Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee - Senate and House
Video
Transcript
9 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
OK, if everybody can take your seats. gaveling in, thank y'all so much. Uh, welcome. We're excited to have public health kick off, um, excited for everybody to be here. I'm excited to have Representative Ward Laws, my co-chair. Do you have any comments? No? OK. We're rolling. Um, OK, I will need a motion
to uh to authorize our, the approval of special expenses incurred by the committees. Do I have a motion?
Uh, and second, thank you. All those in favor say aye and opposed, I have it, motion passes. Uh, item C, uh, we need a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting, motion 2. All those in favor say aye and opposed, I have it. Thank you. Moving to item D. If you can
come to the table, item D. Oh,
sorry, that one's pulled. Um, E. Department of Human Services, DHS?
Uh, Mr. uh, Representative Wardlaw. So on
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
8:01
now rule 2. Make comment for the department, uh, for purposes, but I don't expect that to go to
council next week as well. So being pulled means it's put off to June for council and public health. Thank you.
Question? Just one second, let me wake up our thing. OK, you're recognized. Uh,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
8:36
so we're passing over this until the next meeting is that what I understood? Yes. Uh, well, You know, this is 300 and some odd pages. And it's very detailed. Is does this just cover one rule or they put a bunch of stuff together here because it would be much better if these were
split out to where we really had time
to study them. Well, part of the reason for the delay is number one, that, um, and then I would
recommend members also meeting directly with the department as well, and Representative Wardlaw. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other
questions about us pulling that rule, OK, so you'll have time. Dig into it, read it, meet with
the department, make phone calls to them. I What we, what we're discussing is that we probably will have a meeting just for this rule in June, separately from the other meeting. So we may have 2 meetings in June. And, and depending on scheduling, if we have to kick this to July, then we're going to have to kick it to July. I mean, we may have to. I don't know. We can check
because I'm saying that, but scheduling is gonna be really, really tough. I know for me in June. So, um, we'll just, just play it by ear. But in the meantime, it is delayed and. pound to to either June or July. Uh, OK, E. If you'll just state your names for the record, you're recognized. We're this I'm Neil Smith.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
10:17
uh, I'm a deputy director for the division of Medical Services at DHS. Brad Hayes, chief deputy counsel DHS.
So my understanding we're skipping over the Medicaid administrative. Reconsideration and appeals. Or do you want to present it? Um, are we You
Speaker 28
10:42
can present it. Um, so this is a provider manual change that does two things. Uh, it extends the time that Medicaid beneficiaries can appeal on, uh, uh, an adverse action from 10 days to 35 days.
Um, if a beneficiary files an appeal, this is the 2nd thing, if a beneficiary files an appeal, it allows for the continuation of services until a decision has been made. This does not apply to adverse eligibility decisions for individuals who are. not enrolled in Medicaid, only enrolled Medicaid beneficiaries with an adverse action such as, uh, losing eligibility or decrease in services. Uh, this change is needed to comply with federal regulations that
prohibit us from terminating or reducing services if the, the beneficiary files an appeal before the adverse action date and we're required to continue services until a hearing decision is made. The fiscal impact is, uh, $40.7 million. dollars, uh, 6 of which is state funding. Uh, we'll be happy to take any questions. Um, are there
and they're in the past, did they appeal to the past or do they appeal directly to DHS.
Speaker 26
12:01
That appeal process for past members is separate from this process. They would appeal directly
to the past. OK. Are there any additional questions on this rule? See none without objection, this rule is reviewed. Adam F.
Speaker 28
12:21
Um, so this is a provider manual change that introduces the use of a new form to help identify clients in hospice upon entry into hospice. It allows us to ensure that
certain codes that are included in the hospice rate are not billed separately. Um, there are certain codes that, um, are, are separate and, and, um, these are included in the hospice rate. We want to know as soon as the person, uh, enters hospice that they've entered hospice. And that the provider can't build those,
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
12:51
uh, charges separately. This has no fiscal impact. All right, are there any questions
from the members of the committee on this rule? See
none. Thank you. This rule is reviewed and approved. Um,
Speaker 28
13:08
this is a state plan amendment, uh, that our federal regulators CMS require. Um, we're attesting to the fact that we're complying with the annual requirements of the Medicaid corset. Uh, you may know the core set is a series of performance measures to identify the percentage of beneficiaries receiving recommended services, um, for 2024, CMS required states to report, uh, some
measures. The, uh, these, some of them had been, um, these had been previously voluntary. Uh, for the states to report. Um, we've been reporting most measures voluntarily but needed to add several that we had not previously reported. There's a fiscal impact of 60, about $64,000 for the additional work to calculate those measures, uh, the state impact is 32,000, about 32,000. OK. Are there any questions from members of the committee on this rule?
Wait, CNN, this rule is reviewed and approved, reviewed. So the next rule provides new rates for specialized formula and associated supplies needed for individuals who are tube fed. Um, this, uh, um, these, uh, we've had problems with, um, a, a lack of providers, um, providing these, the specialized formula and the, and the materials, uh, which have resulted in children with uh being hospitalized for
insufficient nutrition. Um, we needed to, uh, increase the rates, uh, review the rates in light of the shortage of of providers, um, and the increased cost to produce the formula. Um, the rate that we've selected, um, is the lesser of the Medicare rate, or 80% of the Blue Cross Blue Shield rates in most cases, the rate that we've been, that we've set was based on the Blue Cross rate. Um, we are also adding two new codes for a bolus syringe and a and a
gravity bags. These had been part of another, um, kit, another code we've carved these out and are allowing, uh, providers. to build those separately. Overall, it's a, there were increases, um, in the rates. There were some decreases and some increases, but overall it's a 22% increase in expected, total expected spend, um, or $1.9 million and about 555,000 of that that is state funds.
OK, is this primarily inpatient or is this inpatient and outpatient? It's inpatient and outpatient. OK. All right. Any questions from members of the committee, Representative Bentley, you're recognized for question. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for being here today.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
15:50
um I appreciate something we definitely need to do. Are we
looking at anything else that sometimes there are other hurdles with this like prior authorization, those kind of things that we looked at what the hurdles might be, uh. Causing the lack of providers to be able to provide this formally to us if we looked at anything else besides this, which I'm glad that we're doing the right,
but sometimes our our things like prior authorization, is that, uh, been a hurdle? Do you know of any of the hurdles that we've got for providers here in the state for this formula. I don't know
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
16:19
that we have looked at other, uh, other items we've spent the majority of the of our focus on the rates because that was the one, that was the area that, um, was most in need. But it's I request
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
16:31
that you guys look at that first? and safe prior authorization is a hurdle, uh, for these things as well because really, you know, for these small population in our state is this form was
extremely important for them to keep their, and if we can keep them healthy, then we'll keep them, you know, we'll save ourselves money in the long run if we can get this formula available to them so we can look at some other things that might be hurdles. I would appreciate that, and it'll help
us, I think in the long run. So, thank you. We do. Thank you. Are there any additional questions? Great. Seeing none, uh, item
Speaker 28
17:04
will stand. All right. The, the last, um, rule is we are, uh, adding, um, to our provider manual to urgent care
visits per year for clients with an assigned primary care provider, um, uh, they are currently, um, required to have a PCP referral for those urgent care visits. Uh, this will allow them to have 2 urgent care visits, uh, per year, um, without having to have a PCP referral, um, uh, the other is, um, we're allowing beneficiaries that, that do not have an assigned PCP to have 4 urgent care visits before a PCP is, uh, referral is
required. Um, this aligns with the allowable visits, um, that a beneficiary can have for hospital affiliated walk-in clinics, um, and the increased number of urgent visits, um, from the, from, uh, 2, which is, are
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
17:56
those with a PCP versus 4 without a PCP is to allow the, uh, individuals to get a PCP assignment. allows them time to get a PCP assignment. Um, and this policy change allows beneficiaries to access urgent care rather than the emergency room, uh, when they
have medical needs outside regular business hours. And this rules generated just through in in-house policy change or not from
legislation. That's right. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Um, I, I've got issues
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
18:28
with this rule change, um, because what we've understood for a long time is the primary care provider is essentially the quarterback of care. And what worries me is that essentially we're allowing people who choose not to have a primary care provider continue to choose not to have a primary
care provider and we're not essentially getting them in. that larger system of having someone control their or, you know, not controlled, but uh to help better manage their care. I mean that, it seems like this flies in the face of I think what the legislature has been doing the last, you know, decade, trying to get more people to have an assigned PCP who is someone who can actually be the quarterback of their care. So, um, can you kind of address those issues? Cause I think I do not like this rule, and I don't think we should review it and approve it. And so maybe make me feel better about this because I think this goes
against what we as a legislature. Trying to do for a long time, which is getting these beneficiaries to
actually have a primary care provider. Um, we, we agree, we want to preserve the, the bond between a, a patient and their PCP, um, we, that's why we still require a PCP referral. We, we don't want to shift care onto urgent care clinics. Um, what we're trying to, um, uh, do is to preserve that while we preserve that relationship. Um, we recognize that.
if someone is needing care outside of, uh, business hours, um, they're, they're being sent to the, to the ER. We don't want them to be going to the ER. We want them to be able to access uh, an urgent care clinic. Um, it's a fine balance. I, I, I, I give you that, but we, I can assure you our, our PCCM, uh, uh, program manager is very sensitive to disrupting that relationship, and that is not our intent at all. It is to, it is to make sure that we're not, um, sending someone who could be. treated in an urgent care
outside of business hours, uh, rather than an ER. So But
to follow up on that, I mean, they can access an urgent care currently. Uh, there's nothing that like would prevent them from accidents just the referral and getting paid is, is the issue. Uh, but I mean, wouldn't this be an incentive for them to To make sure that they're getting a primary care provider if they realize that they're not getting paid. I mean, there's, and plus a lot of these urgent cares are not open during those hours, uh, you know, 11 o'clock at night when those people are
accessing that ER. So, I mean, I don't see how that really solves the problem because I think people are a lot of times accessing these urgent cares when they can. It's just an issue getting paid and I always thought the idea of doing it the way we currently do it is thus creates an incentive for them to get that primary care provider so they're not in that situation where they're, you know, having to wait or, uh, you know, things like that. that. So can
you, I mean, are we not de-incentivizing people to get a primary care provider with this
rule. I don't think we're de-incentivizing it. We're still requiring it if they need to see a specialist, um, Janet's coming
as well, uh, uh, we're not de-emphasizing it. I, I think we're just trying to allow for, um, uh, people to be able to see a, a medical professional that's not in the ER outside of normal business hours. They, they still have, if they go to a specialist, they are. They still are going to be told you need to have a PCP before, uh, before you can see this specialist. So they're, they're plenty of other, you have to get a referral from a, from a PCP, uh, um, to see a specialist, so. No,
I work in healthcare, um, but I just, I, I once again, I, I don't think you're really addressing
Speaker 56
22:01
my concern about de-incentivizing. Good morning, Janet
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
22:03
May, um, DHS. I, I'll try to follow up and address your concerns. Currently, urgent care clinics are not an active provider type with Medicaid. Um, they can be if they're connected to a hospital. So here we are trying to open up the access and move away from the ER when it's non-emergent care. That is the goal of, of doing this, working
with some of the, um, providers that we, um, worked with to develop this rule. I understand your con your concern. We don't want, um, them to not have a PCP and not have that regular ongoing care, but yet we're hearing about hospitals having concerns about overflow in their emergency rooms with non-emergent care hospitals? Is it the one that just recently bought a large group of urgent care clinics. It,
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
22:48
it could be, I don't really know what you're referring to,
Speaker 31
22:55
so I'm not, I'm, um, that would be an interesting conversation offline, but no,
um. It could. OK, thank you for. Representative Johnson, you're
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
23:09
recognized for questions. Hey, thank you. Good morning. I'm over here, yes.
Uh, so it says in here that you uh have a hospital affiliated walk-in or emergent clinic visits. So it says, uh, a lot of total for urgent care hospital affiliated walk-in or emergent clinic visits. What, how's that, what what is it, how are you defining
emergency clinic visit versus hospital affiliated walk-in versus urgent care.
Speaker 28
23:34
Those are already those two are already in
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
23:37
the policy. Um, I'd have to get with our team to figure out, you know, what, how they're defining those currently, um, the, the policy about the 4 visits just adds the, the urgent care clinic, uh, as it would
Speaker 65
23:47
a walk-in clinic the way it reads. I mean, that's not
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
23:51
the way the summary reads. It's allowed a total of 4 urgent care hospital affiliated walk-in or emergent clinic visits or accommodation thereof.
for PCP referrals required. I, I mean, I'm, I'm, I have a little different take. I am supportive of this idea. I just wanna make sure I understand from the perspective of a hospital-based clinic or a hos or an emergency clinic. How, how are you defining those? Because for a lot of places in Arkansas, there are just like we talk about healthcare deserts, uh, there are urgent care deserts. There are a lot of places in Arkansas where there are no urgent cares. And if you're in rural Arkansas, you have access to an emergency department 24/7 in that small town, you. don't have access to an urgent care. And so like I'm
sympathetic with the people that show up in the emergency room at times for what would be perceived non-emergent visits because what are you gonna do if you're a single mother who works 40 hours a week, and your kid's sick at 6 o'clock in the evening and you're in rural Arkansas and the only thing that's open is the emergency department, and you're not, you're an hour's drive from the nearest urgent care. So I don't think it's inappropriate necessarily for those people in those situations to come to those hospitals. Those are hospitals. where a lot of time the emergency department volume in a
day might be 2 visits or less than a 24 hour period. So you're paying a physician most of the time in these situations to be on call for 24 hours and maybe see 15 to 20 people in their whole 24 hour shift. So you're not overburdening that provider by having someone show up with a relatively non-emergent situation to have them see to see that person. I just want to make sure the hospitals are getting paid for that and the providers are getting paid, right? So if they're showing up and we at 10 o'clock at night in a rural hospital in Arkansas are
required to get a PCP referral before we see that person and that PCP, even though they're supposed to be on call, you can't get hold of them, you can't get hold of their office, you can't get a referral. What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to not, so I guess I'm just asking, does this include that situation? Are we accounting for this situation where we have people in rural Arkansas that can't get access to urgent care, their only option is to go to their local hospital if they want to see someone after hours on the weekend, we ought to create a mechanism to pay for that, if we're not.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
26:05
Yes, sir. um, we agree. And so I think that's why it has hospital affiliated walk-in or emergent care clinics, so. We want them to be able to be seen as closest to their home as possible, and some of that is going to be an emergency room for a non-emergent care that we're trying to also provide if, if the emergency room is overflowing, there's a way to go to an urgent care for a non-emergent visit. I understand. That's why I'm
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
26:28
asking the specific question first, how are we defining emergent clinic. Is that an emergency department visit? If it's not, maybe it should be.
Speaker 27
26:37
Yeah, let, let us get back to you on, on that. I think we need to because I
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
26:42
think that's an important point. I mean, if the intent is to try to, you know, provide extra access for care, uh, because we're recognizing that it's difficult to get care after hours on the weekends, if the only option for some of these people in their community is their hospital and there's not an urgent care available, they ought to be able to get 4 free passes at the ED just like they're getting 4 free passes at the urgent care, if that's what we're expanding it to. I just want to make sure that the definition includes that. I'm gonna, um.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
27:09
and that is our intent. Our, so let us,
let us clarify. I'm gonna bust in here for a second. Uh, Representative, I know this is more of a health services issue, um, but. Aaron Pilkington, you're chair of the
Human Services Subcommittee for an hour ass on our senators as well to this, but I'm gonna send without objection, I'm gonna send this rule to the Human Services subcommittee. Uh, you're the chair of that and it's probably
more of a health services issue, but, um, But I,
I can choose to send it where I want. So I'm going to kick this rule to that subcommittee. And, um, we'll continue
to ask questions about it and I'll continue to recognize, but I think,
I think we need to have a little bit more in-depth discussion about
this. Um So without objection, I'm going to send this rule to the Human
Services Subcommittee, and just one second, um, and I'm gonna read to you the Senate members, Fred Love, you're going to be the chair of that subcommittee, um, Senator Penzo will serve on that, send her Flippo and Senator Hill. You'll be on Human Services, on health, uh health services subcommittee, um, uh, Senator Payton, you'll share that with I mean, Senator Leding and Senator Love and Senator Penzo and labor and environment subcommittee will be Senator
Hill, uh, Senator Leding, Senator Flippo and Senator Payton. So,
um, We're going to go ahead and move this rule to that subcommittee, y'all can figure out a time to meet and really go through this a little bit more in depth, um, but I will continue to, uh,
That folks ask questions, and I'm sorry to interrupt, but you have still have the floor, uh, Representative Johnson I inadvertently created a new
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
29:06
meeting for myself, I withdrawn my question. Uh, I said if I inadvertently
created a new meeting for myself, I will withdraw my questions. Uh, no, I have no further questions. I mainly just want to make that point and
make sure we're clarifying what that means because I think it's important to recognize that there are subsets in our community where the only healthcare Acts accessible is the emergency department and, and that's OK. Like I, I, I mean, I wish it wasn't that way, but if that's the way it is in a rural area and this is the only place, I would rather them come to the emergency department to be seen, then set at home and not be seen, so. Yes, sir. We're happy to, to work with y'all on that because our intent
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
29:47
was to open some access and then try to preserve and make sure they get that PCP referral and have that relationship. So we can work through those definitions and
the operations, OK, uh, I mean, I'm sorry, let's see, Senator Love and Senator Payton. Thank
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
30:05
you, Madam Chair. I, I just hold my question since we're, we're taking it to that sub-community, I would just ask the DHS be prepared for any definitions and also, uh, to
ensure because Senator Johnson asked an interesting question in regards to the ER versus the urgent care. Uh, uh, and I have very uh very different meaning of what he is saying, so I think we really need to be prepared to discuss that and in depth so that all the members would understand exactly what we're trying to do because I thought we were just trying to open up the access here versus, you know, try to decipher is it urgent care and are we, I mean, is it emergency
care and what we're trying to, we're trying to steer away from the emergency room, which is the most expensive care. And I'm just, uh, so please be prepared to discuss that. OK. Yes, sir. We'd be
happy to be prepared for that, Senator Payton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I guess I won't
Senator John Payton
Unverified
31:05
be in the subcommittee, so I'll go ahead and ask my question, but it's a real simple one. I mean, I'm not in the medical profession, but I am a patient and, uh, I mean, I would assume that at the urgent care facilities we're talking
about. There are licensed physicians and advanced practice registered nurses and so I'm. I mean, I understand we want to force a relationship maybe according to Representative Pilkington with a primary care physician. But These this referral process can really slow down medical care, and that can have adverse effects. I currently have an employee that is suffering greatly at home, waiting 2 weeks
to see a urologist and has already visited the emergency room twice. Because he can't get in. I mean that's the referral process is from a patient's view. And, uh, I mean, I think we should be Evaluating whether or not the urgent care clinic. Is capable of diagnosing and treating more than we worry about how the, how the patient got there and whether they were referred or not, but anyway y'all take care of it in the
subcommittee and we'll see what comes
back. Representative Rose to recognize her question.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
32:27
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for attending today's meeting and for, uh, bringing this before us, uh, along the same uh thought process that Representative Johnson brought up just in the definitions of the, whether, you know, how are we incorporating or are we incorporating emergent care as opposed to just urgent care. I see that there's no fiscal impact. Which I was just curious how we
got there, but I'll save that for a subcommittee meeting. Uh, what I would like is, as you before that takes place, as you set your definitions or as you clarify your definitions, I would think that you'd need to re-evaluate, um, that fiscal impact because if this does involve emergent care, uh, we'd need to see if there was any cost associated there if it doesn't, then maybe you don't have to, but I would think you need to take that in consideration. of the definition isn't clear.
Uh, I guess more of a statement, but wouldn't you agree, or would you be able to, to, uh, accommodate that for that next
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
33:29
time we get together on this. Um, yes, sir, we can review the fiscal impact. I think part of our reasoning when we were preparing the rule is we were trying to open access. Therefore, there would be no fiscal impact because it would be the same beneficiaries, potentially going to an urgent care versus, um, an emergency room with our, with our goal, but we will go back and look at it again. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The, the other thing I would say on this is that making sure you're clearly defining urgent
care versus Time of day. There's a lot of primary care physicians that are open, that have clinics that are incentivized to provide same day appointments, we've done all of that, so. We just need to make sure that we're not just, you know, I, I, I, I guess. I, I, I again, I, I think we've
got to make sure we're, we're being real clear about what has been brought up, but I also know that we have dealt with patients. It's not fair for primary care physicians who deal with these patients that are the lowest paid and generally very, very difficult patients to deal with, not to be skipped out on. Just because it's not convenient for the patient because, well, it's a pretty day and I took off work and to have a doctor's
appointment, but it's a really pretty day and so instead, I'm gonna go shop, go hang out with my friends or whatever. That happens and I don't want these primary care physicians who are doing their due diligence, taking care of our Medicaid patients at a very low pay. To be, to have their legs cut out from underneath them. I mean, I'm just gonna be really frank with you about that. So, um, and particularly for rural parts of the state of Arkansas, you know, I am fine with us
paying for access to care, where it's appropriate and where it's already infrastructure is in place. I mean, to their points. So, I, I just for that purpose, I think, just really looking at that is really, really important because understanding. these patients and how they treat our primary care physicians sometimes is not appropriate. And our primary care physicians and providers need to be treated well by our state and our program, because many times and oftentimes, our
clients sometimes are not the best patients, and they don't treat them very well, and they're not respectful of those primary care physicians and their times and their clinics and their practices and trying to make. Ends meet and pay overhead. So, keep that all in mind, I think as you're having that discussion, um, and I, I appreciate that. I have one last question on any of the federally mandated type changes or, or changes that we've made in any
of these rules where we did have large fiscal impact. Was that all accounted for in our budget, particularly rural, um, F, which was pretty substantial. Are all those that was that fiscal impact already kind of planned for, so to speak, in our budget. I think 6 million was state share of that, but it's about a $40 million fiscal impact. Is that correct? But we're, we're all, we're
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
36:59
budgeted for all that, correct? Yes, ma'am. We, we are, we did take those into account because the rules have been in um preparation for several months. OK,
OK. I just wanted to make sure one sprung on
us at the last minute and, you know. I understand. Perfect. OK, thank you. All right, we're gonna move on, uh, I'm sorry, Representative Ladyman, you had a question. Thank you, ma'am chair.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
37:21
And, uh, this is more of a comment than question, but something that I think you need to consider, uh, what Senator Urban's talking about and also Representative Johnson.
Uh, you know, Lee talked about the rule, the impact on rural areas, and he's absolutely 100% right about that. But say you live in a in a city. Is this gonna open the door because as, as some of us know, you know, people will use the emergency room as a PCP For convenience. So is this gonna open the door where they're gonna use their 4. Just for convenience before they go get a PCB, I mean, is that gonna add two people going to the emergency room in these cities were.
You know, in Jonesboro, we have two big hospitals so they could go there and use that emergency room as a PCP. So I think that's something you need to just consider if you open the door too wide, You know, people are gonna go in that don't need to go in. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Yes, sir, I
Speaker 56
38:21
do. I, I, go ahead. I was just gonna say yes, sir. Well, I know
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
38:26
that's difficult to address, but just as a thought process. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other questions on this? OK, again,
without objection, we're going to send. This rule to the human services subcommittee at, um, I'll read the members again from the Senate, uh, Senator Wallace and myself are ex officio members of all the subcommittees, um, OK, we'll move on to item J. And I'll say as, as Adam Jay folks are coming up. We just
need to make sure that you have this meeting so that we can get for the next, um, So that we could try to plan for this to be at June ALC if possible.
Speaker 72
39:16
OK. Perfect. Thank you. Got it. Perfect. Hello, Mr. Hill.
Just see if you'll state your name for the record, you're recognized. Good morning, Madam Chair. Jay Hill, Department of Human Services with Division of Aging and Adult Services.
Speaker 90
39:38
This morning presenting to you a uh rule change. Uh, the agency operates 2 maltreatment registries, a children's registry and an adult registry, uh, a few, about 1.5, 2 years ago, we made a we created a process on the adult registry side by which a person may request their name to be removed from the registry, which mirrors the process that we have on the children's registry side. In doing that, we omitted to include, uh, one caveat, which is what I'm presenting to you here this morning when a person
who qualifies to have their name removed from registry makes that application presently that request is reviewed by a panel of persons that work strictly for Department of Human Services. The adult registry has a pathway by which you can have your name placed on that registry by two entities outside of DHS well one within DHS but operates independent. in certain circumstances from my division, that's the Office of Long Term Care and then also the Attorney General's office. And so the rule that I'm presenting
to you this morning would uh would make the change to allow that when that panel reviews requests for removal from the registry and that request originates with either the Office of Long Term Care or the Attorney General's office that a representative from that originating entity would also be included in the review process. Sounds that Madam Chair, happy to take questions. Sounds like common sense to me. Any questions? All right, see none. Thank you.
This item stands reviewed. Thank you, ma'am. OK, um, other business Representative Bentley. Can you get us a report for the month of May? Hold on. Representative, you recognize thank
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
41:29
you so much, Chairman. Again, thank you for, uh, starting the month of May as we've done the begin our month of May, which is Women's Health Month, so we all know how important it is for us to improve the health of women across our state and in doing so
we have so many eyes. Many on this committee know, but very few out of our constituents know how many opportunities and how many folks we have out there to help them improve their health. So we've, uh, launched a month of May here in the Capitol steps. Just let people know what we have available here across the state with the health department and all the other agencies we have and with our um healthy moms, healthy baby bill, just so much to celebrate that day was a great turnout. So thank you for that and uh. This is an awesome. I think we're gonna grow it every year, so hopefully, each year we can add more and more participation out there. So, thank you. Thank you. It was a great event
on May 1st, month of May, stands for mom. So it's Women's Health Month. So as y'all are out and about promoting that would be great. Um, encouraging people to go to their county health units for any type of checkup, prenatals, get your mammogram scheduled, whatever. Um, OK, any other reports? Any other business to come before the committee. All right, let me read the subcommittees one more time. Senator Wallace
and Senator Irvin will be ex officios of the subcommittees for the Senate. Again,
Human Services subcommittee is going to be chaired by Senator Fred Love, Senator Penzo, Senator Flippo, and Senator Hill, Health Services will be chaired by, uh, Senator Payton, Senator Leding, Senator Love, and Senator Penzo, uh, and then labor. environment will be chaired by Senator Hill, Senator Leding, Senator Flippo, and Senator Payton. And well this uh Miss Steele is
back with us. We're grateful. She's had her had a baby girl. Congratulations. Baby girl So she wasn't with us during the session, but she's been home taking care of this baby girl, we're so happy and proud for you. But we're glad to have you back too, but your folks in the meantime did a fabulous job for us. So any other comments? Nothing. All right, guys, well. Buckle up. Here we go. Thanks for coming today. We're adjourned.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Consideration of a Motion to Authorize Chairs to Approve Special Expenses Incurred by the Committees
C. Consideration to Approve the December 13, 2024, Meeting Minutes [Exhibit C]
D. Department of Energy & Environment (E&E), Division of Environmental Quality, Review of Rule, Rule No. 2, Rule Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas [Exhibit D]
E. Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Medical Services, Review of Rule, Medicaid Administrative Reconsiderations and Appeals [Exhibit E]
F. DHS, Division of Medical Services, Review of Rule, Hospice Provider Manual Updates [Exhibit F]
G. DHS, Division of Medical Services, Review of Rule, Core Set Reporting Requirements [Exhibit G]
H. DHS, Division of Medical Services, Review of Rule, Specialized Formula and Associated Supplies Rate Change [Exhibit H]
I. DHS, Division of Medical Services, Review of Rule, Urgent Care Clinics [Exhibit I]
J. DHS, Division of Aging, Adult & Behavioral Services, Review of Rule, Policy and Procedure for Name Removal from Arkansas Adult Maltreatment Registry [Exhibit J]
K. Other Business
L. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Senator Missy Irvin Chair
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 27
Speaker 26
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Speaker 56
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 31
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 65
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 90