bill that you have has that amendment engrossed in it. Any further questions from committee? Motion from the time. I see no questions. Representative Bentley, you're recognized for a motion. The motion will be passed.
I have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying
Speaker 133
1:55:20
aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. The ayes have it. Motion carries. Congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:55:25
you, colleagues, and I want to thank everybody for their input.
No, it was not amended, it was engrossed. Let's move on.
Representative McCollum, are you ready to run HB 1676? You're
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:56:17
recognized. I do believe there's
Speaker 302
1:56:24
an amendment. Okay. HB 1676. The amendment
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:56:31
is just to change the date from 2022 to 2023.
All right, committee, there's an amendment coming around. Let's wait
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:56:58
just a minute. Okay, go ahead and explain your amendment. The amendment strikes where it says 2022 and puts the implementation into 2023. based off of initial feedback from my understanding when I went back and listened to the testimony
on concerns of implementation both from where the system is currently and its ability to to implement such indexing also based off of some of the difficulties from the pandemic and where they are right now so we decided to instead of at first when it was 2021 retroactive change to 2022 and we listened and we said okay 2023 and it also gives the ability
for if there is an issue at that point in time we'll be in session again
and we could address those concerns I have a motion
from Representative Bentley to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries. Your amendment's been adopted. You're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:58:11
I know we've discussed this a lot of different ways. I don't know that I have anything different to say other than it is my understanding
that the Chamber of Commerce, who initially testified against, that they are now neutral on the bill due to the amendment that has changed. I don't really have anything else to add. Any questions
from committee? Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for a question. If we're going to move,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:58:38
thank you, Mr. Chair, if we're going to move this out to that time frame, how come we couldn't handle this in the next session when we know where we're going to be setting at that point and we know what our unemployment is going to look like.
I can't sit here today and tell you that I'm comfortable still voting on this bill with the timing. And I have a record of voting for less unemployment. I have a record of cutting weeks. I have all that behind me. But I'm not comfortable today sitting in the middle of a pandemic doing this without knowing for sure what we're going to look like at that time frame when there's actually another session sitting in that same time frame when we would actually have that data behind us at that point. So, I mean, do you not feel more comfortable waiting until you can
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:59:24
see that and wait until the pandemic's over? I think I
heard you say we're in the middle of the pandemic. I guess I don't agree that we're in the middle of the pandemic. I do understand your point about we could wait until closer to, I guess, what you're suggesting, maybe even next session. I think, I mean, I'm bringing policy in front of you. If you think it's good policy, and it's my understanding from kind of a timetable from DWS is the funding that was inside of
Representative Lundstrom's bill is going to be going towards the implementation of this. And then I guess the best way I could answer that question is I could say, if we believe it's good policy, then this they can start to implement it and by the time next session comes around if we need to address it again we can address it again. Mr. Chair is someone from the department here
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:00:20
and are they signed up to speak one way or the other? We have
one person signed up to speak against it
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
2:00:28
Jim Hudson. Okay I'll hold the rest of my questions for Mr.
Hudson. All right any other questions from committee? Seeing
none, Jim Hudson, if you would come forward, introduce yourself and who you represent. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 392
2:00:46
I'm going to let Dr. Childers actually handle the response and I'll be available as well since she runs
the department. Okay. Dr. Childers, if you would introduce yourself and who you represent.
Speaker 394
2:01:05
Cherise Childers, Director, Division of Workforce
Speaker 396
2:01:11
Services. You're recognized. Thank you so much, Chairman and Vice Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for giving us this opportunity to speak about House Bill 1676. As you've heard earlier and with the amendment, the concerns that we have and continue to have with this bill. The initial concern is the timing. As Representative Wardlaw stated earlier,
with the current condition of unemployment and where we are today, I think it's important to recognize that even though our trust fund is very healthy and as has been shared before, that's because of the work of this body in 2017 and 2019 that was the result of months and months of work. As we looked at the unemployment situation, our trust fund that was depleted
during the recession, we knew that there was work to do. So the amendment of extending this until 2023, one, does not assist us any with being able to use a new system for benefits and tax that would be needed in order to make the adjustments based on the indexing that's proposed in this bill. We would have to utilize the system that we have now, as Representative
Lindstrom said, was almost as old or older than she was or is, and almost as old as I am, to put into place indexing in order to accommodate what's required in this bill. Most regular unemployment modifications or modernizations, according to the information that we've been given, takes 2.5 to 5 years.
So if we're looking at an RFP this fall, and then we are able to start with the building of this system and this project in January of 2022, there's no way that we will be able or ready to put this into a new modern system we would have to use our current system that we have now and take resources away from the staffing that we would need for the modernization
which would definitely kick that down the road for a period of time while we're taking our resources and programmers and our ui technicians and project managers to implement this indexing into our old system while we're continuing to have to work and trying to utilize the resources that we have left for putting in a new system. At the earliest, and even in the projections,
we said we would be finished with the modernization the end of 2023, and that's at the earliest. So that gives us two years. So while we recognize that we have a lot of talent, and we are hopeful that we can complete it in two years putting this in place at the beginning of 2023 is impossible for us to do in our modern system we would have to accommodate it in our current system i think it's also important to bring to your attention several things that were
brought up before the average duration of our benefits currently are at just a little over nine weeks. So while we have benefits for 16 weeks, 60% of our individuals on unemployment are off of unemployment at approximately nine weeks. They do not use even 12 weeks or 16 weeks. I think that's important to note. The second thing that I think is important to note
is that if we have an index based on what's in 1676, then most of our counties would be in jeopardy of losing their unemployment within 12 weeks when they may need 16 weeks. So an example is in Ashley County when Georgia Pacific closed. In 2019, Ashley County lost 546 jobs due to Georgia Pacific plant closure.
There were six months during the unemployment rate in Ashley County where it was 5.6% or above, hitting a high of 6.4% in both January and July. In 2019, the annual unemployment rate for Ashley County was 5.4%. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate for the entire state did not get above 3.6% during any month in 2019, and the annual rate was 3.5%. So while Ashley County lost one of their largest employers, those individuals would be limited to 12 weeks because the entire state would be at 3.5%.
Monroe County, when Phillips Van Heusen closed, there was the Phillips Van Heusen closure. In November of 2019, this corporation in Brinkley closed and 44 workers were impacted. That's on a much smaller scale, but when you're looking at Ashley County or you're looking at Monroe County and you're looking at other employers in those counties, without the opportunity to continue to collect unemployment benefits,
and it's a small percentage that do collect them beyond the nine weeks, we are not able to assist those individuals then with training and with the necessary skills and reskilling that they need in order to obtain other jobs within that community. They would lose their unemployment benefits, which then would force them to move. So I think the important thing to realize here is this causes disparity among constituents across the state. As Representative Bentley expressed when she was
talking about House Bill 1810 last week, that is important. I know it's important to you. It's important to your constituents to not put them at a disadvantage just because they live in a county that doesn't have the unemployment rate at 3.6 percent or the average unemployment rate that some may have the advantage of having, especially in certain parts of our state. Our unemployment trust fund right now is healthy at $776,370,000. That is because of the work that
this body did in 2017 and 19 to make sure that we're not one of the 20 states that's having to borrow money or having to look for other revenue streams in order to provide money to keep the unemployment trust fund afloat. Again, I ask this committee to consider all of the ramifications that this will have, especially now. All of the states around us have higher weeks of
unemployment than we currently have, except for Georgia. But through their legislature during the pandemic, for their state benefits, they raised those to 26 weeks. As I told this committee earlier, because of all the federal benefits, we have the ability, individuals have the ability to draw on employment now for 76 weeks, and that's because of the federal benefits, not because of the state benefits that we offer. So again, that puts us at September. Right now, those benefits are to
expire in September of 2021. If we extend this and give all of us an opportunity and represent McCollum and others an opportunity to assess what we currently have on the books, how our system is working, what this might do so that we can, what this might do for those that are unemployed in counties that have higher unemployment rates, and what we can do to make sure that we are reducing their dependency on unemployment, but as Representative Wardlaw said last week, give
them a hand up, provide them with training, give them the opportunity to have training while they're on unemployment and so that they can obtain other jobs, I think is important to take into consideration when you're discussing and considering how you will vote on this bill. I know that our staff within Department Division of Workforce Services has worked tirelessly to make sure that your constituents have the benefits that they need
and we're providing the employers with the assistance that they need to get people back to work. I cannot even imagine the stress that would put on our agency and our current UI system to place this requirement on it just to do the indexing that would be required and then just to mention again the disparity within the counties
and the inconsistency around the state that we would see. Those individuals that are on unemployment are using those benefits to buy groceries in your grocery stores. They're using those benefits to pay their rent and we're doing everything that we can to make sure that they're off of those benefits like the majority of individuals are in nine to ten weeks so that they can get back to work. I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:11:47
Representative Dotson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the work you guys have been doing and are tirelessly doing. I know it's been tremendously stressful. um i'm just if you would so i understand what you're saying correctly uh i'm gonna try to reiterate what you just said or what i heard you say um for the most part most folks at least 60
or more would not ever be affected by this bill and those that would potentially probably wouldn't be affected to where they maxed out the benefits, even because you said I think nine weeks is what 60% don't even get up to nine weeks or more. If I understood you correctly, it sounds like the biggest objection you have to it is the implementation date, the start date
falling within that time frame because we're spending $35 million roughly to update the system, and this is just going to fall in between that time frame starting. I guess my question is, if that is pushed back one further year more than what even this was amended to do, would that alleviate your objection to this? If we push this
Speaker 396
2:13:17
to January of 2024, then we are hopeful that we will have
our new system in place by then. Do I think that this bill is needed? No. But could we accommodate it in January of 2024? Hopefully. If everything goes well with the new system and the implementation of that, and we can have it up
Chair
Unverified
2:13:41
and running by then. Thank you. Representative Ward-Law, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if I
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:13:51
heard you right, Mr. Chair, I've got a couple that she needs to answer to lead up to, if that's okay.
So if I heard you right, 2023 is just too short. And if we were going to go out to 2024 or even 2023, would it not be better just to do that in that session instead of doing it now without knowing where we're going to be? I mean, we had a vaccine pulled today because of some side effects, so we could be going right back into the strong of the pandemic. We don't know that. So would you not agree that holding this to the next session would be
a better time to look at it,
and then if you were going to implement it in 2024, that would
Speaker 394
2:14:35
be the time to do it? Yes, sir. Representative Ward-Law, I agree
with that. Thank you. and yet representative pilkington you're recognized
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:14:45
for question so on this question of implementation so let's say we don't pass this bill i assume you're going to sit on your hands
for two years and not do anything about creating or getting
Speaker 396
2:14:58
anything prepared for indexing correct no sir we have agreed to me to talk about the possibility of indexing if that is needed
and I think it's for something for this body to consider what what if you know what would be other options maybe just reducing the weeks is is an option rather than indexing it which you know which is proposed in 1676 follow-up so here's my you know you say
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:15:26
that we're gonna have talks I hear that all the time, and then nothing gets done because it's just an old move of lobbyists and state agencies
of, we'll just get done, we'll just do it next session, and then nothing gets done in the interim. I currently did, I did a bill recently with the architects where they said, yeah, we've known that's been an issue for four years, and nothing's been done about it. So we did a bill, we did a sunset clause on it, that next session we had to come with something bigger to get it done. So my understanding is, if we pass this bill, and like Representative Wardlaw said, it's not ready because y'all can't implement it, you don't have the ability to do it, could we not just pass a bill with an emergency clause giving y'all an extension of six months or a year at that point? Because that way you've already, the law has required you
to start working on this, and then the work is there. And I'm sure that this is a very forgiving body that would allow you extra time to do it if you needed to. But my fear is that we're going to come back in two years, and you're going to say, well, there's nothing in the law, and yeah, we had discussions,
Speaker 396
2:16:29
but nothing got done. So do you not think that'd be a better way to proceed? Representative Pilkington, I can't speak for other agency directors and also other agencies, but I will tell you that anyone in this body that has worked with me in the past knows that I work with individuals, I meet
with individuals, anything that I say I will do, and in this case I will work with those individuals that want to dig into this and do some of the calculations on the numbers and what this would look like in the future if indexing was involved. I promise you that anyone that has ever worked with me would tell you that I do what I say I'm going to do and I will do that as long as I'm here. Thank you. Representative McCollum, I
have a question for you. With the discussion that's going on here,
talking about meetings, timelines, would you be willing to put your bill in an interim study so that those meetings would take place through this committee? If you recall, Representative Gassaway and Senator Hammer had a bill that controlled the executive branch, some of their powers, and I think you were on this committee at that time, if I recall correctly, And we discussed that over a number of months and came out with what I considered a very
good bill. I think this could be maybe a similar case, and I'm just asking you if you would consider doing
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
2:18:06
that. I'd say at this point I would not consider doing that. I hear the concerns about implementation. I'm pretty convicted after studying the data on this, what other states have done, that this is the right policy. I understand the concern about implementation. Again, I do hear kind of different timetables being thrown out every time I get an update on this topic.
I will say, based off of Representative Dotson's question and the answer I heard, I mean, I'll leave it up to the will of committee, but I'm comfortable with moving forward with this bill, and if there needs to be an amendment on the Senate side to put in 2024, if that makes everyone more comfortable, then I'd suggest that way before
Speaker 405
2:18:48
I would be open to any type of interim
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:18:52
study on the matter. All right. Representative Dotson, do you have another question? Actually, I think Representative McCollum just answered part of that, and Representative
Pilkington kind of touched on it. I guess I do have a question. If we were to pass this, then that puts you into a go mode rather than a if we don't pass this then you don't start going toward implementing something like that until 2023 and since we're designing a whole new system in that time frame will this new system be I guess operational to make the switch
is it going to be designed or if we pass something at a later date and we haven't done that you're not thinking about indexing will we have to redesign the
Speaker 396
2:19:55
new system I guess is the question representative Dotson thank you for the question believe me I'm thinking about indexing that's why been here for the last two weeks. So I understand what this committee and
Representative McCollum is interested in doing. I understand the desire of this committee and as some of you have expressed reducing the number of weeks. obviously, that is for this body to decide. But I think it's going to take additional study, not just because five other states have done it and supposedly they've been successful, even though they all have more weeks than we do currently,
and they don't have the balances and the ability for their trust fund to adjust in times like this because they didn't do the work that y'all did in 2017 and 2019. So I am definitely hearing what you're saying. A new system can make those adjustments and obviously we will want to take that into consideration when we're building that system
so that it has the flexibility to make adjustments within the unemployment rate, et cetera. But right now, we already have all these triggers in place to make those adjustments throughout the year with the stabilization tax and the wage base. All of those adjustments are in place. So what I'm hearing is that you are just interested in, not just interested, but you're
interested in having lower weeks of unemployment when the unemployment rate is low. And I think that's something that we can take into consideration when we're looking at building a new system and having it flexible. But I'm just saying that it's also important to recognize that just because the state average is at 3.6 percent, which we were before the pandemic, that doesn't mean that all counties are at 3.6 percent. And you need to think about whether that's going to drive people
out of your county into counties that are more prosperous, that have more jobs, because they're not going to have the establishment, the support system, and the unemployment benefits in place in case their employer has to close. And so it's going to drop our... I'm from a small town. I'm Northeast Arkansas. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. So I know what
it means when a large company closes and people have to leave and move somewhere else. And I know that rural Arkansas is important to all of you and important to our state. So I'm just saying that I think there's things that we can do. There are other states that are using other options beyond unemployment for those weeks for training for other for other options to provide them with
supplemental income in order to get new skills and be able to become entrepreneurs start their own business whatever it is to keep those people in their counties that they currently reside And I think that's a better tool for us to think about when we're looking at how do we help people obtain employment at a time when they need it and they were working so they're more likely to go back to work.
We just need to give them the training and put our resources maybe in other areas so that they can become employed again and have the ability to travel to another county to work if that's necessary. But without their benefits, which are very low to begin with, for most of these individuals in times of regular unemployment benefits at $81 a week, they're looking at how do they make ends meet to begin with.
Speaker 406
2:24:22
Mr. Chairman, Jim Hudson, Department of Commerce, just to your point about
Speaker 392
2:24:27
interim study, I think we're approaching the question of indexing as if there's only one type of indexing. And, you know, the suggestion has been brought, I think, to the committee through this bill is the model that's with these three or four states is the model that's right for Arkansas. Well, those three or four states have a high maximum number of weeks of benefits currently. They were in the 23- to 26-week range, and we're already at 16.
And so the question is, maybe more appropriate in our studying, is asking the question, what is the right indexing method for Arkansas? The second point, real quickly, about modernization. Modernization is an opportunity for us. It's not just a question of coding the new system. It's looking at the underlying business processes as well. The business processes are just as archaic as the technology is. And so we had already had made plans to bring together stakeholders, members of this body, also members of the business community, which fund 100% of this program, and ask them, what are the tweaks that we need to make to the unemployment system going into the future as we have a modern system?
That's the sort of conversation we could have in an interim study that would include topics such as indexing. We're going to have that conversation anyway. We can add this to that list of topics.
Speaker 78
2:25:52
Representative Bentley did you have a motion? Not yet. Not yet,
okay. Any other questions? Representative Wardlaw,
did you have another question? Okay, seeing no further questions.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
2:26:12
Are you Are you ready to close for your bill? Yes, sir, I am. Well, I was jotting down a few notes. I'd like to say, first of all, that some of the groups that have worked on this issue and a bunch of other states have also had Arkansas's agency on this is the best in the nation. So you guys should be proud of all the work that you're doing. It does seem like the timetable has moved around quite a bit.
I hope I've shown at least that I was willing to work in good faith. and to Representative Dotson's point, you know, I'm open to if 2024 is more appropriate than the start of 2023, talking with the Senate sponsors of this bill. And, you know, I normally would say, you know, well, let's bring that amendment over here. But as you guys know, we're kind of running out of time here. So I think that'd be my ask if that's what we're convicted on with 2024. for. No, I guess I'd just make the appeal to the committee. I mean, I heard words like
impossible, but if we believe this is good policy, I guess I'm just asking for a call to action on this. I heard the mention of, my understanding is at least that DWS suggested they wouldn't mind going to 12 weeks. I like this because to me this is smarter policy. as you guys know, this is indexing it to whatever unemployment is. I just don't want to go immediately to 12 weeks. I want to think about what the conditions are of these individuals and their ability to go to work.
There's, you know, the mention of regions and counties. I've talked to a number of individuals on this committee about that thought because I do think that actually would be a smarter policy if we could figure out a way to do that, to index it based off a specific county or region. When I started to look into that, even before this session, I saw that Alabama tried to do that, but the Department of Labor did not allow that because it is the U.S. Department of Labor
that certifies this changes in this type of state law. So I guess in short, if you have different weeks for different regions, it does beg the question, like, you're paying people to keep living where there perhaps are not jobs. I think that's a real question we all need to think about, you know, than thinking about if someone's on a county line and what that would mean as well. essentially their job markets are the same if they're on the county line
but their weeks would be potentially different that kind of seems strange um i mean if an individual loses their job i do believe they'd still have access to training so i don't think that changes either way um and finally i'd just say thank you guys for your time i
know i've brought this up here a few times, so I'll shut up. What's the
will of the committee? Representative Miller, you're recognized for a motion. I have a motion do
pass. Any discussion on the motion? As amended. Representative Gray, you're
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
2:29:40
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for getting tired at this point. So I was sitting here talking to Gonzalez, and while I was looking stuff up, I'm not entirely sure this is going to be like a last second, yes or no, but I think one of my concerns was, as I looked up the four counties I have, I've got independents at, this was for February data, 5.2, Sharp at 6.9, Izzard at 7.1, and Stone at 7.5. Well, last year's unemployment rate for the whole state was 6.1, so although the whole
state will be at a 14-week, will be at a 14-week, my district should be at a 16-week, but they would have to follow the 14-week guidelines, right? And so it's actually bad for my district is kind of what I was, as I was looking it up. So I just want you to know, if I vote no, that may be the reason. I do appreciate you extending the timeline though. Anyways, thank you. Any other discussion?
Seeing none, motion on the floor is due pass. All in favor, signify by
saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No.
Speaker 315
2:31:05
Ayes have it. Roll call. Roll call. Just adjourned. Representative Ward-Long. No. No. Representative Eubanks. Representative Eubanks.
Representative McGee. No. No? Yes, you know. No. Representative Dodson. Yes. Representative Miller. Yes. Representative Payton. Yes. Representative Bentley. Yes. Representative Gray. no representative gonzalez yes
representative boyd yes representative allen representative allen representative coleman no representative pilkington yes representative wing yes Representative Penzo? Yes. Representative Perry? No. Representative Davis? Yes. Representative Cloud? Yes. Vice Chair Ferguson? No. Chair Ladyman? Yes.
Speaker 423
2:32:35
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11. Yours would be 12. You're not allowed. Congratulations. Your bill
is passed. Okay. Representative Johnson, are you
prepared to run wherever that bill is? HB 1880? Yes, sir.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:33:05
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Lee Johnson, District 75. So House Bill
1880 is a cleanup bill that helps clean up some language as they relate to our crisis stabilization units. As many of you will recall, this legislation was passed in 2017. At the time, there was the thought that these might function as detention centers.
In practicality, that's not how they're set up, nor is that how they're functioned. And in fact, they can't even get reimbursement if they function in a detained way. So this changes the language to reflect what is actually in practice, which is they're having people there at these crisis stabilization units voluntarily. If they do become involuntary and it's felt that they're a threat to others, current practice is they'll call the police. The police will take them to the ER where they can be held in a facility that's capable of keeping them safe until they can get the psychiatric treatment they want.
Again, our crisis stabilization has been a big boon in our communities. I think all of us who have them in our areas understand what a great service they're providing. This bill just clarifies that language so that it reflects what they're currently doing. It also changes the hours for detention from 72 to 96. Anyway, I'd be happy to take any questions if anybody has any. Any
Speaker 121
2:34:37
questions from committee? Seeing no questions.
Nobody signed up on this. Anybody here to speak
against the bill, for the bill? Seeing none, you
ready to close for your bill? I'm closed for my bill, Mr. Chair. What's the will of the committee? I have a due pass. any discussion on the motion motion is do pass all in favor signify by saying aye all opposed nay motion carries congratulations thank you members appreciate y'all representative lundstrom are you ready to run
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:35:18
sb 295 yes colleagues and i will make this fast due to the lateness of the day SB 295 is to promote integrity and welfare this will help with the some of the issues of fraud that we have faced just to give you one statistic that I think kind of closes the whole issue and the loophole it's not been that long ago that we had
80,000 ineligible people on our welfare rolls and that includes 25,000 on our food stamps rolls our welfare rolls and our food stamp rolls
or for people who need it, and we want it there for people that need it. This program will actually help and preserve that. I will spare you the long presentation and ask and open it up for questions and
ask for a good vote. Any questions from committee? We do
have somebody signed up for information. John Tice? Yes.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:36:21
I did fail to thank DHS and DF&A.
They have been wonderful. SB 295, if you're looking it up, it's SB 295. Right. Sir, would you introduce
yourself and who you represent? Mr.
Chair
Unverified
2:36:36
Chair, committee members, my name's John Tice. I'm a lawyer with the Department of Finance and Administration. DFA has absolutely no objection to this bill. The sponsors worked with us in the Senate to add Section 6, which addressed DFA's primary concern with the bill. My reason for being here is to let the committee know that the way the bill is drafted right now,
it requires DFA as well as others to provide information quarterly to DHS. The primary information DFA will provide will be individual income tax information and withholding tax information. And while we're fully prepared to do that, we just wanted the committee to know that very little information will be provided on a quarterly basis because income tax and withholding data is provided on an annual basis for the preceding year. So the bulk of the data DFA provides will be on an annual basis unless somebody files an amended return in the middle of a year or something of that nature.
Be glad to answer any questions. Any questions
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
2:37:45
from committee? representative ferguson you recognize okay so if does the bill allow for you to not report anything
Chair
Unverified
2:37:52
if the information has not changed yes the report would just be zero uh the the bill requires that dfa work with dhs and check to see if an eligible applicant has had a change in circumstances. So I've had preliminary contact with DHS that they will provide us information
such as the person's social security number, and we'll be able to check and see has there been a change in circumstances in the preceding quarter. The chances of there being a change in circumstances because there were no income tax returns filed is minimal. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any other questions from
committee? Seeing none, is there anyone here to speak against the bill? For the bill?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:38:41
You ready to close for your bill? Thank you. Hopefully this will preserve the food stamp program and keep it ready for those people that need it and remove bad actors, and
that's the goal of the whole bill. What's the will of committee? I have a motion do
pass from Representative Boyd. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. Ayes have it. Motion carries.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:39:12
Congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank you, colleagues, and thank you for all your hard work. It's been a wild
ride sitting here watching all of you, so thank you. Representative Gray,
Chair
Unverified
2:39:26
HB 1852, you're recognized. HB 1852, committee. Thank you,
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
2:39:34
Mr. Chair. I'll try and be fast. I've not heard really. I've had, I think, one person contact me on this bill
with just more of a question than anything, but essentially what this does is set standards for prescription delivery. State Board of Pharmacy should promulgate and maintain rules defining the standard of care for pharmacies and pharmacists that provide home delivery services in the state. It's kind of got a conflict of interest clause in it, too. If a pharmacy or pharmacist owns or controls, is controlled by, is under ownership of control of another insurance company, they cannot require that a patient receive their prescriptions through home delivery services.
We actually kind of already have that in a roundabout way in another statute, in a different code. So this isn't, it's nothing new. and then a pharmacy or pharmacist is not prohibited from charging a nominal fee as long as the patient is given express consent and the board may modify delivery standards to accommodate changes in technology and for other reasons. That's a fairly simple bill. I'd be glad to take any questions. Any questions from committee? Representative Payton, you're recognized.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
2:40:44
Thank you, and this is probably an ignorant question. I haven't had a chance to read your bill, But a year or so ago, I had a constituent contact me about the VA sending automatic prescriptions by the tons to their sibling, who ultimately ended up overdosed and dead and had shoeboxes of pills that the VA just sent automatically, home delivery. Does this address that in any way? No, it wouldn't because
Speaker 437
2:41:09
that's a federal program and this only affects state. Okay, thank you. Yeah.
Any other questions? Seeing none, anyone here to speak against the bill, for the bill? Seeing none,
Speaker 437
2:41:25
you ready to close for your bill? I am closed. Appreciate a
good vote. Make a motion. Do pass. I have a motion. Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed,
nay. Motion carries. Congratulations. Your bill has been passed. Representative Wing, you're recognized to run SB 585. SB 585, the last bill.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:41:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I'll present this very quickly. If you have questions, I do have somebody here that can answer those. This regards e-waste, which is computers, phones, printers, things like that. Landfills, only about 2% comes from e-waste, but about 70% of the hazardous waste comes from this. And so what we're trying to do here is creating a public-private partnership at no cost to the state to be able to set
up this program will also bring much more awareness to the fact that e-waste is reusable and so because only about 12% of e-waste actually is recycled and so we just need an awareness program as well let's see it provides for the state marketing and risk redistribution agency to participate and that will be instrumental in the success of this program. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. So who's the primary party running
this program? This, in fact, let
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:42:54
me, I'll just bring up this, Craig Douglas, the Executive Director of the Regional Waste and Recycling District. He can, he can talk
Speaker 442
2:43:06
a little bit about this. Please introduce yourself and who you represent. I'm Craig Douglas, I'm Executive Director of the Regional Recycling and Waste Reduction District. In answer to the question, upon the passage of this bill and the act, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Secretary of Energy and Environment will issue a request for qualifications
for a contract administrator who has to meet certain qualifications that are in the bill. So the department will select the contract administrator to run the program and then the contract administrator in turn will ask for a request for qualifications for contractors to collect and recycle electronic waste statewide. Thank you. Any other questions
from committee? Representative Ferguson, you're recognized. Yeah, I know
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
2:43:58
because we already have an electronic waste in West Memphis that we collect and
contract with someone, will this require us
to move to this statewide contractor instead of using the existing program? It
Speaker 442
2:44:11
will not require you to. It's mostly permissive. The district, your solid waste management district, in their contract may, I do not know, may pay for that service. If they were to opt into this service, it would cost your district nothing. Thank you. Any
Chair
Unverified
2:44:30
other questions? Representative Payton, you're recognized.
Representative John Payton
Unverified
2:44:33
So I'm trying to figure out who pays. Is the waste generating a value in a
Speaker 442
2:44:43
way that it pays for itself? Yes, sir. It's a market-driven program. The program, the recovery plan that is required in the bill to be set up and approved by DEQ would mandate the marketing and the sales and marketing of a high-value electronic waste like computers for refurbishing. and then those products would be sold on the open market
Speaker 445
2:45:07
and that's how the program would be funded. So it's expected to self-fund? Yes. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions? Seeing none, anyone
here speak against the bill, for the bill? Seeing none, you ready to close for your
bill? I'm closed for the bill. I motion to do pass. Okay, I have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion passes. Congratulations. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:45:49
Okay. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Which one was that you were going to run? 607. SB 607. Two sentences. You're recognized.
It's pretty easy. We're just taking out the language by the Arkansas Substance Abuse Certificate Board and then inserting in accreditation organization approved by. So basically, this is mostly a deregulation bill because it's allowing other people to do this training and certificates. I'd be happy to take any questions. Representative
Miller, you're recognized. Any questions from committee?
Seeing none. Anyone here to speak against the bill? For the bill? Seeing none, you ready to close
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
2:46:40
for your bill? I'm closed, and I'll let Representative Miller
make a motion. Representative Miller, you're recognized. I have a motion of due pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. Congratulations. Your bill has passed.
Unknown speaker
2:47:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. We are adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1068 Pilkington TO CLARIFY THE TELEMEDICINE ACT; TO SPECIFY THAT THE HOME OF A PATIENT MAY BE AN ORIGINATING SITE FOR TELEMEDICINE AND THAT GROUP MEETINGS MAY BE PERFORMED VIA TELEMEDICINE; AND TO CLARIFY REIMBURSEMENT OF TELEMEDICINE SERVICES.
CONSENT AGENDA *Bills in Red added 04-13-2021
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1871 Scott TO ESTABLISH THE CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR (CROWN) ACT.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1440 Pilkington TO MODIFY THE CURRICULUM OF MASSAGE THERAPY SCHOOLS; AND TO ALLOW REMOTE EDUCATION IN AN ONLINE FORMAT AND IN-PERSON TRAINING WITH A MASTER MASSAGE THERAPIST TO MEET THE CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS.
HB1428 Miller TO CREATE THE MEDICAID EXPANSION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2021; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1676 McCollum TO AMEND LAWS RELEVANT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW.
SB262 Hester TO AMEND THE LICENSING OF OPERATORS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES; TO AMEND THE LICENSING COMMITTEE; TO ALLOW FOR BIENNIAL LICENSE RENEWAL; AND TO ADDRESS RECIPROCITY IN ARKANSAS.
SB295 Flippo TO PROMOTE INTEGRITY IN WELFARE PROGRAMS; AND TO AMEND THE MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION SYSTEM.
HB1746 Underwood TO ESTABLISH ANNALYNN'S LAW; TO AMEND THE COSMETOLOGY ACT; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND ESTABLISHMENTS FROM LICENSURE BY THE COSMETOLOGY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
HB1847 J. Mayberry TO AMEND THE ELIGIBILITY FOR LONG-TERM CARE MEDICAID ASSISTANCE; TO ENSURE THAT BENEFICIARIES ON THE LOW-INCOME DISABLED WORKING PERSON CATEGORY OF MEDICAID CAN TRANSITION TO OTHER CATEGORIES IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM.
HB1852 M. Gray TO SET STANDARDS FOR PRESCRIPTIONS DELIVERY.
HB1855 Cozart TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE BONDING PROCEDURE FOR PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE BONDS ISSUED UNDER CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION, ALTERATION, DEMOLITION, OR REPAIR OF ANY BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR IMPROVEMENT.
HB1857 Gonzales TO MODIFY THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL BOARD AND THE ARKANSAS STATE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY EXAMINING COMMITTEE.
SB547 T. Garner TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF INITIATED ACT 4 OF 1948; AND TO REGULATE A DIRECT SELLER AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
SB585 D. Wallace TO CREATE AN ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND A COLLECTION RECOVERY PLAN; AND TO PROVIDE SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
SB590 T. Garner TO END MANDATORY FACE COVERING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1880 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS INTERVENTION PROTOCOL ACT OF 2017.
SB395 Irvin TO MODIFY THE ANNUAL CAP ON DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM.
SB466 Hester TO CLARIFY THE REGULATION OF PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES.
SB607 K. Hammer TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PEER SUPPORT SPECIALIST IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND TO REMOVE A REFERENCE TO THE ARKANSAS SUBSTANCE ABUSE CERTIFICATION BOARD.
HB1547 Lundstrum TO GOVERN MANDATORY COVID-19 IMMUNIZATIONS OR VACCINATIONS FOR STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A VACCINATION OR IMMUNIZATION FOR COVID-19 EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY
HB1890 Ladyman TO CREATE A STUDY ON THE COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY TO RECLAIM AND REPURPOSE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RODS.
SCR7 Irvin TO ENCOURAGE THE PURSUIT OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE DESIGNATION BY THE WINTHROP P. ROCKEFELLER CANCER INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES.
SB259 Bledsoe TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HEATING, VENTILATION, AIR CONDITIONING, AND REFRIGERATION INSPECTORS; AND TO CORRECT REFERENCES TO THE APPROPRIATE CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENT.
SB332 Irvin TO ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC HEALTH READINESS ACT.
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1247 Gonzales TO MODIFY PHYSICIAN DISPENSING; AND TO ALLOW DELEGATION OF PHYSICIAN DISPENSING.
HB1644 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CHILDCARE FACILITY LICENSING ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "CHILDCARE FACILITY" AS IT RELATES TO THE CHILDCARE FACILITY LICENSING ACT.
HB1266 M. Gray TO CLARIFY THE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP REGARDING COSMETIC AESTHETIC SERVICES.
HB1233 Penzo TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN LICENSURE ACT.
HB1378 Penzo TO AUTHORIZE OCCUPATIONAL OR PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MIGRANTS FROM THE COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION ISLANDS.
HB1366 Penzo TO CREATE A RAPBACK PROGRAM UNDER THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE.
HB1564 Hawks TO AMEND THE TEACHER MANAGER INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION RELATING TO BARBERS.
HB1584 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT.
HB1016 Rye ALEX'S LAW: TO IMPROVE RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL SAFETY TO PREVENT CHILD DROWNINGS.
HB1324 Gazaway TO GIVE PREGNANT WOMEN PRIORITY ACCESS TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY SERVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1498 Gazaway CONCERNING THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY BY A RESIDENT OF THAT FACILITY.
HB1667 Furman TO CREATE THE UNIVERSAL LICENSING RECOGNITION ACT.
HB1708 Eaves CONCERNING REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER TRAINING.
HB1764 F. Allen TO EXEMPT BARBERS FROM LICENSING RESTRICTIONS BASED ON CRIMINAL RECORDS.
HB1681 Payton TO CREATE THE FOOD FREEDOM ACT; AND TO EXEMPT CERTAIN PRODUCERS OF HOMEMADE FOOD OR DRINK PRODUCTS FROM LICENSURE, CERTIFICATION, AND INSPECTION.
HB1580 Scott TO CREATE THE COMMISSION ON RACIAL INEQUITIES IN MATERNAL MORTALITY.
HB1762 K. Ferguson TO CREATE THE CANCER PREVENTION AND CANCER PATIENT NAVIGATION ACT; AND TO IMPROVE THE CARE OF CANCER PATIENTS IN THIS STATE.
HB1799 M. Gray TO ALLOW AUTOMATIC CLAIM CROSSOVER IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR ALL THIRD PARTIES WHO ARE PRIMARY PAYERS.
HB1757 Penzo TO REQUIRE CERTAIN INFORMED CONSENT WHEN PRESCRIBING OR ADMINISTERING ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES.
HB1759 L. Johnson TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN, PREGNANT WOMEN, AND POSTPARTUM MOTHERS AND BABIES.
HB1263 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANT ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND LABOR COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 13, 2021 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jack Ladyman Chair
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Speaker 23
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 26
Representative Josh Miller
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 64
Speaker 86
Speaker 88
Speaker 89
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 95
Speaker 11
Representative Les Eaves
Unverified
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 130
Speaker 132
Speaker 125
Speaker 147
Speaker 149
Speaker 151
Speaker 154
Speaker 160
Speaker 164
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 172
Speaker 157
Speaker 178
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 182
Speaker 183
Shannon Long
Unverified
Speaker 198
Speaker 209
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Speaker 230
Speaker 237
Speaker 242
Speaker 243
Speaker 247
Paul Wilson
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 262
Representative John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 275
Katie Sursa
Unverified
Speaker 78
Dennis Dixon
Unverified
Speaker 289
Speaker 290
Speaker 292
Speaker 296
Speaker 297
Lee Blank
Unverified
Speaker 301
Speaker 305
Speaker 317
Speaker 322
Speaker 336
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 42
Representative Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 367
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 259
Speaker 133
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
Speaker 302
Speaker 392
Speaker 394
Speaker 396
Speaker 405
Speaker 406
Speaker 315
Speaker 423
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 437
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Speaker 442
Speaker 445