Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee - Senate

I concur with the house amendment that was placed on the bill that actually allows and directs for the Department of Human Services to appoint two individuals to the Arkansas Medicaid drug utilization review board that are actually individuals that are treating patients with rare diseases so actually improves the bill and I would just appreciate a good vote. Any questions from the committee. All right seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak or speak for or against this. Seeing none puts the pleasure of the Committee. Even the motion to concur all right all those in favor say aye all those opposed concurrence has passed thank you so much thank you madam chair members of the committee all right we're going to House Bill fifteen twenty This Is Senator Chesterfield. When you're settled you're recognized thank you madam chair Linda Chesterfield Senate district thirty today I bring you a simple but deeply impactful bill for few people in this state many of you will remember at nine ninety from the twenty nineteen session that bill prohibited people who have committed certain serious offenses from holding it occupational license this bill fifteen twenty protects people who received the license before at nine ninety became law grandfathers in those we held a license before enactment of the disqualification and this change would only affect those who gain their licenses fairly and lawfully when the applied for them this does not simply give a free pass to provide any loopholes to those who committed the the serious offenses to qualify for this exception a person would have had to complete the initial waiver requirements and receive the licenses previously required by law this would only apply to people who have been previously fully licensed in this state and this bill helps people who have successfully re enter society and and the ability to make an honest living this rewards people of already done everything right and makes this so they don't have to complete the application process for a license they already have earned I'm happy to take any questions. All right any questions from the committee. All right seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Seeing none what is the put have you close for your bill I appreciate a good vote all right I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Thank you. You have passed your bill. All right the H. C. R. ten oh seven and I have Senator Sturch. All right you are you're recognized thank you madam chair and thank you members committee James Sturch state Senate district nineteen house concurrent resolution ten oh seven is resolution we were actually supposed to take. Consideration of on in January January twenty seconds actual date this nationally recognized for the day of tears so I don't know how resolution got or friend several of you are on it but I just want to come in and run it so that the house has nothing more to be activated the Senate about. Good all right to have questions from the committee. All right seeing no questions we have one person that is signed up to speak against it miss music if you would come forward. You tell us who you are and where you're from you're recognized. Thank you my name is Karen music I'm here representing Arkansas abortion support network. This seems like an easy proposal but the reality is there are not millions of children that have been killed due to a portion. That's an important distinction we all need to know. Millions of families have been able to go ahead and choose their timing to have children. That's what they do. There's zero connection to the Flag the flag is not sacred it's our rights that are sacred. Please leave the flag alone to keep a portion out of the flag worship thank you all right any questions for Mister music art scene none thank you so much. Does anyone want to speak for the bill. All right seeing none have you closed for your resolution thank you ma'am chaff close patient a good vote all right what's the pleasure of the Committee all right to have a motion to pass to second all those in favor say aye. All those opposed congratulations you passed a resolution. All right the. We have for the Senator Dismang. Senate bill six fifty. When you're settled you're recognized. Thank you madam chair members of this bill just seeks to increase the asset threshold required for that benefits the you know that was set at the federal level in nineteen seventy seven at seventeen hundred fifty dollars and then since then it's only been increased to twenty two hundred and fifty dollars some other provisions related to if you have someone that's disabled or over sixty in your home and sixteen or home then that that asset level can be increased to three thousand five hundred dollars at one point in time we did have a waiver in the State of Arkansas but that was repealed so we are at that lower amount and so I guess in my mind when this bill was brought to me and started to be discussed I mean what I would say is if you're if you're a working mom and you're trying to save to put down rent or rent a rental deposit or save to buy a car or whatever it may be for education you name it if you you know exceed this very minimal asset level threshold then you lose your spat benefits and I and I would just argue that we should be encouraging savings for those in poverty so that they can better realize if you just want to take one example here recently number of votes received similis checks in the mail I would argue that the vast majority there's received stimulus it checks in excess of two thousand two hundred fifty dollars. We mandated that if they wanted to maintain their stat but if it's that they spend those dollars not save them again to better their lives and their personal situation anyway that's why that's why I'm here present the bill today and with that I would be happy to take any questions and have questions from the committee. All right Senator Solomon you're recognized for a question and this may not having been there the bill but it does snap benefits arms are the federal dollars and those reimbursement Sir are you classified master those counts in calculating this number I mean the way that my understanding is yes it would because it would go into your checking account into your asset limitation you know the only things that are excluded from matter you're you're if you own your home your personal on the lot the value of that your personal goods that you have in the home life insurance policies pensions that sort of thing in certain vehicles that are not utilized for transportation to and from work and then lastly burial lots of your listening it along as it was in that account they would they would of that would trigger and qualified okay or thank you thank you manager or any other questions from the committee. All right seeing none. Is anyone in the audience want to speak for the bill. All right and you are this is Janie. All right if you would come forward please and identify yourself for the record and you are speaking for. Hello my name is changing a Keogh and I'm the public policy director for southern Bancorp and for those of you who are not familiar with southern we are a certified community development financial institution and we have almost fifty locations across Arkansas Mississippi with about four hundred employees in about forty six thousand customers we are mission driven financial institution that serves predominantly low to moderate income communities and those communities that have been left behind by other mainstream financial institutions. We have a big hairy audacious goal for the next ten years to empower two million people to save and we know we can't do that just through opening deposit accounts and we are doing this by creating good public policy that creates incentives to savings and reduces the barriers to savings. We feel that snap asset limits or a barrier to savings and the research proves that out for us according to a twenty sixteen urban institute report done on snap they compared states with no or a or higher asset limits to the federal level to those who have it here to the federal level what they found was that low income households across the spectrum whether they were in snap or not in snap in states with no asset limit or significantly raised asset limit or five percent more likely to be banks and eight percent more likely to have five hundred dollars in savings so again this is for low income households across the board whether or not they were in snap. I this is comparing the states without asset limits are raised asset limits to those that it here to it like Arkansas and I do want to point out that thirty six states do not have an asset limit on snap another ten have risen significantly Arkansas is only one of nine states that it here's to the federal asset limit this asset limit has only been increased by five hundred dollars over the last forty four years to give you some context a loaf of bread cost thirty six cents in nineteen seventy seven when asked when it was established today you can get a level wonder bread for two ninety nine. Prices have increased. and so we need to make sure that to the asset limit stays with inflation just like the income levels that are set with the federal poverty line those are tied to inflation as well so we're just wanting to bring this up to match the income. All right thank you a questions Senator Hammer yes thank you would you mind telling me you kind of tell you there that you're going to you know two million individuals how exactly are you encouraging them to save. Hi how are we encouraging people to save so for instance in the last session with the help of Senator Dismang we pass legislation that created to direct deposit lines on the state income tax form so that they have the ability to save their refund they can split it if they get direct deposit of their refund they can split it into a checking and savings account that's one way that we've worked on public policy were also a part of the bank on Arkansas coalition which is a group of service agencies and financial institutions that have created what's called certified bank on accounts that are low or no fee bank accounts that low to moderate income people who are blind or under banks which means that they. May have a bank account but they mostly use castor alternative financial services such as check casters or payday lenders Senate okay one quick follow up manager is. Are you going after the small businesses that have the type of folks that are going to benefit from this in order to set up retirement plans with them or how your look just kind of gave me the answer okay so is your bank going after small businesses that have small groups of populations of people that would probably be in this population we're talking about today to set up retirement plans for them for savings plans for them so we only directly to the individual directly to the individual yes we we don't have retirement plans and what we do is we have a very we don't do in retirement plans like a four one K. or something like that this is not what we're doing so I'm not sure how your question units in U. S. you answered my question you know kind of retirement plans going after small businesses and and that helps in another area thank you. All right any other questions from the committee all right Senator Solomon. Thank you so by setting this up for we not incentivizing people to spend down the money they have so they can qualify. So if the numbers are not going buy this for either of you yeah I think we're not going to we're not going to invest in assets necessarily for encouraging them to spend down their cash in order to qualify I actually had a similar concern when I first look at the bill and so there's what multiple parts to your qualifications regard to snap one of them is that you have to make below a hundred thirty five percent of the population and so the you know the reality is you're going to be doing a lot more encouraging of savings then you would be someone to spend down because they're not making the amount of money to generate you know separate saving so you know one thing I think I felt mean means you've mentioned this is you know the bill what it does is say that DHS is required the waiver again which many many states the vast majority states have done and it would increase the the asset limit to the nineteen seventy seven rate adjusted for inflation which is roughly seven eight hundred dollars to be more in tune a calculation that deal doing it also this bill does also allow for annual I'm sorry every two years for that to be increased based on whatever happened with CPI during that time period I've and I get some of the concerns I mean I I understand. You know some of the reluctance for members when they look at bills like this because you committee say yourself I I just want to open the floodgates and allow people to participate in a program that maybe they don't deserve to participate in but so many of these threshold stay in place including your income levels and that sort of thing I don't think we're in jeopardy of doing that I just want us to encourage people to better themselves and I think savings is a big component of that if you're required to spend down everything that you have in order to maintain staff that also means that you probably been Kerr quite a bit of debt to do that because that's your alternate you can't save then you have debt to make larger asset purchases that's just the the way that it would work and so I think that this bill would help help folks get themselves in a better situation in presence of their lives and and help work themselves out of poverty and hopefully not have to be on staff. Okay Senator Hammer thank you measure did I not read in this bill and you may address merry go on I just didn't hear it but now it's kind of like tied into a place where you got this thing locked in or can't raise but at a certain rate did you dress senator did we're just not here does it's all tied to inflation you know when you get a baseline restored again and and again I'll I was just trying to look at and what is the fair thing you can do the fed said It out of seventeen fifty back in nineteen seventy seven what is that number adjusted and so we just said DHS you know you can seek a waiver that allows you to adjust to that new baseline number then in moving forward they can't just continue to raise they can only raise based on CPI right so there is a I mean there's indirectly there is a cap on this thing that's not going to raise any any quicker than those two things yes ma'am all right thank you any other questions from the committee all right Senator Hester. This this current like if this bill passes we start at one thousand seven hundred fifty and then started jesting now we we we would retroactively increase itself to whatever that seventeen fifty would be in today's dollars so you know I think the rough estimate on that is seven thousand eight hundred dollars and then from then forward it would be adjusted for inflation every two years. So there would be a bump in this initial deal but again we're utilizing number that was established in nineteen seventy seven I'm sorry hi I have a committee late what what with the current fiscal impact be of that I know it's federal dollars like how much more money. Like raising that do we know how much that would be I do not I mean I would one one thing I do know is that nationally only four percent of stat benefits have income that would exceed seventy or assets that would exceed seventy eight hundred dollars so if you apply that here to the state you might have a four percent increase of folks that potentially could qualify to have savings but I'd also argue the reason that that number is that four percent exist nationally is because their asset levels are higher and they're allowed to actually save in other states where we don't have that option here and the other thing I would say is. If someone wants to save they're probably doing it and they're not doing it at the bank which is also not a very safe way to say So with that now. All right anything you senator. All right any other questions from the committee all right we have someone that would like to speak against so. Please come in and adept at identify yourself for the record please. Jerry Parker representing opportunity opportunity solutions project okay you're recognized thank you madam chair thank committee I spoke with senator spring last week I'd like to say I have a ton of respect for him and we just kind of philosophical difference on how to help people move from welfare and an out of it and into prosperity I just have a philosophical difference in that when we're telling people that they should be saving an encouraging at which would both agree is a good thing you know changing the law to grandfather in people that could be potentially saving cash putting our mattress and essentially committing welfare fraud is not the best way to go about that it doesn't send the best message as well as saying that we should allow them to receive you know taxpayer funded benefits in order to be able to afford food but they should be saving to me and the roof is the organization represent the first thing you should be saving for or spending money on are the things that are essential to life so that's food first and foremost because without food you can't do anything right housing would be second transportation third and allowing people to save money and you know continue to accrue cash assets without having to budget those things in to me that prioritizes the wrong things first and again while well intended and I think we have a difference of opinion on that it's it's it's it's essentially sending the message that you can use taxpayer funded resources so long as you stay under this cap but you can save a large amount of money for someone making a minimum wage job or something a thousand dollars is going to be you know nearly half of the money they make in a year and allowing them to accrue that a much cash asset while still receiving benefits it's going to create but potential want to create the potential lifestyle disproportionate to the amount of money they're making by allowing them to accrue that much cash on hand and so I think we just have those awful difference on that and and how to accomplish again over both like to do all right Senator Hammer thank you and maybe Senator can addresses and closing comments but what is your understanding as far as how much they're actually able to save. Like currently that the how much are able to save right you make you mention about the savings aspect how much what you understand how much they're currently able to save and what this would allow them to save up to I think we agree on that point is that currently they're able to save that seventeen fifty year two thousand dollars two thousand and three dollars number and this would adjust that for inflation and up to the roughly eight thousand dollars. Do you think. Do you think that that is I mean let's just say a person who's able to qualify for snap benefits. If they are able to manage to save eight thousand dollars would that not also eventually once they go above that get them off of snap to where we're we're actually going to give them a reprieve to get toward that point we would like everybody to get to is to get off of snap. I agree that that could be the intention I think that this bill will expand the number of people currently on food stamps relatively substantially and it will just again send it backwards priority message that you don't by saving eight thousand dollars before you ever have to prioritize you know factoring in how much money you need for food every month it is putting people behind the eight ball and they fall off that cliff that if I have a thousand dollars and feels like a lot of money right now if you stop receiving them assistance you get to pay for your food that is gonna substantially impact at a relatively low income how much money you have every month and could you know create a disproportionate lifestyle if you are able to accrue eight thousand dollars also not having factor in you know a substantial food budget each month. Okay I'll I'll listen Senators response thank you thank member all right any other questions all right senator history recognized measure and will allow verbal amendments in this committee. I don't think we have decided that we would not let me let me check with the Mr price. Six a Senator Hester we do not allow verbal amendments in this committee can I ask a question the sponsor. Yes. Senate when we don't we don't allow of verbal amendments this committee clearly but this is probably the first time I walked in this section that I I was conflicted I don't know where I was going to be on a bill you know the which would you would you be open to some sort of cap on this like Mike. Like maybe cabinet like fifty five hundred dollars for Texas is verses continues to go up would you be considered open. To that I think it would be dependent on the General will of the committee excluding Sir yeah fair that's fair okay. You can do. But if it doesn't go well today. That I'd probably take you up on that. Can. All right any other questions all right Senator Hammer so the same failed today you would be agreeable to an amount of six five hundred. So I'm going to negotiate with myself I think. But. I'm and I believe that what we have in place is too low I mean it and I think any additional amount is an improvement from where we are I think. It's incredibly important that someone be able to save without punishment I mean is that saving to buy again that vehicle a rental deposit to prepare for something to happen and and right now I think with the levels that we have in place we we encourage that not to happen. so I mean with that The Amendment. I'm not a member of this committee you know I mean I believe that we've got a good bill I feel like CPI's where we wanted to start because I thought it made sense just because we took something and could logically work through and say that's why this number should be you know what it is if there's a different viewpoint of the committee then I may not respect that and and we can work through that. Low latitude manager for yes and I'll tell you what's going and let me just say what I'm thinking and then you respond if J. allows and that is I know people that are middle income working two jobs have a hard time save in seventeen hundred fifty dollars six five hundred up to eight thousand and and I guess that's what I'm wrestling with the is I don't want to create an unfair advantage even though I'm sympathetic and that's what we have discussion but I know those middle class folks are having trouble are we creating an unfair advantage for this population by doing this and I'm just curious what your reaction response would be on that. I mean I think where they where they are in their income qualification I mean I think you'd be hard to argue that if someone is really bearing down and saving that level of money that we're creating an unfair advantage I mean that's a very disciplined person in my opinion that is going to be driven or is driven to lift themselves up out of poverty I mean it is it's exactly what you want and I think that's exactly what you want to see in the program in a lot of ways with snap but again I. I mean I I I understand kind of what's being said and we can you know what whatever we think would be reasonable I do understand course I I've again I repeat I feel like CPI made sense because I can get back to why you know it's harder to say fifty five hundred will Y. well maybe it's because Texas has a calculation after the said fifty five hundred was the right amount I don't know but with that I appreciate the comments all right Senator Davis you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I would just say in regards to this suggested cap and. You know when we address it again you know to me if the last time we addressed it was nineteen seventy seven and we've let go this whole time and we put an arbitrary cap on it and then we just hope that in fifty more years that the the legislature then takes it up and fixes it because we've let it go for fifty years without addressing it I just think that we. Unintentionally punish people who are trying to get off of government dependence we know that there are people that will probably stay on it Mr Liza because they want to and there are people that abuse it but there truly are people who are trying to make an additional dollar an hour at work or you know get a two dollar raise and they are a neatly cut off and from government assistance so much so that they end up making less money with a one or two dollar an hour raise than they were and making what they currently are making with their government benefits and so it just it concerns me because I I feel like we are just typically the people that were punishing and unintentionally with our policies are the ones that are trying to do better and move off of the sistance and and so I just think putting on a cap and just to have a number. Hurts and there's no good policy reason behind IT necessarily it might may make and make us feel good today and that in ten years from now and is it still get policy and doesn't make sense and why and and I think the answer that's probably know if we amending capit and I think this makes sense just letting it follow and and so those are and my comments on my question and I just wanted to speak to that a little bit thank you for all right any other questions sing none thank you for your testimony all right the senator or would you like to close for your bill. Yes ma'am sure members I I do appreciate the the conversation today on the on the bill so when it was brought to me I thought it made a lot of sense I think it's something that we should encourage thank the current policies that we have right now are regressive and so again I appreciate the consideration and and with that I'll close for the bill are close for the bill right this anyone. All right we've already done the for and against the. What's the pleasure of the Committee have a do pass the second I have a second all those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. I'm sorry senator your bill has failed thank you manager all right let's go on to a senator Johnson Blake Johnson and we'll be looking at house bill sixteen sixty four and then House Bill eighteen thirty six and senator Johnson if whichever one you prefer that someone will start with. The bill okay we Committee Michael repair to come up all right you do sixteen. Sixteen sixty four all right sixteen sixty four and and if you would like to introduce yourself for the record. Senator Blake Johnson. Jean Pfister capacity thank you madam Michael Gruppe department Rajan barman thank you are recognized senator Johnson. Thank you members this bill is updating our language that it comes out of concern with Fourth Amendment the and some court cases for the entry and or private lands if if you would go ahead okay. You're recognized Mr pay thank you chairman. the bill primary purpose aside to clean up the language was to provide a very clear path for Fourth Amendment right. And what Department officer would have to do in order to. Searchable personal property. All right. Any questions. Any questions from the committee. Ski's messing NO questions does anyone in the audience want to speak for the bill. Against the bill. Seeing none what's the pleasure of the Committee. I have a motion to pass in the second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you've passed your bill now House Bill eighteen thirty six you're recognized. Members this bill will cap the at a reasonable rate the not allowing entry into the private lands that five thousand rather than twenty five thousand. Mr Capote you have any comments. All right questions from the committee. All right seeing no questions is anyone want to speak for the bill against the bill. Seeing none what's the pleasure of the Committee. Motion to pass second all those in favor say aye all those opposed. Your bill has passed. All right the. If you would let's look around and see if there's anyone else of from the Senate or the house it would like to run a bill. All right okay and and now we're going to start with those who've been asked to run a bill from the Committee which one do you have Senator. The. Six. Six forty Senate bill six forty if you would go to the end of the table and when you're settled we are the we'll hear your bill six forty. You're recognized thank you ma'am chairman six bill or Senate bill six forty at the request of a constituent of mine there's some activity in Washington that if the current administration is successful they are going to restrict the amount of time in which a medical debt can be collected and what would end up happening here in the state of Arkansas is that it would bring it under the window that is currently allowed which is two years so in essence what would happen is all your medical providers that have medical debts that are sitting with debt collectors trying to work out the arrangements would be automatically cut off and so what this bill does is it would allow to extend out to January first twenty twenty six which would get it beyond what the current administration DC is trying to do to limit it down to less than two years basically would be caught in a vacuum that that bill at Washington passes and our medical providers would see all that medical debt just vanished pretty much overnight and so this is a what if kind of bill if that happens in DC the problem is we won't be in session we won't be able to address that so this is only if that legislation goes through at the national level would this take place and I'll be glad to try to answer any questions or any questions from the committee. All right Senator Solomon. Could you explain that what's happening the national level I'm not familiar with that so they're passing legislation that would do well well hand the individual right yeah the individual is going to be here testify could get away from the office in time but basically what will happen is as it's been explained to me with the legislation that's happening at the national level I've been explained or it's been explained to me that it would actually cut the time frame all of which medical debt can be collected and the problem is that if it passes that is going to come sit inside the window of the two years is currently allowed in Arkansas so basically there would be no ability to collect a debt on behalf of the providers that have that debt place with collectors now. All right any other questions. Seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Seeing none have you close for your bill they'll they'll say is if that doesn't occur in Washington this bill doesn't have any effect if it does could be very beneficial to our medical providers to have it in place so that they can continue to work with people which that I appreciate a good vote no make a motion to pass manager we have a motion to pass we have a second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you passed your bill. All right any other senators that have a bill that they're running or for someone else. Okay. Yes all right the Senate bill five ninety. All right seventeen ninety four. If it goes into the table. Okay. All right you're recognized. Thank you madam chair. This bill in running for representative fault. it deals with our our nurses we have a huge shortage of nurses and state of Arkansas we all know that. And this bill will help get students more interested sooner in nursing but still high school this bill will allow the pathway to be designed with students in the ninth through twelfth grade Committee can begin a pathway to graduate with the LPN by their senior year or if their athletes a few months after their graduation. This is already being done in Kentucky Missouri. Looks like a pretty good bill to me. And with that I'll stand by for your questions. All right any questions Senator Sullivan. I'm okay with the bill this year I know we're allowing students now to graduate with half of their college credit for the through their freshman and sophomore year yeah how come they can't do that with this program I wonder. I'd center so and I don't know it's a good question no okay last representative Vaught yeah okay thank you. All right any other questions. All right. Seeing none. Is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none have you close for most all right. A we have a motion to pass I have a second all those in favor say aye aye those opposed congratulations to pass the bill the manager I have another bill Senate bill five ninety five if you're ready for that all right Senate bill five ninety five and I'll as teaches mark quite come up with me. This is a. And I forget to do it for myself state senator Dave Wallace district twenty two. Thank you senator Clark what are means services this is agency bill pretty simple this bill clarifies that the Department human resources Human Services is the entity that regulates long here long term care facilities this clarification is necessary because different types of facilities or regulated but different offices under the DHS umbrella inconsistent references now exist in the current law this bill also as language to clarify that it is the department's division of providers serving quality assurance that is responsible for facilities surveys to ensure that the facilities are complying with the law this bill is not making substantial changes to the regulations of long term care. Buildings in with that I stand by for your questions all right any questions. All right. Seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Seeing no one can do close for your bill I am closed all right he's close for his bill do I have a motion motion motion to pass in the second all those in favor say aye hi all those opposed congratulations you passed your bill. Alright ladies and gentleman this anyone do you have which one is yours you have to. Five thirty nine and what. I'm sorry the last one to forty eight Senate bill five thirty nine in Senate bill two forty eight. And they both have amendments. So which one do you want to start with. Five thirty nine. All right the. The passing of the amendment so give us a minute. So this is really just done the first amendment is to just add a sponsor correct or the second amendment. And then there's another one coming. He's here next okay the other one is on the next bill so we'll hold that too I have a motion to accept the amendment. The Amendment all right all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you meant amendment has been adopted you're recognized to explain your bill thank you madam chair brandy this state Senate district sixteen. So this bill deals specifically with ever commitment and overpayment of wages and an order for an employee to or keep an overpayment and this bill lays out specific and a specific process that the employer has to go by so they have to notify and with the written notice twenty one days ahead of time to the employee they can and take out no more than twenty percent of gross wages per pay period. And in that written notice they need to specify the amount and the method they used to calculate the overpayment of wages and then the cause of the overpayment. There are two exceptions and the first one is if it's caught and before the next pay period so if you're you know you have an overpayment as an employee of two thousand dollars and they catch it right away and then they don't have to give you a twenty one day written notice they can just go ahead and and recoup that money so that's one and exception and then the other one is any grant funded positions. So if an employer violates this then they have to return the deductions and also pay an additional amount that's the same amount that they originally took without proper notification. And quite honestly this bill just protects workers and from bad employers and you know I think most employers if they realize you know for months there's been an overpayment situation they work with that employee and to recruit those wages I've seen it in my time with that school board that you we accidentally overpaid a teacher and we worked out a payment plan for them to pay that money back but you do have some employers that if they've and made overpayments employee for long periods of time they recoup that money and and will garnish and higher paychecks and repeatedly without and telling the employee Y. and without saying how much or how they came to that determination and it's really unfair to the employee and so this bill just helps protect them a little bit more and have a clear defined process laid out in law that I'll take any questions. All right any questions. All right. Does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none heavy clothes for your bill I'm close and motion do pass all right we have a motion to pass. As amended as amended all right of. We have a motion do pass do I have a second. Right all those in favor say aye all those opposed your bill has passed. Going on to the next one. Thank you again for the next one yes Senate bill two forty eight to forty eight. I apologize for the length the amendment that and essentially it puts me as them and had Senate sponsor and Senator Ballinger as a cosponsor. And then it we. This bill included and cottage food and also and needs to be able and to be sold under that so we pulled out the meat portion of the bill and and they should just referred and to college fades. All right you've heard the explanation of the amendment to have a motion. Motion to adopt have a second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulation the amendment is adopted and you're ready to explain your bill as amended yes thank you madam chair said this bill just reforms Arkansas cottage food laws we are one of the most restrictive and states in the nation currently Arkansas is limited to five different categories in terms of cottage food and this bill essentially divides feeds into non potentially hazardous foods and then potentially hazardous foods those are known as TCS time and controlled for an time or temperature controlled for safety that's that with the federal government referred to a mass so I will call the potentially hazardous foods TCS. And it reform this bill reforms are cottage food laws in a way that ensures the health and safety of producers and consumers while lifting unnecessary regulations it's a benefit to consumers because it provides for transparency traceability and accountability and it also will help build up resiliency in our local food supply chain and I don't think any of us knew just how weak that actually was until Kevin hit we saw demand for food locally produced food and and our law prohibits so much of it and we saw a huge break down in our food supply chain so this helps build that and help build up the resiliency of our local food supply chain. And it also supports small businesses there's a national a recent national survey that found that cottage food producers are primarily women that live in rural areas that make below average income. The median sales for cottage food producers is around two thousand dollars a year all their median profits are only five hundred dollars a year you're not talking about the huge businesses or talk about people who are baking goods out of their home and and like I said States looks so different in regards their laws around cottage food but one of ours is that is quite restrictive so are ours are quite restrictive so this just adds that allows people to buy locally if they want to they can know where their food comes from because it's labelled it says that it's a homemade product and and they get to choose so with that I will take any questions and I think there's a few at people in opposition here so all right questions from the committee Senator Sullivan. Who is it that puts those restrictions are. And well quite honestly ourselves the legislature I mean we were the ones that establish cottage food laws in a couple years ago we gave department of health at the ready to expand cottage feeds as they saw fit and since that time and to my knowledge there all the research I've done there's been no expansion of cottage feeds and even that they have the authority to do so so just so I understand so the Department of Health does not set the regulation or they have had a part in setting those restrictions yes I'm sorry they do and set rules and regulations around it were the ones that created the law and said what was allowed as a cottage food which you can see what's you know stricken and some of this language that they're one of restricting a. And we're trying you're trying to write this bill to remove some of the restrictions that the department of health is put on yes as as the bill states that the feed freedom Bill okay great great thank you thank you all right Senator Hammer. Thank you I'm trying to wreck my memory contribution is that what you wrote us a sample of earlier in the year and I think it's something different that is exactly right did you bring any today I did not but I will tomorrow forget that hello Kitty I'm just getting well the bill probably backing Committee. All right any other questions. All right seeing none we have some people that are signed up against first would be Matt Gilmore and more issue can wanna come to the table please. Okay. All right madam chair if I could it's just gonna be me in a couple of our functional departments all right in many with if you would please seven. Introduce yourself for the record. In. If we have trouble hearing you it's fine to remove your your mask thank you. All right the would you start in introduce yourself for the record please yes ma'am I'm Terry Paul undergarment help branch chief for the part of health. I'm Dr Jill Tomlinson from the outbreak response section. Madam chair Matt Gilmore partner health all right to. We will start with you if you don't mind the first one that to I'm sorry but here thank you if I may go ahead okay all right thank you. Thank you Committee thank you Senator Davis for discussion this was briefly I appreciate that but we had discussed this originally was Senator Ballinger and some of our concerns and The bill as it's currently written we appreciate the part about the meat being struck out that was a concern. We still have concerns though with the some of the different foods will be allowed due to the expansion of the college foods there's some canned foods are an issue also some of the products that could be generated through meat and eggs they can grow up one thing for is as botulism for sure also on the third party sales will be allowed under this will be hard to track those if we had an outbreak there is some label in there that's that's that's a that's a good idea to have the labeling but as far as if it's sold to someone that person cells against an issue there. It would not allow the consumer also to be able to track it back is is well equipped and a quick manner but also if the if it sold there would be a hard for us to figure out a way to track that down as well contracted outbreak. And then as far as the investigations it does allow us to investigate there's no way there's not a mechanism in there for us to stop the self what's happened so Mr Terry Paul here it works on our food a program and wanted to make its promise of wells in a month. Yes I'm sure we have a lot of concerns because basically the way we look at this is that it opens the sale and the production of food to basically in the home of the State of Arkansas regardless of the environmental conditions present there are a lot of good information there is a lot of good information out there we have worked over the last few years with the University of Arkansas in their food safety folks that have put basically we call incubator kitchens across the state that helps those small entrepreneurs with a good a good foundational awareness of where to start and to to do a business so this is one concern that I heard a minute ago but there is a lot of that going on as well we are really concerned also about the low acid foods that things like green beans and certain better goals and such as that can be a real problem if you get botulism growing in it you've heard botulism issues with vinaigrette and things like that across the country we seen other state so that the early cognition adoption have a lot of issues with green beans and stuff of that nature the what we propose and have proposed was more along the lines of eliminating the opportunity hazardous foods from this bill and offering some controls and some other things that would would help to control the risk associated with these temperature controlled first food safety issues the other parts that even though the meat was removed part of it the seafood spot thanks to remove it doesn't address whether those products can be consent constituted a casserole or things of that nature that could be sold and the other point that that is important to to me to to no is this when purchased will go to someone's home someone's home that someone may or may not know where it came from at that point and it could be shared at cetera it's the potentially hazardous foods that obviously that we're most concerned with and we we basically view the law as the rule we don't have a separate rule only cottage food and we have allow the other products that will beat that classification I think I've hit on the most of most high points of I have talked to Monte McNulty with the hospitality association and they're gonna they may have some concerns as well all right. I'm sure we brought under total some with the civility questions please would you like to see anything before we questions ask questions. Well I would just say this to provide a a little bit of context to food borne infections in the United States every year there are forty eight million illnesses due to. Caused by a food borne illness and a hundred twenty eight thousand people hospitalized and nationwide three thousand people die every year just to provide a little context to that not some of those obviously infections that we hear about you know and and and no like salmonella certain types of E. coli there others that Are nearly as common but are potentially quite devastating like Listeria Listeria in the State of Arkansas at present I think the average is about five cases a year however almost everyone of those patients will be hospitalized in over fifty percent of them will die around fifty percent so the you know some of these infections not only diarrhea illnesses that we might think about with these type of infections but it can include other things as well all right thank you. Questions from the committee senator Hammer you're recognized thank you ma'am chair of those numbers that you just quoted how many of those were traced back to a controlled environment that was regulated by the department of health. Senator those are national numbers and I don't know whether they were were traced back to a controlled environment. So as it relates to Arkansas the percentage of those numbers do you know if they occurred as a result of being in a controlled environment. I'm like what this bill is offering up. No Sir I don't know. Why why do we use those numbers then if we don't know because I'm trying to separate the issues of those those complaints that came out of controlled environments that regulated by the department of health verses environments such as senator Davis is proposing to be allowed in this bill because currently what she's offering that's allowed in this bill is not legal by law so how why would we use those numbers to death to be a defense as to why we should allow her bill to go through. I was just merely trying to provide some context as to food borne infections in general in the United States okay thank you all right any other questions plus. Matt may want to wait that manager O. okay thank you but you don't have to. Tensions sorry senator I think he was just trying to bring awareness to some of the issues we see across the country with different food borne illnesses I think you know it can start love different places but I think you should try to bring awareness to the issues I'll or thank you all right to any other K. okay Senator Solomon if the comment was what made that were on the most restrictive states in the nation would you agree or disagree with that. Anyone I think there is going to speak to the. I have I don't have any good information that would what would tell you that are tell me that particularly so I I couldn't answer that Directly. I think we do have a cottage food law food law we do have are there some states that I'm pretty sure doesn't have one there are are similarities of this law with of some bills that were passed and laws that were passed in Wyoming bombings of relatively large state with about a fifth of the population of Arkansas they are getting some concerns and have some concerns there as well it's sort of new still so it's not all the affects or necessarily not clearly spelled out yet. I have a follow up yes please so why hasn't the Department taking initiative on their own to help us feel less restrictive. I don't know why we have to have bills like this before you come out and say well we don't like this we don't like that how come we don't have Department coming out and saying here's some things for you to consider that would help us to be less restrictive. Senator I think we. As the yes Mr Paul says our law is the rule I think we have I think there's ample opportunity I'm not I don't do because food just for the record I don't do that but not able opportunity here in the state for it to be done Senator Davis and representative Dotson made some changes early on in the session so I think we've got it in my opinion I think it's it's pretty it allows some of the safer foods that that are if there was an issue would be as big of a deal I think what this does though is possibly allowed to some work food will be concerning. I hear that right here frequently the reason that we try to take our care legislations we have concerns and these guys have concerns and they have concerns but you know wondering if we have those concerns why there isn't a proactive effort on the fact on the on your behalf to come up with with an address these problems proactively instead of reactively route sixteen just seems like we come up with these good ideas and somebody says well I'm for this I'm afraid of that and then association comes in as a full we're really afraid of it and we have good legislation here without proactive action by our agencies. Can you respond to that place. I will respond to that by this way our job is to protection is best we can with the laws of the rules that we have in place and we try our best to in courage the sake production of food whether it's in a restaurant or home or anywhere else that falls under these guidelines we will share information we always have we've you know put out to all kinds of things over the years and it's not our job to restrict anything particularly that's the law but at the same time we want to do things that are safe and based in food science our rule is basically our state role is basically mirrors the federal safety law that we I have had but there are certain distinctions for Arkansas and there are foods that are are concerning and have calls illness all across the country and the concern here and one of the concerns that I think Senator Hammer might have mentioned a minute ago a lot of the concerns are just pure the source where does that food products come from where is that protein source coming from we are. Looking at food safety from about fifty years ago at this point if not further and you know everything is is regulated one form or another but our job is is to do the best we can with the regulations we have and we're trying to do that and are you know if it's in the day I want to be assured that I am trying to do everything I can to keep the people of Arkansas as safe as possible. Yes senator if I may ask Mister Paul mentioned we do have some as a call to make it better is what we can work with folks and show them some of the methods and let them do something on their own in the community and different modality we also have on our website we have the we have the the guy there's telling people what the law allows what's what's open and what's available for them to do is is Mr Paul's folks are very easily easy to work with us is a lot of folks throughout the day so I think we're trying to be as helpful as we can't also be concerned with the the safety of the citizens and what could possibly be done if this if if foods that are not prepared properly available which it was Senator Davis not equally as concerned. I thank your Sir how about that but the raisins and the questions I appreciate the thank you any other questions all right thank you so much we have one of the person that would like to speak against and Jessica. A looks like per KM for. You're recognized. Thank you madam chair members of the committee my name is Jessica Clouser Burke and I am the director of policy development and Arkansas farm bureau and I'm here representing our one hundred and ninety thousand. For families here this afternoon with you as many of you know Arkansas farm bureau is a grassroots farm family member organization and we focus on advancing policy that benefits the unsung heroes of the global dinner table that's our farmers and ranchers and we really appreciate Senator Davis for bringing this forward and for her amendment to eliminate the need me products section of the bill however we still oppose SB two forty eight as amended it goes against our policy which states that we support measures to inform the public about food safety. Specifically the bill in the amendment will allow the retail sale of non inspected food products to be sold directly to consumers and we are fully aware consumers can make their own decisions but the bill puts at risk the consumers that he or she not follow necessary food safety preparation protocols or over the bill exposes producers to needless liability in the event a consumer contracts a food borne Elliott food borne illness from a non inspected product for example the talk about green beans oath mentioned pickles under the current cottage food law pickles cannot be sold without and there being some type of inspection or certification because they are further processed. The US should have been borne pathogen answer this food products in the consumer become ill nothing in this bill for the amendment protects the producer from liability this could result in really detrimental legal fees for the producer there is no legal precedence and that's a fifty fifty shot that the judge would rule for or against a producer resulting in unintended consequences for the entire industry and for those who currently follow food safety inspection and certification guidelines from your support eliminating unnecessary costly and burdensome regulations that hinder our producers ability to sell their high quality products directly to consumers we appreciate against our Davis for your work on this however consumers have the expectation that their food is safe and free of contaminants there is a reason we have food inspection and certification rules and regulations even if an informed consumer contracts the food borne illness they can share this experience with others and as consumers could become hesitant to buy these products ultimately hurting our farmers and ranchers who work tirelessly to provide safe wholesome and affordable food so given these concerns respectfully request you oppose SB two forty eight as amendment thank you for your time happy to take any questions I have a question so who inspects the farmer's market products. It's my understanding that and the Department of ag and the Department of Health there are and. There's. They're fully impacted I guess I would defer to Matt on that to some extent I'm not fully familiar with who takes a look at those and Senator Davis. All right you have the answer. Yeah it if it's that cottage food and as defined now there are no inspections I mean it's and that's the thing if it's a cottage food you can sell there's no license requirement and now certainly the the Department health can ask for sample and you have to provide it and if it's a food you know that has cream cheese icing or something than those fall under that's not a cottage food this fall and fall under different regulations so those are and those are monitored fire department health okay so is a cottage food sold at farmers markets they are okay. But they are not inspected at all they just okay all right Senator Hammer you're recognized for a question a committee chair and thank you for the question brought up madam chair so I know several towns that have farmers markets are they supposed to be inspected. In according to the university of Arkansas's public policy center it states For products not to be sold its cottage food people should be interested if they want to sell these products they have to contact the Arkansas Department of Health the Department of Health can add other items to list of cottage food if they desire so is it your position. That if farmers market is not inspected that nobody should be selling through the farmers market because several that I know of that everybody brings in their produce they bring in their honey they bring in all sorts of other things in there to sell and I've never seen an inspector in any of those what's the difference between that and what Senator Davis is trying to do. I appreciate that questions Senator in the firm euro is fully supportive of farmers markets in fully supportive of for use or selling product directly to consumers in the cottage law is very big particularly processed foods and we will work to to clear that up but the biggest issue for us is liability if somebody become sick. Because there is a food contaminant food borne contaminant in the product there is no liability protection for that producer. Yeah but in the farmers market scenario with the same be true somebody used a pesticide or something like that on the green beans or the tomatoes or other stuff that I bought at the farmers market how is that any different than what regulations were asking to put on Senator. Davis is product that she's representing there's no liability traced back to those. Farmers are bringing that stuff into the food market shortened and and that's a big issue as the department of health noted that there's a tracking issue and and a mechanism for for recall and that. Maybe the rest that can simmers take to some extent but again there's the liability issue is is the most important to us at this time so is your position is represented farm bureau that we need to shut down the farmers market absolutely not. Okay Senator Davis I remember when you brought that product and earlier this year that it had labeling on it is refresh my memory what's required to be on that labeling and is that also required in this bill that there's labeling on that to alleviate some of the concerns have been expressed yes I am currently and I believe you just have to say the name the address of your business or your home and the ingredients listed and then just say this is a homemade product actually the labeling requirements in this bill are stricter than current and current law now and and on page eight it says that you've what you've got a list name address telephone number of the producer of the homemade food or drink product and some type of identification number if you have it the common name of that product the ingredients and listed in order of course and then saying this product was produced in a private residence that is exempt from state licensing and inspection this product may contain allergens currently all you have to say is this is a homemade product all right and to the point I made a while ago reason ash at question because it sounded like you were I want to give you know opportunities so you work just for the record I appreciate that Sir thank you thank you. All right Senator Solomon if I just heard you say that you want to work to clear that up to fifty five there are some cute confusion what have you done proactively to clear this up. We have of. As a specialist in our communities regulatory affairs department who works on specialty crops and incomes with the host of knowledge from and the specialty crop world an extension and he's been in contact with the department of agriculture I need to work with extension of what the department of act to clear up some of those those issues can you send me the the outcomes of those meetings absolutely happy to thank you thank you manager. All right and I want to go back to the liability issue of so I go to the farmers market in in Rogers. A trial often to be there and I by. Brownies or bread or something like that so the the. You know and and. You have the name of the the farm and all that on a on a usually just a poster board so I get sick and then these people that have a offer their product for sale there liable is that what you're saying you said the producers so they are liable if I get sick yes ma'am there is and no court case that we are aware of a word to the act law center on this we're precedence has been set and there's an what they call an assumption of risk so while you may by that bread product you go home and you feed it to your family and friends do they assume the rest with one of them become say okay. That's a good distinction all right thank you any other questions committee. All right seeing none thank you so very much thank you. Senator you ready to close for your bill. Let me just say is there anyone else is anyone else in the audience who we have missed that wants to speak for this bill or against it all right seeing none you're ready to close. Thank you madam chair. And. So throughout this bill while it differs the way eight feet can be sold whether it's a non potentially hazardous foods or potentially hazardous foods it always ends up going to an informed in consumer. And so directly to a person. And I just want to say one thing about that and specifically to that non potentially hazardous foods which we currently legally are allowed to sell and in Arkansas but just at a very limited version but think about this the government allows us to buy and smoke cigarettes if we want to even though we know that is harmful has restore health but you know what's illegal in Arkansas. Buying lettuce that's been cut. That's illegal in Arkansas you cannot buy lettuce at a farmers market if it has been cut. You can't buy dried herbs it's illegal it is does not qualify in Arkansas's a cottage food all they would qualify as in many other states the cottage food. At the farmers market or anywhere else if you are buying from a cottage food producer you can buy a tomato but not if it's been cut in half that is illegal in the State of Arkansas. If you sell a cottage food to an informed and producer then you're selling to an adult he should be able to have control of what foods they buy what they choose to eat what they put in their body. If you want to buy freshly local ground food from a farmer or a bank to get a pan of brownies you should be able to do so legally in the state of Arkansas it's time that here in Arkansas we provide resiliency in our local food chain so that we don't see another break down in case we have a pandemic that we're able to buy from local farmers and local people who make home goods. That's what they'd freedom is about and that's what this bill is about and I ask for a good vote and move do pass. Ladies and gentleman we have to do pass we have a second all those in favor say aye hi all those opposed. Congratulations to pass to be ladies and gentlemen I'm going to run house bill sixteen eighty nine four representative vault and Senator Flippo is going to take the chair. All right Sir but the go ahead introduce yourself for the record that you will be recognized proceed with your bill this is Senator Cecile Bledsoe Senate district three. Ladies and gentleman this bill is a about a study and the as you see on the front of the first page down in line thirty four it tells you about the purpose of this study and the title is an act to create the Arkansas Legislative study on mental and behavioral health and for other purposes. So all this does is set up the steady through joint the joint public health committees of we are wanting to study a better way for our shares to handle inmates with mental health issues the number of bids in Arkansas a better way to help schools with students with mental and behavior health problems it is open enough that we could add other behavioral health and mental health issues to be looked at and if you will look over on the next page the second page you see down and on line twenty six that owner before December the first twenty twenty two the Senate Committee on public health welfare and labor and the House Committee on Public Health Welf and Labor shall file with the Legislative Council a final written report and their activities findings and recommendations and this does have as you can see an end date of and the information will be put in public and the public record of the hearing a legislative council so I would be at the glad to answer any questions all right are there any questions by members the committee. Sir you more to see I am there okay three by here to sign up to speak for or against this I don't see any. No. All right. I'm sure you're recognized to close your bill I have clothes from a bill and I make a motion to pass all right we got a motion and a second by Senator Sullivan hall in favor. A post graduation measurement thanks has this. All right members said the committee we do have some other bills that we are we going to listen to Senator Hammer. Is this correct how many do you have. Okay good all right which of which bill is this. Fourteen fifty nine and before we start let me just see if there's anyone else it has a bill today to run. Okay so I think you've got to you've got the. The chair and we just sit here and see what happens. I think I've got a list of Lisi. Okay I'll keep that a secret all right fourteen ninety five. Thank you fourteen fifty nine measure well this is yes one seed fourteen ninety five and then was it fifty fifty nine so it's fourteen fifty nine this time if you don't mind okay. And could get more quite complete thank you know and if you will introduce yourselves for the record thank you member states senate district thirty three. Thank you senator Clark what or even services. Right you're recognized senator thank you have chair up there she has been handed out to the gives an explanation of what the bill does And it's actually adding issued notice of a list of groups that would be added to for a reimbursement of the Medicaid program one of thing And and manager members committee I work for mental health farm for several years is partly is a regional director and I can tell you that there's a great need out there I will also tell you this for the occupations that are listed here which is the OPC and the mental health counselor and especially the family therapist they bring a different perspective to the mental health field I think that they have a very of broad understanding of the needs of the entirety of the family unit and so I would just ask for of for good motion for this so we can expand the population can help in this area and maybe Mr wife might want to add anything if chair would like. Mr why. Senator Hammer is explain the bill well well I do want to clarify this is not a DHS bill this one so we're fine with us will be able to assist if needed all right in. So you are you you are adding a. Different providers is that what I heard you say exists just explain a little bit. Sure said manager currently there are with federal federally qualified health centers or FQHCs which a rule clinics look around the state they provide a number of different healthcare services including some barrel Health Services right now there is some there's not language in there provider manual for Medicaid that allows them to use all of these types of providers for those services were as outpatient outpatient be able health agencies can use them so this is just a lot of those that care agencies to use the same provider time okay I understand thank you all right any other quote Kate of Senator Solomon you're recognized for a question this curious you are you can support this stuff for years and all of a sudden now we're getting through how how does that happen because I'm fully supportive of what we're doing but people been asking for this for several years. Well it I think we've got the real system that a much better place than it was several years ago I think we're very happy reforms to made in this case is just an extension that's already being done on one side to the other side so we don't anticipate any significant fifth this compact against him this week again we'll restrictive restrictive and also changing I'm so thankful thank you thank you for bringing up senator Graham. And any other questions. All right seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Right seeing none. Are you would you like to close for your bill I'll close make a motion to passengers all right ladies and gentleman we have a motion on the floor we have a second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you passed your bill thank you so we're going to seventeen eighty one yes ma'am and again Kim Hammer say senator and if Charlotte Mr what states table all right thank you for your recognized I'll let him explain it for the second time okay. The manager Arsen Johnson enters this bill and we have agreed to support this is part of a number of things that were supporting to help improve the access and health care available for individuals who are in our traditional fee for service Medicaid program what this does is this expands the number of medications which an individual on traditional Medicaid may receive I currently that limit is three this increases to a maximum of six in practice most folks can get that many now they just have to apply for extension benefits so this is really just takes that procedural ofschool out of the way and then we have five Liz was Bittman who is our incoming director of division medical services if you did see Janet man is leaving us and so much business will take her place she's available as well to answer any questions if you would like any any questions from the committee. All right seeing none. Does anybody in the audience want to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none. Have you close for your bill senator yes ma'am I think it's pretty self explanatory make a motion to pass all right we have a motion on the floor to pass we have the second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you passed your bill going on to the next one seventeen eighty. Madam chair yes If the chair will allow our markets here there's one other one all right represent Johnson it's Well he's right behind if you want to call and is into the. Come on down the come on waterfront. All right what's the what's the number of the bill. Seventeen sixteen eighty to sixteen eighty two all right. Okay if you're ready. The main manager would you introduce yourself representative Lee Johnson District seventy five okay so this is a bill that the current currently under current rule behavioral services not allowed because co located in the same facilities where other Medicaid permit care facilities are and that creates some issues of our rural communities where there's limited commercial property serving outdated rule this is a bill designed to free that up so that you can allow the baby all services to be co located in the same area with with primary care facilities it's a good bill in opposition we work the DHS with this and and the bedrock providers come up this language is so I'd be happy to try to answer questions all right any questions from the committee. All right seeing none is anyone in the audience want to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none. Have you close for your bill representative have you close for your bill yes yes I'm sorry yes I'm close all right of. We have a motion on the floor I have a second. All those in favor say aye all this suppose congratulations you passed your bill. Which one you want to. This is let's go for she can go seventeen AM madam chair okay not somebody test all right seventeen eighty. Give everybody a few minutes to find some of these bills little bit hard. All right. You found the bill seven to her house bill seventeen eighty you're recognized and and I believe we have someone at the table yes ma'am to introduce yourself please. Q. I'm Rachel bunch on the executive director of the Arkansas health care association all right Senator you're recognized thank you ma'am chair members committee in a nutshell what this bill does it would would provide the opportunity as mentioned for a hospital or consortium of five or more skilled nursing facilities to be able to offer training courses for medication system persons by providing post secondary education institution a hospital or consortium of five or more skilled nursing facilities the opportunity to continue their education I think Rachel can put it in better context for the second time manager can be recognized thank you this bill we consider someone of a companion bill to house bill seventeen seventy six that senator Wallace presented on the Senate floor earlier today one of the major changes and things that that bill would allow our facilities to do I would be to add medication assistance into our staffing calculations and medication assistance have been around for a long time their existing rules the state board of nursing on those but they're not widely used because our facilities I haven't been able to bill Medicaid for those things or count them and staffing this bill it does two things it would allow a group of nursing facilities to offer training both for medication assistance and for LPNs and I'll explain both briefly one on medication assistance in order to qualify to be a medication assistant you have to have worked in Arkansas nursing home as a CNA for a minimum of one year so those are people who have an opportunity and serve a career pipeline they've been a CNA they want to advance they want to get their education and serve as a medication assistant which is somewhere between a CNA and LPN if you look at a a scope or a level those people typically are not able to quit work uh for six months that most of the programs that we've seen in the past R. six month program those C. N. A.'s would have to quit work enroll in a program for six. It's and be able to go back that's not practical we don't see that happening a lot we looked at lots of other states where these nursing facilities are able to offer programs that we want to see more nurses more LPNs more med techs we we work for server issues are at the top of priority for most of my members and something that we hear about every day this is not intended to take away from any higher and program on to the LPN portion where we've got a lot of questions about that currently in order to have an LPN training school or training program you have to either be higher ad or a hospital to apply to the state board to have a program and it also to get your program approved or to present it you have to meet a feasibility study you have to have certain types of instructors meet certain types of requirements and so there are parts of the state where we hear from facilities that the travel would not be practical for people to go and enroll in those programs and I have members who are interested in starting as if a program were proposed in an area that was saturated and a provider couldn't meet the feasibility study they could meet the requirements they didn't have instructors that program would go before the state board of nursing and apply the same rules as the colleges or hospitals do and they would they would deny that program so it's simply asking for nursing facilities to have have the same opportunity before the nursing board as colleges or hospitals. All right. Any questions from the committee Senator Hester. Do I plan to be support of this bill but I have a couple random question answer for you. Do you know how many LPN programs are offered by higher ed institutions and hospitals how many those are online I don't know how many there are and I'm familiar with some of those that are in central Arkansas and typically with my understanding with another represent hospitals but my understanding is that people either go straight to the hospital program or it's people that have worked in the hospital they want to further their education they go to the hospitals training program but then they keep working at the hospital so if we send our workers that are passion about long term care to those programs we typically lose them. That makes sense I don't know how many there are do you do you know how this bill may impact the number of clinical sites available to existing LPN programs offered by higher ed. So I would say that I don't know how it would impact because it's never happened before but what I would say is that the intention is not to impact those my understanding is that if there are existing clinical sites that are that are accounted for that a school or program has that would be one less that would be available to any other potential program whether it be long term care hospital or higher add if if the if if I wanted to go and start a program on my own and I met all the requirements but local colleges had saturated those clinical sites and there was no availability and all the different practice areas that application would be denied by the state board so the intention is not to take away from any existing program or site but to have that available we're where they don't have them. And in my final question the DO do a long term care facilities are they they open up their clinicals for us students from higher it. So that yes and no no explain that typically we do and we and really enjoyed having students come in from nursing programs to come in and and work in long term care because we see is a great opportunity and hoping that someone would come in and learn about long term care and have a passion want to want to work in long term care not go to another area that work force our markets so competitive between different types of health care providers and we like any opportunity we can to bring people and let them shadow and learn and I think long term care is it's an easy area for them to do that and we hope we can attract a lot of people at during the pandemic though we were told that we could not similar to the visitation discussions that you've heard a lot of the clinical sites in those opportunities had to stop during the pandemic because a lot of the students would go to multiple facilities in an area and so we had to stop letting any visitors and they were considered visitors for that that has started to pick back up a little bit more using nursing homes as clinical sites but it's not where we want it to be in that something that we're we continue to work with DHS on to seek clarification to let them come back in. Give them I'm good thank you all right any other questions Senator Davis thank you madam chair do you know and if any other states have program programs like this and what can outcomes they have some my understanding yes that they do I don't know if top my head how many I have them our our first focus here was on the medication assistance and the majority of other states allow those to be counted in their staffing but also have some type of mechanism to allow for that training and many of them will my understanding is what they will do it with one facility but we put here and propose the five or more skilled nursing facilities just to add some reinforcement to it where it's not just one but my understanding is that other states do allow this. Any other questions from the committee Senator Gilmore. Yeah and I may have missed it we're we're the nursing board on this really supported neutral might my understanding is that they're neutral we had we had some discussions representative Bentley and I have talked to to them up together and separately and I know that she's visited with a lot of the members of that board separately along with a lot of members from higher ad and when this was filed she's very passionate about this is she's in a rural area my understanding is that they are neutral but I don't speak for them but that's that's my understanding. Senator Davis is higher in the same way do you know if there are they neutral are they taking a position on it I don't know I haven't talked to them I've I've talked mostly to I've talked to individual schools who have concerns but not to to the agency. All right any other questions. All right hosing NO the questions does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Seeing none of have you close for your bill senator Hammer I think probably the one thing I want to emphasize on and Rachel can not her head in agreement or disagreement this is intended to get into the rural parts of the area that's one reason representative Bentley is bring it is because of the difficulty of that there is in summer more rural areas to be able to access that not that it's not impossible but in a day and age where we're trying to get as many nurses out there and the shortage that would deal with and trying to get people to move up that that chain I think it would be good to try to make it as easy as possible without compromising the quality of education that they're getting a great all right so I make a motion to pass I have a motion on the floor to have a second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you passed your bill senator would you mind letting of. Representive hate go Nicks she has just a of a. house concurrent resolution and I'm sure it will be very quick yes ma'am and all right then I do see another representative here. No not yet and representative Johnson is staying in the room to run thank you to be just a minute thank you all right to a representative taking view would come to the table and we will discuss your of H. C. R. ten ten thank you madam chairman thank you Committee this is a resolution that's a national citizens petition that we would like to send as a concurrent resolution from the Arkansas house and Senate it actually impacted a young man twenty four years old a graduate of the university of Arkansas president of Rogers Arkansas and not senator Bledsoe is district and mine and a Senator Hester as well and mention and this young man made some tea out of some contaminated poppy seeds and immediately had a reaction they were contaminated by morphine and he he he died and his parents have been a part of trying to get the food and drug administration that has the authority now to regulate the import of poppy seeds and the inspection of poppy seeds that are contaminated This is a major problem in other parts of the country as well with other deaths associated with that but certainly even some harm associated because of these contaminated poppy seeds so what we would like this concurrent house resolution to do with the Senate is to send it to foreign delegations senator cotton had a bill specifically called the Steven how call of. The drug bill and they were to it was determined that the FDA currently has the authority without moral legislation to actually take action to help prevent deaths like this and that happened right here in Arkansas so I would just like to ask if you would consider it's rather a wrong long excuse me longer resolution so we don't have to read it all it concerns the medical definitions of the contaminated poppy seeds and it goes along with the citizens petition that other states are sending to the food and drug administration so with that I'll ask answer any questions any questions for. The representative. All right seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this concurrent resolution. Seeing none of have you close for madam Speaker I'm closed all right of what is the will of the committee I have a motion to pass to have the second all those in favor say aye on those suppose congratulations thank you to pass thank you. All right going back to the Senator Hammer if you want to take your seat at the end of the table. Are you would you want to do of fourteen thirty nine or which one would you like to. Actually manager if we could. either representative Lee Johnson or representative Cozart either one of them because they're in the room if that's okay okay that be great all right which one would that two seventeen ninety six first representative because our thing is fairly short and shall right seventeen ninety six. I wish you would. Give us a minute to find it. All right. If you would introduce your self for the record please manager representative Bruce Cozart district twenty four hot springs Garland County area and I'm here to help senator Hammer president this bill is actually my bill and the senator hill the to Senate what's been busy also right you're recognized all right this this is pretty simple bill this is came from our occupational licensing group of that working group that we were looking for some things to try to help of get people working and what this does it actually takes out the word of permanent in in the disqualification for certain criminal records and that doesn't give anything it just takes up a permanent part so that there is a chance that they could get a license but that's totally up to the of licensing groups that they're replying for the gives them a little leeway if they want to look at this and be able to get a license they can but it does but if you don't strike out the permit than they would never ever be able to get a license and some of the some of the criminal records that they have are safe records it after a while they have been rehabilitated and would like to see him go back to work so that's basically what the gist of this bill is and I'll try to answer questions any questions from the committee. All right seeing none. A does anyone want to speak for against this bill. Seeing none have to close for your bill ma'am I'll be closed all right. I have a motion. Motion all right second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations to pass the bill thank you all right going to. Of which one now manner share click to call representative Johnson table which no the all right bill. Okay. Eleven seventy seven madam chair eleven seventy seven all right it up representative Johnson if you would introduce yourself please thank you this represented Lee Johnson district seventy five all right and you're recognized thank you madam chair so house bill of seventy seven was brought to me by a committee of people that look out for folks call it would have rare disorders resource you're recognized by the nationalist institutes of health as being category of unusual you know rare disease states and the idea behind this bill is you know if you have one of these rare disorders many times on a medication or under some sort of specialized care it isn't always readily accessible only able to pick you up so amis's can't care for carry every medication anyone could possibly need there are some medications that some of these patients are carrying their prescribed by their doctors but as it currently stands permittee's can't give those patients the medicines they care prescribed by the doctor so good example would be there are some patients who might have a bleeding disorder for example and then not carry with them the factor that they need to caught their blood so US nameless driver you might get a nine one call them if kept themselves doing the dishes they have the medicine they need as prescribed for them by their doctor that under current state the paramedic can't give the patient their own medicine as prescribed by the doctor we're removing that barrier for this the for these cases where patients may have these medications that are unique to their condition and not regularly carried again they can only do it within their scope so a paramedic can't given medication that is within their scope as far as the mechanism of delivery so an EMT couldn't get out of the medication but a permit could it also You know cats at the industry step of them having to call ahead to an emergency department to talk to a physician I just to give the patient a medication against already been prescribed by their their position is it does it it creates a pathway for queue for calling care coordination it doesn't mandate any of these things but it gives the opportunity for an EMS service in a community where maybe a person does have this rare and unusual disorder thank you call the M. S. service get with their primary care doctor and say that EMS service Hey I've got this unusual disorder this is the medicine I take wins with someone having a crises and educate the paramedics about it so if someone shows up they sort of have this idea that this is something that might happen in their community it allows for the patient also to request a transfer to a further hospital if they're specialises there now the import things it does require that transfers so it allows them to say the English state say they just got discharged from the United mass where they have some neuro endocrinologist who specializes in their particular disease burden all the records of their their specials there they can request the service to by pass the closest hospital income credit straight to the hospital weather specialist resides the end of service does have to comply they you know they can't leave the community if they need take the nearest hospital I can't but it does create that pathway where they could have that option that we have Tracy questions on the bill any questions from the committee. Senator Hammer thank you after. So what if I'm a EMT in a rural area picking up a patient say does arc need get to Searcy. Is that medic who is an M. T. allowed to radio into the hospital and the doctor give that EMT permission to give that medicine if it's outside the scope of the medics no so that couldn't happen current state so it and the anti can only do certain things prescribe within their scope of practice so and and you know if you have a basic English service this this for any kind of drugs so the base into the service picks you up it's just got EMTs not paramedics they couldn't give you any sort of Bobby medication the rate limiting what they can do even if the doctor said Hey it's okay they're still not trained to administer to measure the drug to that that that sort of thing that date is that what what this is doing is if if it was like a pill they can give the patient that was the other patient has the spotlight this scribe by doctor Jones it says take this one tell when I'm having my rear crisis they could hand that pill to the patients they could take it drink water and take their own medicine so they could facilitate the patient taken on as follows follow up so the EMT and I understand cannot do IV or tray create that kind of stuff pulls up on the scene patients as I got this ball motion in the medic basic says I can't give that to you but could call the hospital yes talk to the doctor the doctor could then the liability would transfer to the doctor if anything happened yes that could happen but under this bill that would take that step out again each service this is voluntary service services look at I'm uncomfortable with my paramedics my EMTs taking this responsibility on they don't they don't have to enact this but this does create that pathway in the circumstances where you do have someone that has their medication there you know it's it's sometimes it depending on where you're at is it's extra special to call and talk to the doctor is there online in the ER this is cutting that step out it hopefully what is a common sense way to let patients to have their medicine there as prescribed by their. Dr to let the paramedics the anti personnel given whether prescribed thank you measure all right any questions from the committee. All right seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Seeing none heavy clothes for your bill senator aren't close thank you I'm representative yes. All right to which the will of the committee I have a motion do pass I have a second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you pass to the committee chair of. We. Sixty sixteen eighty two we run it sixteen yes sixteen let's see what time is it is everybody is. I have one one that I get from all right we don't try to to run as many as we can because it will keep us from having to stay late toward the end so if you have one that you want to run we have a bill I worked on with represent Hodges okay thank you bye senator Bledsoe yes I understand that but I co sponsored I'm happy to try to run that bill can please is the community that be good what is the. Fifteen eighty. Two. The. Fifteen eighty two fifteen eighty two. Is this one. Fifty okay all right fifteen eighty two. Thank you madam chair so this is this a good as straight for bill represent hot just had a person is distribution position I came in asking the question why the nurses are able to purchase their license for two years instead of one would this be something that would we can look into it for physicians it was a reasonable request that represent Hodges came to myself the doctor cloud said Hey would you be interested in doing a two year version of wanted persons kid I said yes absolutely because asal every year you you know at the you have to remember every year to do that and if I could do it for two years I would love to do it for two years it doesn't change the scene the requirements are still required to do the same number of CMB over a two year time frame as you would have some city normally it's twenty strip twenty semi credits year has to be forty if you choose the two year option at this the price is the same as so you're still getting having to pay for two years it just takes away that you know that hassle of having to remember every year to to reapply to get your license right. Any questions. Seeing no questions does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none. A heavy clothes for your bill I'm close or the amount charged right I have a motion I have a second all those in favor say aye. All those opposed congratulations you have passed your bill all right when we're to judge your in seventeen eighty one reading now. We've done that one up to the thank you seventeen what what was that one seventy one eighty one. We have the president we. Seventeen. Yes we we we have finished with at seventeen eighty one. Thank you. All right the senator Hammer which one is Nicks the school for fourteen thirty nine fourteen thirty nine. Right to give us a minute to find it. All right you are recognized thank you madam chair there's currently what's referred to as a volunteer Health Care Act which I believe and maybe one of the two agencies can not their head to make sure I'm right on this but I believe this is you know we're maybe services are offered free and community and they want to add therapist addiction specialist and counselor to that list of sorry with the other medical providers there so as to include them to be able to offer the services to the public under this act all right you heard the bill explained do you have any questions. Right seeing none does anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill. Seeing none heavy clothes for your bill yes ma'am I'm closed and appreciate a good vote all right we have a motion do pass we have a second all those in favor say aye hi all those opposed congratulations you passed another bill. Trying to clear the matter trying to clear the deck. This is a good time. Home okay. Well into we don't want to be here at the lead on the last day no ma'am so what's in it what's next House Bill fifteen eighty five fifteen eighty five. This. Number twenty two. Number twenty twenty two. Okay all righty go right ahead thank you manager. so as the title says is pretty simple require employees of certain health care providers have criminal back ground check when you take a look and maybe DHS can come explain why their name is stricken now the language but when you go to the back page I believe it's adding these entities that are mentioned there into that provides personal care services to individuals which people going in the homes of believe is what that would apply to long term care facility and entity that provide services to House teens in use which would be the Y. S. so I think we're just adding those folks to it that. March not is it yes and if you'd like him to come testify manager your discretion. Martin would you testify please a I'd like that on the record. Thank you senator Clark what are in services this source motors this is not our bill I have not spoken represent Penzo about it but just reading through the bill my interpretations the same as what Senator Hammer describes I would agree with that all right thank you all right any questions from the committee and chair yes. Mr why why are you all stricken of the language you know. The. I believe it's because Department as referenced earlier in that code I think be a large decided that was a extraneous redundancy yeah okay all right thank you Mr all right any other questions. All right seeing none is anyone in the audience want to speak for against this bill. All right seeing none of what is the will of the committee have you close for your bill and yes ma'am okay all right we have a motion to pass we have a second all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations to pass the bill thank you measure I'm done you're done I'm done. Okay. President all right any other business to come before the committee. Seeing none we are adjourned and thank you so much for your hard work.