ALC-State Insurance Programs Oversight Subcommittee
Video
Transcript
9 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:30
Folks, if you'll start taking your seats, we need to start in about a minute.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:30
Okay folks, let's go ahead and get started. Mr. Wallace, if you and whoever else needs to come up front, let's go ahead and do
Speaker 10
2:59
that. Grant Wallace, Employee Benefits Division, and Office of Property Risk Director.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:05
Let's start at number one. If everybody could get to their packets. This is the EBD Pharmacy
formulary recommendations for June. Would you like to go through the
Speaker 16
3:18
pharmacy all three months at once or one month at a time? I think, let's start just at the beginning and go one at a time. I
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:28
think there may be a couple of questions from members. If not, we'll move right through that. Let's make sure everybody's got the right information in front of them, starting with July.
Speaker 10
3:39
Correct. Well, this would be the, under B1, the top of it would say June 2025 EBD pharmacy formulary recommendations. is that this one all right
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:54
all right exhibit b1 yes ma'am all right go
Speaker 10
4:04
ahead and start okay the uh first medication that we're looking at the alifatric tablet tablets
this is re-placing trifecta trikafta sorry with a better compliant medication the next Mr. Wallace you don't have to go through every single one
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:24
but I do think there are members that have questions so okay the next eight
Speaker 10
4:33
are generics that are being swapped out or name brands that are being swapped out for generics the ones after
that there are just some quantity limit adjustments we're removing age restrictions there are some multivitamins that are moving over over the counter and that would be for june be glad to answer any questions members
Speaker 29
4:59
do you have any questions senator Hickey
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
5:03
I know you're itching that's a question not not
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
5:16
really itching just want to make sure I understand this
so unlike the first one up there I want to make sure I understand this so it says that the cost is 350,000 annually 355 85 annually but you said that that's that that's or replacing another one so is this an increase from what we've been doing once you are substituting or i don't guess i understand that
Speaker 36
5:39
no i wouldn't say that the cost um there might be a slight
Speaker 10
5:47
increase but we're getting a better compliant medication it's one that's easier for the patient to take and so over the long run we're actually offsetting costs by getting a drug that is more compliant.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
6:02
So, so what you're saying here, and this is what I want to understand, you're not saying that that's
going to annually increase our costs by $350,000. You're just saying the cost for that medication is estimated to be $350,000. Correct. Whereas we were paying maybe more than
that on the one you're going to substitute or close
Speaker 36
6:25
to the same amount. It's close to the same amounts what i'm
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
6:30
being told okay all right and then uh of course i'm not smart enough to pronounce these but whenever you go down here to like the the one that begins with a j number one two three four down okay so it says ebr recommendation and we put nc that's not covered right so not covered so in other words although we have this on there we're not we're not going to cover that particular
medication and that is the recommendation that state board of finance approved and that you are asking us to prove correct so for for that example that is a
Speaker 10
7:05
specialty tier currently on and we are moving it to a not covered because the next one down is the generic that we're wanting to replace it with or sorry there's maybe the one above it i'm getting a little plus but yeah i think the one is not covered below
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
7:21
it it may be the one above it but okay that's great that's what i need to know
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
7:27
thank you sir any more questions just for clarification so the drug that he said started with the j
annually is 277 000 and we're not covering it but we're replacing it with one that's five hundred thousand or five
Speaker 16
7:52
thousand dollars annually so forgive me on both of those the journey and tople van
Speaker 10
7:58
uh there is a generic released there is a program that we're having a
little bit of concern with that launch that might be particularly difficult so um that's why this would be one that we're going to just observe and make sure there is an alternative already on our formulary we're just holding off on this one that's why it's going to not covered okay all right thank you any other questions representative wardlaw thank
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
8:29
you madam chair so if you're moving to a drug that actually costs
more but you're gaining compliance the overall cost of that patient client to the system should actually go down is that correct correct thank you representative
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
8:47
toss thank you madam chair grant you for clarification help me to understand how do you decide what goes into tier one and uh looks like tier two tier three what's the uh what's the criteria that y'all go by to determine
Speaker 9
9:04
which tier level those are so it's real simple tier one are generic low cost tier two are your name
Speaker 10
9:12
brand tier three would be where you have a generic available but the name brand is available as well so you do if you use the name brand you will have a higher copay with that tier four or tier s is specialty so those are those really high-end drugs that get in that classification any more questions and then we need a motion
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:01
motion motion by senator boyd all in favor okay all right thank you all right moving on to b2 drug recommendations for august
Speaker 61
10:09
okay if you look at the first two that's just swapping a brand for a generic
Speaker 10
10:14
if you look at the next those are rsv vaccines that we're just removing the age restriction the next three uh are currently the manufacturers those are unavailable and we already have alternatives on formulary the um brick satty that's moving to a medical benefit you'll see that code in c3p that means we're just running it under the medical benefit not the pharmacy benefit
if you look at the accu checks and going all the way down to the precision extra meter the manufacturer is running into some financial difficulties and we'll we are concerned that there's going to be a bankruptcy and no longer being able to manufacture those particular test strips so we are removing those from our formulary and adding on their competitor so that we still cover it but we are not we're just going to make sure we don't run into any issue with supply
or anything like that and then the final ones are new to market drugs that we are waiting additional evidence on before we make a determination on what to do be glad to answer any questions okay we do we have any questions before we
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
11:41
take that motion to approve for July and August okay that was just July up that was
just a lie so we still need to do August I apologize let's
pull up August up wait if we've
done July we need to vote on that all in favor opposed thank you
Speaker 10
12:04
now let's do August okay on the first one this is really we're removing this because we have an alternative that we already cover that can be ground up and compounded with the agent so that we we're just going to the lowest cost alternative for the plan the next one are adding tablets because we already cover the oral solution
we have an rsv vaccine that we are adding then you have a generic hydrocortisone is cheaper and we can be and can be compounded to meet that need the hiv these are new to market and has demonstrated superiority to current treatments so we're making sure that we're adding those on the eutrypta we have a lowest net cost product already available or already on our
formulary um the gagavart injection we're just adding to the pharmacy benefit it is more accessible and cheaper for the plan the lepressor solutions this is adding for the pediatric and you have a new oral contraceptive that we're adding per federal guidelines the next three are the brand product is no longer available so we're adding the generic
over-the-counter alternative the one after that we're actually showing superior outcomes in the testing so we're adding that one on to our formulary and then the last one is a new generic of Entresto we're still having the brand available until we start seeing the price drop and then we'll reevaluate at that point be glad to answer any questions members all right a motion to approve
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:05
for the august 20 so moved thank you senator boy all those in
Speaker 16
14:16
favor all those opposed all right thank
Speaker 10
14:19
you moving on so we have the medical drugs and just as a reminder to everyone the medical drugs these are ones that are administered in a clinical setting and are usually are higher cost medications most of these when you see the exclusion these are because these are new to
market and we are still waiting for additional evidence on those before making a decision the top half of the first page are biosimilar swaps for name brands then you can jump down to the uh yamku nuva and mr wallace i'm sorry let me make sure the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:58
members are on the right spot this is on exhibit two b2 if
you're following along you're on the right spot exhibit b2
Speaker 10
15:10
thank you okay um there at the bottom of that first page there are two vaccines one is a travel vaccine and per our spd we do not cover travel vaccines the next one is coming out of the national stockpile so there is no cost so we are going to add that looking at the next page at the top the drug related to hemophilia we're not seeing improved outcome so we're going to exclude
that until we have some more evidence um let's see you go to kind of that next grouping zirverta and rinutza we have covered alternatives so we're going to continue to exclude those and then i want the drg when you see drg those are ones we don't want to get away in the way of administering that's usually an emergent situation that covered under our in like an
emergency room setting so we don't want to have any barriers to getting those drugs administered so that's why those are being covered forgive me I do want to go back to the first page because I do want to highlight down at the bottom you'll see the phrase car tea I just want to kind of walk everybody through because this is kind of a new treatment what this treatment does is it actually, you take the patient's blood and then you mix it with these new medications and re-infuse
it back into the patient. And you're actually seeing a curing of that particular disease. So that's why in these instances, it is a last line of treatment. So there are step-throughs that they would naturally have progressed through, but we do want to add those on because we are seeing tremendous outcomes when doing that. Going to the next page, you will see the infusion
down the last third, three from the bottom, the infusion of myosinostromal cells. It's the same kind of concept where you're taking the patient's blood, you're infusing this medication, and re-infusing it back into the patient and seeing good outcomes we are excluding a gene therapy just because we don't have enough evidence to support the outcome or not enough information to show the cost effectiveness at this point in time and and then the last two last one on
related to schizophrenia again we don't want to get in the way of though treating that condition and we're just adding an option and the last one we were just waiting for more data be glad to answer any questions
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
18:14
representative Beatty thank you madam chair I guess my question goes in you you've used this phrase many times we are not seeing much um or we are seeing but I'm looking at on the uh information provided where it's talking about impacted members and a lot of
these are zero so when you say we can you tell me who
Speaker 74
18:36
we yes sir and the reason you're referring
Speaker 10
18:39
to right and the reason you're seeing zero impacted members is because these are new to market drugs so probably within the last you know nine months or so when i say we this is a combination of health advantage ebd and ebrx and we're looking at the clinical studies that are being reported out of these new to market drugs and that and ebrx is also doing their own analysis and review
of these medications and that consortium is what's making the determination and recommendations to
Speaker 29
19:06
the advisory commission and to the state board of finance and to you all okay i just want to make certain who
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
19:12
we want you know who you're referring to and we uh under those and because that i guess that's one of the things that drew my attention is the impacted members in our system that would be impacted by these changes thank you sir thank you representative representative Richardson thank you madam chair
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
19:32
over here to your left far left there you are sir sorry so I my question you you talked about these
items that are being excluded until you get more information give me some idea of what that time frame looks like I mean how long before you've gotten more information to make a
Speaker 82
19:48
decision on these we generally have these on a yearly kind
Speaker 10
19:52
of cycle uh i mean obviously if there is new clinical data that kind of comes and really is a huge shift in the study of that particular medication we will look at it faster but as a default we're kind of on an annual okay okay that's what i was curious about thank you
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
20:10
very much yes sir seeing any other questions
all right we need a motion all in favor those opposed
Speaker 10
20:26
all right moving on okay I think we're moving on to the rates for FY 24 so there's a lot to this particular packet the things that I would highlight for you when you look at the base rates
this really drives and is a reported number the only time it really impacts a member in our plan is when they're looking at the cobra benefit and where we determine what they pay on cobra so going to the next section and kind of generally and be glad to answer any specific questions but generally the strategy that we have taken for calendar year 2026 would be to hold the active
employees in both the state and school plan level to their 2025 rates so they would not experience any increase and the reason that we're doing that is that we still have a lot of unknowns that we're trying to study and just make sure that we are getting the right number related to that that is the legislative impacts we are currently in the process of bidding out for our third party administrator current incumbent is health advantage so that contract is still out for bid
and then where the just kind of general utilization is going and making sure that we're pegging these numbers right 2027 was always going to be a year that we got back to zero and now we're planning for 2027 and beyond for a very transparent predictable increase that the state and the employee would experience and share in that would be driven by medical cpi it would be
a very again a very transparent known number so that we can get some predictability for you all when it comes to budget and that our members also understand what is driving that now moving on to the retiree you will see that for both the state plan and the public school plan there is a six increase on the individual retiree plans for both the UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage Group PPO plan and the Health Advantage Medicare Supplemental Plan. That really was driven by what we will
discuss later on in the agenda, which is the one-year renewal for UnitedHealthcare. It was a $60 increase. The state takes 90% of that. The member takes 10% of that. So that's where the six dollars come from and we're keeping parity between the united health care plan and the health advantage plan so that's what made up the rate recommendations that are before you for calendar year 2026 i have a question there may be other
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
23:25
members that want to jump in um this is the rate
schedule it's b3 and if you look down and you go through here um this is the state of arkansas employee benefits division I want to make sure I'm on the right one yes ma'am okay on page 11 it talks about increases for the retirees of 42 percent and 48 percent can you explain why these
Speaker 10
23:56
base charges go up so much so really the base rate again it's a reported number it really doesn't drive the number that you look at when it comes to the premium the monthly premiums
it's really driving on the cobra so a lot of that is just going to be um and forgive me i don't know the full calculation on the base rate because it is a number that we just report out uh so i think you would look at probably utilization that factors into that um you would look at just natural inflationary numbers that factor into that and you would just see kind of contract rate like the UnitedHealthcare for example it going up 60 dollars is directly related to that increase
and that and forgive me let me look at that because I think that if you look at the dollar amount that is exactly the 60 dollars is what's driving that 40 percent increase so it is
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
24:52
the contract rate that just seems like a I know it's 60 bucks doesn't sound like a whole lot but when you see rate increases like on page 11 at 42 percent um 22 42 that it just seems like we ought to go up a small amount each year to capture the cost but big jumps that just seems like a
wild i just want to make sure i
Speaker 10
25:16
understand what we're doing the best way that i can answer that is that it is directly related to the united health care annual renewal of the increase
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
25:28
of $60. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Um, representative
Speaker 96
25:32
Acre to your right over here, director Wallace. Thank you for sharing. Um, I appreciate this information as, as far as, um, United healthcare being the main
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
25:40
driver for that cost increase. I know that a few years ago,
there was a decision to made to, um, offload those members from teacher retirement on EBD's plan onto that kind of hybrid plan as United Healthcare seems to be the driver of that cost increase are we doing any sort of cost analysis to find out where that break-even point is to where those members should actually be would be more cost-effective to be on the state plan as opposed to because if we're holding our rates at zero but their rates are beholden to United Healthcare's decisions and what where's
Speaker 99
26:15
that fine line of the benefit of that
new hybrid plan isn't in the best interest
Speaker 9
26:21
of the member so again we're only talking about the retiree plan so this does
Speaker 61
26:26
not correlate to the active plans just looking at the retirees you will see and you can
Speaker 24
26:40
flip to page here i've got mine all messed up probably the next page should
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
26:49
when you find it give a page number so everybody
Speaker 10
27:06
can be on the same page yes ma'am okay so staying on page 11 if you look at the tablet the tab above where you'll see the primary EBD plan, you'll see that the base rate is still higher because that
primary plan would be the health advantage plan, and it is still higher than the United Healthcare MAPD plan. So it is still more cost effective to move and have our retirees utilizing a Medicare Advantage group plan as opposed to keeping them on a traditional Medicare supplemental plan okay guys thank you and just follow up i do remember there was
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
27:44
some confusion with members as they were trying to make that decision and they were concerned if they chose to go with the medicare advantage plan that they wouldn't have the option to go back into
traditional state employee plan and i just want to make sure that we're monitoring where that benefit to the member if united healthcare has some sort of unilateral authority to cause
Speaker 99
28:06
these rate increases that's beyond this the power of this
Speaker 9
28:11
body well thank you for asking that because one of the
Speaker 10
28:14
early things i did when i came on as director is actually reverse that and got away with the opt-out decision now they have a true open enrollment experience every november and i
encourage every retiree that i talk to definitely talk with your family talk with your providers study the options and then every november you have the ability to choose which plan best suits your needs and your medical issues that you're confronting so we we do have that open choice every year that they can make so every open enrollment they could revert
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
28:46
back to traditional okay and they can go between the plans
Speaker 107
28:50
to whatever best suits their needs perfect thank you any other questions
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
28:58
all right senator hickey do you i think you usually tell us that percentage do you have you checked those percentages
Speaker 10
29:08
to see where we're at just so yeah they're holding steady um that we have not seen a huge swing one way or the other so i just giving rough because i don't have it in front of me uh you're kind of upper 50s um maybe hitting that low 60 number on the state side and you're probably low to mid fifties uptake on the psc side okay thank you great
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
29:30
representative wardlaw thank you uh the target still hit 60 percent right actually uh they're looking more if i
Speaker 10
29:39
remember the conversations with seagull it was probably like 70 80 percent so we are behind kind of the target that originally was thrown out there thank you any other questions all right let's go ahead and vote on that being reviewed and
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
30:00
then let's look at or no wait a second approved a motion ladyman thank you all in favor opposed all right
let's look at the EBD contracts that is B4 a through c a
b and c they're one pagers in
your packet let's start with
Speaker 10
30:31
care connect okay the connector care this is a special procurement to retain our current fsa hsa cafeteria cobra
benefits through the end of this calendar year we are in the final phases of awarding that RFP for starting in January we just need this it had a weird original end term date in August we need to get us through the end of this calendar year so that no services are disrupted for our members and that's for $75,000. Any questions? Senator Hickey? Did they stick with the current
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
31:12
rate that they'd been doing for the basically five or six months here right there right this is just making sure that we have the
Speaker 119
31:17
money to do that right so there's really it's it if if the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
31:20
contract had been all all the way out through this calendar year that's the 75 000 is what it would have cost yes sir approximately all right thank you sir all right thank you senator hickey um i need a motion to review oh i'm
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
31:32
sorry representative wardlaw i have a special request madam chair Please. I just got a question for
Speaker 52
31:41
Mr. Wallace while he's at the table, if you don't mind, before we make this vote.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
31:46
All right. So going back to your earlier statement about PSE and not having enough money to fund that, can you walk me through this last session and what was actually the increase through the adequacy? Was it 4% plus the 4% like it should have been because we didn't put anything last time? Or did we catch that back up? Or where are we at? I just want
Speaker 10
32:09
to have it in my head going into the physical session. Right. So, looking at the number, they had originally pegged at $300.
So, going back in history a little bit, it was supposed to be $300. That's right. So, what was done during this session was it was supposed to start in this past July, it was $312. That's right. So, that would have been the natural increase. That would have been the $300 plus the 4%. Yes. Okay. So what's going – what is scheduled to go in next July is 322, if I'm remembering right. There may be some
Speaker 129
32:43
change in there, which would have been
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
32:46
another – Can you get the committee a performer showing what it's going to look like,
what it looks like this year with the 312 and what it will look like next year with the 320 and change so that we have an idea of where those gaps are? Okay. Because there's members in here that are on education, and they need to understand that when they're having these adequacy discussions that's where that gap is filled it's not filled anywhere else except right there right i think it's important that they know where we're going and how it's going to get there from looking at those performance and thank you
Speaker 9
33:18
for asking that because part of the deficit that we're working with right now
Speaker 10
33:22
was related to the cut from the 300 down to 234 and we're
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
33:28
still trying to catch that and that was from two years ago yes sir okay thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
33:33
you madam chair sorry to hold up and sorry to rehash the we need to do that every time if you could
make that available at the next meeting so it's fresh on our minds it's
Speaker 132
33:42
from this last meeting we'll put it on the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
33:44
agenda for next meeting is that possible yes okay any other questions okay we need a motion to review thank you Senator Hickey and I guess I need to
ask for a second every time i need to have a second sorry thank you all those in favor
Speaker 85
34:07
opposed all right motion passes all right we need to
Speaker 16
34:12
look at exhibit b4 this is for hmo partners this is the health advantage relationship this is our third party
Speaker 10
34:20
administration bundled services This is a special procurement to get us through the end of calendar year 2026.
A little bit of background in why we're needing the special is that during the RFP process, we're needing some additional time to complete that, and we don't want to rush any kind of implementation or decision, so we are looking to go through one more plan year, 2026, uh with our current incumbent and then giving us time to complete the rfp process okay we're talking about 86 million dollars here 86 million this is not this is the natural kind
of increase that you would expect on this contract for the next plan year but this would be if you were to continue the current relationship with the natural increase that comes every year renewal this is what that amount is
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
35:15
okay and the but it's it says the term is 820 to 25 to do so it'll be a year and four months right because this was
Speaker 10
35:23
one of those like the connector care that had just a weird august term date and we're getting it to a december term date
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
35:31
okay so we're not spending any
more money than it's already allocated correct all right thank you questions um representative Beatty. Can
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
35:41
you explain to the committee what the hold up or what was the reservation with getting this completed in time
Speaker 10
35:49
so that we did not need the special? So we have issued out an RFP and not got the competitive responses that we would like to. And with the Arkansas Forward Initiative, we're working with that team to look at a different strategy and a different approach
to these services and the RFP to make sure that we're getting the best rate and competitive bids for these particular services for the state. So did I just hear
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
36:15
you say the reason you did that is so that next time when this contract's renewed it should be below this 86 million dollars
Speaker 40
36:23
we're looking at now? I would not promise that because medical costs don't go down but
Speaker 10
36:28
I'm hoping that we are able to get if we don't see a reduced contract rate we are able to see more improved
services or a different a wider menu of options that are available to the state and our members okay thank you how many people
Speaker 10
36:50
approximately 160 60,000 lives minus the UnitedHealthcare plan. All right. Any other questions? Thank
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
37:02
it out there, you said that it appeared like, I guess, historically, the increase was where it needed to be.
Do you know what that percentage was? Three
Speaker 145
37:15
and a half percent. Okay. And that's what we've seen over the last? Yes, sir. Five
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
37:22
years? Yes, sir. Something like that? Okay. Thank you.
All right, members, you know the drill. I need a motion to review. Senator Hickey, motion to approve. Thank you. And
a second. Thank you, Representative Laineyman. All in favor? All opposed? All right, motion passes.
All right, let's take a look at
Speaker 10
37:43
the next one, B4C. Okay, this is the UnitedHealthcare one-year renewal. This is the normal life cycle for this relationship. We're in the one-year renewal phase. and this is not adding any additional money the overall appropriation of 347 million dollars will cover that 60 increase so we've got the money we need this isn't adding any additional money we're just extending one year any questions
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
38:13
i have a request from the chair um it is my understanding that the rates by united
health care are locked in through 2026 and the rates can be expected to increase after that due to how lengthy these procurement processes take we want to encourage ebd to make preparations to put the mapd contract out for bid
this year so we have time to look at it will do all right thank you any other questions concerns all right we have a motion to
review representative ladyman a second thank you yes yes please
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
39:03
said just to put it out put it out are we expecting to get it back by
a certain time is that do we need to discuss that just I think that's a goal we need to look at that contract ahead of
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
39:15
time and not be just a month and then the next month vote on it I think it needs time to be reviewed okay so we're
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
39:22
expecting it to be here maybe 60 90 days ahead of
time or what just so that we know I don't know what's
realistic but if we're gonna if we're gonna make a recommendation like that I'd just kind of like to
Speaker 10
39:38
know what our what our true goal might be so i to kind of help level set some expectations um this is not i would want to work um with procurement and really review the draft that was written last time for this work with kind of our actuaries and see if we need to make improvements on that there's been
a lot of improvement in this space since this was last bit out i think you have a lot more competition within this market so i want to make sure that we're taking advantage of the the latest setups so i would say a healthy goal to have an rfp draft um out to to look if we want to do that probably would be in that 90 day range um i ideally we'll try to do better but i think a realistic goal would be you know if we can have about three months to really get this drafting
make sure we're sharpening the pencil right and that we're headed in the right direction for you all to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
40:41
look at okay that's great thank you sir thank you i think it'll help to review that
united health care contract early all right back to the vote do we have a motion
to review i believe we we did we need a
second was representative gardner i believe all right all in favor any opposed all right thank you motion passes
all right we're on captive insurance next this is your exhibit b5a
Speaker 10
41:19
all right okay so shifting hats now we're into property insurance uh you have all previously reviewed kind of the premium and deductible structure for k-12 state agencies and higher education the university of arkansas athletics program was not included in that packet because
we were still doing continued negotiations and review with them what you will see before you and i will apologize that the spreadsheet was presented in this way but it was the best that we could do in preparation the main things that i would like for everybody to focus on and what we will need approval for is the proposed 25 26 blended rate of eight cents and the deductible
of a million dollars and that deductible is per occurrence so if there were a tornado that were to go through the middle of campus and hit the football stadium barnhill and razor bud walton it's a million dollars um with that be glad to answer any questions but again what you all would be reviewing and approving would be the blended rate of eight cents and the deductible level of
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
42:42
million dollars representative brooks thank you madam chair over here grant appreciate all you do um relative to the replacement costs on this and i know those are some questions that have been going on throughout the entire process uh how up to date are we on replacement costs for these structures at the u of
Speaker 10
43:01
a so this effort and why we needed some additional time was to right size those numbers and that's what you see reflected on this chart so we're we're confident that these
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
43:12
are updated in terms of where we would be with the replacement costs in 25 26 year time frame yes sir as updated as we
Speaker 9
43:20
can be at this point i think there are still for you know the year two of this program still ongoing conversations
Speaker 10
43:26
that need to happen but at this point we are comfortable with these insured values when did when did
Speaker 155
43:33
we when was the last time that this was evaluated you know these numbers should be reflective of march yeah so these are reflective of march 2025
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
43:43
thank you any other questions i had a couple who does who does the evaluation to make sure we have barnhill arena insured
at the right amount so we don't get to the
Speaker 9
44:03
other end of this and it's incorrect who who does that so we're working with steven's insurance kind of they're they're
Speaker 10
44:09
taking the lead kind of during the session or during this transition to make sure that the insured values are adequate but we in the office of property risk will be rolling out appraisals
we do have a vendor um taa and forget i know appraisal and v is in that somewhere i can't remember the last day but taa is our third party vendor that will assist us in the valuations as well senator petty thank you i know this has
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
44:45
work that's gone into this but uh just for the sake of the other members here can you can you uh comment on the
blended rate and as it compares to other public schools and so forth and I know the deductible is significantly higher but maybe some of the other members or some of the public do not
Speaker 10
45:05
know so could you comment on that right and I think that's really kind of the effort and what the ongoing exercise is going to be is really finding that right deductible rate balance and we will be spending you know the next 10 months or so working on that and getting those right sized what i will say is public schools experience the same thing that you're seeing on this chart
there is a deductible that is set per the district it's district wide so one occurrence hits three buildings they're only doing the one deductible and you'll see that they had a blended rate so one new building could be at the the 22 cents or an older building might be at six cents But at the end of the day, there was that blending of their overall rate that
Speaker 29
45:52
drove their premium for this upcoming year.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
46:00
Any other questions? And this is only for the athletic facilities. This does not have anything to do with the 2 million plus square feet of building space that the U of A has.
Speaker 168
46:12
That's on a different policy. That's on a different that's already
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
46:14
been reviewed and approved. Already reviewed and approved. um any other questions members all right
just bear with me for a second okay miss michelle tells me we need to move this as reviewed i need a motion motion thank you
senator hickey and i believe that was dismayed thank you and tosh all in favor any opposed all right
thank you all right let's look
Speaker 10
46:51
at the lead policy insurance so the lead policy this is the policy between uh that we have worked with stevens on developing and and the overseas market this is the policy between the skip the state captive insurance program and its participants and the entities um with that i will attempt to answer any questions
but if y'all really trick me up, I'm going to ask that we bring Stevens Insurance up to help. Let's go
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
47:18
ahead and do that. This is a huge policy, and I want to make sure everybody understands it or at least has a 30,000-foot view because there's quite a few moving parts on this. If you
Speaker 171
47:42
could introduce yourselves for the record. jr bizzle senior vice
Speaker 172
47:46
president stevens insurance joe ramsay vice president stevens insurance
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
47:48
thank you um representative brooks i believe you
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
48:02
have a question thank you madam chair over here jr uh so quick question and it may not be uh quick but relative to this new policy form what are any material changes to this policy form and the coverages versus what our entities schools and others have experienced with their multiple forms
in the past so what are there any things that we need to make sure that we advise them of that hey this has changed this is a significant
Speaker 177
48:38
difference so what are some of the details there from a high level we bought 1.5 billion in limits combined if you recall no single individual policy had more than 800 million combined so on an aggregate basis we have more limit to deploy some other items of note is we took what we would consider to be the best of all three policies and
merge them into one. So we would pick apart for both the AID-led APSIT and AMATE programs as well as ASBA. We attempted as best as we could to consolidate those into what we would consider a very bespoke, very specific, very broad form for the state skip program. And to be very honest, we're very pleased with the outcome. We've received very little pushback from the marketplace on that. We also made sure that coverages were also protective of the captive, meaning there are restrictive natures around appropriate valuations and certain factors that may have led to bad outcomes or an inability to hold accountable maintenance capex certain requirements that the market would do.
So what I would say is that while bespoke, we are also an insurance company and needed to put standard protocols in place to act as an insurance company. another highlight would be earth movement coverage 200 million of earthquake coverage that was not consistent across all programs and in fact we added certain locations primarily northeast arkansas that may not have bought earth movement because of the cost restrictive nature they are added to this earth movement so they went from not having earthquake coverage to having earthquake coverage so clearly a balance sheet benefit we receive a full 100 million flood
limit. We also were able to acquire $1 billion of terrorism coverage that was not in place prior to of aggregate limit, as well as $500 million of boiler and machinery coverage that is now consolidated into one effort. And reminder, boiler and machinery is, quite frankly, an admin exercise of you must get sign-off on boilers and machinery pieces at each location. It's about 12,200 pieces that have to be essentially signed off on for every single year for regulatory
purposes that is now consolidated into one single group that will be managing that and so I would say those are the highlights outside of really getting in the nitty-gritty of it all but I think one other item I would note we have 50 million of extra expense business interruption coverage combined that was not consistent across the three platforms and what that would be is in the event of a loss where business income or revenue was our income would be lost or there is a need to spend more dollars to say move a high school put temporary schooling up or other items in the event
of a loss we have 50 million dollars to deploy individual aggregate limit to
Speaker 178
51:39
do that as well that was not consistent on the three programs prior to the skip
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
51:50
placement representative brooks did you have follow-up i did just real quick sorry i hit my button are there any coverages that that have changed relative to things like deferred maintenance or cosmetic roof endorsements things like that that that's that schools particularly would need to be aware of as they plan uh kind of their strategy for for addressing any potential needs on their
campuses that that might impact a claim uh status joe
Speaker 181
52:17
rabsey yes there is some uh cosmetic uh roof damage limitation um in the policy um i'm not sure if that was consistent across the three prior policies um but but essentially uh that's a common um endorsement and insurance policy that you know just because your your roof's dinged up a little bit if it's still functional and working uh you don't get a a new roof uh where some people may have a um a roof claim
and and the roof claims can be uh you know significantly expensive i think uh you hear carriers talk about um you know 15 to 20 dollars a square foot to replace a roof so um you know getting out of cosmetic, you know, total roof
Speaker 172
53:05
replacements, you know, is common in the industry and should support the program. One thing I'd
Speaker 177
53:11
add to that is the intent of the exclusion, similar to an insurance carrier, is not to exclude eyeline items,
such as roofs that could be seen from the ground. If there's hail damage to a metal roof that you can visibly see, that is covered. What we're really attacking, and attacking is the wrong word, poor choice of words, What we're really trying to achieve with this is similar to an insurance company. The metal roof that is not visible, that is not structurally damaged, and will continue to function appropriately, a normal insurance company would not replace that roof. They would simply tell you, yes, it's not a line of sight, and it is functional.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
53:52
We are not replacing that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative, or Senator Dismaine. And so really questions on where this gets us to because we had I had some questions early in the week. I think some members did, too, from superintendents that were concerned from everything to where the payments were going to what to expect next. And, you know, as one example would be, I guess origami is going to be the processor or the administrator program. And then someone had decided that those payments were going to go to Tokyo.
So I think we were able to clear that up that, you know, maybe just a misunderstanding or a jump from the name. Anyway, so I think we got some of those things fixed. They were also waiting on some further information. And the way that I understood it was once this is approved here and then also by the full ALC, that's when they can get their full packets. You know, prior to they've kind of got a summary of what to expect of just major coverage limits, what the premiums look like and what their deductibles look like. Could you all elaborate a little bit just so they are aware of what to expect next?
Speaker 10
54:57
Thank you for asking that question, Senator. And I do want to assure all of you and anybody that is watching, the payment information that was included in the invoices is to the Treasurer of State of Arkansas's bank account. It is not to anywhere else. It is not fraud. We are not attempting to fraud anyone. We use the exact payment methods that they have been using and all state agencies use for generation after generation. It goes to the Treasurer of State's office, and we receive it just like everybody else.
It is not going to an offshore account. I have no desire nor any ability to touch these funds. So please understand there is absolutely no fraud in where these payments are being directed to. Now, as far as kind of the next steps in the process, yes, we had to get through what is legislative-required review and approvals. You all are reviewing kind of the largest next piece, which is this LEED policy.
As of the start of this meeting, there were two emails that were sent out to all participants. one a revised invoice that actually said the phrase invoice and a payment amount due that was an oversight on my part we corrected it we've sent it back out the second piece was a summary of values document which would give them kind of here are all the properties that are listed under your policy here were the insured values this is where we got your premium amount derived from
that email has those two emails have gone out this morning this packet will now be available for us to send out to all of the entities and start answering some of those direct questions around inland marine around boiler machinery around hail and wind and all of those kind of things we have talked about all of these things at the hundred thousand foot view now we're going to get into the nitty-gritty details of that all right and i thank you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
57:07
for that and also just if
you don't mind there's plenty of places on there that say if you have questions contact this or you know depending on what it may be and is that fair and everything's been sent out that is
Speaker 10
57:20
fair the email address for all those that are watching is opr at arkansas.gov feel free to email any questions concerns and we will address them as quickly as we possibly can i would give you the phone number but i don't remember it off the top of my head all
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
57:35
right perfect and then um no that'll work thank you um senator
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
57:46
petty you had a question yes thank you madam chair um just
big picture 30 000 foot level i from from my experience i think that the uh the coverages and the endorsements are are are broader than what i have seen in the market and and not i don't deal in public buildings but i do bill and deal in residential buildings uh how would you say just again in broad terms how it compares to what they're used to seeing in in coverages and and and limits uh and then i have one follow-up on terrorism after you answer that great question
Speaker 177
58:22
i think on the broadest form it's the aggregate limit is massive and and
the rate that was being charged is significantly lower than market. But the item that we've talked about on the three or four instances that I've been able to speak to you all, it's the per occurrence versus per building and the wind hail percentage deductibles. The state of Arkansas has been considered a tier one convective storm region now. This is new. You're going to start seeing that moving forward. What that simply means is most insurance carriers will put some form of percentage deductible on the value of a building our policy does not do that so in our policy you've got a
per occurrence set limit deductible which in most cases the maximum amount is is 250 000 outside of the athletics that is a million but most schools and participants are sub 250 000 for a single wind hail event how that would act in the public realm would be if they went out and were able to achieve a standalone policy they're going to have a percentage on a building so on a you know on a 10 million dollar building they may have anywhere from three to five percent of that value is their
deductible on that individual building in the event that you have multiple each building would have its own individual percentage deductible in our policy one occurrence one flat deductible that is the key to the whole puzzle and and quite frankly very difficult to achieve without the scale of
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
59:49
the skip program that's in place. Very good points. And I don't think
we can overstate that fact enough. One question, though, again, dealing, you commented on terrorism.
Can you connect for the average individual? You've got endorsement five, I think, five that excludes terrorism and war and how it really does have coverage in there for that. Yeah, great question so
Speaker 177
1:00:14
on the master policy which is a london lead they will exclude we requested them to exclude terrorism war because it is typically more efficient to go buy a standalone rap policy terrorism policy that has a broader language form and a broader coverage and so what we went out and
achieved was we bought a standalone one billion dollar limit terrorism policy that will coincide with all of the other property coverages so there is no gap in coverage i know it may appear that way when you read just the simple nature of the policy but in fact we intentionally removed it from the the master policy and got a more efficient limit and premium on the standalone policy all right uh representative springer thank you madam chair and good morning
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:01:04
I just have an example. I have a number of public schools that are within my district, and we're like in the tornado area as well. Say, for instance, if an elementary school like maybe Stevens, which is in my school district, was destroyed completely by tornado damage and it's valued at maybe $40,000 at this particular time, I mean $40 million, dollars will you pay the in order to replace the school it's going to cost maybe 75 million dollars
would you pay the replacement cost for that to replace the entire school is that what i'm hearing now
Speaker 10
1:01:43
right so that is a shift in this policy and thank you for asking because it's something that we need to highlight is that we're going to full replacement costs and not a targeted appraised value we're not saying we're going to ensure at for that particular example yes the the district may have said look for cost purposes we're only going to value that at 20 million when the real value is 40 million we we've gone away from that to where we're at full replacement costs of the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:02:10
insured value very good thank you very much just a quick follow-up on her question going to
full replacement cost means we also have to pay for full replacement cost so 250 000 deductible on a 10 million dollar building
how are we going to make all this math work thank you for asking that question
Speaker 10
1:02:30
and i think that's the challenge that we have over the next 10 months but i think we need to highlight the work that all of us have done to get this to this point to where there's not that
shock for entities in this first year of this program there's been a tremendous and targeted effort to hold rates and values to what they reported at the most recent quarter that we could work with and to hold those rates steady for 2025 2026 and it is the magic balancing act that we have to do and that you've got to understand if you want a lower deductible you're going to have to pay a higher premium if you want a lower premium you're going to have to
pay a higher deductible and that's just started some of the conversations that we need to have over the next 10 months as we kind of prepare for the the 26-27 coverage year is that we get this as right size as we possibly can and that we are not overburdening one side of the program unnecessarily we have a balancing act with overseas and domestic markets we've got a balancing act with state funds that are limited i mean we don't have a magic tree anywhere that can we can go to
and the fairness of the entities that are participating. Okay, thank you.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:03:49
One follow-up question with that. Do we have a fund for catastrophic events and where we're sure for that type of a tornado takes out multiple buildings on a campus? That's a big deal. We do.
Speaker 177
1:04:02
And one thing I would remind everybody, from the captive structure of the marketplace, the single total loss in a given year on a wind-hail event is capped on a single occurrence to $15 million for the state.
london and other domestic carriers would take on the remainder and then the state's total aggregate loss so if we had multiple events the maximum state loss is 50 million so that is the the pre-funding that the uh the legislator approved uh early on we do have a uh prepayment by the legislator approved so uh that aggregate limit has already been pre-funded in anticipation in addition to other uh premium dollars and other lost funds that have been affected so We are very confident and actually that was a per and night driven item the actuary that got to the
conclusion that we were funded appropriately for any catastrophic event and We have the appropriate limit and parameters in place to cover that loss just
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:04:59
one follow-up with that On that pre-funding that's not something that we can that is set aside and secure It's not something a previous the next legislature anybody can tap into for a special thing that is only for that catastrophic event absolutely
Speaker 168
1:05:13
and it's already it's already in its fund uh at the treasurer's office and
Speaker 21
1:05:18
and it's sitting there doing what it's supposed to do so no it can't be used for
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:05:23
any other purposes all right we have some more
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:05:31
questions in the queue representative brooks thank you madam chair promises to be my last one this is for you grant uh so just kind of
a check in we're six weeks into the captive so kind of how are we doing relative to um to questions that you're receiving uh and relative to claims that we've gotten in how many claims we've gotten in how many what's the the value of the losses that have been sustained thus far so we're just into
Speaker 16
1:05:53
this new thing so how are we looking all right so uh six weeks in
Speaker 10
1:06:01
i would give the director probably a C, but I would give our vendors an A plus. They have really stepped up and are really trying to support us and bring us along. Obviously, nobody's perfect, and we're still learning and growing and improving on the ways that we can build this thing and make it better each and every day. for the claim count the last that report that i'd saw we were at 12 claims i will say uh we were
very blessed with our very first claim at 2 30 a.m on july the first i uh asked them about that a lot but then fortunately for me they had video evidence of the exact time in which the flood occurred Was that Conway? Yes, it was. I wasn't going to name names, but since you did, yeah. I have also gone in and said we are no longer allowed to speak things to existence, so I will avoid using the words flood and fire in this presentation.
But, no, I think we are right where we need to be. I mean, we have done our dead-level best to get invoices out as fast as we possibly could. we have uploaded and built our operating systems as fast as we possibly could with full production of our origami system that has been discussed is scheduled to be in november stevens is doing a tremendous job helping us kind of navigate getting everything in the right place you've had sedgwick
who is kind of coming in and getting on the ground as quickly as possible when claimed or called in we've got that smooth and and from my perspective i think we're we're where we would expect a six week old captive insurance to be do we have an estimate on what the the value of those 12
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:07:51
losses are roughly eight and a half million thank you madam chair senator dismay and this one last thing and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:08:03
this is on just making sure everybody's aware what's going on because the other thing that i
found out is it's not being effectively communicated to school board members that this is even happening um that there has been a shift uh I kind of affirmed that a couple of different times over the last week so they are unaware in fact I had one school board member tell me we really need to set up a state captive um and man I'm not he just but it was not being made aware of maybe from the superintendent level what's happening or maybe there's not a if there it is possible If we could work with the school board association to get those school board members the same information that we're sending to superintendents
I mean at the end of the day, they're the decision-maker anyway I think that would probably
be helpful so that they are Brought into the loop if they've not been brought in the loop
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
1:08:59
otherwise. Okay, thank you Representative Grader Thank you madam chair, I want to thank all of you for the work that you've put in to make this successful I know this wasn't an easy task, and we have several questions, but I do have a question from my district. We had a flood issue this past year.
We had several buildings that were underinsured and also the equipment inside of those buildings. My question is, does this cover all of that, and do we have anything in place if it doesn't? um so i
Speaker 10
1:09:34
about right sizing and going to total insured value um and looking at all of this that's exactly what we're talking to um and your experience is why it's beneficial for the state captive is yes there were some districts in order to contain costs and we
all know it's expensive we all understand that um did make some decisions that did lead to some under insuring situations this being able to leverage all of the resources from higher ed from state agencies from k-12 leverage all of those together under one plan gives us the ability to come in and right size that coverage and make sure that we've got appropriate coverages when damages occur thank you members any other questions
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:10:22
i would encourage you to ask as many
questions as possible we're charting into new territory and so questions
are are good we don't want to get to the other end of this in two or three years and find out we didn't ask the right question nobody's offended by questions so don't be shy um and that includes you representative brooks so just get right back in there if you have a question i i have pages of questions that i'm i'm working on trying to figure out myself so don't don't be shy um we've gotten a few texts from different folks that are watching that want to make sure they have a seat
at the table that want to be following this process and the University of Arkansas has made that request so we have a lot of eyes on us but we also don't be shy of asking questions please I understand now that we need to have this is reviewed for for now we need a motion remember we're coming back every month and following up so don't
don't think this is the end of it so any of motion motion second all in favor any opposed all right one last thing we need
an update on optimum and Navitus lawsuits mr. Wallace
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:11:42
following up my senator Petty has a question first before we even
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
1:11:48
begin Well, it was more of a statement since I think it was my question that maybe triggered this. And just in broad brush strokes, we realize that we usually don't go into a lot of discussion and detail on existing ongoing litigation.
And so I don't want my question to think that that's what I'm after here because that obviously puts the state at a bad situation there. Um, and so I just wanted to clarify that, that, you know, the question that I asked at the previous meeting, uh, we understand if, if, if the answer to the question or the update is we still have litigation going then, and that's all you can do. That's fine. That's fine. I would like at some point maybe we could consider, and I don't even know if this is legal or not, maybe in our contracts have a provision that says if unrelated to the contract litigation is instigated against the state, then maybe we have an out or a provision in the contract to terminate or something.
But that's that's just a statement of question. So with that, I just wanted to kind of set the tone or clarify what the
Speaker 10
1:13:03
question was from last month. And thank you for that, Senator. I am not a party to this lawsuit. Quite frankly, I do not want to be a party in this lawsuit. I don't have any information other than newspaper articles that everyone else has been able to read. and this is for information only
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:13:21
we will not taking a vote on this but this does need to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:13:25
be something we keep a close tab on senator boyd you had a question can you thank you thank you madam chair so so just to clarify uh i understand you don't have a lot of information and i don't know that we need a lot of information because we can all read the newspapers and watch the court proceedings. But to your knowledge, there's five lawsuits where pharmacy benefit managers are suing the state of Arkansas. Does that sound like it might be correct?
It sounds like it's correct. Okay. And so a couple of those OptumRx and Novotis, not EBD, but formerly EBD, your department, has contracts with those PBMs to provide services for the state of Arkansas? Our
Speaker 16
1:14:14
Optum contract is for the health savings.
Speaker 29
1:14:16
It's not pharmacy, and Navitus is our pharmacy benefit manager. I'm sorry.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:14:22
Let me clarify. We have a contract with UnitedHealthcare. UnitedHealthcare, yes.
Which Navitus is owned. I mean, OptumRx is owned by. So, again, we do have a contract with.
Speaker 9
1:14:35
Right. UnitedHealthcare is our Medicare Advantage PPO plan.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:14:39
And so these might not be in your area, but to your knowledge, CVS, we have a contract, they're used in our home, and then ESI or Express Scripts, Care Source, Pass, and then also Navitas is suing the state in a separate lawsuit regarding their affiliate, Lumisera.
Is that correct, as far as
Speaker 10
1:15:04
you know? I don't know about the Lumisera one. Okay. If that one's happened,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:15:10
I'd miss that one. Okay, well, I think it is, but regardless. So will you get back to us on the ability to
Speaker 163
1:15:20
change the contract like Senator Petty said so that we can look at that
Speaker 43
1:15:29
will talk with my colleagues at SAS and get some sort of answer regarding that.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:15:36
I mean, you personally, if you were sued by somebody you're doing business with, I mean, would you want to just continue business
Speaker 43
1:15:44
on status quo? It would probably depend upon the circumstances. I would not want
Speaker 182
1:15:50
to jump to personal. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Wallace.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:15:55
Well, if somebody's suing the state of Arkansas that we're doing
business with, I'm kind of offended by that too, Senator Boyd. So any other questions while Mr. Wallace is there?
Okay. All right. We'll see you at the next meeting. Any other questions or comments for the good of the body? All right. We'll see you all next time. Thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Review and Approval of Actions Approved by the State Board of Finance
C. Update on the Optum and Navitus Lawsuits
D. Other Business
E. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 16
Speaker 29
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 22
Speaker 61
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 74
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 82
Speaker 96
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Speaker 99
Speaker 24
Speaker 21
Speaker 107
Speaker 119
Speaker 52
Speaker 129
Speaker 132
Speaker 85
Speaker 40
Speaker 25
Speaker 143
Speaker 145
Speaker 151
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
Speaker 155
Speaker 163
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 168
Speaker 171
Speaker 172
Speaker 177
Speaker 178
Speaker 181
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
Speaker 133
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 43
Speaker 182