Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (59)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1982
· 5 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF NATURAL MEDICINE. HB1982 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABIL…”
|
TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; TO CREATE THE TIRE MANAGEMENT AND … | Wooldridge | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1270
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1270 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH A PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC EXTENDED CAR…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC EXTENDED CARE PILOT PROGRAM THROUGH A SECTION 1115 MEDICAID DEMONSTRATION … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1332
· 4 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…committee. Representative Pilkington, are you ready to run House Bill 1332? All right, we'll pass out the amendment of staff. We'll ge…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EVALUATE CLAIMS FOR DIAGNOSES FREQUENCY OF OBESITY-RELATED CONDITIONS … | Pilkington | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB9
Act 622
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB9 B. Davis TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT MANUFACTURING, SELLING, DELIVERING, DISTRIBUTING, … | B. Davis | Notification that SB9 is now Act 622 |
|
HB1468
Act 558
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…yne Long CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1468 Cozart TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS. | Cozart | Notification that HB1468 is now Act 558 |
|
HB1008
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HEALTHCARE PROVIDER. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1008 A. Collins TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTH…”
|
TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1010
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1010 A. Collins TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS ME…”
|
TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1011
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1011 A. Collins TO CREATE THE RESTORE ROE ACT; AND TO RESTORE A…”
|
TO CREATE THE RESTORE ROE ACT; AND TO RESTORE A WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1012
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1012 A. Collins TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EXTE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EXTEND ELIGIBILITY TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FAMILY PLANNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1013
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BILITY TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES. HB1013 Hudson TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE.…”
|
TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE. | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1029
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Hudson TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE. HB1029 D. Garner TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MED…”
|
TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND … | D. Garner | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1032
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1032 A. Collins TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY.”
|
TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1132
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1132 Pilkington TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVID…”
|
TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES; AND TO AMEND … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1224
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1224 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; AND TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC … | Nazarenko | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1244
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1244 K. Brown TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF FULL INDEPENDENT PRACTICE AUTHORITY BY A … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1302
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MEDICAID DEMONSTRATION WAIVER; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1302 L. Johnson TO ADD DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TO THE UNIVER…”
|
TO ADD DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TO THE UNIVERSAL NEWBORN SCREENING ACT. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1532
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…G UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD TO INCLUDE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. HB1532 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COU…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COUNCIL. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1566
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…hnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COUNCIL. HB1566 McClure TO REQUIRE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE PRACTICAL NURSIN…”
|
TO REQUIRE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE PRACTICAL NURSING PROGRAM CORE CURRICULUM TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY IN … | McClure | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1588
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1588 McAlindon TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFOR…”
|
TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SEEKS OR … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1592
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LUM TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY IN PRACTICAL NURSING EDUCATION. HB1592 J. Mayberry TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. | J. Mayberry | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1723
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVACUATION IN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES LICENSED IN THIS STATE. HB1723 Pilkington TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS…”
|
TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS ACT; … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1731
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1731 Vaught TO STRENGTHEN CHILD LABOR LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATE…”
|
TO STRENGTHEN CHILD LABOR LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES. | Vaught | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1762
Act 1009
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AN EXPANSION OF COVERAGE FOR THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM. HB1762 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF…”
|
TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL … | Hall | Notification that HB1762 is now Act 1009 |
|
HB1776
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1776 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTA…”
|
TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1781
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1781 Crawford TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENT…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENTERS, OR OTHER FACILITIES IN WHICH A PREGNANCY … | Crawford | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1791
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSION OF A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT. HB1791 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND…”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION … | C. Cooper | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1795
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE OR IMPLEMENT ACTIONS IN THIS STATE. HB1795 A. Brown TO CREATE THE FERTILITY CLINIC LICENSURE ACT. HB18…”
|
TO CREATE THE FERTILITY CLINIC LICENSURE ACT. | A. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1818
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1818 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED CARE TRANSPA…”
|
TO CREATE THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED CARE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1819
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1819 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE THE STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL RECORDS…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL RECORDS TO COORDINATE WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS … | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1880
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1880 Hudson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND THE ARKANSAS UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT … | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1882
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1882 Pilkington TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ENROLLABLE MEDICAID B…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ENROLLABLE MEDICAID BENEFICIARY POPULATION AND ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1890
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FOR INDIVIDUALS. HB1890 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BILL FOR HEALTHCAR…”
|
TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BILL FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID … | J. Mayberry | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1906
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REIMBURSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE SERVICES. HB1906 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE WRITTEN CONSENT OF A PARENT OR LEGAL G…”
|
TO REQUIRE WRITTEN CONSENT OF A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN WHEN PRESCRIBING LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1908
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION TO A PERSON WHO IS YOUNGER THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. HB1908 Long TO CREATE THE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE…”
|
TO CREATE THE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1909
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CE; AND TO REQUIRE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR ADULT APPLICANTS. HB1909 Long TO CREATE THE PUBLIC SERVICES ONLY FOR CITIZENS ACT; A…”
|
TO CREATE THE PUBLIC SERVICES ONLY FOR CITIZENS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1915
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1915 Eubanks TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUE…”
|
TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUEST A BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY WAIVER FOR … | Eubanks | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1961
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1961 Achor TO ALLOW MEDICAL PROVIDERS TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM…”
|
TO ALLOW MEDICAL PROVIDERS TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM FEDERAL INFORMATION-BLOCKING REGULATIONS TO SAFEGUARD PATIENTS DURING INFORMATION … | Achor | Delivered to the Secretary of State |
|
HB1987
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1987 Ennett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BOARD OF EMBAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BOARD OF EMBALMERS, FUNERAL DIRECTORS, CEMETERIES, AND BURIAL … | Ennett | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB117
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DURING INFORMATION DISCLOSURE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB117 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT; TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIANS IN … | C. Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB120
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB120 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE LICENSURE FOR ALL PRIVATE CARE AGENCIES…”
|
TO REQUIRE LICENSURE FOR ALL PRIVATE CARE AGENCIES IN THIS STATE; AND TO ENSURE CONSUMER … | C. Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB168
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST MATERIALS OR TEST DATA. SB168 Rice TO ESTABLISH A STATE EXAMINATION FOR LICENSURE OF MASS…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A STATE EXAMINATION FOR LICENSURE OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS. | Rice | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB187
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB187 Irvin TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID DRU…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID DRUG UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD TO INCLUDE PHYSICIAN … | Irvin | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB238
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB238 J. Payton TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILI…”
|
TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. | J. Payton | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB347
Act 1025
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ENSURE CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR VULNERABLE AGING ADULTS. SB347 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO INCREA…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO INCREASE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR CERTAIN DENTAL SERVICES AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB347 is now Act 1025 |
|
SB444
Act 970
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB444 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT.”
|
TO AMEND THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB444 is now Act 970 |
|
SB497
Act 655
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB497 D. Wallace TO REQUIRE THE CREATION OF A POSTER REGARDING VE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE CREATION OF A POSTER REGARDING VETERANS' BENEFITS AND SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE … | D. Wallace | Notification that SB497 is now Act 655 |
|
SB534
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB534 G. Leding TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS KRATOM CONSUMER PROTECT…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS KRATOM CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT; AND TO REMOVE MITRAGYNINE AND 7-HYDROXYMITRAGYNINE, ALSO … | G. Leding | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB546
Act 935
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS SERVICES FOR CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES. SB546 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRUST FUND CONTRI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRUST FUND CONTRIBUTION FEE FOR WATER PERMITS RELATED TO … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB546 is now Act 935 |
|
SB554
Act 1022
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TS RELATED TO NONMUNICIPAL DOMESTIC SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS. SB554 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LOAN FORGIVENESS…”
|
TO CREATE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB554 is now Act 1022 |
|
SB560
Act 740
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB560 J. English TO DECREASE THE BASE CONTRIBUTION RATE; TO INCRE…”
|
TO DECREASE THE BASE CONTRIBUTION RATE; TO INCREASE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT RATE; TO INCREASE FUNDING … | J. English | Notification that SB560 is now Act 740 |
|
SB576
Act 623
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB576 B. Davis TO AMEND THE COVERAGE OF CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITO…”
|
TO AMEND THE COVERAGE OF CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORS WITHIN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM. | B. Davis | Notification that SB576 is now Act 623 |
|
SB601
Act 971
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB601 Hester TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR A GRADUATE OF A FOREIGN MEDI…”
|
TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR A GRADUATE OF A FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOL TO BE LICENSED … | Hester | Notification that SB601 is now Act 971 |
|
HB1401
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1401 Pilkington TO INCLUDE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY SERVICES WIT…”
|
TO INCLUDE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY SERVICES WITHIN THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1463
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1463 Hudson TO PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYC…”
|
TO PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST MATERIALS OR TEST DATA. | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1718
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1718 Gramlich TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SURGICAL SMOKE EVACUATI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SURGICAL SMOKE EVACUATION IN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES LICENSED IN THIS STATE. | Gramlich | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1816
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1816 L. Johnson TO PROHIBIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTHCARE…”
|
TO PROHIBIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS FROM USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DELIVERY OF … | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1888
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1888 Steele TO AMEND THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW; AND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT RECORDS … | Steele | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB473
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB473 Stone TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION S…”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD; AND TO PROVIDE FOR … | Stone | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB507
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB507 G. Leding TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVER…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVER APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS SERVICES FOR CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES. | G. Leding | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Good morning. Welcome to Public Health. Chair sees a quorum. Representative Cozart, are you prepared to run House Bill 1468? I believe you have an amendment to
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
0:16
concur in. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Bruce Cozart, House District 91, Garland County. I have a concur minute that we put on in the Senate end. I just need to concur in that. Basically what this amendment does, it just takes a – it was brought to us by the Attorney General.
It just takes the deceptive practice trade protection. I'll get my glasses on. I'll tell you exactly what it says. This does not – what we put in there would not apply to anything. Actions brought by the Attorney General for civil enforcement or deceptive trade practices. That's what they asked us to put in that bill. So we forgot it originally and put it back in. Appreciate a good vote. Any questions by the committee? Seeing
none, what's the will of the committee? Motion to concur? We have a motion to concur. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Congratulations, sir. You've concurred in your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Representative Pilkington, are you ready to run House Bill 1332? Yes, I am, and I've got an amendment on that. All right, we'll pass out the amendment of staff. We'll get that passed out. We'll give members a chance to look at that. Members, there's also a fiscal impact with this bill. That will be passed out for you to review as well.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:39
Do you want me to go ahead and explain the amendment while they're passing it out? Would that be
easier? You can. Then we'll give members a chance to look at that
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:49
and ask questions. Understandable. Good morning, everyone. Representative Aaron Pilkington, District 45, Johnson and Polk County. this bill we already heard before but there's an amendment after listening to some some of the concerns we completely took Medicaid out of it as I mentioned in my presentation we were waiting on a federal rule and had that as part of the trigger but actually they've ruled that they do no longer want the rule so we
took that completely out we took the Medicaid part out and then now basically this amendment does three things we're changing the title to better reflect what the bill does we're allowing we're requiring DHS to track obesity related issues and costs so that we have a better understanding as we try to tackle the obesity issue here in Arkansas, how effective these drugs have been or have not been. And then the third thing is that we require insurance companies to cover GPL-1s, but yet
we allow them to set the standards at which they authorize the medication. So it lets them have those guardrails so that, you know, they're not being forced to, it's It's not a forced mandate on them that they've got to have these without some sort of ways to make sure that they're actually being used for the proper treatment of weight loss and not just being prescribed willy-nilly. That's essentially what the amendment does, and that's essentially what the bill is now. It's been a complete rewrite. And so I don't know if that fiscal impact is necessarily accurate since so much has changed in the bill.
And I'll just pause for a second and let people kind of read over everything, and if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Members,
we're going to give you a minute to look over the amendment, and then we'll start to take questions.
All right, members, you've had time to review the amendment. Any
Speaker 17
4:13
questions on the amendment? Seeing none, Representative Pilkington. I motion to adopt the amendment. That's a proper motion. any discussion on
the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations.
You've adopted your amendment. You're recognized to present
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
4:27
your bill as amended. Thank you, Chairman. Essentially, like I said, the amendment is the bill now, so I'm closed for my bill and make a
motion to pass. Any questions by the
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
4:44
committee? Representative Allen? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Pilkerton, thank you for bringing this bill. I have a question regarding Medicaid. So now Medicaid is completely extracted out of the bill.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
4:56
Is that true? Yes, sir. Yes. So it's not in there at all? Correct. But we are having DHS track the use of this medication so that it will help us inform decisions down the line when it comes to potential
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
5:11
coverage in the future. Okay. So follow-up. So now this is just going to impact private
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
5:15
insurers, correct? Yes, sir. But they're allowed to make, basically, their authorization parameters, whether or not, so it's not like a willy-nilly, they have to give this out of its ass for it. It's they can, but they need a set, just like anything, like a normal medication, they're going to say, well, it has to meet these criterias for it.
But they can't just arbitrarily say, we're not using GPL-1s for weight loss. Okay, thank you. Any additional questions by the
committee? Seeing none, you're recognized as closed, Representative. I'm closed. Make a motion. Do pass. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you, committee. Do you want me,
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
5:57
since I'm down here, you want me to do Senate Bill 9?
We're hearing House bills today. Are you prepared to run House Bill
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
6:07
1882? Yes, I am. Wait, hold on. No, I'm not running 1882. That's the past one, correct? Sorry, I don't have it in front of me. I just
have notes. Okay. Do you have a house bill you're prepared to run
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
6:20
in addition to what you just ran? Yes. Can I make a motion to take, I believe it is HB 1270 off deferred?
Okay. We'll take that motion. without objection we'll take the motion to move that off deferred
just so the membership is aware that we'll take a two-thirds vote that's proper motion any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor say aye aye with unanimous support it's passed thank you can i bring someone
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
6:56
up here to help me present the they're recognized thank you
representative if you will identify yourself for the record have your guests identify themselves for the record and anyone that they represent and you're recognized to present i believe this has a fiscal impact
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
7:27
as well yeah yes it does i believe so what's the bill number were it is 1270 to establish a prescribed pediatric extended care pilot program through a section 1115 medicaid waiver. House Bill
1270. Staff, if you will pass the fiscal impact out,
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
7:41
you're recognized to present. Thank you. Thank you, committee. Representative Aaron Pilkington,
Speaker 40
7:48
District 45, Johnson of Pope County. Yes, Michael Clinton, St. Joe, Arkansas. I'm here with my partners, Bobby and Suzanne Smith, representing Pedia Health. Okay. Yes, with this particular bill, one of the focuses you may hear or have already heard with this bill that a few things that may be happening. One, that it would require us to cover all children that are on Medicaid in the state of Arkansas, which two, obviously would be
too expensive. And the last one that you will hear or have heard that we already have a program in place called EIDT, which is Early Intervention Day Treatment that provides the same type of services that we will provide and those that we will be able to approve through this 1115 waiver to demonstrate that that is not the case, that they are not parallel services, that our services are distinctly different from an EIDT. And in discussion with that, a few goals that we're
looking to have with this waiver. One is to provide better care to medically fragile children in the areas that we would have, and two, to be able to provide cost savings that is required within the waiver to be budget neutral through reducing visits to hospitals, ERs, specialists, because within a PPEC program, the prescribed pediatric extended care, we are required to have RNs on staff at all times, so in essence we're more considerate of a skilled nursing facility.
As discussed right now, the existing program EIDT that is in place, it is primarily focused on therapy-based for developmental delays and needs. They also have the ability to provide nursing services, but that is not the primary focus there. Where with a PPEC, the prescribed pediatric extended care, our focus is on managing care for medically fragile children. We also will have the ability with a per diem that we can provide therapy-based programs to through OT, PT, that would be similar to EIDT.
Currently, PPECs are operating, some states have a different acronym, but operating in 15 states. Right now, the states around us that are nearest, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, currently have PPEC programs in place. And our point to bring is if we continually are adding new states and these other states are continuing to operate them, if they were to be too expensive or require too many children to be involved, I don't think that they would continue to operate those particular programs.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, with a PPEC, we always will require an RN to be on staff. In essence, when you look at the overall as a class would grow, you're looking at approximately a three-to-one ratio. again these are medically fragile children that can require various services and so we make sure that we would have enough staff there to take care of those particular needs. And last just to bring up again to bring up the EIDT and a PPEC to cross-reference the two. Again EIDT is currently
in place in the state of Arkansas but primarily focuses on therapy based for developmental needs where we as a PPEC are focused on the medically fragile children and more on their services, but we also do offer developmental needs through therapy basis also. And if there's any questions, I would like to answer those at this point. So I haven't read this bill until just
now, and I'm kind of slow, so I probably need to read it five or six times.
But if I understand right, here on
the first page it says operating three counties. What are those three counties that you prospect to operate
Speaker 40
11:42
in? Again, we're making an assumption on our end. We were looking at potentially, you know, Pulaski County, Jefferson County, possibly somewhere up in the northeast, but that is where if this were to pass, we would work hand-in-hand with DHS and also their Children's Special Services agents. How do you determine
what counties that you would like to see it be? Does the bill let DHS determine those counties?
Speaker 47
12:04
Yes, yes, and that's where I would go. We would work with them. We
were just looking at making decisions. Where in the bill does it determine the three counties or lay
Speaker 40
12:15
out the determination? During the implementation phase
Speaker 29
12:17
is where we would work with it. Where in the
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
12:20
bill does it lay that out? It doesn't. It just says the pilot program should operate in three counties strategically selected within the most densely populated counties of the state as determined by the department. So we're letting DHS determine what that is and giving them a little extra leash on where that would want to be.
So if they wanted to do Benton, Pulaski, Jefferson, or Craighead, Pulaski, Miller, they could make that, but that would be within their own department where the need was the greatest. So I didn't think they needed to put that in statute, so we didn't tie DHS's hands. Okay, questions from
committee? We're going to get them to the table. Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, Ms.
Janet Mann, can you come to the table, please?
And Melissa, Ms. Melissa Weatherton. My favorite part of the committee. So I'm not sure if you guys have an opening statement or if you just want to go to questions or how you want to
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
13:24
do that. I'll leave it up to the department. I believe I'll start, if that's all right, with the committee, Janet Mann, DHS. Okay, that doesn't work. Overall, the Medicaid program is opposed to this bill as it is a duplicative service and is an expansion of our budget.
And I'm going to allow Ms.
Speaker 133
13:44
Weatherton to give the details. Melissa Weatherton, Director of Medicaid Specialty Populations. This exact bill ran in 2023. We met back then with the company out of Louisiana and explained our opposition to the bill. We opposed this bill last session as well. The program itself has a very wide category of what children would qualify. So we disagree with the earlier testimony.
We do think this has the potential to be able to accept the majority of children receiving Arkansas Medicaid under the diagnosis of failure to thrive. The diagnoses that are in this bill are very expansive. So we disagree with what the testimony was earlier. And again, we already have, we're one of the only states in the nation that has an early intervention day treatment program. We spend a lot of money on that program.
Annually about $250 million. Gone up. That was for 23 numbers. $275 million annually. So we've also, we're one of the only states that continue to have pediatric ICFs, which is 24-hour facilities for children with high physical and mental health and intellectual disability needs. So in both EIDT programs and ICF programs have a moratorium on them. So it appears that this bill is also a way to get around a moratorium
that we've had in place under state statute for a very
Chair
Unverified
15:26
long time. Representative Perry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
15:31
Chairman. So I'm looking at the fiscal impact on this, and on a utilization of $10,000, the state share would be $315 million. If we went to a full $50,000 utilization, we're talking $1.58 billion.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
15:51
Is that in our budget? No, sir, it's not in our budget. And that fiscal impact was based on the way the bill was originally filed. We have not had the opportunity to update it on the proposed amendment with a pilot project. But as Ms. Weatherton testified earlier, with wide open diagnosis codes, there is the fear that it could grow. Thank you.
Speaker 76
16:24
Representative Gramlitt, you're recognized. Thank you very much. How many kids in the state of Arkansas will
Speaker 133
16:34
end up qualifying for this program? When we ran the numbers in 2023, based on diagnosis codes, it looked like 138,000 potentially. My chair's leaking down, so I
look like a really small guy up here today.
Any other questions from committee? Seeing none, anyone else in the audience speak
for or against the bill? Representative Pilkington, y'all have somebody trying to get
to the table. If you would, ma'am, introduce yourself for the record, and you're recognized, I'm guessing, you're speaking for? Yes,
Speaker 85
17:26
sir. Okay. My name is Suzanne Smith. I'm a registered nurse.
I have been, I'm also a child life specialist and have been involved in the care for children for over 30 years. My husband and I own one of these centers in Louisiana and have run it for 30 years. I can tell you that the state of Louisiana has never cut back on this program because it has been successful in cutting costs and cutting medical expenses. There's about 650 children in the entire state of Louisiana in all 16 of our centers.
So the 138,000, I'm not real sure where that number comes from, but it doesn't seem remotely correct. It's not that way in Florida, it's not that way in Mississippi, it's not that way in Louisiana, and it's not that way in Texas. And by way of putting a little bit of a personal note on this, I have a child who came from Arkansas. He's an Arkansas children's baby and has spent the better part of his life involved in Arkansas children with all of his various medical needs.
And it's a sliver, this group of children that PPEX take care of is a sliver that they're out there, they exist, they're born every day, and there's nothing out there to take care of them. But this child has seizures, has eating issues, has feeding issues, has heart issues, and the Arkansas Children's, in fact, recommended an EIDT for this child. And the EIDT that was close to where this mom lived specifically stated that they did not accept medically fragile children.
In fact, they did not accept children that needed medication during center hours. So this mom moved to Louisiana, and we were able to get this child on Louisiana Medicaid, get this child approved. Mom has been able to return to work, as has dad, because now they've got registered nurses that are taking care of his needs every day. As an example, a week or so ago, this child had a seizure while he was in therapy in my center. We were able to get a video of it and send it to his pediatric neurologist.
It's saved on an ER visit. It's saved on a hospital admit. It's saved on a neuro visit. They called us and said, this is what we want you to do. We want you to draw some labs on this kid, and we want to see what's going on, and then send them to us. So we cut across the swath and are able to save money. So this is a real-life picture of what this program does. And had there been a PPEC in Arkansas, this child would have benefited from that.
But EIDT was not going to be what was going to work for this child. Any questions?
for the witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Anyone else
in the audience speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, Representative Pilkington, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, I would. And
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
20:37
one thing I would just like to highlight, if you look on
I believe it's page 3, it says, if the Department determines that the pilot program does not meet its intended goals, the Department may submit a request to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to modify or terminate the waiver before the scheduled expiration date. So if the pilot program is not going as we think it's going, it's not saving money like we intended it to, we can terminate the program. And so with that, I close and I make a motion to pass. That's
a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all does in favor say aye. All opposed? No. Sorry to tell you, your bill has failed. All right, members, we'll move to Representative Woolridge.
I believe it's House Bill 1982? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. That's the year you were born, right? No,
sir, I wasn't alive in 1982, but I appreciate that. I'd
like to ask for the department to join me at the table and also the president of the County Judges Association with your permission, sir.
Thank you. recognized. And just have your witnesses introduce
ourselves. Will do, sir. Shane Corey, Secretary for the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment.
Speaker 97
22:33
Bailey Taylor, DEQ Director and Chief Administrator of Environment. Rusty
Speaker 98
22:37
McMillan, Green County Judge, President of the County Judges Association. Members, Mr. Chairman,
thank you for the opportunity to bring this bill today. House Bill 1982 is a bill that I think that we probably have been working on for a long time, and and it's been a long process to get here. I know I've been in the legislature now starting my second term,
and we have talked about tires through the entirety of my service in the legislature. I know the person whose place I took, I visited with him about this bill, and he said that he had talked about tires through the entirety of his service in the legislature, which is about 14 years prior to me. So this is not a new problem to the state of Arkansas, but very much a solvable problem in my opinion. So when we look at tires and the problem that's being generated by tires, tires are not the only usable product on a vehicle.
You know, vehicles have batteries, they have oil, they have all of these other components that are being used and recycled and renewed. The only difference that I can see with tires is for some reason the state of Arkansas is in the tire business. We're not in the battery business. We're not in the business of repurposing oil or other things. Those are all privatized. But for some reason, we have continued to be in the tire business. So under current law, my understanding of the current law and the professionals that are here at the table can speak to this greater than I can,
I would suggest to you that we have privatized the tire business in Arkansas to some extent, but we've almost created a monopoly. We've put this into four tire districts. the way it stands currently anyone can apply for a permit to process tires but that permit has to be approved by the tire district so in essence if i wanted to start and operate a tire processor i have to go to the tire district i have to make application and then they have to approve for me to be in competition with them that to me sounds like a monopolized market all i'm asking you to
do with this bill is allow us to allow for competition and allow for a better product for Arkansans. With that, I'll recognize the secretary and the judge to make some additional comments. Thank you. So I think Representative Walgers is correct,
Speaker 101
24:54
but I think we need to start with the problem. The problem is the current tire system is broken. And this solution is the only one that exists out there that solves the problem by not increasing a state fee. In fact, it actually
reduces the state fee. It also limits government involvement in a private business where it doesn't need to be, and it eliminates the existing tire district monopolies, thereby allowing a greater reuse or use, beneficial use of waste tire products. So not only does it reduce the current three dollar fee to what is a dollar fifty moving forward with a further option of reducing it down to 75 cents. It does allow a system whereby we think that Nucor and Liberty and all the other existing tire processors can operate in a privatized way and a way that allows the free
market system to move forward. I say the current system is broken and let me explain why it's broken because right now the state collects a $3 fee and of that $3 fee and this was based on a legislative audit so these numbers are out there. Of that $3 fee we have basically the most we have to reimburse after everybody takes their pieces two dollars and fifty seven cents a tire that is also with the agreement we made two years ago to not do any abatement because we have no money for abatement and also cutting basically the administrative fee that the agencies was taking
in half so the most we can pay back per tire is 257. right now we are reimbursing districts at a rate of an average of two dollars and 85 cents among the four districts so obviously we can't sustain a system where we're reimbursing $2.85 on average and collecting $2.50 on average. It will never work. Therefore, we are going to either have to continually subsidize this program or find a better solution, and we believe that this is a better solution that allows for beneficial reuse. Also, I have to give credit to Nucor and others. Beneficial reuse wasn't an option four years ago,
six years ago, not even really two years ago, but now we know that there is a beneficial use of those products, not only with Nucor, but others, and I think there are people here to testify about that today, and I'll let Bailey kind of walk through the specifics of this program, if you don't
mind. And I'd like to add on what the Secretary mentioned there. Nucor has been a partner with the state of Arkansas for a long time now. They're looking at, or they have looked at, over three billion dollars in investment into the state of Arkansas, obviously a huge industry for us, and they have been a partner that has come to the table time and time again to help us solve this issue. I know that
they've put $4 million roughly in retooling and reinvestment to be able to utilize this product in a way that's beneficial to the state of Arkansas. So I am grateful for their willingness to come partner with us
Speaker 103
27:46
on this. Bailey? Certainly. And just a few more details. This bill maintains status quo with respect to our permitting authority for processors, our licensure of transporters, and our permitting for collection centers. So that oversight, the compliance, the enforcement mechanism is still there. What this does is just changes the regulation from the tire
districts and the oversight. The solid waste management districts are still in place. They still have the authority over that solid waste. And tire retailers, many of them are already being charged the cost of transport, but they legally cannot charge, pass that cost along to the customer or show it in any way on receipts. And so this allows them to do that and recoup that cost as they're already being charged.
And that's part of the beauty in what
solves this problem. Again, you know, it allows a retailer to charge that fee so they can work with a private individual, they can work with a company, they can work with whoever they want to work with to process these tires, and they get to add that fee onto the price of the tires. So they get to set and solve that problem. They take the state out of the equation, but as we all know with free market and everything else in competition, if they try to charge an absorbent amount in addition to what is being processed down the street by their competitors,
they won't be in business. No one will do business with them. That will force, we believe, this to be a reasonable and manageable fee associated with the cost of processing tires. Where under the current system, it is just a flat fee where we are increasing that every legislative session because we understand that we're not funding this program adequately currently. So there's no mechanism that could drive the price down only up. Judge, do you have something you'd like to add?
Speaker 98
29:42
Sorry about that. Yes, this is something I've been in office for 10 years, and even judges prior to me talked about tire problems that existed years that they had been in office. And we still have a few current long-timers and still remember 20-plus years ago and the challenges with waste tires. I like this bill. One, I think our current system is like a bad relationship. We don't know how to get out of it. Sometimes you need to cut ties.
So I think that that's the direction that we need to be in because we're not talking about ponds of oil or piles of waste batteries that exist. And I think we would have done something about those in abating them and cleaning them up, But yet we still have large illegal waste dumps of tires that have not even begun to be cleaned up in the 10 years that I've been in office. You'll probably hear from some that say that, well, county judges supported Senator Payton's bill, a similar bill, two years ago, all 75 of us.
And we did, but I would argue that we have challenges. I remember in 17, a bill that was ran by Representative Fight. And two years, I'm starting my third year in office in 2017 and not understanding completely what it is to be county judge yet. And so now I'm trying to figure out what I need to know about landfills and waste tires. And through the process, coming to now, I began to kind of research on my own. And so here are some information I'd like for you to know through my research.
There's a company that is a local company, has tire businesses in Perigold and Jonesboro. And then Greene County is right up against the boot hill of Missouri. So Missouri is the border of us on Greene County on the east side. He also has businesses in Popper Bluff as well, which is north of us in Missouri. One of his dealerships here in Arkansas, he hires somebody to dispose of his tires at $2.50 per tire. And I have an invoice from that particular company.
Another company that he has up near St. Louis, Missouri, someone hauled tires off, and he paid them $1.50 per tire. And so we see that there's a discrepancy there with what maybe they're able to do in some places in Missouri versus here in Arkansas. He said it's pretty standard for his locations in Missouri, be it up in St. Louis or those locations that are within 30 to 60 miles of Perigold, Arkansas, to charge $5 for a disposal fee.
So with the $0.50 that Missouri has for retail sale that's remitted to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, we see that charge being about $5.50, pretty standard according to this gentleman. So as we began to look at some of our locations, other locations in Arkansas, I spoke with a tire shop that's within 50 miles of Little Rock with a county population of less than 8,000. and there's the three three dollar rim removal fee but this company is also charging four dollars
and fifty cents for a car or light truck or six dollars per large truck to take care of the cost it takes them either manpower or hiring someone to dispose of that those tires and when he sends somebody to offload the tires that they have on a smaller trailer he has three employees that have to go. So one's offloading his trailer, one's standing at the back of the trailer, 53-foot long trailer, and he's rolling them to the guy that's in the front of that trailer, and they're stacking them in there. Spoke with another company within 50 miles of Little Rock,
population of less than 80,000. The $3 rim removal fee is there as well, but charges an additional $3 for car and light duty. Again, he can't eat the cost of disposal for every single tire. So we're seeing that there are additional cost to the disposal and that those companies cannot eat that cost. For comparison, there's a company in northern Missouri, borders Iowa, a small population, 1,800 people in that county. This gentleman contracts with a tire
recycler in Kansas roughly two hours away and he contracts with them and it's on they have 50 cents again for the per tire tire sale but remit that he remits to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and then he charges an additional two to four dollars to take care of that cost for that company to come and get those tires to take them to the recycling place. So what I've discovered is that mine and your constituents as we've kind of talked about in these meetings are paying the three dollar rim removal fee along with an additional three to six dollars in the state
of Arkansas not state these are ones that I've spoken with not all of those may some of those may be within the cost of the sale of the tire and for that disposal amounting to six to nine dollars per waste tire whereas the examples that I've given you from Missouri the 50 cents on the retail sale and then five dollars for disposal fee charged by many of locations that I've researched, and that's $5.50 per waist tire. So it's a cheaper cost in the state of Missouri
for large counties as well as very small counties. Additionally, another company that's within 50 miles of Little Rock has a trailer that they pay an additional $300 for, and he has to, he negotiates that straight with Davis Rubber, and he changes that trailer out about every other week when he fills one up. And that works for his business. Because of mileage and the amount
of time it takes to haul these tires, a similar company in Perigold in Greene County, it was going to be an additional $700 per trailer for him, which he fills up about one per week or every week and a half. And so it was not cost effective for him to do that. There's two automobile dealerships that are in Greene County that also have businesses 30 miles away in Missouri. And they have said that it's easier for them to dispose of
the waste tires from their tire changing shops in Missouri than it is for them in Arkansas. So the Missouri Department of Natural Resources demonstrates that since 1990 they've cleaned up 17.6 million scrap tires in their state, and still estimate 159,000 being out there that they know of, and another maybe 500,000 that they're unaware of. So they've had great success in abatement, and that's something that we've
not been able to enjoy in the 10 years that I've been in office and getting a lot of these waste tire sites cleaned up. So with
that, I'll close. Thank you, Judge, and thank you, members. You know, two more things that I want to hit on. I think that it's important to realize that what we're currently doing is the three dollar fee as we discussed earlier where this new bill moves that down to a dollar fifty by allowing the market to privatize and and retailers and people that are going into business to process this to set the fee that dollar fifty goes straight into the trust fund and that's used for monitoring it's used for abatement it's used for all the things that we've
currently been unable to do under the current model because we are spending every dollar that we generate plus trying to solve this issue so with that I think that we will start to entertain questions from the committee if that's all right with the
chair. Any questions? Representative Richardson. Thank you
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
37:32
Mr. Chair. Representative Woolridge on the I see that it's it's getting rid of the used tire recycling fund and changing it to an abatement fund is there any money already
in that recycling fund? And if so, how much
Speaker 97
37:47
is in it? Do you know? Yes, sir. There is money in there. That's where the $3 rim removal fee goes, and that's how we reimburse the districts. So the plan is that we will reimburse the districts for this last quarter of 2025 in early 2026 for any tires that they collect and process at the end of the year, and then that money would be transferred to the abatement fund. Representative, I want to follow
up on that. That is the fund that we're currently operating out of. It continues
to basically be a revolving fund. It doesn't have any additional money in it. Everything that it generates goes to the districts for disposal. Our hope is there's about $7 million out there in abatement needs right now. We're projecting under this new model that this is going to generate roughly around $3 million a year that can be put into this fee that can be used for that abatement. So we hope that while and we know it may be a long road, it's the right road to head down. Thank you for the question. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
38:50
Any other members with questions? Representative Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm trying to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
38:58
do some math here and trying to figure this out. we're charging $3 now, and it's not really enough money to provide for the needs, but we're going to reduce the fee to $1.50. So how does that make up the difference when we're reducing the fee, and we still have a huge abatement issue? You know, you can drive around, you'll see stockpiles of tires.
Where does the money come from to pay? Well,
we're hoping that competition is going to help to solve that issue, so I would relate that back to the insurance business. If you're the only person in town that's able to sell health insurance by law, you're probably going to have a higher premium as opposed to if there's 15 people in town that are able to sell that. That's the hope is that this $1.50 will go into that fund and that the market will dictate because of competition and drive that cost down of what we're currently having to pay the tire districts now under the current system. So who's going to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
39:54
collect the money i mean so you're collecting a dollar fifty if that doesn't cover the cost of the tire then
who will pay the difference i mean they negotiate that with the consumer no
so businesses the re the retailer who sells the tire at the point of sale they're going to contract with whoever they want to collect these tires and whatever processing facility they partner with to take them so they're going to factor that into the product price and my point earlier was if they decide to charge $100 a tire and the guy down the street selling tires charges $0.50 or $3.50 or $0.07,
people in town are probably going to buy tires from the more reasonably priced place. Okay, so basically it's putting it back on the businesses. It's privatizing it and letting
the market dictate. Got it. Okay, thank you. any other questions for
committee seeing none anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill yeah i see him
if you guys can evacuate down there we'll let mr douglas have the end of the
Speaker 119
41:12
table. I'm a little reluctant, but. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Craig Douglas. I'm director of District
Speaker 121
41:25
2 Tire District, which covers 27 counties in Arkansas. Robin Reed is here also, and she is the director of District 1. I just want to make a couple of points to to not belabor, but what is not being discussed, we believe at length, is the impact on this bill
to the consumer and to rural counties. There is no increase in the fee. That is correct. However, our estimates in talking with other tire retailers around the state, particularly in our district, is that the cost of the tire would go up as much as $15 to $20 per tire on any new sale to the consumer, primarily because each individual tire retailer and collection center under this
bill will have to negotiate a contract, individual contract, excuse me, with tire haulers and processors. Those individual contracts, the cost of which for the tire retailer and the collection centers will be passed on to the consumer. The consumer will pay. The fee will not go up, but the consumer's cost of tires will definitely go up. As far as rural counties are
concerned in this bill. There is no guarantee that each county will be serviced and their tires will be picked up. I would point out to the committee that under a so-called privatized bill that tire haulers and processors are going to follow the money. They're going to pick up tires and process tires where they can make a profit. If it costs the hauler and the processor more money to travel a longer distance to pick up fewer tires,
simple math would tell you and common sense is they're simply not going to do it. Under this bill also, retailers currently, under the current program, are allowed to retain 5% of the $3 fee to cover administrative costs because they have to do manifests, they have to keep up with the tires, They have to submit manifest to the districts and so to the state to be reimbursed. Under this bill, the tire retailers would only be able to retain 2% of a $1.50 fee.
The administrative cost is going to be the same. So you're penalizing the retailers as well. In terms of a monopoly of the districts, these districts were set up last session. Every district requested, did request for proposals for tire processors. Our district received two proposals. One was from Liberty Tire. The other one was from Davis Tire.
Liberty Tire, which is represented here today, their RFP, their response to the proposal, proposed three consolidated collection centers to service 27 counties. Everybody else, in order to get their tires to the service centers, were on their own in terms of cost. The cost goes up to the retailer because all of the cost is passed on to the retailer. This bill hopes that the private market will reduce cost.
We don't know. What we do know is that the current program, that the disposal and the processing of tires throughout the state, the four districts collected and processed over 3 million waste tires last year. That would continue under the current law. It would not continue under this law because there is no guarantee that tires would be picked up, particularly in rural counties.
The judge also The cost in Missouri, we do know what the cost, we've looked at Missouri, we know what the hauling costs are and the processing costs are. We don't know what the tire cost, purchase price is. nor do we and nor can we govern the purchase price of the tire in this bill or in the current law.
We can govern the fee and limit it. So the cost to the consumer is going up under this bill, and the guarantee will be eliminated in terms of... to pick up tires in each of the 75 counties. This bill eliminates that. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Are you spitting on that thing down there?
No, sir. I certainly hope not. We ain't had anybody else break it until you got up there. Any questions from
the committee? See you, none. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Woolworth, you recognize
closed for your bill. thank you mr. chair i appreciate that thank you committee i know that we've got a long day i appreciate you hearing us i understand why someone would be here to speak in opposition to that if
they are one of the current tire districts the the point that he made that i agree with is under the current law we know that it's not working we know that we're going to have to have a fee increase to make the current system work. There is hope that the private market will drive the price down. That's the whole point of this bill. It's to allow
the private market to do what it's going to do. And with that, I'm closed and I make a
motion do pass. That's proper motion. Any discussion on motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Ayes have it.
We're a lot more efficient than the Senate committee. I just want to let y'all know. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Thank you, committee. Motion. We got a motion, Representative Grammich? Motion to pull 17. You want to turn your microphone on or get close enough to us so we
can hear you? I'll get close enough to hear me. Motion to pull 17, 18, off deferred. That's a proper motion. Without objection,
Speaker 131
48:24
we'll pull that off deferred. Seeing no objection, it's off. Patience. Patience. I know what I'm doing.
Patience. Representative Grammage, I sure hope you can present this in a hurry. Thank
Speaker 133
48:44
you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. I'm going to ask a couple people to join me at the table. Only if their comments are minimized. That's the goal.
I'll be back. Zach Graham, State Representative, District 50, Fort Smith. I'll say your name and hear with.
Speaker 140
49:31
Say your name. Hi, I'm Shelly Whittle,
Speaker 144
49:44
your mic. Go ahead. TJ McKenzie, I'm an RN at the Central Arkansas Veterans Hospital. We're here on
Speaker 133
49:50
behalf of the ARN chapter. Thank you very much, committee. Thank you for your time today to talk about a potential issue that we're having in some of our ORs across the state. Long, short, there are these energy-ending devices that are used in surgery, similar, kind of like a lightsaber.
They're very hot, and they allow wounds, and so to be cauterized, and they're used during surgery. There are some concerns that this smoke is bad for the health of our OR nurses and OR surgeons, and there is an effort to get smoke evacuation equipment that when the cauterization at these spots happens, That smoke is immediately evacuated, protecting the lungs and the health of
Speaker 78
50:26
our OR nurses and other people in the OR. And with that, I'll let them add their comments.
Speaker 140
50:35
I'm an RN circulator originally from Missouri and transferred to central Arkansas in 2023. I have been a nurse for 28
Speaker 145
50:42
years with most of it in the OR. TJ and I are leading the campaign at the VA to mandate smoke evacuation on all cases with surgical smoke plume. Surgical smoke is a result of human tissue contact with lasers and cautery pencils commonly used for dissection and hemostasis during surgery. In other words, it's the smoke from burning flesh. Surgical smoke is a health and safety hazard that impacts operating room nurses,
surgical technicians, surgeons, patients, anesthesia providers, and all other who pass through the doors of an operating room. An estimated 90% of surgical procedures generate surgical smoke. C-sections, mastectomies, and knee replacements all generate surgical smoke. Concerns over the cost of the equipment, let's talk about the cost of losing health care staff who decide not to work in this hazardous environment, especially since 18 states across the country have already taken steps to ensure that surgical smoke is safely evacuated from their operating rooms.
OR nurses receive OR nurse training on the job. There is not an OR, clinical OR course in undergraduate nursing programs. The cost of this facility when that nurse is an extra full-time employee in the operating room observing and learning on the job. Additionally, facilities will provide education and training opportunities to ensure that their staff are offering the best care to their patients. And that is money out the door if the OR nurse decides to leave the facility once they realize that they are exposed to hazardous surgical smoke every day in the OR.
In the room where they are saving lives, nurses should not be risking their own. Please vote yes on the House Bill 17-18 so OR nurses in Arkansas can safely do their job and continue to care for patients. I
Speaker 144
52:28
am an OR nurse and a scrub nurse here at the VA. I have been a nurse for 25 years and 24 of that has been in the operating room. I have also spent about 12 of that in the U.S. military as an operating room nurse.
As health care workers, we take an oath to do no harm, yet in the OR we're often surrounded by surgical smoke that is associated with numerous health problems. We warn our patients and each other about the risk of cigarette smoke, yet one day in the operating room with these surgical smoke generating devices is the equivalent of smoking 27 to 30 unfiltered cigarettes. And the very real chronic and damaging physical effects of surgical smoke, such as breathing problems, increased risk of lung cancer, and headaches affect many of us who work in the OR.
Patients who have laparoscopic gallbladder removal surgeries, and for those of you that don't know what that is, that's where they make portholes in your abdomen. They put cameras in and surgical smoke generating devices so that when they burn things inside the abdomen, all the smoke is basically being absorbed by the patient. So it's not only the health care workers that are at risk, it's also our patients. And within this
Speaker 143
53:37
smoke that is generated in the abdomen, it has been shown that it's up to 10 times the amount of benzene, tulene, and xylene,
Speaker 144
53:46
which are known carcinogens. And this has been found in post-op urinalysis from our patients. Most surgical facilities in Arkansas already have surgical smoke evacuation equipment. And while many of these facilities may evacuate surgical smoke, During some procedures, few facilities evacuate consistently during all smoke-generating procedures. House Bill 1718 proposes a solution to a hazardous workplace issue faced by thousands of health care workers for decades. At a time when health care workers are experiencing burnout and leaving the profession,
Arkansas can take an important step to protect the health and the safety of OR staff and shore up the workforce Arkansas residents rely on for their health care delivery. Please vote yes on House Bill 1718, which ensures that Arkansas Health Facilities will utilize their equipment to protect the health and safety of OR staffs and our patients. Thank you very much, and we're
Speaker 141
54:41
open to any questions. Representative Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
54:49
believe you all mentioned that you work at Veterans Hospital.
We do. Would state law require the federal government to do this? So it's not going to fix your problem. Second question, this would apply to UAMS, is that correct? Yes. Since that involves taxpayer money and everything, I didn't see a fiscal impact. We're kind of getting down to the end where we're running out of money for all the different projects. I'd kind of like to see a fiscal impact on it.
That's a proper request. Any objection to the request?
Seeing no objection, Representative Gramlich, if you can get us fiscal impact and come back Thursday, we'll see you on Thursday. We'll see how quickly they can work.
Speaker 75
55:33
Thank you very much, committee. Thank you. Thank you. Representative John Eubanks.
Representative Eubanks, I was not present Thursday, so I'm going to let you run this show. If
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
56:18
you would introduce yourself to committee and you're recognized, present your bill. John Eubanks, House District 46. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, I believe where we ended up,
where we were on the for and against portion of the meeting, and that was where I was asked for a fiscal impact, and I believe DHS has supplied the fiscal impact. They emailed it to me. Do the members have it? I believe the staff is passing that out. Okay.
If I remember correctly, the fiscal impact was $87,000. I believe DHS had testified that they thought it would be minimal. I believe $87,000 is minimal. In fact, I do have, I guess I have a question about that because we passed an emergency rule, I believe, Thursday that raised the asset level to $5,500 for approximately that an individual could have for a year.
So if they're going to be administering that, I'm trying to figure out how this increases what might be the current administrative cost. But, like I said, Mr. Chairman, we were in the for and against, and I believe DHS had come to the table at that point and changed their position from neutral to against. This is year you were
born, 1915, correct? Correct. Thank you. I had members asking, so I was trying to figure that out.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
58:08
I aged well. So at this point, sir, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where we're at. I don't know if I'm closing or if you're still in the for and
against portion. Members are telling me they still have some questions they want to hear, so let's honor those requests. If
I can get DHS to the table, that'd be great.
Representative Richardson, you are recognized once Secretary Putnam introduces herself for the record. Christy Putnam, Secretary, DHS. Good
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
58:51
morning, Secretary Putnam. Thank you for being here. Yes, sir. So now that we've got the fiscal impact and we know what that is, have you guys now changed your position on where you stand on
Speaker 166
59:02
this? We have not, sir. We still believe it's in the best interest to implement the current rule that was just passed
so that we can see what the impact of that is. It is difficult to estimate
Speaker 168
59:13
the number of people who may remain on an extended period of time with an additional asset limit.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
59:19
And if I recall, when you were here speaking last week about this, when did that rule pass? The rule
Speaker 170
59:27
passed last Thursday. Okay. Okay, thank you. any additional questions
by the committee i do have one i'd like to hear your response to
representative eubank's point and i tend to agree with him that if that rule changed and that raised the limit there was going to be some additional administrative cost associated with that so does this fiscal impact include that or is this from the old limit to the new limit this is intended to
Speaker 166
59:59
include that. We had to estimate some additional system changes. We don't know exactly what changes would need to be made to move the income limit, tie it to the cost of living increase, or I'm sorry, the inflation factor. And so those are all things that we would have to make changes to within our
eligibility system. Yes, sir. Do we know what that fiscal impact was going to be just based on the rule change? I would have to get that for
Speaker 166
1:00:22
you. I don't have it. We've already made those system changes, so we do have a number that we could provide. Okay. Any additional questions by the committee? You got a question? I'm going to recognize you representing Long. Thank you,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:00:48
Mr. Chairman. I didn't get to be here the other day. I was in another committee when y'all were presenting your bill. I went back and watched some of the video of it, and I at one point considered trying to do some sort of bill this year regarding the fiscal cliff that people end up in on the government assistance. But it seems like this bill basically, it just moves the cliff down, but doesn't do it sort of in a stair-step
type manner like I was thinking about trying to do. Can you explain why you just did it that way instead of kind of reducing it or increasing that amount slowly while decreasing services to kind of try to wean people off the
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:01:36
benefits? I was having a hard time. I was having a hard time hearing you, Representative
Long. But the purpose of the bill was to, in my mind, allow people to accumulate assets so that they could, at one point, get off of public assistance.
And that the increase due to the inflationary factor was to increase that with each year as cost increased, because we all know what food costs are doing. So I guess I'm a little confused about what your question was as far as going down. I want to move people off of public assistance, and I believe in order to do that, you have to give them an opportunity to do so.
I know as an individual growing up, you know, I was able to accumulate something, And because I was, I was also able to leverage what I accumulate to accumulate more. And so, like I said, the purpose of the bill is twofold. Number one, I do not want people to go hungry. Number two, I want to try to move people off of public assistance when possible and help them improve their situation.
seeing no further questions we'll move to the for and against we have quite a few signed up we have nick horton signed up to speak against the bill if you guys would if they oh oh now wait a minute if you've already spoke we're not going to replow the ground so you that's not we're not doing this again so nick horton's already spoke so he scratched what about nick's been allowed to
Speaker 176
1:03:25
speak on the fiscal note there wasn't a fiscal note on thursday is that in the rules that i'm not allowed to speak. If you've already spoke
against the bill, you cannot speak again. Have you spoke against the bill? It's a
yes or no question. I spoke against the bill. Okay, then you're not speaking at this point. Nick Steele, did he speak against the bill last time? Nick Steele is recognized to speak against
Nick Staley
Unverified
1:04:01
the bill. My name is Nick Staley. I'm a visiting fellow at
Speaker 182
1:04:04
FGA Action, and we're a think tank that works
on reducing barriers to work and getting people out of government dependency. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm here to testify in opposition to HB 1915, and while I appreciate the good intent behind this bill and the desire to give Arkansans a hand up, I'm afraid that it would instead trap more folks in dependency rather than providing them with the tools they need to become self-sufficient. I think some historical context would be helpful. SB 306 was enacted in
2023, and DHS was given the ability to raise the income threshold well beyond federal standards and temporarily elevate the asset cap to $5,500 for one full year once every five years. I remind you that this is already more generous than the federal standard. In contrast, this bill permanently expands eligibility by raising the asset limit to a double the asset limit established in federal law for as long as enrollees are receiving benefits. In doing so, I want to remind you we're also,
because we can say this is federal money, but we're also growing the federal deficit, which is at a crisis. So I would urge you all to uphold this principle of temporary targeted assistance and oppose this broad and permanent expansion in food stamp eligibility. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions
for the witness? Seeing no questions, thank you for your, oh sorry, Representative Pilkington, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:05:42
you, Chair. Nick, when I was in grad school, I worked in Section 8 housing, and I would constantly see this where people would, they'd
have Section 8 housing, they would get a job, they're working, they're doing everything we want to do, and then unfortunately,
though, they would get a promotion and they potentially would lose their housing, and so they wouldn't take the promotion, they wouldn't take more work. My understanding is that this bill will just allow them to increase those assets so they wouldn't be burdened by losing certain benefits if they increase their asset limits, but is it creating a cliff or is it creating an off-lamp? Because I'm confused on that and I'm sorry maybe Representative Eubanks addressed this. I wasn't here on Thursday so I'm sorry and maybe he can
address it as close too but I'm just going through this. I like off-ramps. I don't like cliffs and so it's kind of the both
Nick Staley
Unverified
1:06:37
of y'all but it just popped in my head. So the way I see this
Speaker 182
1:06:43
is what it's doing is it's moving that cliff into the future. And it seems like when you see bills like this and others, they often do that same thing. And the fact of the matter is there's already transitional benefits in most welfare programs. And so as income increases, the benefit amounts
ratchet down. And there are, I believe it's up to a year. I can't remember the name of the program, but there are already programs and food stamps to allow some of this. And of course, we know that it was i think i just testified it was uh 306 yeah sp 306 and so uh we're already i think as a state establishing um sort of that off-ramp um and so i think it's better to do that than to have this um just simply pushing out into the future this problem that already um that
already exists um and i i think uh you know our calculation said it's somewhere between seven and eleven thousand people being added uh to food stamps because of this so i think that's also worth noting any further
questions for committee cnn all the thank you for your testimony we do Do you have a Kristen Harper? Has she testified previously? Okay.
You're recognized to testify for the bill.
Speaker 191
1:08:10
Good morning, Kristen Harper. I'm with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and I'm here to ask you to vote for HB 1915 so that we can provide critical access to food for low-income families by requesting a waiver to increase the state's asset limit to $6,000 and, importantly, index it to inflation. as well. As you may know Arkansas has one of the highest food insecurity rates at 18.9 percent in 2023 compared to 13.5 percent nationally. Even more distressing is that food insecurity among
children is even higher. In 2023 Feeding America reported that 25 percent of Arkansas children were food insecure. Food insecurity and hunger have long-lasting cumulative and significant consequences on children and families. Arkansas is one of only 13 states that continues to have
Chair
Unverified
1:08:54
an asset limit, meaning a limit on how much a family can have in their bank account, the value of an additional vehicle, etc., and still have access to SNAP. Most states have chosen to eliminate the asset limit, but Arkansas currently maintains the lowest asset limit possible. Most financial advisors are going
Speaker 191
1:09:16
to recommend that you have savings to cover three to six months of expenses, right? But Arkansas, So again, with our asset limit of $3,000 or $4,500 for individuals with disabilities or those over 60 is much lower than that. For most families, $3,000 is not enough for even one month of expenses. Increasing the SNAP asset limit to $6,000 across the board will help decrease hunger for children and families while also allowing families to save for emergencies and otherwise do just what we want families to do, right?
to have this temporary safety net and then ultimately get off of transition off of benefits and not fall back into poverty hb 1915 will help reduce hunger in our state while also allowing
Chair
Unverified
1:09:58
families to build self-sufficiency so i ask you to please vote for hb 1915. thank you representative rose you recognize thank you mr
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:10:10
chair thank you for your testimony today I went way back
in history and remembered when I was 20 years old,
newly married in college, and we weren't making much money, didn't have much money, and somebody suggested, and this is a weird place in history for me, somebody suggested that we apply for benefits like this, and we were turned down, I think at the time, because we had maybe it was $2,500 in the bank or whatever, whatever the asset limit was at that time. And I remember it was frustrating. And I realized, well, I had to do something,
so I got a second and then a third job to cover all those needs as a family while being a full-time student. And I'm just curious to your thoughts on if we don't raise this asset limit, the alternatives for folks who are able to work is
an alternative to get a job or to get a second job or pick up some other kind of paying contract labor or whatever.
Just kind of your thoughts on that, because that's my personal
experience. I'm just curious what your experience would share. Sure.
Speaker 191
1:11:29
I think the answer is it depends, right? So many families, they have different circumstances. Some parents are full-time caregivers for children with disabilities and so may not be able to pick up that additional job is just one example. So there's a wide range, but again, Arkansas is one of the few states that still has an asset limit, and I think at the end of the day, this is going to help families, and most importantly, children. We know if children are well-fed, they're going to do better in school, both academically,
behaviorally, and so I just think that this is the right thing to do
for kids and families. I'm recognized. Thank you. I had a question for you and kind of to follow up on what Representative Rose was discussing. So my current understanding of this is, so a SNAP benefit is a maximum benefit of what, $300 a month, maybe $250 a month? It
Speaker 191
1:12:23
depends on the family size, but roughly, yes.
You're looking at, on average, about $6.60 a day. Okay. So
my... now we're back okay I can't touch it um so my my question or my point to that would be and representative rose kind of got me thinking along this line do you believe that arkansans
are trying to impoverish themselves to continue to get a $300 a month benefit into perpetuity I mean, I wouldn't, I don't know, that doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why anyone would do that. And I think to Representative Eubank's point, we've talked about this fiscal cliff that's out there for people, and I agree that cliff exists, but I hope that by extending this asset limit, we're allowing people to take an opportunity to continue to better themselves, to his point earlier.
So would you agree with that? Yes, sir, I would
Chair
Unverified
1:13:40
agree. Thank you. any further questions representative richmond do you have
a question okay well you flailed your hand um thank you for your
testimony thank you anyone else in the audience speak for or against this bill yes ma'am
you have not testified previously correct okay
Speaker 209
1:14:12
thank you representative for bringing this bill um a couple years ago ma'am
Britney Um
Unverified
1:14:16
if you would state your name for the record and you're
Brittany Stockton
Unverified
1:14:20
recognized testify my name is britney um and i am testifying in support of the bill your full name ma'am britney stockton thank you apologies a couple years ago, um, my three daughters and I left a situation, um, an urge, a situation for safety
reasons. Um, I didn't have a job. I didn't have money saved and I was eligible for benefits at that time. In the past two years, I've worked usually two jobs to take care of my girls. I'm no longer eligible for benefits, but at that time I was and I applied and I got everything that I was able to get. Had I had savings, we would have been better off, but I wouldn't have been eligible for the benefits that I had. I wasn't planning to speak on this, but I felt like it was important to share that. Like I said, I have two jobs now. I support my girls. I don't qualify for
benefits anymore, but that is an asset to people who are leaving under circumstances that they didn't plan on. So please consider that and vote in support of this. any questions for the witness? Seeing none,
thank you for your testimony. Representative Eubanks, no one else raised their hand. Speak for or against the bill. Yes, ma'am. You are very welcome to.
Holly Skipper
Unverified
1:15:50
Good morning. Oh, right here. Good morning. My name is Holly Skipper. I had I had no idea
Speaker 215
1:16:01
this was even a bill that was in committee. I wanted to share a little bit. I have recently become a full-time caregiver for myself, my son that is autistic, and my husband who is in desperate need for a liver. About three months ago, I was advised by one of my proctors, I'm a full-time student,
and I was advised that maybe I should go and try to apply for food stamps. So I thought, you know, there was only one other time in my life that I ever had to use that, and that was after my first husband passed away and I became a single parent to a newborn at three months old. Fast forward two decades later, never thought I would ever have to use it. I always wanted to support those who needed it. When I started this process, and I just got approved three days ago, I started this process in December of last year.
Not only did I have to account for every job that I was making in the two part-time jobs I had, plus school, plus my son's money. But I spent days and days crying, wondering which job I was going to have to quit so that I could afford to be able to feed my son and feed my partner. So yes, when they mentioned, when one of the representatives mentioned that people aren't just going out there to get $300 a month.
We get $200 and $5 a month. That's after I pay everything that I have to pay. And right now, I have $13 in my bank account. I work 60 hours a week, including the hours that I go to school. I'm going to school for social work. I guarantee that I'm not. Spending the three months that I spend and the hours in tears, wondering which bills I have to give up to be able to feed my family for $200 and something
a month. So I plead. The reason I mention that is because of the asset limits. Because of the asset limits, we had to go back and I had to give things away or I wasn't allowed to give or sell things away, but I had to explain to them why I had a car to get my partner back and forth to UAMS that didn't have a hundred and something thousand miles on or two hundred thousand miles so i guess my point is in rambling is that people aren't just out there trying to stay down they're trying to
get some help and we're trying to get a leg up so we can help
other people so thank you representative perry
Speaker 216
1:18:38
ma'am if you'll take questions oh yeah representative perry i'm sorry guys that was my first i didn't have any
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:18:43
intention of doing this this morning thank you mr chairman and appreciate you coming and testifying. You said
you applied, you started the application process in December?
Holly Skipper
Unverified
1:18:52
Of last year, yes, sir, December the 3rd. And
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:18:55
you got approved three days ago? Yes, sir. So four months? Yes, sir. Yeah.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:19:01
That's, I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Rose. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Ms. Skipper, so sorry for the challenges you're facing with your family. Thank you. I want to say thank you for taking the time to come and testify. Did you say, and I was following and I got a little sidetracked and it wasn't
Speaker 215
1:19:29
quit one of your jobs to get approved? I had to lower my hours approximately 3.1 hours a week for me able to get approved.
Yes, sir. I had to take a lunch shift off of my week because my tips were too much. Pay for Garcia. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. Before I put my foot in my mouth again, is there anyone else in the audience to speak for or against this bill that has not previously spoke on this bill? Seeing none, Representative Eubanks, you are recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:20:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, members, I don't like to see people game the system. I don't like to see people on the dole. Anybody at home that knows me understands that. They know how I work and what I expect of other people. I have supported the work requirement for these benefits.
I have, I think any able person, if they have one job and they're not being able to make it, then I would agree with what Representative Rose said, that possibly they ought to get a second job. Because I hadn't, when my oldest son was in college, I had to recommend that to him. It turned out well, but, you know, it's all right to sacrifice. it's all right to put in that time to do that to try to improve your situation.
My daughter is a counselor at an elementary school in western Arkansas, and I sort of know firsthand the food insecurity that a lot of our young kids are dealing with. I also know what food costs are. Anybody here that has gone to the grocery store in the last year and a half, two years, know how it's increased. You know? I don't know. I know what I'm spending. I don't know how other people are being able to afford to feed their families. I had an elderly gentleman
contact me after the meeting last week, and he left me a voicemail. And he said, I know you're not trying to expand the roles for this, you're just trying to feed people. He says, "I haven't had to deal with this in a long time, but if you've ever had to go without groceries, you appreciate whatever help you can get." He says, "I'm not in that situation now, but I appreciate what you're trying to do."
Like I said, I don't want people to take advantage of a situation. I do not want to expand the roles unnecessarily. I want people to have an opportunity to improve themselves. And I don't know how you do that if you're not able to accumulate anything. And by being one of the few states in the country that still has asset limits, you know, what we've been doing worked, why are we still in this situation? So I would contend that
we have to change some things. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'm closed and I'd appreciate a
good vote. Thank you. What's the
wishes of the committee? I got a motion. Do pass. Any discussion
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:23:12
on the motion? Representative Inet, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And And I apologize for being late. I was running several bills in other committees. I want to thank Representative Eubanks for bringing this bill. I have a son with disabilities, and so we're already dealing with some of these issues with him now.
So I want to thank you for bringing this to the table, and I hope that
Chair
Unverified
1:23:43
the committee will vote yes for this. Any further discussion? Representative Henley,
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:23:48
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Eubanks. I'll be voting for this bill. I volunteer
at a homeless shelter and food pantry in Hope. And, you know, these problems are real. And I believe that Eubanks is right. It's not been working.
What we've been doing hasn't been working. I think this is an opportunity to perhaps help people who need help. There are several of what we had state programs. emergency solutions grant. You may be aware of that. It's been moved from Department of Human Services over to Department of Finance Authority. Grants have been in process for months now, and I don't believe those agencies who have been depending on this money for years and years have been told that they're going to be able to help the homeless nor the people who are hungry. So we
have some problems in the state and I think that this is a method to correct a problem and to help a situation. Thank you. Seeing no other discussion,
all those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Ayes have it. Congratulations, your bill
is passed. Thank you, committee. All right, representative Hall.
Is he still in the room? Yeah. Representative Hall, you recognize. Present your bill. Can you
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:25:29
give us the bill number? 1762. Representative Brad Hall, District 24. House Bill 1762. Representative
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:25:36
Chad Perrier, I just wanted to come see Representative Wardlaw today and be moral support here.
Yeah, your name's on the list up here, so I
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:25:48
don't believe that for a second. But you guys are recognized. All right, thank you. Hey, this is a constituent bill. What's happened is there was a company, I guess you'd say a statewide company, And they got kicked out of Missouri and Oklahoma. And what this bill deals with is chicken poultry processing waste, water. Because when they kill all the chickens and poultry, they have to have washdowns.
And so the water has to go somewhere every hour. So they can't let it back up. So they're constantly trucking it out of there. And when they got shut out of Missouri and Oklahoma, the only place they had to go to it was District 24. know and it's a large large amount of it. Sometimes there's 287 semi truck loads going one way a day and so they have open lagoons they're putting it on top of the ground and disking it in and and they're breaking their permit because
they're having to and they're even self implying that they're breaking their permit. And so. I think that pretty well
Speaker 238
1:26:59
covers. I don't have a whole lot to add. I figure we'll have some questions
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:27:06
in committee. Yeah. And so all this bill says is that if you break your permit three times within a 45-day period, we revoke your permit. And that's all it says. And those of you that are from the Fort Smith area, when you smell that smell, that's what it
Chair
Unverified
1:27:22
Any questions for the committee? Representative Long, you recognize me. Thank you,
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:27:29
Mr. Chairman. What's the current fine? The fine is anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000, but that depends on the ADEQ, whatever they
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:27:37
want to. And currently it's to their advantage just to pay the fine and keep breaking the rules. Is
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:27:43
that correct? Yeah, but they're having to self, I guess, tattle on themselves. Nobody's there to catch them breaking the
Speaker 245
1:27:49
rules. Okay, thanks, sir. Representative Rose.
Motion at a proper time. Any other questions from the committee? Anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill? If you would, introduce yourself for the record and you're recognized to speak. I don't really know how you're speaking, so go ahead.
Speaker 97
1:28:19
Are you speaking for or against? Against. Okay. Bailey Taylor, DEQ Director, Chief Administrator of Environment. I do appreciate you, Representative, for the conversations that we've had.
Speaker 103
1:28:26
But I do need to voice some concerns from the department. So first, this bill adds a clause that is really inapplicable to that section in the Solid Waste Code. So the permits that we issue for the land application of this waste are issued under the water section. And
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:28:44
so the section under the Solid Waste Management Act is just we won't be able to apply it to anything that we regulate. And so we have that concern. And then this also requires us to issue or deny a permit within 180 days.
And while that is always our goal, there are certain things
Speaker 103
1:29:05
that can happen that would prevent us from doing so, such as extensive public comments, if we had staff turnover during a season, or if the permittee does not supply us with all the information that we've requested. And we are in the business of issuing sound, protective, and defensible permits. And so if all of those, if we don't have a perfect record, then we can't issue that, and we would be required to deny that permit.
And so we're afraid that this would create a situation where we're having to deny permits, and, you know, these businesses would not be able to operate under those conditions. And then lastly, this bill, so we already have processes at DEQ in place to address noncompliance, and we're afraid that this bill prescribes extra requirements on just one type of permit. And so we would be spending our time revoking and having public hearings on these specific
permits for these specific type of violations instead of working through the compliance and enforcement and permitting processes that are already in place. I'm available for questions Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:30:20
Richardson you recognize thank you Mr. Chair ma'am so you're saying that the 180 days may
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:30:26
be a bit much so tell me how many permits are you guys reviewing on a monthly basis on a monthly basement
that's going to require me to do math so in the
Speaker 103
1:30:40
office of water quality I would say we issue we have over 7,000 permits, and so on a monthly basis it could be over 30 to 50, maybe even 100 at times. Okay, and
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:30:52
you're familiar with the issues that we've had in Sebastian and Crawford County with the stench. Yes, sir. Have you
had a chance to actually smell the stench? No, sir, I
Speaker 103
1:31:05
have not been out. We have had inspectors that have been out and documented certain violations.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:31:11
Okay, and it's my understanding that we have had inspectors out who have documented, but nothing has ever happened, is my understanding, because the people are continuing to violate the law or their permit, is my understanding. And I have people that are literally getting sick behind the smell that these companies are dropping. And it's dropping in a county that's not even in mine, but the stench rains, I mean, miles and miles away. And, you know, if this is going to add some work to you guys, I'm okay with that.
But the most important thing is the reaction that our people are having to what this company is doing. And I'll leave it
Chair
Unverified
1:31:52
there, but I'm 100% supportive of the bill. Representative Layman, you're recognized.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:31:58
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How do you enforce the requirements of these permits? I mean, do you have regular
inspections? Do you respond to complaints? How do you enforce that? We respond to
Speaker 103
1:32:11
complaints, and then we also have a records review.
We do that. It's not quite annually, but we do review the records, and so any violations that would be noted, then we would take enforcement action. We have, we've issued consent administrative orders with a civil penalty. So you have issued fines to people in the past?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:32:31
Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Representative Rose, you recognize.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:32:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry if some of
this is redundant to your testimony. But why do you
think that these representatives and the co-sponsors feel this
Speaker 103
1:33:03
bill is necessary? I don't want to speak to their intentions. but I believe they shared that in their testimony,
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:33:11
the constituent concerns. It's not just constituent concerns. I mean, it's the representative's concerns as well.
Why is this still an issue? The odor? Well, the odor is
the byproduct of the waste, the excessive waste, in Crawford County. So why is this still an
Speaker 97
1:33:37
issue? So what we're doing, like we said, we are issuing consent administrative orders for violations that we've
Speaker 103
1:33:43
observed, been reported to us, documented. The second thing we are doing is trying to issue more permits in order to create more land available for this land application so that it's not so concentrated in one area.
These permits, like I said, we want them to be sound, defensible, and protective. And so they do take time. are meeting regularly in order to get these permits issued. We have diverted staff from other projects in order to have more staff time available for these permits, and we've issued 12 to 15 in the last few months, and so we are working on more. Have you been to the site personally? No, sir. You
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:34:27
mentioned that you've issued orders. What do those orders do?
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:34:30
They require them to comply with their permit, and they issue a civil penalty. Are they
Speaker 103
1:34:37
complying? Unless they are reporting to us that they're not or we're observing not, we understand that they are. So you haven't been to the
Speaker 261
1:34:44
site. You issued the orders for them to comply. And since you're not going there, the only way
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:34:49
for us to know if they're complying is if they tattle on themselves. Is that correct? No, sir. Our inspectors go there. I personally have not
Speaker 97
1:34:55
been to the site. may have misunderstood your question. So when were your inspectors there last? I don't know last but
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:35:06
So you yourself have not been to the site. You don't know when your inspectors have been to the site and the only way that we can know if they're not complying is if they tell us themselves hey we're not complying and now we have
Speaker 253
1:35:17
to pay a fine. Or we receive a complaint and or an inspector is out to the site.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:35:25
When was the last complaint filed? I'm not sure. I'm sorry we've not met, I know you're testifying against this bill, but you yourself have not been there. You don't know when the last complaint was filed. You don't know when the last time the inspectors were on site. So how are we
supposed to take your testimony seriously against this bill if you don't have that
Speaker 103
1:35:43
information? I was more speaking on the procedures that this bill created and the concerns with our ability to focus on the procedures versus are the current processes that we have in place for compliance enforcement and the ability to revoke a permit due to non-compliance. Is there somebody who
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:36:03
could testify to when the inspectors were last on site or to when anybody was last on site?
That's up to the chair. Representative Rose, let me ask a question, and then we'll get back to you. Yep, thank you. So I think my concern is, and this is the ADQ, But I think my concern is the bill sponsor's presentation
was this stuff has been outlawed in these other states. Did I hear that correctly? So how are we able to get a permit to do it in Arkansas? And what makes our soil make up the ability for this stuff to get into our groundwater different than Missouri and Oklahoma when we're right there?
Because I can't imagine the soil being that much difference right across the
Speaker 103
1:36:50
border. It is not. The reason why this process was removed in Missouri has nothing to do with their soil makeup or groundwater or any differences. Okay, so walk me through it. So we have always had this permitting procedure since
Speaker 262
1:37:02
I have been there. So we have these permits in existence already. There was an increase in the amount. Hold
on. This is where you department people try to outlawyer me. I'm not a lawyer.
I'm a dirt farmer, okay? So we're going to go slow and easy here. I didn't ask you what the process was or how our
process was. I asked you why we allow it when these other two states don't allow it. And then I gave an example of why I think they should or didn't. I want to know from you why we do and they don't. Period. That's it. That's all I want
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:37:40
to know. Because no one has banned our ability to issue that. So the proper way
to issue this bill would have been a ban
and not a three strikes and you're out on the permit? I can't speak to the will of the... If their will was to get rid of it, would that not have been
Speaker 103
1:38:00
the proper way to get rid of it? That would have been a mechanism. I believe that would probably have left some industries
in distress. But that's what happened in Oklahoma, Missouri, is they filed legislation that said you cannot put this on our property in our states. In a roundabout way,
Speaker 262
1:38:13
yes, sir. Okay. Representative Rose, do you have a follow-up?
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:38:17
I do. Thank you. Have you had conversations or meetings with industry leaders about this? The
poultry industry? No, sir. Has anybody in your organization
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:38:32
have been to our office. Okay. So, again, I want to go back to you mentioned that this is about policy and procedures, and it seems like the policy and procedures that you hear testifying to are not doing anything to alleviate the issue because it continues, and I'm in the area, as these two representatives are,
as Representative Richardson is, it's a constant issue. And the policy and procedures are not fixing it. So is there somebody in your agency who could at least come down here and tell us if the policy and procedures are working? Like when was the last time they were fined? When's the last time there was an inspection? When was the last time somebody was on site?
Speaker 103
1:39:13
I know within the last month they have been on site. What happened with that? I do know that. So how that works is we have an investigation, we issue a report,
and if there are findings, it's referred to enforcement. I don't want to speak to drafts that haven't been proposed or reviewed or anything like that, but we have issued consent administrative orders. I believe that there have been other recent violations that have been referred to enforcement, And so that process would be ongoing at this time. So let's do this. I got one more, Mr. Chairman. I
understand. Hold on. Wait until I make this reference. I think it's going to help you. We're going to meet again upon adjournment.
House bills will still have time to make it through the process from this afternoon. So why don't you go back to your department, get us some defense from your folks at the department, get some answers, be able to come back and legitimately be able to answer these questions from the members, and we'll pick up right here with you at the table when we come
back after a session. Representative Rose, is that amenable? Follow your lead, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Let's
do that. Representative Hall, are you okay with that?
Yes, sounds great. Okay. Alright, so let's do that and I'm going to start, we have some members on their way here from other committees But until they get here, I'm going to start calling bills off. These bills will get the strike. Representative Acre, you can go ahead and go to the table. We'll start with yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:41:00
Representative Acre, District 71. I'm here to present House Bill 1961. So this is a bill that was brought to me by some health care providers. It's a simple bill. It allows them to... Do you have an amendment? Oh, no, I'm not writing an amendment. I did have it drafted, but we've met with the individuals who had concerns, and we've been able to quiet that with no opposition. Okay. Okay. You're recognized. Okay. So what this bill does is it allows a health care provider who orders a test to put a temporary hold on that test being automatically uploaded
and available to the patient. This allows them, if they have believable cause that the patient would be harmed or that there can be some anxiety induced from the medical jargon that comes from that test, it has to be provider specific and test specific. So real world example, when I get my CT scan results, they're written in such a way that they don't offer any sort of diagnostic information, but they can provide some troubling language. And what this allows is if the provider who ordered the test wants time to review it,
set up an appointment, and have a treatment plan, we don't want to interrupt that continuity of care. And so it can't be a blanket restriction. I believe the temporary restriction is only for 30 days. And again, I do feel that providers who have issued these have ran into issues where it's a Friday night and a test is uploaded to the portal and it's kind of freaked their patient out a little bit and they're not able to get a hold of that provider to get some clarity, this kind of maintains that patient-provider relationship with the test.
And it's specific to a test. It can't be their entire profile, and it can only be for a temporary amount of time. So with that, I
Speaker 281
1:42:49
welcome any questions. Yeah, I'll take a
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:42:52
question. Thank you. Yeah, I think I'm in support of this bill, but I am curious, and I didn't see this. I mean, if there is a situation like, let's say, a test comes back and for some reason a provider is, has like a medical emergency comes up and is not able
to be found, but you've got a patient who's waiting on a test, I mean, and they're on pins and needles the whole time trying to know whether or not this test gets back.
I mean, is there any way for them to get that information?
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:43:21
And I'm sorry I missed the beginning of your presentation. So, yeah, so actually the provider itself is the only one that can have that restriction from the provider. they can't delegate that to any other provider so if the patient met with another provider and that provider wanted to release the test or see it or if the or if the patient reached out to the lab or the people who actually did the testing or the imaging they can still do that so it they can't delegate the restriction to anybody else other than them themselves. So they can't
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:43:47
delegate the restriction but the they can delegate the releasing of it to someone else? I don't believe
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:43:53
that they can they can't if a patient met with an another provider that provider could release that okay well i
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
1:43:59
guess what i'm saying is so let's say you've got a multiple provider clinic and the provider for some reason is not able to to release it or hasn't released yet for whatever reason i can't call up and say hey i've been waiting for these results i haven't gotten back yet you know as dr johnson i know is was in a car accident but i'm needing these results can can dr rose give these results to me go over them with
me. Is that possible? Yes, that's possible. Okay, that's just what I
wanted to know. Any further questions? Representative Ferguson?
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:44:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Got two questions, Representative Aker. You said something about 30 days. Is that the
provider has 30 days before he or she can release the information to the patient? They have 30 days
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:44:50
before they lose their ability to withhold it so if they can't get an appointment with the patient or they
can't follow up and call the patient and release that then it automatically becomes available within 30 after 30 days so basically the provider has 30 as contemporary up to 30 days they can put a week two weeks up to 30 days to try and coordinate a time where they can sit down with the patient go over the news because as you can imagine there can be some heavy consequences to people misinterpreting and googling test results on stuff as serious as cancer or as serious as a broken arm or what is, where is that line? The providers, I believe, want the ability to maintain that
relationship with the patient and give them the full scope of their skills and assessment. One follow-up. The
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:45:37
reason why I asked that question, I had a similar situation. I had to wait two
weeks and I thought something was seriously wrong with me, but I had to get an appointment because they had to pay for the appointment so I go back to the provider because I couldn't get information after I looked on the portal and saw the test and then I had to wait two weeks probably two and a half weeks and
Speaker 290
1:45:58
I thought I was checking out but I wasn't right I would think that that scenario is
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:46:05
more problematic with the portal this would be the provider themselves making a specific request on Mr. Ferguson's result for this specific test. It's not your entire profile. It's just saying if we're testing for something that the provider wants to have a one-on-one conversation with you about to give you the full complexity of the situation, they can cherry-pick what test they really want. One last question. The provider
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:46:30
wants a test on my liver, but he wants to wait before he talks to me after the test,
so therefore I can't see the results of the test. Is this what this
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:46:46
bill does? Only if that provider wants to put that restriction on there. If you reach out to the lab that did the test, you can still get those
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:46:53
results. Okay. So I can get the results regardless of what the provider is attempting to get? Right. What this
Speaker 279
1:46:59
would be is that patient portal you have, that's where he would put the hold on it because he wants to
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:47:05
see you to go over those results. If you were adamant about getting those, you would still have an avenue through the testing agency that actually performed the test.
Speaker 293
1:47:14
Okay. Representative Barnes. So, thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:47:25
So the basis of this bill is basically to be able to have a conversation with a patient that may be receiving some bad information concerning a test that they've had on their body, three months to live, maybe a month to live, something like that, and they want to make sure they sit down with them, talk to them, kind of help them through it before they get that information without having someone to talk with them.
That's the basis of it? Yes, sir. Okay. Great idea. Any further questions? Representative Cooper, if you would come see me
for a second. Any further questions? Seeing none, anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill? You recognize closed for your bill, which I hope you are. I'm very much closed. Thank you, committee. I have a motion to pass.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Ayes have it. With
that, congratulations, your bill passed. Representative Hudson, you're recognized to introduce yourself and present your bill for the committee.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:48:55
With the chair's permission, may I have a guest come join me at the table.
If you will, identify yourself for the record, and you'll be recognized to help present. Good morning, Chair.
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
1:49:16
Good morning, Chairman. My name is Melissa Farmer. President Hudson, hold on one second.
Members, we're getting close to the end of the session, to the end of House bills, being able to move forward. I'm going to make this announcement so everybody can hear us in here and everybody can hear us out of here. We're going to issue the committee to meet at the call of the chair upon adjournment. We're going to adjourn at 12 to 12.15 this morning. We're going to come back after the session. I'm going to hear House bills only first and then Senate bills. And then Thursday, we will only hear Senate bills. I've held Senators off all morning to give you guys the preference to get your bills heard.
So if you have a bill on the agenda and you want to be heard, I
myself, Ms. Davis, our Representative Woolbridge, needs to be notified in the next 5 to 10 minutes so we
can plan this afternoon. With that, Ms. Hudson,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:50:17
you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. Colleagues, today I'm presenting House Bill 1880, which is meant
to amend the Arkansas Human Life Protection
Act to offer some narrow exceptions to our abortion ban.
Now, as legislators, we are tasked often with making decisions that reflect the values of our constituents and uphold
the principles that guide us as a state. The issue of abortion is one that demands both compassion and careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding each case. This bill presents a proposal to introduce limited exceptions to the state's abortion ban in instances of rape and incest, when the life and health of the mother are at risk, and in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities.
These exceptions are designed to address the rare and heart-wrenching situations where a woman is confronted with choices that no one should ever have to face. By allowing for these exceptions, we ensure that our laws reflect not only our commitment to the sanctity of life, but also our ability to respond with humanity and empathy when the circumstances are both extraordinary and tragic. It's about striking the right balance, upholding core values of life, providing necessary protections when there's no clear path forward,
and ensuring that we avoid significant physical, emotional, or moral harm to the mother. In the period
between 2018 and 2021, Arkansas had a maternal mortality rate of 43.5 deaths per 100,000 births, which is almost double the national average. Notably, black women in Arkansas face even higher risks experiencing maternal deaths at a rate of 71 per 100,000 live births, which is more than twice the rate for non-Hispanic white women.
Additionally, since 2022, when the Dobbs decision was handed down in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have seen those maternal mortality rates increase in states that have restrictive abortion laws, primarily in southern U.S. states, which has led to tragic outcomes, including near fatalities and preventable deaths among women experiencing pregnancy complications. These laws, which are intended to limit abortion access, have sometimes resulted in delays or denial of necessary medical care, which has exacerbated health risks. And I won't go through all of these now, but all of us
have no doubt heard in the news the cases of women in places like Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama who have either died or almost died because they were not provided the abortion care that they needed, the life-saving care that they needed, in order to ensure that their health and safety were taken care of. When we're talking about cases of children, right now, it is... So a word of advice,
I didn't touch it. I would not touch the microphone at all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And then I would speak into it. You
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:53:35
have better luck. You're touching it again. I was trying to move it down,
otherwise I'm going to be standing up trying to speak into it. It's going to cut off again. I'm just giving you insight. Do not
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:53:42
touch it and it won't go off. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As of right now, it is the public policy of the state of Arkansas to require children to give birth.
My 13-year-old is trying to call me right now. It is the public policy of the state of Arkansas to tell my 13-year-old, who is not even high school, that she must carry a pregnancy to term. It's the public policy of the state of Arkansas to tell my 11-year-old son that he's ready to be a father. That is the reality of the state of the law today. We know that when children are forced to give birth, it leads to a number of negative health outcomes for them. The physical toll on their bodies alone is sufficient to justify a need for an exception for these children who are victims of rape and incest.
But there is also a significant mental and emotional toll on these children. I would also point out that Arkansas has one of the highest indices of sexual violence against children. And those indices of sexual violence are grossly underreported, especially in cases of rape and incest by a family member. So it's likely that our numbers are even higher. And of those, a significant percentage of those sexual assaults and rapes and incest result in pregnancies that these children are forced to carry to term.
To me, it is absolutely appalling that in Arkansas we require children who are not old enough to carry a gun, who are not old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or some beer or get conscripted into the army, who are not old enough to make decisions about what library books they want to read. We tell them that they're
old enough to have children. Finally, in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities, these are
women who are often faced with with the most difficult choice of their life for pregnancies that they desperately wanted.
These are situations in which doctors, often second and third opinions, have made the conclusion, the devastating conclusion, that the fetus that the woman is carrying is incompatible with life. And we are telling these women that they have no choice in how to move forward. We are telling these women that their lives matter less and that they are merely a vessel for what is likely to be a situation where this fetus is born, may experience pain in the brief time that they are alive,
and requiring the mother to go through the agony of giving birth in a situation in which they know that there is absolutely no hope. And I can tell you from friends who
have gone through this agonizing situation that it is difficult for them, for their families, and
for their other children. I've brought a witness today because I think often the toll and the effect of these laws is lost in the political discourse. And so I brought a witness today to provide some insight as to her experience
and to give you a little bit of a real live example of the aftereffects of dangerous bans like ours. And I would very much appreciate the committee's attention and respect to her. so since we do have to
leave at 12 15 i'm going to allow this
witness to speak but again the same ruling as ruled in the previous bill will be in this bill you will not be allowed to speak again
when we come back this afternoon but we'll pick this bill up first when we come back this afternoon to hear testimony for and against because we do have quite a few signed up on both sides
so with that i'll allow you to testify and that's up to you representative hudson how
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
1:57:28
you want to do that No, that's fine. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Good morning. Again, my name is Melissa Farmer. My message is of love unfulfilled. I believe that with great suffering, it can manifest either bitterness or compassion.
Speaker 314
1:57:44
It's a choice daily to love. The love that I have for Maeve gives me the courage to fight for the world worthy of her. My husband and I were full of hope and the promise of our
Speaker 315
1:58:02
daughter, Maeve. Our greatest dream was a family with a curly red-headed world changer. At 40 years old, I
Speaker 314
1:58:11
knew it was now or never. At around 10 weeks of my pregnancy, the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade,
triggering an immediate abortion ban in Missouri. I remember reading a story about a woman in Texas who nearly died from a pee prom. Her water broke early. That is a preterm, premature rupture of the membranes, also known as a water break.
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
1:58:41
The doctors refused to help her. Her story was terrifying. A reality sank in.
My pregnancy could become dangerous and even life-threatening. And then it did. A
Speaker 314
1:58:57
few short weeks later, my dream became a nightmare as I heard the doctor's prognosis of P-Prom. They told me to
Speaker 315
1:59:04
leave the state because the law prevented them from giving me the care that I needed. And even though Maeve was no longer viable, there was a heartbeat.
Speaker 316
1:59:20
That meant they wouldn't help until I was actively dying.
Speaker 315
1:59:28
I was haunted by that Texas mother's story, and I took every step to get the care best that I could. I called every hospital within six hours of driving from my home to Illinois. No hospital was willing to help me. So finally, I decided to drive to Kansas City where abortion was legal.
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:00:01
I was afraid that my husband would be charged in assisting an abortion, so I drove the entire drive myself. I remember having to... Doctors in Kansas
Speaker 320
2:00:21
City told me the same thing, that even
Speaker 315
2:00:24
though abortion was legal in Kansas, it was too politically heated in this environment
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:00:29
right now to give me my care.
Their attorneys would not allow it. They told me to go back to my first hospital and wait for what was next. What was next, they
Speaker 315
2:00:45
said. It was bleeding. It was pain. It was fear. Sepsis, blood clots, hysterectomy. The next day I called my
Speaker 324
2:00:57
senator. He was shocked, and he told me that there
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:01:03
was an exception for the life of the mother.
And surely that ensures and encompasses my situation. He sent me to an anti-abortion
Speaker 315
2:01:13
clinic. As his only option. And of course he would see the dire situation, so I went. And they confirmed what I already knew. That Maeve wouldn't survive. And they couldn't even say the word abortion. Let alone recommend it.
I called the senator back. And his response was, I don't know what to tell you. He's pro-life, and he's not going back up for re-election. Good
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:01:54
luck. Again, I was in pain, and I was bleeding, and I was
Speaker 315
2:02:00
scared for my life. While also trying to process this unimaginable grief of losing our daughter, what was pro-life about any of this?
That heartbeat, that sound that filled us with joy and hopeful tears, it became my greatest torment. No one should ever have to hear that heartbeat and wish it would end just so that you could live. That sound
Speaker 326
2:02:34
will haunt me for the rest of my life. And to make things even
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:02:40
worse, my own church members told me that I deserved this.
that because I was unmarried to my husband, Matt,
Speaker 327
2:02:48
that this was God's righteous punishment. They
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:02:52
asked me to wait in the hospital on their prayer against my doctor's stern advice. In
Speaker 314
2:02:59
the hospital, I pleaded desperately for Maeve's life so hard that the hospital sent a NICU doctor down to my room.
Speaker 315
2:03:08
After describing the torturous ways in which she was being constricted slowly to death by my uterus, I understood the futility of my pleas when he said,
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:03:19
ma'am, there are things that are worse than death, and I have seen it.
Speaker 315
2:03:28
That was the strongest way of saying that the hope of Maeve was lost. I finally found help through an abortion hotline and they got me an appointment the next day, five and a half hours away, again.
Speaker 318
2:03:50
This was the third day and every time we passed the hospital, I thought, should we stop? Will they help me? Will I even survive the rest of this trip? No. I
Speaker 315
2:04:08
kept driving. When we arrived at the clinic, my husband parked and waited in the car. He watched me walk past protesters with signs and trailers and screens, calling me a murderer.
He was powerless entirely in this situation, and he is still trying to deal with this and cope with
Speaker 314
2:04:35
it to this day. I survived, but not without scars. The physical and the emotional and financial toll
Speaker 315
2:04:42
of these abortion laws have been devastating. I have gone from a life of being independent, employed, a homeowner, to now disabled, homeless.
And I cannot even afford my basic needs. And I can't even remain healthy enough to remain employed. This abortion denial has directly sent my life into a death spiral that I can no longer recover
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:05:15
from. This loss is unimaginable, and yet I consider myself fortunate. Because
Speaker 326
2:05:24
another woman told her story, and that story saved my life.
Speaker 315
2:05:31
I finally met that brave woman, and now I'm here to continue the work of saving people from harm. I
Speaker 314
2:05:40
urge you to commit today, as I have years ago, to not let this happen to anyone else. Do not
Speaker 315
2:05:47
assume that there is safety, even in exceptions. When I was bleeding and I was begging for help, when I was on the verge of losing my life, no politician saved me.
Speaker 314
2:06:02
Imagine for a moment if doctors tell you that you may die without this care, but some politician says they know
Speaker 336
2:06:12
what's better for you. Any delay in medical decisions can be catastrophic. Women have
Speaker 316
2:06:17
died with less time than I had. Little
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:06:22
has been done to stop this suffering. In fact, some are pushing for no exceptions. Some states are even calling for murder charges against women like me.
Speaker 315
2:06:35
They've even suggested that women who have no children or family shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:06:43
Let that sink in for a minute. I lost my ability to have a child forever
Speaker 336
2:06:56
because of this. So, today, I ask you to support this bill.
Speaker 314
2:07:02
I ask that the House supports Bill 1880 and give women like me a chance to receive the care that they deserve here in Arkansas.
Because we're not asking for too much. When we ask for common sense exceptions in our abortion laws, I stand here because somebody once stood for me. And it saved my life. Even if we disagree, even if you would not stand for me, I believe in loving my neighbors.
Speaker 315
2:07:31
And that love is why I would fight for them.
Speaker 318
2:07:38
Democracy is the truest form of love.
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:07:42
It simply means I may not understand what
Speaker 315
2:07:44
you're going through, but I will fight for you and your right to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
2:07:50
of happiness. What is more American than that? Thank you. I just again ask you to vote yes for this bill. Thank you. Ma'am,
thank you for your testimony. Representative Hudson, thank you for bringing this bill. So, members, we are up against a hard deadline. What we're going to do is we're going to go into recess.
We'll meet 15 minutes upon adjournment. We will continue with this bill, and we'll continue with questions for the witness when we come back. Again, we will be in recess until 15 minutes upon adjournment. Just a parliamentary
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:08:25
inquiry. So we're going to continue with this testimony? Okay, gotcha. We are. Yes, sir. Thanks for the clarification. My husband
Speaker 337
2:08:34
had to sit in the car. This is just Rexome, too.
Speaker 341
2:08:37
But no, but there's no reason. This actually works out really well for you because you don't have to sit through all this.
Speaker 342
2:08:45
Thank you so much for letting me speak. I've been waiting for a long time to speak officially. You did a
Speaker 341
2:08:49
great job. - You really did. - Thank you. - Yeah, thank you. - But thank you for being willing to do that. I really appreciate that. - I owe it to that woman.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1468 Cozart TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1332 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVER GLUCAGON- LIKE PEPTIDE-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS, ALSO KNOWN AS GLP-1 AGONISTS, WHEN PRESCRIBED FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
HB1588 McAlindon TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SEEKS OR IMPLEMENTS AN EXPANSION OF COVERAGE FOR THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM.
HB1762 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL OR PASTORAL APPLICATION FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS.
HB1776 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT OR AN EXPANSION OF A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT.
HB1791 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER IN THIS STATE AND DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE OR IMPLEMENT ACTIONS IN THIS STATE.
HB1795 A. Brown TO CREATE THE FERTILITY CLINIC LICENSURE ACT.
HB1816 L. Johnson TO PROHIBIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS FROM USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DELIVERY OF HEALTHCARE SERVICES OR THE GENERATION OF MEDICAL RECORDS UNLESS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
HB1818 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED CARE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
HB1819 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE THE STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL RECORDS TO COORDINATE WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES TO CONTACT MOTHERS FOR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE DURING THE POSTPARTUM PERIOD.
HB1880 Hudson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND THE ARKANSAS UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT TO ADD CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.
HB1882 Pilkington TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ENROLLABLE MEDICAID BENEFICIARY POPULATION AND ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE MEDICAID POPULATIONS TO BE ENROLLED UNDER THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT.
HB1888 Steele TO AMEND THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW; AND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FOR INDIVIDUALS.
HB1890 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BILL FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO REIMBURSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE SERVICES.
HB1906 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE WRITTEN CONSENT OF A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN WHEN PRESCRIBING LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION TO A PERSON WHO IS YOUNGER THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
HB1908 Long TO CREATE THE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; AND TO REQUIRE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR ADULT APPLICANTS.
HB1909 Long TO CREATE THE PUBLIC SERVICES ONLY FOR CITIZENS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCY IN ORDER TO RECEIVE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
HB1915 Eubanks TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUEST A BROAD- BASED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY WAIVER FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND THE ASSET LIMITS UNDER THE PROGRAM.
SB9 B. Davis TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT MANUFACTURING, SELLING, DELIVERING, DISTRIBUTING, HOLDING, OR OFFERING FOR SALE A FOOD PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS CERTAIN SUBSTANCES.
SB238 J. Payton TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
SB473 Stone TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD TO ADVISE THE ARKANSAS FIRE TRAINING ACADEMY ON CERTAIN MATTERS.
HB1961 Achor TO ALLOW MEDICAL PROVIDERS TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM FEDERAL INFORMATION-BLOCKING REGULATIONS TO SAFEGUARD PATIENTS DURING INFORMATION DISCLOSURE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB117 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT; TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIANS IN ARKANSAS; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF NATURAL MEDICINE.
HB1982 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; TO CREATE THE TIRE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING ACT; TO REPEAL THE USED TIRE RECYCLING FUND; AND TO CREATE THE WASTE TIRE ABATEMENT FUND.
HB1987 Ennett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BOARD OF EMBALMERS, FUNERAL DIRECTORS, CEMETERIES, AND BURIAL SERVICES; AND TO INCREASE THE CIVIL PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS BY A LICENSEE.
SB444 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT.
SB507 G. Leding TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVER APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS SERVICES FOR CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES.
SB546 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE TRUST FUND CONTRIBUTION FEE FOR WATER PERMITS RELATED TO NONMUNICIPAL DOMESTIC SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS.
SB554 C. Tucker TO CREATE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM.
SB560 J. English TO DECREASE THE BASE CONTRIBUTION RATE; TO INCREASE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT RATE; TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE SKILLED WORKFORCE IN THIS STATE; AND TO AMEND THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES TRAINING TRUST FUND.
SB120 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE LICENSURE FOR ALL PRIVATE CARE AGENCIES IN THIS STATE; AND TO ENSURE CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR VULNERABLE AGING ADULTS.
SB347 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO INCREASE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR CERTAIN DENTAL SERVICES AND TO SET AN ANNUAL REIMBURSEMENT CAP FOR ADULT DENTAL SERVICES.
SB497 D. Wallace TO REQUIRE THE CREATION OF A POSTER REGARDING VETERANS' BENEFITS AND SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE CERTAIN EMPLOYERS TO DISPLAY THE POSTER.
SB534 G. Leding TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS KRATOM CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT; AND TO REMOVE MITRAGYNINE AND 7-HYDROXYMITRAGYNINE, ALSO KNOWN AS KRATOM, FROM THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES LIST IN ARKANSAS.
SB576 B. Davis TO AMEND THE COVERAGE OF CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORS WITHIN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM.
SB601 Hester TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR A GRADUATE OF A FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOL TO BE LICENSED IN THIS STATE IF HE OR SHE IS OFFERED FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT AS A PHYSICIAN FROM A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1008 A. Collins TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH.
HB1010 A. Collins TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES.
HB1011 A. Collins TO CREATE THE RESTORE ROE ACT; AND TO RESTORE A WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES.
HB1012 A. Collins TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EXTEND ELIGIBILITY TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES.
HB1013 Hudson TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE.
HB1029 D. Garner TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SERVICES RELATED TO ADDICTION.
HB1032 A. Collins TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY.
HB1132 Pilkington TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES; AND TO AMEND THE PRESCRIPTIVE AUTHORITY OF AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE.
HB1224 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; AND TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT TO MASSAGE THERAPISTS.
HB1244 K. Brown TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF FULL INDEPENDENT PRACTICE AUTHORITY BY A CERTIFIED NURSE PRACTITIONER OR CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST.
HB1270 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH A PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC EXTENDED CARE PILOT PROGRAM THROUGH A SECTION 1115 MEDICAID DEMONSTRATION WAIVER; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1302 L. Johnson TO ADD DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TO THE UNIVERSAL NEWBORN SCREENING ACT.
HB1401 Pilkington TO INCLUDE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY SERVICES WITHIN THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT.
HB1463 Hudson TO PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST MATERIALS OR TEST DATA.
SB168 Rice TO ESTABLISH A STATE EXAMINATION FOR LICENSURE OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB187 Irvin TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID DRUG UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD TO INCLUDE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS.
HB1532 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COUNCIL.
HB1566 McClure TO REQUIRE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE PRACTICAL NURSING PROGRAM CORE CURRICULUM TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY IN PRACTICAL NURSING EDUCATION.
HB1592 J. Mayberry TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.
HB1718 Gramlich TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SURGICAL SMOKE EVACUATION IN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES LICENSED IN THIS STATE.
HB1723 Pilkington TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS ACT; AND TO DIRECT THE ARKANSAS MINORITY HEALTH COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER A GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS.
HB1731 Vaught TO STRENGTHEN CHILD LABOR LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES.
HB1781 Crawford TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENTERS, OR OTHER FACILITIES IN WHICH A PREGNANCY IS TERMINATED OR ABORTED IF CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MET.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND LABOR COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 8, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Chair
Unverified
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Speaker 17
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 40
Representative Jeff Wardlaw Chair
Unverified
Speaker 47
Speaker 29
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 133
Chair
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 76
Speaker 85
Speaker 97
Speaker 98
Speaker 101
Speaker 103
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 119
Speaker 121
Speaker 131
Speaker 140
Speaker 141
Speaker 144
Speaker 78
Speaker 145
Speaker 143
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 75
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 166
Speaker 168
Speaker 170
Speaker 176
Nick Staley
Unverified
Speaker 182
Speaker 191
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 209
Britney Um
Unverified
Brittany Stockton
Unverified
Holly Skipper
Unverified
Speaker 215
Speaker 216
Speaker 147
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Speaker 238
Speaker 245
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 261
Speaker 253
Speaker 262
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Speaker 281
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 290
Speaker 279
Speaker 293
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Melissa Farmer
Unverified
Speaker 308
Speaker 314
Speaker 315
Speaker 316
Speaker 320
Speaker 324
Speaker 326
Speaker 327
Speaker 318
Speaker 336
Speaker 337
Speaker 341
Speaker 342