Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (32)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1917
Act 839
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…NDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES. HB1917 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS STUDENT-ATHLETE PUBLICITY…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS STUDENT-ATHLETE PUBLICITY RIGHTS ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1917 is now Act 839 |
|
HB1295
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTION…”
|
TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS TRANSPARENCY ACT. | L. Johnson | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1354
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1354 Lundstrum TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND…”
|
TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL … | Lundstrum | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1443
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EPARTMENT FOR FIREFIGHTING SERVICES BASED ON TIME ON SCENE. HB1443 Pilkington TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY…”
|
TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PAYMENT NETWORKS … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1533
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT. HB1533 Gramlich TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROF…”
|
TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION ACT. | Gramlich | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1813
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…P RECOVERABLE DEPRECIATION UNDER PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW. HB1813 Gramlich TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPA…”
|
TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPACT. | Gramlich | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1868
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONAB…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEE DIRECTLY TO A … | L. Johnson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1905
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSPECTORS. RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1905 Lundstrum TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A…”
|
TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A REAL ESTATE LICENSEE REPRESENTING A … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1918
Act 810
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1918 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SPECIE OR LEGAL TENDE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SPECIE OR LEGAL TENDER; TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1918 is now Act 810 |
|
HB1930
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RY PRACTICES; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS. HB1930 Wardlaw TO MANDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHC…”
|
TO MANDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES. | Wardlaw | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1949
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1949 Schulz TO ADD MEDICAL, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SER…”
|
TO ADD MEDICAL, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SERVICES TO THE LIST OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR … | Schulz | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1950
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1950 Torres TO PROTECT LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES FROM TERM…”
|
TO PROTECT LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES FROM TERMINATION OF HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE COVERAGE; AND TO PROHIBIT … | Torres | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1955
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES BY HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PROVIDERS. HB1955 S. Meeks TO REPEAL THE SHIELDED OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACT. HB195…”
|
TO REPEAL THE SHIELDED OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACT. | S. Meeks | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB331
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHER…”
|
CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING … | G. Leding | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB480
Act 739
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB480 is now Act 739 |
|
SB519
Act 958
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ION, AND STATE-OWNED PROPERTY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB519 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE INSURANCE; AND TO REGULATE THE PAYMENT OF … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB519 is now Act 958 |
|
SB544
Act 775
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB544 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB544 is now Act 775 |
|
SB552
Act 650
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB552 K. Hammer TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "PRINCIPAL OFFICE" U…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "PRINCIPAL OFFICE" USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB552 is now Act 650 |
|
HB1009
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ENT HOLDERS UNDER Page 2 of 3 THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. HB1009 A. Collins TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR…”
|
TO ALLOW PREGNANCY TO BE A QUALIFYING EVENT FOR ENROLLMENT IN CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1014
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FYING EVENT FOR ENROLLMENT IN CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS. HB1014 A. Collins TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UN…”
|
TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION UNDER THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1177
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1177 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS … | M. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1308
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1308 Steimel CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL…”
|
CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE REPAIR CONTRACTS; AND TO REGULATE SOLICITING RESIDENTIAL … | Steimel | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1408
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1408 Pilkington TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREG…”
|
TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS TO PURCHASE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1409
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM. HB1409 Long TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE E…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; AND TO CREATE THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ACT. | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1625
Act 974
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1625 Barnett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS. | Barnett | Notification that HB1625 is now Act 974 |
|
HB1659
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EAL ESTATE PROPERTY. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1659 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARI…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE; AND TO CLARIFY THE PRIORITY AMONG SECURITY INTERESTS AND … | S. Meeks | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1811
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1811 Steimel TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE…”
|
TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE REASONABLE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF A … | Steimel | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1956
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1956 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT. | S. Meeks | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB420
Act 736
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PR…”
|
TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND … | Hester | Notification that SB420 is now Act 736 |
|
SB481
Act 779
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB481 Gilmore TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INS…”
|
TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF … | Gilmore | Notification that SB481 is now Act 779 |
|
SB483
Act 957
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STAT…”
|
TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; … | Irvin | Notification that SB483 is now Act 957 |
|
SB594
Act 705
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB594 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTIFI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NEW … | M. McKee | Notification that SB594 is now Act 705 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Good morning, committee. If we could find our seats. We are going to go somewhat out of order this morning, um, but before we start, just a little housekeeping here. We're gonna start with Representative Shepherd. He's going to run his bill first, then we're gonna do some fairly, what I hope are non-controversial bills before we get into 1930, which now I can tell it's going to take a long time. So just so everyone knows that's the plan. Um, That's where how we're gonna try
to work the schedule. We'll see how long it takes. So with that, Representative Shepherd, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
0:54
you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, with the chair's permission, I have, uh, Matt McCoy, who is an attorney with the University of Arkansas and he focuses primarily on the athletic department, so he's here with me, uh, to answer questions. Members, what what you have before you is House Bill 1917. This is a bill that amends the Arkansas Student Athlete Publicity Rights Act, for those
that have been here, uh, for the past several years, you'll recall that I believe 4 years ago, uh, I ran the bill that created the student athlete publicity Rights Act and then 2 years ago, we made some modifications to it that were, um, uh, necessitated just because of how things have developed over time and now we're back, uh, one more time for uh Some further tweaking of the bill, you know, I think as we've said, As we've said, the last several times we've been here, uh, I
know there's a lot of different feelings on NIL and paying student athletes, but the fact of the matter is, um, this is the state of play as it is in intercollegiate athletics today and what we did for 4 years ago in implementing the student athlete publicity Rights Act, uh, allowed Arkansas to, um, to, to allowed Arkansas's institutions of higher education. ation uh to be competitive at the
intercollegiate athletics in in intercollegiate athletics and, uh, but we can't just uh Rest on what we've done in the past. We have to make sure we're keeping up with the times and so that's what brings us to this bill today. Pretty simple bill, you can take a look. One of the things that's, that's going to be probably the most significant change is that this bill allows for institutions to directly pay student athletes. And this is not something regardless essentially of what
we do here, uh, this is coming about not because of what we, we're doing in Little Rock, but this is really where things are headed at the national level and, and Matt can speak to maybe some of the litigation that's ongoing and the proposed settlement of that litigation. But in order for our institutions to be competitive, we need to have this provision. We need to allow our institutions to be able to directly pay student athletes, some of the other provisions of the bill, um, provide that uh athletic conferences and other
organizations that they can't punish or penalize our student athletes unless um unless it's been expressly agreed to by the institution, uh, you can see that given that now money is is being paid over to student athletes from the institutions themselves. We provide for a limited exemption on that income, uh, from taxation and uh then there's some other cleanup language across the board. We've clarified that student athletes
are not employees of institutions. We've also clarified that nothing in this bill, uh, waives any type of immunity on the part of the institution of higher education and we, we further clarify, uh, that there's no liability or or we insulate coaches from some degree of liability, uh, uh, in the event that uh maybe student athletes think that because of playing time or otherwise that they uh been um mistreated and so those are kind of the high
points. Again, this is not, this is not something that I think any of us, uh, necessarily, uh, this is, this is not something necessarily originating from here in the state of Arkansas, this is our response to what's going on at the national level to make sure our state laws are keeping up with the state of play across the country and to make sure that our institutions of higher education are able to be as competitive as possible on the new landscape of intercollegiate athletics, and with that, I would welcome uh Mr. McCoy to to
Speaker 8
4:55
make uh any follow-up comments he might have and, and we'd be glad
Matt Mccoy
Unverified
5:02
to answer questions. Thank you. As he said, my name is Matt McCoy.
Speaker 11
5:07
I'm the senior associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas system over athletics, um, I, I think that was a Very accurate succinct representation of the, the added provisions for this bill, as many of you know, there's been ongoing litigation, which coincidentally is going to be
heard today in the House versus NCAA lawsuit out of the Northern District of California. And they're going to be reviewing the settlement terms that All of the member institutions have agreed to with the plaintiffs in that case representing student athletes. So largely most of these provisions are to allow our states, all of our institutions to be able to comply with those provisions and they're related uh rules and procedures that
their conferences are going to be implementing in response to this litigation. Um,
Speaker 12
6:05
I, I will add there is one additional provision that was provided in here that
Speaker 11
6:11
allows for student athletes to be able to rescind their agreements with agents and representation that are not licensed in the state of Arkansas and and uh I, I, I believe that's going to help also protect our student athletes who have been taken
advantage of by uh agents who may be Uh, reach them in high school and are able to put percentages on them that they find out later are not reasonable for the representation that they're receiving. Um, but other than that, I, I think. Um Representative Shepherd
Matt Mccoy
Unverified
6:46
covered all of, all of those provisions accurately and just, just
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
6:50
to, to be clear. Uh, because I can imagine that one of the points may be some might Have a question about is the paying of players directly.
My understanding is that is, that comes about by way of this litigation and by way of the settlement. This is not something that we've just decided here, we want to pay players directly. This is in response to what is likely going to be approved in federal court in California in the very near future. And so this is, this is where collegiate athletics is heading and certainly I think we want to make sure that uh our institutions are able to operate. Um,
under this new world and, and as Mr. McCoy pointed out, um, You know, one of the things that we did 4 years ago when we originally put this in place was to make sure that there were protections for student athletes as well that we wanted it to be a, um, a very fair piece of legislation because we understand that the student athletes are kind of in a vulnerable vulnerable position that there are, there may be actors out there that do not have their best interests in in
in mind, uh, and so I would refer the committee back to the fact that we have put put in a number of provisions and protections in the past and as Mr. McCoy just alluded to, we've added to that in this bill.
Thank you, Representative Shepherd. We do have a few questions if you,
Chair
Unverified
8:24
if you would take some questions. First person, first representative, Eubanks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
8:32
Shepherd, this bill doesn't have anything to do with Raffles, does it?
Chair
Unverified
8:40
Thankfully, no. It doesn't have anything to do with casinos either, so. Maybe. Representative Richardson, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
8:48
Uh, Representative Shepherd, I, I, I appreciate what, what you guys are trying to do because I think the way NIOs are working across the country. I don't know if it's beneficial or negative, to be quite honest with you, but In the in the
bill, it states that an athletes. Has not and shall not be considered an employee, but at some point do you think that's
going to be challenged at a higher level because I mean if the school is directly playing, paying a student athlete, how do you get around from them not being employed by that that question is probably way above uh Has not and shall not be considered an employee, but at
some point do you think that's going to be challenged at a higher level because
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
9:24
I mean if the school is directly playing, paying a student athlete, how do you get around from them not being employed by that that question is probably way above my level of expertise, but, and, and Mr. McCoy can speak to this, but I think that's part of what is being, has been litigated and uh you know, it's, it's, I guess. to some degree being resolved by way of this settlement because, uh, but, you know, who knows
what the future holds, but we believe this bill is responsive to what we believe is going to be the state of play across the landscape of college athletics, but it's a fair point and I, and I'll defer to Mr. McCoy on kind of where those discussions are and those arguments have been. That there is pending litigation in federal
Speaker 12
9:59
court to decide that very issue, uh, so it very well may be in the future we would have to
Speaker 11
10:05
come back to the body and ask for a revision, but part
of the reason it's drafted that way now is What the student athletes are being paid for is their publicity rights, the ability to use their image, um, the ability to use their signature. And that's, that is a what would be an asset to the student athlete that the institutions are paying for. And I think the importance of the institution being able to do that is they have a lot more control over how that happens right now. No
school has any control over how their collectives or outside entities are paying money or what they're asking student athletes to do, uh, but I think that's certainly a fair question, and
Speaker 12
10:51
it's being litigated right now. In in separate litigation. OK, thank you. Cris in wooden, you're recognized. Thank
Chair
Unverified
11:01
you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say first of
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
11:05
all that I'm opposed to NIL and I ran the bill to keep you all from having a raffle.
And I've lost on both points, but never mind that. I thought NIL meant that A dealership, an automobile dealership, a bank, or someone would pay for an image. And then I see where there's $20 million of money in the foundation to pay student athletes. Now you're back Representative Shepherd, asking
to nullify the law so others can be involved. Mr. McCoy, would you explain to me, we're down the road, did we go from NIL being private corporate citizens paying players. to the university getting involved. And my second question is, how much money are we talking about from the university standpoint versus the 20 million versus the raffle. I mean, where, where is this
Speaker 11
12:19
going to end? Now, also a fair question, and I think where a lot of our, the need for a lot of our laws come from lawyers and lawsuits. I mean, that's, that's how all
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
12:31
of this moved very quickly. Well, that's a problem throughout society with
Speaker 34
12:34
lawyers. So Well, that's my full-time job is working with them. You are one and I
Speaker 11
12:41
am one. That's right. I try to cling to athletics more now. Um, but, but no, I, I think a
lot of, a lot of people in this room recognize that that has been a slippery slope that's gotten slipperier even in the last 3 to 5 years, but each one of each time that we've come back here in I, I would say the majority of those reasons is because the law has changed. The, the injunctions were granted and where we are with this settlement today, they will likely Judge Wilkin will likely approve a settlement that will allow all institutions to pay up
to $20.5 million to student athletes. I, I think The silver lining to that is there is supposed to be a cap. That that this settlement today is supposed to establish a cap on expenditures from those institutions and a system that's going to be able to regulate payments outside of this cap process, um, I think all of the athletic directors and coaches are hopeful that that
That plays out the way it's been represented, but I, I think, um, athletic director Yuriczek, Coach Pittman certainly share your concern over all of this, because I think they would like to get back to coaching and and running an athletic department. So I, I I Believe this bill is our response to try to address those changes that we cannot impact that are happening to us, uh, as reasonably as, as we can.
Speaker 36
14:24
And, and I think that's, I think that's the, the main point is that, uh, and I think
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:30
I said this 4 years ago, it, you know, in my view in a in Where I would like for intercollegiate lex to be, I would prefer not to, not to be dealing in NIL and not to have to go down this road, but the fact of the matter is, uh, we're one state among 50 states, this is and, and actually, uh, Mr. McCoy can correct me if I'm wrong, but, uh, the move into
NIL most institutions have probably fought that. I mean, there's been litigation. It's been ongoing litigation. This is a response in this case it's response to a settlement and it's our response to it. So this is not, this is not necessarily what I, I think the UFA or ASU or any of the other institutions are, are not here to say, to try to push this forward. It's this is a response to what is being done at the national level and we have to do this if we want our institutions to have any
degree of competitiveness, uh, across the country.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
15:30
OK, but would you answer my question, how, how does the university and the foundation get involved in making the payments. I thought, I thought it was an automobile dealership, a bank, or someone like that. Now we're deeply involved and going to get deeper involved, I mean. What's happened along the way to change what my assumption that's
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:58
a, that's a fair point. When NIL began, it was about the third parties paying student athletes basically to, to promote products or services or whatever the case may be, uh, you know, Mr. McCoy can can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think that it's comes about because of litigation that student athletes have brought and those on their behalf about that. has to do with the amount of money that institutions make that is made based on the in part based on the student
athlete, but at least uh until uh present the institution has not shared those funds in a direct way, fair enough, they provide uh scholarships, grants, and aids, stipends, there's other things that are provided, but because of that litigation, that's what's led to this settlement that would provide for a certain percentage of revenue to be paid over. Uh, and I guess it's not even that it's allowing it, it's directing that that would that that would take place. So this is in response to a settlement
to resolve litigation about how much money is made and
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
17:07
who gets that money. So we're talking about two different funds. We're talking about private corporate involvement, but what we're talking about here is revenue coming into the athletic department as a result of TV contracts and other, uh, the 30 or 40 million a year that
flow in. Generally, I think you're correct when we ran this 4
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
17:27
years ago, uh, the institutions couldn't pay those funds. It had
to be paid by a third party. We tweaked it a couple of years ago to allow nonprofit. efforts to do that. That's what, that's the law we have, all right? Now we have this federal litigation and a pending settlement that is likely to be approved that states that the institutions have to pay money out to the student athletes. And so we're coming back to it, it's to utilize the bill to utilize the laws we already have in place to tweak that to open it up, to allow the institutions
they can, they under this bill, they can. pay for name, image and likeness so they could pay a student athlete uh to promote their institution based on on their name, image and likeness, but then on top of that, there's, there's, they can also pay or going to have to pay a percentage of those funds that they receive, those are gonna have to be paid out to student athletes. So we're kind of piggybacking on, um, on the law we already had, but to your point, yes, it has, it has changed, but that change has
been dictated from forces outside of Of the Capitol and outside of the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
18:45
can, let's, we're gonna have to, let's move this along let somebody else have an opportunity.
President Ladyman, you're right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
18:57
Um, well, I'm all for our, our uh universities being competitive nationally, and I understand the
reasoning there, but I got a question about this lawsuit. Uh. So this is final in what court in Northern California. This is in the Northern District of California.
Speaker 11
19:16
It's the lawsuit against all of the, the A5 conferences and the NCAA, uh, of which the University of Arkansas is a member of this is a district court. It is right now. So will this be appealed and what level?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
19:31
I would imagine it would be appealed to
Speaker 11
19:37
the the the federal circuit. It may make it all the way to the US Supreme Court. The, the last challenge to the NCAA's payment of of grant and aid, made it all the way to the US Supreme Court and, and as far as I can remember, one of the only unanimous opinions against the NCAA for the payment. Uh, so I think the expectation is that the NCAA and the conference continuing to fight this particular lawsuit could result in
A judgment in the billions. I mean, it's already the settlement is in the billions, but could be much, much higher, and that would likely visit upon all of the member institutions as well, um. Because we're a part of of, of
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
20:25
that. So, I mean this is a Generational change here
and what we're talking about athletes, um. And, and then we're talking about they're not employees, they're exempt from tax, uh, how's the money, I mean, does every player get money? Who
decides who gets how much money? Is it an average for everybody on the team to walk-ons get paid. I mean, I know that's gonna have to be worked out, but there's a
Speaker 53
20:51
lot of complications here. That's true. Each, each institution will
Speaker 11
20:55
be able to determine what meets the needs of their sports and their athletic department and how each of those payments will be made. And how they don't even have to elect to have revenue sharing, but then you have to compete against a school that does revenue
sharing, um, so that's the challenge. Part of the other challenge to being in an antitrust lawsuit is that you can't call your, your neighboring conference and decide, hey, let's all agree to do this the same way without getting in another antitrust lawsuit. So each institution is going to have to figure this out on their own and decide what's going to be in the best interest. Of, of, of their school, which is a reason why we've we've been here with with Representative Shepherd to make sure that
We are implementing those things that are going to help Arkansas institutions that we've got to be able to sing in our own voice based on what we're capable of doing here, uh, and, and a lot of collaboration from other institutions across the state have helped us get to at least how this is drafted. OK, just one more question. Um, if this does go
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
22:03
to higher courts, and it's knocked down, uh, what do we do with this bill? Is it still in effect? Is it still law in Arkansas? What do we do?
Speaker 11
22:15
What the other thing we were trying to anticipate even 4 and 2 years ago on the on the the initial. Um, an action and then the amendment. was to be flexible enough that we don't have to in a perfect world, we were anticipating we wouldn't be back here. Um. But, but as we just discussed with regard to employment, if there is a decision that's upheld that is controlling upon Arkansas that their employees, then a lot of this would have to change. But that's
That may never happen and if we wait on that, then we're not able to compete in the current. Uh, environment that's that. All
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:57
right, thank you. And, and Mr. McCoy pointed out and and just in case I misspoke, so the revenue sharing that the law of the payments are optional, but the fact of the matter is if you want to compete, you've got, you've, you're gonna have to, this is part of what you're going to have to do to be competitive, uh, I would also point out that this is uh providing a means by which the, the athletic departments can
provide those funds and hopefully minimize the impact that could. that could be, um, you know, the ripple effect that it could have across the institution itself. I mean, if the institutions are going to try to be competitive, they're going to have to come up with the money to be able to pay, to be able to, to compete and this helps to provide a means by which they can do that, uh. And so I, you know, I think it makes makes sense, but again, it's it's responsive to what's to, to a trend and to litigation
that is uh outside, even outside of the state of Arkansas. All right. Thank
you. Any further questions? Thank you for your testimony. We do have numerous, we have certain people signed up to speak. We don't, we don't have anyone sign up to speak against the bill, but we do have people to speak for the bill. The first one on the list is Coach Sam Pittman. Mr. Chairman, in order
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:16
to expedite, could we have maybe have the coaches come down together to testimony yes sir. Thank you.
Good morning. So we, we all know who you gentlemen are, but if you don't mind, just introduce yourselves for the record. Butch Jones. Here you
Speaker 67
25:00
go. Butch Jones, Arkansas State. I'm Sam Pittman, head football coach, University of Arkansas. Thank
you, gentlemen. Thank you for being here and we would be glad to take your testimony or thoughts on this bill.
Speaker 72
25:20
Represent Wootton, is that correct, sir? We are not, we're not the youngest guys in the room, would you agree. Yes, sir. So I think at times, you know, all these changes, including me, I, the questions that you had were the same ones that I ask and continue to ask each and every day. I think in a scholarship back in the day in a scholarship, you were dealing with room, board,
books, tuition, right? Guess who else was? Everybody in the country, they were dealing with the same thing. Um, hell when we was dealing with the same thing, we went from 4 and 20 to top 20 in the first two years that I was fortunate enough to be the head coach of the University of Arkansas. Then this revenue change or excuse me, then all these collectives came in at some point you have $20 million over here and you may have A 10th of that at some other
school trying to compete against those, so the equality that was there with room board books, tuition and fees has gone awry. And so now, uh, with this new revenue sharing, I think, coach, I think we can get back to Equality again. Uh, obviously some states don't have state tax, you know, so there's another advantage that they may have on uh Arkansas,
uh, so everything that we're trying to do is get back to equality. If we can, if we're equal and coaches as well, if we're equal, we can compete in our conference with anybody as long as We have equality financially. And uh so I think that's what we're here today for is we don't know if this bill is going to pass or not. We feel like it is and to be honest with you, we're hoping it does. Um, it takes a third party out of payments and
lets it come through the university, which uh we won't have to sit around and go, oh, did they get paid and get paid on time because we can control that, which is a huge deal. So uh we, we appreciate the support that The state has given us especially the governor has given us, uh, but we need equality and whether we like where it's headed or whether we don't. We to stay in the game,
we need equality, and I think that's where it was before, and then all this NIL came in, but I will say this, and this may be something that we, we don't maybe understand where these kids in the collective were getting. X amount of dollars and I'll tell you who screwed that up, the coaches. We screwed it up. We started recruiting off of it. We started recruiting out of high school off of it, but where, where
Where these kids have gotten money off of two techs off of uh nobody knows her name, image and likeness, but they're making $150,000 a year. That's not what the, that's not the originality. That's not where it originated. Now with this new bill, if it's over $600. They have to get it oked through a committee. So I think the equality of this coaches can't go, I'm gonna pay you $100,000 and the committee goes, he's
worth $100. You can't do that, which now you can, so I think all this bill encompassing together, I think is going to help the quality of life of the student athletes and the coaches, and I think the fans, because listen, we're all here because of the state and because of the fan. I mean, that's what we want to please those both of us. And so, uh, I did want to address that, um, I think The 10% we we need it because
equality, somebody else has it, somebody else already has it in their states, you know, so. We appreciate everything that the state has done for us everything, and we keep coming back and asking for more and more and more. But we appreciate you and we need you to know that. OK. Same thing, uh, you
Speaker 75
29:50
know that Coach Pittman said, and I think he said it very eloquently and first of all, I want to
Speaker 76
29:59
thank Representative Shepard and everyone in here for hearing us and actually including us in today. Today is monumental because of the house settlement versus the NCAA. And I think Coach said it is all we're looking for is equality. Obviously, it's all relevant for us, you know, with the different conferences, obviously the C kind of sets the bar and then us being in the Sun Belt, but you know, as a coach, um, and Coach Pittman and I were speaking about this, you know,
you're in leadership positions and you like to be in control, and what has happened unfortunately in the landscape of college football, uh, we're kind of in unchartered territory right now. It's taken away a lot of our power and you know, I always say it is collegiate athletics is still Part of the educational value, and we can never lose sight of that in everything we do is to create value for our student athletes, image and likeness, I think with
this bill and I think with the House settlement kind of lets it get back to what it was intended for. We've kind of lost all all guardrails in our industry right now, and I think we're trying to get back some of the guard rules and guard rails and some principles and values for which we stand for. So again, I appreciate everyone, their support, um, you know, you can have an opinion whether you like it or not, unfortunately, it's here. And uh the legendary head
football coach Nick Saban said it. You either adapt. Uh, or you die, and that's why there's no dinosaurs, and you know, I think we're at this stage right now of collegiate athletics so we have to continue to adapt um and I think we'll know more with the pending lawsuit today and what comes, but again, thank you for your time and really appreciate you listening to us. Thank, thank you both so much for your testimony. Would you, would you gentlemen, take a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
32:06
couple of questions? OK, um, a ladyman. He was. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for being here. Uh, I really appreciate you. You're
Sorry. But thank you for being here. I appreciate your comments and, um, glad that you, uh, let us know where you stand. You've already answered one of my questions, which was, will it make it better? And I think you both have said that as far as being equal, equalizing out, recruiting and that sort of thing. Uh, but I got another question. Do either one of you have
tickets for the ASU Arkansas games September
Speaker 75
32:43
here. I need some. Thank you. Well, I know this in uh
Speaker 76
32:48
Coach Pittman and I spoke about this and nobody really understands kind of our relationship. It goes back a long period of time and uh I think this is really healthy for the entire state of Arkansas. When you look at for a weekend, everybody coming to Little Rock, the excitement, I think when we get into NIL and
we get into revenue share and everything is about the economic value. I think that this game brings to the State, you look at the excitement, you look at uh the fan bases. You look at again the economy that it brings and you know, for us at Arkansas State, you know, we have to play what's called money games and so for instance, we had to go to Ann Arbor and play the University of Michigan, and I think, uh, you know, we were able to bring a million dollars over into our athletic department to our
institution and football gets very little of that money, that money. is really spent to make ends meet, and I've said it is, is why do we need to go to Tuscaloosa to play Alabama or Ann Arbor to play the University of Michigan when we have a great institution in the University of Arkansas right here, so I think it's really, really healthy, um, for the state. I told Coach Pitman we may need to have a running clock, um, but I have a lot of respect for him and their program and what he's built, and
I think he's exactly right. is this legislation, you know, I've been in the SEC for 11 years, and I understand the world that he lives in every single day and so to be able to kind of create some equality, um, in terms of that equality for us within the Sun Belt Conference, you know, we're pretty much last and overall operating budget were lasting coaches' salaries were last in support staff, so to be able to at least, you know, have some
equality in terms of the ability to recruit quality football players and student athletes to your school, that helps us as well. So thank you for that question. It's going to be a great challenge, but I'm excited for the entire state and to have this opportunity to be back in Little Rock. Thank you for your testimony. I have a couple more questions. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you
Speaker 67
35:06
off, coach. Go ahead. I can find you some tickets. It depends. I And
Speaker 69
35:14
it depends on how this bill goes. Where the availability of seats will be with those. Go out. I can do better.
Speaker 75
35:24
I can throw in some sideline passes. OK. Um, Representative
Chair
Unverified
35:37
Wooton. Question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
35:45
qualify we're I am in this mix because I've got mixed emotions now. My grandson, Coach Jones played with your son at Valley View, Ryder Woo, OK, and I think you've been out to several of their ball games and uh by the way, on recruiting side, he was down at Mississippi State over the weekend and you too, Coach Pitman. But anyway, My, my question has to do with
the cap as it relates to what these players are paid and follows up what representative Leman asked earlier. Will, will all the players participate in the NIL money that's in the foundation that apparently the university is going to put in with revenue sharing and that type of thing we all players benefit from this? I mean, Right now, we have a situation where I believe the Georgia
quarterback made several million dollars. Last year, and there seems like to me there's some inequity in there. They're all on the team, so can you, can you shed a little light on that. This revenue sharing has a cap in it if
Speaker 72
37:09
you go over that cap, it could cost you the next year times 5 of what you go over. So if you go over a half a million in your budget, you have a budget, you have to stay within
that budget. If you go over it, it may cost you, say you go over half a million, it could cost you $2.5 million in your revenue sharing the next year. So that's what we don't have now. You have guys who have $20 million you have guys that have a million dollars. And you have all the everybody on our team does not make money. That has to do with their value on the team and we have a general manager that, uh, expresses that along with myself, what that value may be.
The contracts that you're talking, speaking of, hopefully those are the ones that are going to get Um I don't want to hurt the kids financially, but if I want to pay somebody, if we want to pay somebody $3 million out of our revenue sharing. We could do it. We could do it. Now, That's gonna cut down on your team, you know, but what's happened in the past, these, these guys have gone out and got received the money through the
collective. That's where you're talking about this unbelievable amount of money. Now it has to come through the revenue sharing. Now they can still have their own name, image and likeness, but In prior times it's been we can pay you $100,000 to Tweet to texts or to put two texts out messages. Well, nobody in the world is going to make $100,000 with two texts, you know, and so that part of it is
you got to go to a committee and I think that will regulate it a little bit more, but as long as I'm the head coach at the University of Arkansas, we will always have a true walk on. In other words, we were, we're not gonna pay him anything. We're going
Speaker 88
39:07
to treat him just like gold, but he's not gonna make anything out of respect for Bran. Burrowsworth and of Burrowsworth family. OK. One more question.
Speaker 75
39:18
more thing is, you know, it's all relative because, you know,
Speaker 76
39:23
there's different levels. We're in the group of 5, so we will not even be anywhere close to the cap that the power 4 have. So then for us, you know, our money is very, very minimal relative to the SEC programs, the Big 10, the Big 12, the ACC, those types of programs. So again, for us, It's all relative, really based on our appear institutions and really the competitive nature which we have within really the amount of money that the school
wants to invest in their athletic programs. OK. My question has to
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
40:00
do is it's in line with NIL. I feel like relative to Going down further into the ranks as a former high school football coach, uh, I'm, I'm concerned about, uh, and it wouldn't take much that the players are going to wind up if it goes down into the high school ranks, they're going to wind up making more than most
coaches make. So that's, that's an awkward, awkward situation that we face, but do you see it going down into the high school ranks. Well, there
Speaker 76
40:42
actually is. There actually is states um that have past name imaging like this. I know the state of Tennessee. I was told a few months ago, not only did they pass name, image and likeness, but they also passed immediate
transfers, so like Coach Pitman and I were speaking about everyone in this room kind of grew up. With the collegiate model of the way it is and for the younger generation, you know, they're, they're kind of coming to being raised a different way, but there are states that do have NIL bills already in, um, that have already passed and they're actually going and then there's other states that that's going down that pipe right now. Thank you. Coach Pitman.
Speaker 72
41:28
Well, I was a high school coach when I started out for 5 years, 17, 420 was my first contract. Coached
Speaker 94
41:36
every sport, um. Loved every second of it. Yeah, I think you have
Speaker 72
41:41
to check your ego at the door if it's, if your eagle ego's financially driven. I mean, I think you do. Uh, we have guys on our team make more money than I ever made until I got the head coaching job at the University of Arkansas, um, but at the same
time, I don't think either one of us want to sit here and lose ball games and not have the state be proud of us and so we, we were raised in a different era of football, as you were, sir. And uh We're either going to change or they're going to change the head coach. And I'd rather just damn change. OK. Thank you, Representative Wooton. So I've. Representative Ferguson, you
Speaker 95
42:21
have a question. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually it was a question that
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
42:29
Representative Allen was going to answer, ask, but I want to have a follow up question that he's going to ask. So I don't really understand the queue behind him because it was actually a question that I want to ask this follow up to his question, so I'm not going to answer his questions. You go ahead. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
42:50
coaches for being here. I just wanna know who determines the value of the athlete's pay.
Speaker 76
43:02
Well, I think Coach spoke about it earlier is when you get in the revsha, you have a lot of programs that are going to general managers. You have a lot of programs that are actually trying to institute some of the National Football League model. I think the problem right now is we're at the infant stages of this, so we're determining right now what market value is. The NFL has done it for a very long period of time. They have, you know,
your starting quarterback, this is his value. you're starting running back is this is his value, so it's, I think we're learning as we go because like I said, we're in unchartered territory right now going through this, so I think there's a lot that goes into it, and then I think very honestly, it's the value that they bring to your football team as well, and the value that they bring in your community and all the different things that go into it, but I think they create value for themselves on a daily
basis, the way they perform on and off the field. OK. Follow up.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
44:08
Occasionally you will have athletes with big, big heels. And So how will you differentiate how, how will you deal with that situation. If one athlete says that, hey, I'm more valuable than this athlete, so somewhere down the line it could
create some dissension. Imagine, uh, we all were sitting in
Speaker 72
44:28
this room and we're sitting here at 18 to 22 years old.
And I make $30,000. I, by the way, I think I'm better than you, and you're making $150,000 and we're sitting down in the locker room. Somebody paid you 150,000 and I'm better than you at 30. I remember I went to work for Butch Davis at North Carolina and the first day we sat down and this is before you got for you and everybody knew what you made and all that kind of stuff.
Uh, and he said, I'll tell you what, if your wife or you talk about your contract to anybody else in this building, I'm gonna fire you. I'll never forget that as all living, I was going, Man, what have I done? I came to work, you know, and I sat right there for whatever reason, usually sit down there, you know, and But it makes sense. It's called ego. It's called jealousy. It's called whatever, um, so it is hard to deal with, uh, but our, you know, we have a general
manager, myself, you know, obviously we have before when it was just in a collective, how much money do you have now with revenue sharing, we're going to know how much we have and we can build a budget. But to answer your question, how much do you pay them? How, how much do you think he's worth and can you replace him with the money that he wants. So if, if you, if you think you can replace him with better, um, for the same financial amount of money. You let him, let him walk, uh, if you don't, then you, you might have to up the
ann a little bit to keep him on your team depending on the value that coach spoke of of leadership, community value, team value, whatever that may be, um, which before you could go in the collective and say, oh, hey, uh Mr. so and so who we've had several help me. do you have an extra $100,000 you have an extra $150,000 which is very difficult for me to do. But losing more, you know, a little more difficult. Thank you.
Any, any further questions? Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. We appreciate you. Thank you very much. We do have other witnesses signed up. I think we have some athletic directors here if they could
Chair
Unverified
46:57
come forward just as a group. Yes, let's bring them all together at the same time if we can.
A few gentlemen would just introduce yourselves and you can proceed with any testimony you'd like to give regarding this matter. Yeah,
Speaker 111
47:25
Hunter, your check, director of athletics at the University of Arkansas at Fayetville. My apologies for my little gun shy in front of this committee last time didn't work out very well for me. Um, so, uh, but, uh, it just says the coach has said it very well, as did Representative Shepherd and Matt McCoy. I mean this is a bill first and foremost that helps us get on a level playing field, allowing us to our athletic department.
revenue to pay student athletes significant advantage uh with that revenue that we shared the student athletes, not being subject to state tax that that gives us an advantage over that most states don't have that will allow our coaches to use that as an incentive for student athletes that we recruit, so I appreciate very much the support of this group with this bill and the bills we've brought to you before in regards to NIL and it's an ever changing environment. We may be back.
Again soon to change it another time because we've got to be very nimble when it comes to NIL and what we're dealing with in the 9th Circuit Court in any future federal legislation, but thank you for your support. Jeff Burton, Arkansas State. Uh, yes, thank
Speaker 112
48:34
you for your time. Thanks for all the hard work on this. Um, I think the competitive balance we have to keep up with our peers, the Sun Belt is obviously a different level than the SEC, the dollar amounts are different. Um, but in order to maintain the success
that we've had at Arkansas State in particular. I mean our football team won a bowl game on national TV. Our basketball team set attendance records, uh, played for the conference championship, our women, uh, just made the NCA tournament for. the first time in school history, his team's going on a run in the tournament. All that is great for our state, um, and I think this Pushing this through keeps us up, up to date with our conference peers, and again, thanks for your time.
Speaker 79
49:23
Good morning. My name is uh Frank Quirbaum, the director of athletics at UA Little Rock, and I don't want to take up
Speaker 113
49:30
the committee's time by echoing other sentiments that have been made, but I do want to thank Representative Shepherd for for his work and in uh in leading this effort and for the committee for for your time today. I often say that that athletics is not the most important thing that that happens on any campus, but oftentimes it is the most high profile and with that comes an incredible opportunity to shut
a spotlight on all the other great things that are happening at our respective universities and so supporting in this manner by, by you all and, and from the private sector, allow us to go out and recruit the best and and the brightest student athletes to represent our our institutions, uh, our areas and, and this great state and is top notch manner as possible, so uh we appreciate the uh the opportunity to be here today and and to uh to try to represent all of our programs and is Best manner as we can. Thank you.
Thank you gentlemen, very much for your testimony. We greatly appreciate you coming and shedding light on this. It does not appear we have any questions for you. So you're lucky, um, thank, thank you. And there's no one else signed up to speak. Representative Shepherd, when you are
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:57
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to thank the members of the committee for your time and consideration. Obviously you've heard from, uh, the coaches and the athletic directors and, uh, as we all can imagine to have uh all of them at the Capitol, uh, when it's uh when they stay very busy, I'm sure that I think they're both probably in spring football and other things, uh, that demonstrates the the importance of this piece of legislation. I want to pick up on something that was just said, athletics is not the most important thing, but
it's certainly may be one of the most high profile, um, uh, activities that takes place on our college campuses and for that matter, we all know that uh as to these respective institutions that they represent our state and that they've served as a unifying force for our state. I know during the basketball tournament, you could see on social media, the pride when the razorbacks made their run or when the red wolves made the women's team made their run in their conference tournament and moved on to the NCAA tournament.
And so, uh, I think that we understand it's part of the fabric of Arkansas. As I said, we're responding to a national trend. This is not by our doing, it's not by these institutions doing, but the fact of the matter is if we want to be competitive. If we want to be competitive, we have to provide our institutions the opportunity to be competitive, and that's what we're doing, uh, by way of this bill. You know, one of the things that has not been touched on is What happens if we don't provide
for this. Can you imagine what that looks like. What if the University of Arkansas is no longer competitive. What if ASU and UALR and the other institutions are no longer competitive. Do you want to think about that? What happens? The fact of the matter is that when institutions are on TV when they are having athletic success, that leads to higher admissions numbers, it leads to improved enrollment numbers, um, not to mention the fact if nobody's showing up to
go to ball games, uh, can you imagine the economic impact, the loss of economic activity that takes place. Uh, so there's a ripple effect that this bill not only serves to benefit our athletic programs. It serves to benefit our institutions as a whole, and it serves to benefit our state as a whole. And that's why it's important enough that uh over the past 6.5 years, as you all know, there are very few pieces of legislation that a speaker that I would take on personally, but this is one of those pieces
of legislation. I believe it's time, uh, that it's served us well, but I also understand that we have to continue to improve. We have to continue to adjust with the times and with that, I
Speaker 8
53:41
would appreciate a good vote. Thank you so much for your presentation,
Representative Shepherd. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized. We have a motion to pass by Representative Ladyman. All in favor say aye. Any post say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you committee
Speaker 117
54:03
Congratulations on those good seats. I know. You got it on record. Chairman Maddox is have to
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
54:29
left me in charge and he's given me a list of the bills that we
are going to try to take up before we get to uh one in particular, Bill. So Representative Lundstrom, uh,
If you're ready, you can go to the end of the table and present your bill. Please identify yourself for the record, and you'll be recognized. I actually have two bills. One is for Mindy McAlinden, who ran
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
55:05
it last week so we can concur with that or not concur, but um, House Bill 1918. This was the legal tender to authorize a bullion depository. And I moved to pass. You recognize to present the bill. Well, thank you, Robin Lundstrom, District 18. House Bill 1918. This was the one that represented McAlinden ran last week. Um
To allow bullion depository to be set up in Arkansas should they choose. There's no financial impact. It just opens up competition. And I
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
55:50
moved to Pa. you have any questions for
Representative Lindstrom. Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. We have a motion due pass on the table and discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor say aye. Congratulations. You have
passedsentative McAlinden's bill. Thank you, Chairman. HB 1354, and I
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
56:13
do have an expert in the field that I'd like to have come up, John Vinson, if you would, if they will identify themselves for the
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
56:20
record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
Speaker 138
56:26
the committee, John Vinson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association. Represent lunch, you recognize present the bill.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
56:31
Thank you, colleagues. This is House Bill 1354,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
56:34
and as you know, we've had problems with PBM and some of their unfair practices, this bill would address that. I'd
like for Mr. Vinson to give you a little background. Thank you.
Speaker 138
56:45
So most of the members on the committee have heard testimony about PBMs, the session already and like coach Pittman, I would say thank you for all the work. That you've done to help us on this issue. We do still have some work that is unfinished business, but a little bit of background on this bill when Rule 128 was being considered and several of you in the room were part of ALC when that debate happened. Last year in September and then
eventually the full ALC in December. There was a lot of support and it did pass and the insurance department is still working on that fair and reasonable part of the existing legislation from 2018, but some of the opposition and and members of the legislature who were against the rule, brought to me or brought us reasons that said the legislature needs to decide this, and if we're going to do this, we need to take it out of the PBM's pocket rather than just the employee or the state,
and we need a methodology that the legis Fletcher can look at. And so this draft bill does that. It addresses the reimbursement formula would not allow for um for state-funded plans, meaning any It has a definition of that of state government and public plans in the state of Arkansas. It would require PBMs to reimburse, reimburse on a market-based formula that's based on Data that's uh through surveys
of what the drug costs and what it costs to operate a pharmacy. There's about 17 states across the country right now that have those formulas being introduced in 3 or 4 that have passed it, it doesn't allow publicly traded pharmacies to be paid more than local pharmacies, and we have seen that in real examples with real investigations that are going on at the insurance department, both within EBD and within UCA and other public funded plans and it takes out of the PBM in terms of funding if there's an increased
cost by reforming the rebate side if you've watched the news, the Federal Trade Commission has sued the PBMs, the state of Illinois, and, and Washington DC for US postal workers have sued and settled for 44, 45 million each, where rebates are being hidden in offshore companies called GPOs. This would reform this and use the state's Medicaid rebate system to pay the rebate discounts off of brand. same drugs of a, of a proven system and a formula rather than
behind a black box where no one knows what is happening. It also reforms um for those of you, you've heard lots of testimony in this session about cancer drugs. Well, a lot of those cancer drugs have manufacturer coupons that will give significant discounts, thousands of dollars, and in some cases, Um, on those drugs that results in for EBD, for example, almost $20 million in savings a year. The problem is the PBM is keeping a significant amount of
that at 20%, which adds up to between 4 and $7 million over a period of time. This would reform that and we used to use EBRX to provide those services within their contract, and that would produce significant savings. That's a high-level overview of what the bill does, and I'd be happy to represent Lundstrom or myself to take questions. Thank you for the opportunity to present the bill. Are there any questions? Representative Bakker, you recognize for a question.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:00:19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, John Representative for bringing this to our attention. I think when most legislators are kind of concerned about is, is the fiscal impact, um, as I'm reading through it, though, um, I have some concerns with the physical impacts, the data, how it was developed, um, and really the fact that it seems to ignore about 75% of your bill, um. This talks about removing the GPO purchasing organization.
Can you speak to the benefit that the state would receive from moving towards the Medicaid rebate structure that's not factored into this fiscal impact.
Speaker 138
1:00:59
So thank you for that question. So, And I would love to have transparency and data on exactly what the state does get in the rebates, but nationally in studies, private employers will receive anywhere from about 10% to 30% actual dollars pass through because some of the dollars from the manufacturers never make it to the PBM.
There's a middleman to the middle man to the middle man, literally located in Switzerland or or located in Ireland and this would cut this out and the state would get the dollars directly. from the manufacturers. Contrast that with Medicaid program under federal law that has a formula which this bill would allow the other state funded plans to follow that same formula from the manufacturers. Medicaid in Arkansas gets about 60% off the list price. If that, if those numbers held true in
this plan, it would produce $30 to $40 million in savings a year for EBD alone, not
Speaker 140
1:01:57
to mention what it would do for municipal league and other public 2 and 4 year anni universities follow
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:02:04
up. So Instead of a 30 million in potential costs we're looking at actually a $30 to $40 million
Speaker 138
1:02:10
in savings, right? Plus I believe that the coupon assumptions that were made in this are completely false, in my opinion, because EBRX did provide these services and saved around $16 million a year without the 20%.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:02:25
being taken out by the PBM? Yes, and it does appear, I mean according to BLR it looks like we've
had roughly about $7.3 million. Paid to Navitus for managing this 20%, so instead of $20 million in savings being at risk, we actually have the potential to increase that to $27 million in real savings to the state, I guess. To the people that need the table and the people throughout the table. My concern is we're handed.
A fiscal impact that does not take into account Verbatim, strict. Clear guidance in the language. I mean, we're looking at a 180. Degree turn from what we're having in front of us. And I just, I find it very discouraging. I find that Grant Wallace's job is becoming extremely more difficult if you can't rely on these vendors to give him the tools that he needs. I mean right here we have them saying that no other vendor will do this coupon program without a fee when we have them down the
street with a track record of already having done that without a fee. We have $7.3 million going to Navitas for managing this program that can unnecessarily that can be saved by doing it in-house. We have the Medicaid rebate program already in-house that can save an additional $30 to $40 million. Um, again, I'm just as a whole, I, I'm discouraged by the green sheet that we're looking at here today when there's clear guidance in the bill that was not followed by those who produced it.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:04:01
And wouldn't you agree? I would agree completely. This bill was filed January 31st because it's a meaty bill and it's a weighty bill, and that's when you should file it is early in session so that we have time to digest it. We have waited and waited and waited to get a fiscal impact statement and then when the physical impact statement came back, which I think was about last week. Here we are towards the end of the session and this is a bill that deserves to be fully vetted, not something rushed at the end of session and um. It's been a shell game. This is not fair to not only the
sponsor, but it's not fair to us as legislators we can't make good decisions when we don't have good information. So it's been a little bit discouraging to see this thing be bounced around when actually it needs to be fully vetted, and this is an important thing if we can save money both as a state and as our businesses with real competition. This is the type of bill we want to have, um, due to the lightness of session and timing, I'm going to ask that this bill be put in independent study, and we're going to come back. You won't, you will see this bill again.
Speaker 138
1:05:04
Do you have any other comments that you'd like to make, but thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present the
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:05:14
bill, discuss it, and be happy to work with you in the future on it. Representative Root in, do you still have your question considering
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:05:22
that representative lunchroom is going to move this to an ISP. Yes, I do. You recognize my question is, do, do we know who Siegel is. Do we know any background on them because this is not the first time that I've
questioned a fiscal impact. What, what's their tie in with the medical insurance industry or do they have any or where are they coming from? Representative Whitten, that's an excellent question,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:05:46
um. And a very good question. I've questioned that myself because it doesn't seem like they're reading the bill. They might read the title and and jump to the conclusion. This needs to be something we need good information, not somebody's opinion of that information or failure to do your homework. I don't know. Uh,
they're supposedly a good reputation and a good group, but I don't know anything about them. Would you have anything that you
Speaker 138
1:06:12
want to add to that, I agree. I know there's the discussion on a lot of questions on PSAOs last week about them being the middleman to the middle man, and these consultants that make recommendations on PBM design. They also should be overseeing. the insurance department for PBMs and so, we also need a neutral entity that gives us information
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:06:30
if they're not neutral, we don't need to hire them and I don't
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:06:36
know what what that is and and and and I, I agree with you. I'm concerned about who they are, where they are, and how they arrive at their information, the staffing, the analyst, we, we have no information relative to their position, neutral or otherwise. Or anyone in the crowd from Siegel. I don't believe so, sir, but I
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:07:07
believe they were vetted by legislative council, and that was how the decision was made to
retain them on contract as a consultant. Well, I didn't agree with that at that time,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:07:17
and I don't agree with it now. I think we need to check into them more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The one thing I don't know whether they're
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:07:26
good or bad or different. They could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. My concern is this bill was filed January 31st, and we just got the information. I think it was late last week.
There was an amendment in February, but still it's it didn't change the contents, so And it put We need information and we need good information. We need it in a more timely fashion with that,
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:07:52
I'll leave it there. Thank you, Representative Lindstrom. So it's your intent to refer this to an ISP. Is that correct? All right, thank you for presenting your bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:08:02
Thank you, committee, for your time, and we'll see you again on
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:08:05
this. All members now we're representative Gramlich, are you
ready to present HB 1813. I'll tell you what I like. It You recognize to present your bill if you'll identify yourself for the record. Uh, Zach
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:08:25
state representative, District 50, House Bill 1533. OK I see your name. Max Avery, vice chair of the
Chair
Unverified
1:08:39
Arkansas Blockchain Council and chief Business Development Officer for digital Ascension Group Family Office. Some of your information. Represent very much you recognize present the bill. Thank you very much,
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:08:51
committee. House Bill 1533 aims to provide Regulation to an area that doesn't currently have
any regulation, so to give you a little bit of a history of what we're trying to do, um, to get to where you are we are today. Um, I'm gonna start with something called a DAWAo is a decentralized autonomous organization. Let me turn you
off for one second. What a Dow does is it's a pseudo business entity, but they don't necessarily have any legal framework or any um any, any code that they fall fall upon. They are their own private thing that makes money in a variety of ways. There was a Tao called the Dow that operated years ago who A number of things happen where there should have been some court cases and some lawsuits, but because they weren't a legal legal recognized entity. There was no, there was no one sitting in the seat and so there was
nothing that they can do. A lot of people lost money and a lot of people got off just scotch-free. Um, Wyoming last year uh came up with this new idea of something called a Duna, which is a decentralized, unincorporated nonprofit association. Aduna is a legal entity business kind of like uh a Dow except it actually has regulations around it. We can we can recognize it. We can regulate it, we can tax it, allows these entities to go
to court if good or bad, in either case, um, but really what this is is a it's a pro-bus bill that allows organizations that want to operate in this kind of style to come to the state and exist like they aren't doing in Wyoming, right? Now. Um, and there's a lot more to that, like the specifics. There's a lot to the bill, but very, very similar to our current unincorporated nonprofit association Act. It's just a modification of it to allow for this new kind of entity. Would you like to add anything? The state of blockchain in the
Speaker 168
1:10:44
United States has fallen behind for the past decade, and a lot of the fraud and misrepresentation and money lost has been due to the lack of regulation and the lack of regulatory clarity, and there's there's good actors and bad actors in any emerging asset class, uh, and so as someone who works in digital assets and has been around digital assets for a long time and seeing both the good and the bad. Uh, it's really just that we are requesting the ability to have regulations in place to protect people, provide transparency and
provide a path to recognition and taxation and filing and everything else that goes along with it.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:11:25
Members, are there any questions? Representative I be recognized for
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:11:30
her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative
Gramlich. Oh, I read this bill earlier and that that was a high level view of it, but when you start looking at it, I'm somewhat
concerned as to I'm reading pages 6 and 7 and 8, like I said, I read it earlier, um, You know, when there are claims against this, is there going to be a centralized Website or something that tells people who the members are, so they know who they need to sue if there's something going on, are we suing them individually. We're suing them as this unincorporated nonprofit association, each of the
individuals, uh, I, I'm a little bit concerned that when something goes awry, the process of, of the aggrieved person. can't really be addressed very uh appropriately. Can you please walk me through some of that because I have read this bill and it just seems like that. I don't know, it just seems like we've got some things that might need to be worked out, but could you please? Address how that process would
work. How are we gonna know who we need to sue if
Speaker 173
1:12:54
there's a problem. So as a governance process, um individuals are allowed to participate within
Speaker 168
1:12:59
Meduna by holding a token to go through the voting process on that. Everything that transacts within the duna is logged in a public blockchain ledger system, so everything is completely transparent where people can see who are involved, who those token holders are and, and how to track that individual. So do you have to be a member who has a
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:13:21
token to see that, or can I, who doesn't, I don't
Speaker 168
1:13:24
have one. Anyone in the public can access the public ledger to view those transactions
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:13:29
and holdings. In one final question, Representative Graham Lynch, have, have you asked, um, The bar association to take a look at this because they have uh groups of attorneys who, who specialize in areas of nonprofits and corporate law to look at this to make sure that this would all be good within the framework of Arkansas law. Yeah, so and are they here today?
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:13:52
I don't know if they're here today, but I did, I've had meetings and multiple conversations with a member, members on the bar commission or Committee, excuse me, who deal specifically with uniform Code Commission nationally, um, and to be honest, uh, he does have some concerns, but he would, he would, he told me and he told representatives from some companies that were involved in this area that we just need to study it more and he thinks it's coming too quickly, but I would say there's two pieces with that. First off, if There may already be doubts that exist in the state who are
already operating and they're totally unregulated, right? And so this allows us to regulate entities in some capacity that are totally unregulated as it is, um, the second piece is There's kind of this idea of like LLCs came out in Wyoming first and everyone was really concerned with LLCs as well, right? This is kind of the new frontier when it comes to this kind of business and and truthfully I'm concerned if we don't go ahead and provide regulations and acknowledge these kinds of entities to exist, then we're
going to be left behind and not be able to gain some of the not realized gains that we could realize from entities who might want to come to Arkansas and set up business, um, but yeah, no I've talked, I'm not gonna name drop people, but there's some individuals I'm sure we mutually know who spoke in committee before, who we spoke with and And we just, we kind of disagree on his fears, to be honest. Representative Darby, did
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:15:22
you ask for somebody from the bar
association. OK. Is there anyone in the audience from the Bar Association? OK, seeing nobody. Are there any other questions? Representative Darby, I'm sorry. Do we know
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:15:37
if there's any physical, uh, impact on this. I mean, uh. What What's it gonna cost the state to regulate this or anything like that. I mean, this is real and I'm, I'm, I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I think that we're on a new
frontier. Should we really take this and it really carefully to get the law right. First out of the gate and not something that is. Maybe a little bit haphazard, but do we know what it's going to cost the state to set up You know, the, the mechanism to to oversight this with specifics, Secretary of State would have authority
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:16:17
to regulate, do all the filing and stuff like that, um, so whatever it would normally cost to set up a new kind of entity, that'd be
a Colchester question, to be perfectly honest. Has there been a
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:16:29
physical impact statement? I'm not aware of any
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:16:34
fiscal impact. Are you asking for a fiscal impact on this? I
am. OK, Gramlich, we have a member that's asking for a fiscal impact, uh, I understand. Um,
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:16:47
well, with that, because ultimately we're not gonna have time in session to finish this bill then. Um, I'm gonna withdraw this and put
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:16:57
it in as an ISP, OK, I think that's a good idea,
sir. All right, thank you very much. Representative Torres. I hope this is a short bill. Me too, sir. Please
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:17:19
identify yourself for the record and you're recognized. Yes, sir. Randy Torres, state representative, district 17. Do you have an amendment? I do. Ex
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:17:29
Right amendment for House Bill 1950. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 167
1:17:43
explained the amendment. So this amendment came by
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:17:45
way of the insurance industry wanting us to change in the bill from policy to just coverage. The terminology of coverage is better used than policy, so
that's all that this does in this
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:18:03
amendment. All right, we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion, seeing none all in favor
say aye, We've adopted the amended. Now you're recognized to explain your bill as amended. Thank
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:18:16
you, Mr. Chairman. At the moment, can I please request Tonya Williams with ADE to join me here. Certainly, if she'll
Speaker 167
1:18:23
come to the table and identify herself, she'll be recognized.
Speaker 192
1:18:33
Tanya Williams, Office of Early Childhood at the Department
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:18:38
of Education. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, second to collegiate athletics in the state of Arkansas. This is probably one of the most important urgent pieces of legislation that you'll get this session. Um, so thank you for allowing me to present it. House Bill 1950 is a bill that ensures fairness, security, and opportunity for some of Arkansas's most essential workers are licensed family
childcare providers. Licensed family child their homes are the backbone of early education and care for thousands of working families across Arkansas. These are small, often single provider homes, licensed and regulated by the Department of Education, where children are nurtured in a safe and familiar environment. They offer flexible, affordable, and personalized care often in neighborhoods where no other options exist, but despite their vital role, these providers face
a quiet but serious threat, discrimination by homeowner, homeowner's insurance companies. Right now in Arkansas, some insurance providers are canceling, refusing to renew, or charging excessive rates for homeowner, homeowner's policies simply because someone is operating a licensed family child care home. Let me be clear, these providers are fully licensed meeting all state safety requirements and following the law, and yet they're being penalized simply for providing a much needed service to our families. This
bill does 3 important things. It prohibits insurance companies from canceling or refusing to renew a homeowner's policy solely because a home is used as a licensed child care facility. It ensures rates are fair, that providers are not charged more simply for doing legal licensed child care work. It requires these providers to carry an additional $100,000 personal liability insurance policy to ensure safety and coverage for any claims that
might arise. So in other words, House Bill 1950 strikes the balance. It protects small childcare businesses from unfair treatment while also requiring them to maintain strong liability coverage and compliance with all state rules. This bill is not about asking for special treatment. It's about fairness. It's about making sure a licensed provider who is following every rule doesn't lose their home insurance overnight and their livelihood along with it and perhaps most importantly this
bill is about families. When we force good providers to shut down because of discriminatory insurance practices. We make it harder for working parents to find care, and we make it harder for children to get the start that they deserve. And with that, I'll open
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:21:24
it up to any questions. Representative Barry recognized her question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, Representative Torres. So,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:21:31
I may have some questions for the insurance department, but so you You, you apply for homeowner's
insurance, and they underwrite it based on a risk. And then 5 years later, you decide to start uh Keeping kids and you have now you have a daycare. So, and you notify. If you do a lot of, a lot of people don't, uh, you notify your carrier and they didn't file their, they're playing with the insurance. They didn't file the rating structure with the insurance department, so now
they don't want, they don't want the liability exposure based on that, even for the additional 100,000 which in most lawsuits today, if you have an abuse issue, $100,000 doesn't touch the attorney fees, so Now you've got exposure that companies have our own that they didn't plan accordingly for, so this wouldn't allow them to give you fair notice to search elsewhere to find coverage. They wouldn't be able to change.
Speaker 193
1:22:39
Representative Perry, um, the legislature passed a law in 2015 that requires all licensed providers, including family childcare to have coverage, um, for minimum liability and for homes, it's 100,000. So We check that from a licensing standpoint just to make sure when we go in and monitor. Do you have your liability insurance policy. So they currently have to have it per a law from 2015. liability insurance, but not liability insurance to cover daycare.
Well, it's connected to their early care and education program. Like they could have homeowners insurance, but this law was specific, if you're going to keep children in your home. That you have to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:23:23
have that coverage let's go back to the question. So with this allow a company to cancel the coverage because 5 years ago when you bought the home, they under the underwriting criteria you met the person now started keeping kids, the company comes and does
an inspection for some reason. They do a re-inspection periodically. They reinspect, find out that you now have a daycare on premises, so they give you notice of cancellation. With this Would this allow them to do that? It would prevent them from doing that. All right, I'll have some questions for the insurance department, Mr. Chairman, whenever questions are done. Are there any other questions? Has anyone
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:24:03
from the insurance department here. You'll go to the end of the
Speaker 201
1:24:10
table and identify yourself. OK Jimmy Harris, Deputy commissioner, market regulation, Arkansas Insurance Department. Represent
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:24:36
Barry, you recognize your question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harris, so is it current
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:24:42
procedure now for companies to whenever they have a rate filing to automatically include the exposure for child care or daycare. Ah
Speaker 203
1:24:56
That's a there's some nuance to that question, um, thank you for the question. Um, under 2078 202. In Arkansas law, registered child care family home. You can, you can keep Up to 5 children.
And only get a voluntary license. Many personalized insurers already cover that risk. A licensed child care family home would be in Arkansas 1 with 6. Please correct me if I'm wrong, 6 to 16. Kids. No. No, on personal lines policy generally that's a risk that's not considered. Uh, that, that kind of moves more into the commercial space.
Speaker 204
1:25:46
Um So, so no, is your answer. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair
Unverified
1:25:53
Are there any other questions? Representative Richardson you recognize
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:26:00
her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:26:02
Could you kind of walk through your thoughts on what you're seeing in this building from you guys' perspective. I think
Speaker 203
1:26:11
most likely, uh, personal lines insurers are going to non-renew a homeowner's
policy if you're keeping or if you're, if you're operating a licensed childcare facility that's found in the state of Arkansas, 6 to 16 kids. Uh, they're, they're gonna, they're gonna look at that more, more like a commercial policy, um, they're going to want to get off that risk if it is in a personal lines homeowner's policy. Uh, you know, regardless of, of any amount of, of, of excess liability they're required by the state to carry. Uh, it's
just not a risk contemplated on a on a homeowner's policy. There may be some endorsements out there. I would have to research that and get back to you because that's not something I'm 100% certain about, um. You know, there's, there's some language in this bill about, about rights, you know, not. Not allowing an insurance company to raise rates due to the operation of a licensed childcare facility
that could run into, you know, some. Inadequate right? situations, um, because, you know, you, you do have quite a bit of risk that you're, that you're accepting when you're operating a child care facility in your home. And and companies, you know, they're, their risk appetite for something like that will vary, even, you know, it could vary from year to year. Uh, so, so we, we generally are gonna allow
a company to set their own underwriting guidelines like
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:27:51
that. So in your opinion then, if this, if we move on this and this passes, um. Do you see that? How do you, how do you see this impacting families that are trying to obtain this insurance. Do you think those insurance companies will will vacate and no longer offer this as a cover or how do you see this impacting?
Speaker 201
1:28:12
Well, you know, as it's written right now, there's, there's no homeowner's policy and my Belief That covers
Speaker 203
1:28:22
A licensed child care facility in the market. So I think this bill has the potential to require all companies. To cover licensed childcare facilities in their homeowner's insurance policies. Which we all purchase. Um, I don't know, I don't know what that impact could be. I'm sure there's people in the industry here that that could speak on that. um but currently, uh, homeowner's insurance does
not contemplate this particular risk if, if this uh. registered child care family homes instead of license and I'm. I don't know, I don't know the intent. I'm sorry, um. I think it would, it could be feasible because many carriers are already covering that risk in their homeowner's policies, OK, OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Members, any other questions? Representative Perry, you have
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:29:24
another question? Go ahead. Just a follow up on, thank you, Madam Chairman. Uh, So you mentioned with without a separate policy, but is there a way to, to exclude liability, so I'll have a standard homeowner's policy, which would cover up to 5 kids under the incidental. If I do a separate commercial policy to cover the 6th however many. Is there a way to exclude liability under the homeowners insurance, you know, that's,
Speaker 203
1:29:55
that's going to be up to the risk appetite of the carriers, uh, if, if a carrier. As is offering. Offering that risk and those coverages potentially yes, um, but most likely would have
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:30:07
some incidental liability exposure that defense costs would probably end up Yes, yeah, OK. Thank you. Members represent Lederman, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:30:20
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Uh, I just, I
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:30:27
The question that I don't see answered in this bill is, is
there a number limit? I mean, how many? Children would be in a home or Yes, sir, there are
Speaker 193
1:30:38
currently rules about the number of children that can be in a home, and I think the insurance person, you know, they have to have a license if they keep 5 or more unrelated, that can be registered with 5. They don't have to be, but if it's over that, we require the license. So usually these homes, and there
are over 200, about 202 today that keep children and it's anywhere from 10 to 16, so the impact is about 20 to 3000 children depending on the exact number. they're keeping, but most of them keep around 10 so the minimum number is 5. Is there a maximum number 16, 5 to 16.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:31:10
All right, thank you. Members, any other questions? See no further questions, thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:31:18
you for coming to the end of the table. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill Representative Torres, you're recognized clothes for your
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:31:29
bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues,
we need more childcare providers in Arkansas, not fewer. House Bill 1950 sends a clear message. If you're doing the right thing and you're licensed and insured and following the law of the state of Arkansas has your back. I respectfully ask for your yes vote on this important legislation. Let's protect our providers, our children and our communities. And keep in mind that additional insurance liability insurance is required in this bill for these homeowners to get in order to
satisfy the additional liability or exposure and with that, I'll close. Thank you. Members Representative Torres is closed for
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:32:07
his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? See We have a motion
to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, Representative Leiderman, you're recognized for discussion. Representative Torres, you know, I, I
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:32:21
like this bill, but there's a lot of unknowns here. A lot of people feel, don't feel. Like they should be voting for this because there's so
many things that we don't understand about it. I think it would be
good if you do more work on it and
bring it back to us where we can pass it. Um, appreciate you to consider pulling it down. OK. Uh
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:32:46
Madam Chair, with that, I will pull it down, do some additional work on this bill. Without
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:32:51
objection, or we have a motion on the table. Would you like to withdraw your motion, Representative Eades. The motion to be passed has been withdrawn off the table. Representing Torres will allow you to pull it down this late in the session, the chances that you can get it
back and through, so you might consider interim study so that we can flesh out those kinds of things. I know this committee is good about looking into that and I think it appears everybody was thinks it's a
good idea, but we want to get it right. So you, and if you don't know how to do interim study, um, Go see Martha J. Rowe in the house, and she'll help you get it put over
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:33:27
into interim study. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. I appreciate your time on this bill. Members with that
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:33:36
chair has indicated to me that the next bill to be heard is Senate Bill 594 Representative Warren, if you'll go to
the end of the table and present Senate Bill 594.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:33:58
If you'll identify yourself, you'll recognized. Warren, state rep, District 84. I am presenting this for Representative John Milligan, uh, couldn't be here. SB 594 is
codifying the current practice, uh, that no certificate of public convenience and necessity is required when transmission lines are connecting power plants to the grid. Uh, the PSC and energy and the independent power producer. are all in support of this, so this is just codifying the the current practice that they've got, but the uh law is silent to it, so this is just codifying the way they're practicing right now and everybody's in support.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:34:41
Remember she, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions seeing their questions. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Warren, you're recognized to close for Senate Bill 594.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:34:56
I'm closed, and I would make a motion to pass. Members, we have
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:35:00
a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill has passed. Thank
you committee members were quickly Representative Ease has indicated he has a 30-second bill. At the end of 30 seconds, feel free to do a motion, do not pass if you can't hold on to that. No, just kidding. Senate Bill 552.
Let's quickly run that and then we're going to turn to yours. Represente if you'll recognize yourself and your guest at the
end of the table, you're recognized to proceed with the presentation in Senate Bill 552. Representative Eaves, District 58, and
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:35:48
I'll let Derek introduce himself, and you've got about 30 seconds when you get started, apparently. Good morning, Madam Chair. Committee. My name's Derek Smith with
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:35:56
the Mitchell Williams Cig Gates and Woodyard law firm. I'm here on behalf of Northwest Registered agents. OK. Madam Madam Chairman, I'm going to let him give you the details on
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:36:07
the bill so we can get through it pretty quick. Certainly, go ahead.
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:36:14
Quickly this bill sort of recognizes modern business typically when you form a new corporation or LLC, you have to provide both a registered agent, office address to the Secretary of State's office. That's the address where you're willing to accept legal documents and a primary office that's usually your office where you do business with uh with businesses being formed and homes and in private locations for safety reasons. A lot of folks don't want that information public, and people don't visit the office anyway. In conversations with the
Secretary of State's office, we drafted a bill that says if you don't have a public storefront, you're allowed to identify your principal office as the registered agent's office, you still have to give information to the Secretary of State's office to allow them to do any investigations they need. You
just don't have to provide a public storefront office if you don't have one. Remember you've heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any questions
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:37:08
from the committee, Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious how, what happened to
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:37:17
make this bill come up? Did something happen? Sure, um, I
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:37:21
think for a period of time, the Secretary of State's office was allowing as a courtesy, some, some home businesses to use the registered agent's office upon review of the law and the actual law, it was determined that that's not permitted under current law and so continue the process. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:37:47
Representative Eads you recognized to close for Senate Bill 552. I'm closed. Make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed the bill.
Members, let's turn our attention to House Bill 1930, House Bill 1930.
We need to adopt Wardlaw, I've been informed that there is an amendment that's being passed out. Yes, ma'am. Is this the amendment, uh, that you're waiting another, are you waiting on another amendment or do you know on a gramical change
Speaker 232
1:38:46
to this amendment, but I can go ahead and start explaining it. OK,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:38:49
let's go ahead and explain this amendment then. Let's go ahead and pass out the
Speaker 233
1:38:58
amendment. Madam Chair, it's a numerical change, not a chemical.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:39:04
Can you point out where the numerical change is going to be. Be
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:39:26
glad to in just a second. Madam Chair, it's under 2A on the second page in the 90% will be changed to 85%. All right, members, if you'll note.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:39:34
Page 2 To a 90, that percentage number is going to be changed. With that, you, do you wish to go ahead and present? Let's go ahead and present your amendment and we'll come back to it, to adopt it, but go ahead and present your amendment. So Madam
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:39:54
Chair, there's been a lot of concern expressed about higher ed and the cost that would hit higher ed, and since we exempted EBD, the first part, page 4, delete line 11 through
15, that deletes higher ed from the bill completely the same as exemption for EBD. Uh, page 5 delete lines 35 to 36, basically changes the um rollout for the increase to the hospital reimbursement changes that roll out very significantly, um, I don't know of a single insurance plan. Arkansas is not already paying 45% of the average, so no one will pay anything the first year. UnitedHealthcare is pretty low in their reimbursement, so they'll probably get hit in the 2nd year.
Uh, 3rd and 4th and 5th year is when you will start seeing the other plans have to pay in to a higher reimbursement to hospitals. When you move on to the 2nd page of the amendment, I'm going to recognize Representative Johnson, a bill this big has been a collaborative between multiple members, so I'm gonna represent recognize him to explain the second part of the amendment. Members Representative Lee
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:40:58
Johnson, District 47, so I have a bill, House Bill 201295 that's been sitting out there for a while. It does several things. One of the things it does is it increases some reporting and
transparency and then tries to put some protections on premium increases. Currently the Arkansas Insurance Department is allowed to do reviews to determine whether the rate increases are merited or not. This is adding some factors. This is language that we took out of my bill that we're placing into representative war laws bill to try to give us some protections around rate increases to make sure that the AID has all the tools they need to make sure that any rate increases that come in the way of premiums are fair and taking
in a couple of other factors including the risk-based capital levels and medical loss ratios and they're In the current version you're seeing, it says greater than 90%. The actual number should be 85%, and we have another amendment coming to the table that will reflect that number. Members, you've
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:41:56
heard an explanation of the amendment we're going to hold off adopting the amendment because we're waiting for that numerical change, but without objection will without objection from the committee will allow Representative Wardlaw to present his bill, and then we'll
come back and put it in the right order. Make a motion we adopt the amendment. We're going to hold off on taking that emotion until we get it correct. So Reward law without objection from the committee, we'll
recognize you to present the bill. Let's present it as adopted even though we've not adopted the
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:42:28
amendment. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. You ask yourself, why is this bill needed? Well, Arkansas healthcare providers received some of the lowest reimbursement rates in the country. Medicare, Medicaid, commercial plans all
pay less healthcare services in Arkansas than any other state. This is a trifecta that has put many of our rural hospitals and providers that uns unsustainable financial position. Without adequate reimbursement, our health systems cannot recruit and maintain a strong health care force. Or update or maintain their facilities and many of our rural hospitals are at risk of closure. Members, you've all been here over the last 5 years through the COVID epidemic. You've seen all these hospitals
come to counsel, time in and time out, and we've had to sit and give them millions of dollars to keep their doors open. And one of our most critical hospitals is Camden, Arkansas. And what makes Camden, Arkansas so critical to the economy of Arkansas is a defense industry. Just this weekend, Camden Hospital suffered through almost having a weekend without a doctor in the ER. These are the things that are happening because they do not have the financial means to keep those open and just for bases as
I go through this explanation, those doctors in Camden cost the same as those doctors in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The light bills pretty close to reasonable, the same as they are in Tulsa, Oklahoma. So remember Tulsa, Oklahoma as we go forward. In 2022, the legislature set aside $60 million in the American rescue Plan funding for Arkansas hospitals in 2024, Governor Sanders put another $15 million to funding rural hospitals. This type of one-time opportunities
has helped many rural hospitals recover from pandemic and high staffing costs and inventory costs as we saw. during that time. But one time funding doesn't solve the ongoing problems. Healthcare providers in Arkansas need comparable reimbursement rates to neighboring states in order to survive. Hospital transparency pricing shows disparency and reimbursement rates between Arkansas hospitals and hospitals in adjoining states. For an example, one large national Fa United, pays $119 to an Arkansas-based hospital system
for a mammogram compared to $330 in Springfield, Missouri. $301 in Saint Francis in Tulsa, $402 at Alliance Health in Durant, Oklahoma. There's no reason that Arkansas hospitals providers should receive this reimbursement, this type of service for the same credentials in the surrounding states. It's a huge difference in these reimbursements. Another clear example from the same pair emergency room reimbursement at Ashley County Medical Center in Crossett,
right? 15 minutes from my house, $628 compared to $1100 in Shreveport or $825. In not just regional in Louisiana.
OK, you, you took a breath, so that gives me an opportunity to hold
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:45:28
you off. We have your correct amendment. So let's get that side and get that adopted since you took a breath, that gave me an opportunity.
Unknown speaker
1:45:47
I only have a few more paragraphs, but it's very important. I The chair will entertain a motion to adopt the amendment. I'll make that motion now.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:46:20
Members you've had an opportunity to look at the amendment to the amendment. Any questions? We, uh, Johnson, you recognized for your motion. Members what you're getting now
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:46:30
is the same as the last Amendment. It's just changing one number from 90% to 85%. Members, we have a motion to adopt the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:46:39
amendment on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. The motion has been adopted.
Now we're in procedural correctness representing word law sorry to have interrupted your train of thought, but you recognize to
proceed on your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:47:01
Chair. Three recent reports highlighted Arkansas's healthcare challenges. February 2025. The 2025 hospitals real health state of the state report ranks Arkansas number one in the country for the highest percentage of rural hospitals at risk for closure. I want to say that again. We are ranked number one. For rural hospital closure.
Risk December 2024, rents pricing paid to hospitals by private healthcare plans report found that Arkansas is the lowest commercial reimbursement rates in the country. Only 5 states in the country saw hospital reimbursement below 200% of Medicare, Arkansas was at the lowest at 170%. The average in the country is
254%. We're almost 100% below the average. November 2024, the Northwest Arkansas Council. Put out Arkansas healthcare Vision 2030 report found that payment rates for healthcare services remain the lowest in the United States. Providers in Arkansas are in a competitive disadvantage compared with neighboring states in the terms of amount of money they receive per patient. For an example, a hospital. In nearby Oklahoma treating the same patient with the same
medical condition would make $5,0725 more than a hospital in Arkansas. Average reimbursements per patient in Arkansas versus neighboring states. These are numbers you want to write down, folks. These numbers are staggering. Arkansas is at $8,842.50. Oklahoma, 14,567 and 20 cents. Texas, $17,0346.60. That's more than double what we
get in Arkansas. Louisiana, 11,988. Mississippi. 12,517. I want to point out that Mississippi is the only one that has an annual premium lower than Arkansas, but yet they're able to pay their hospitals almost 35% more than we can in Arkansas. This means that Arkansas employers with employees living or receiving care and they in these surrounding states are paying health care systems more money for services rendered outside of Arkansas than an
employer would pay the same service rendered in Arkansas. The premiums paid by that employer and employee are likely the same regardless of where the care was rendered. So remember that as you hear all the arguments today. They're already paying the same premiums to pay the same reimbursements that I just screamed out to you guys. So why are Arkansas employers paying outside of state healthcare providers more than they pay Arkansas providers. I can answer that for you. It's because the Medicare rate in
Arkansas is so low. And Medicare is the only entity that's held to what we call budget neutrality. I said that twice and they said it wrong both times. And because of that, it takes an act of Congress to move our Medicare rate up. And in order to do that act of Congress to move our Medicare rate up. Someone else's Medicare rate has to go down. So you're not going to get that rate up without upsetting the avo cart in another state by bringing it down. So the only way they add more
money into Medicare is a whole another act of Congress. It's the only place in Washington DC that's actually held to budget neutrality. I want that to sink into your head really well. Payers might argue that raising commercial rates will result in increased premiums for Arkansas employers and employees. However, KFF data shows that the average annual premium for enrolled employee for employer-based health insurance is not significantly higher than Arkansas premiums, as I quoted a while ago, Arkansas average
premiums $7,362. Oklahoma, 7420. Only $100 difference, and they almost get twice the reimbursement. Texas, 8180 $900. difference, and they do get more than twice. Louisiana, 7966, Mississippi, 7243. Louis Mississippi is the only one that actually has a lower annual premium than we do. House Bill 1295 would help prevent payers from increasing rates without specific MLR justifications. As you saw, we just incorporated
that language into this bill so that if there's some chance that bill doesn't pass, we still have those protections in this bill. Specifically, this bill adds transparency for how insurance companies are collecting and spending premiums collected. Dial allows premium increases if an insurance company has not met an 85, 15 medical loss ratio. And if the insurance company has fallen under the requirements of deserved 650% of risk-based capital requirement. And it mandates So guys
It's pretty easy to see the writing on the wall. We're reimbursing our hospitals at the lowest rate possible, but yet we're up here every month in council hearing from a hospital that's really close to closure. We've sent out millions and millions of dollars these hospitals to keep them open. And now we're sitting here at the, looking back and we're going to have to start the cycle over all over again. The first hospital that got money for us was Camden, Arkansas. The first hospital back on the
edge of closing Camden, Arkansas. They're coming back. With that, Madam Chair, I'll yield to my witnesses that they to present. Um, I got Mr. Mora go back to my chair so I can ask some questions. I wanted
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:52:46
to be able to present the amendment because it's part of my bill, House Bill 1295, so I'm going to go back to my chair
where I can. Sit and be comfortable and ask questions. Thank you. If you'll identify yourself for the record,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:52:58
you're recognized. I'm Beyle, president and CEO of the Arkansas Hospital
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:53:03
Association. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee, for letting me testify on this very important piece of legislation, I think as Representative Wardlaw's outlined hospitals are struggling. You've certainly heard that through the last 5 years. Inflation has really hit hospitals, uh, supplies, expenses have outpaced revenue in the in the hospital industry and it's made it tough for hospitals to maintain the services that They've they've had in the past and certainly to maintain their viability. So when we saw the RAND report
that represented Wardlaw outlined here that listed the Arkansas as lowest in the nation in commercial insurance reimbursement. It certainly got our attention and uh as Representative Wardlaw outlined in particular looking at Oklahoma and see the differential there between what hospitals are paid as far as average reimbursement looking at 14,567 in Oklahoma and Arkansas 8,842 for a difference of 5, 725. That is a significant
difference and something that we see in every surrounding state, and there's really no reason why insurance companies here in Arkansas should be paying an out of state hospital more than they pay an in-state hospital. The difference there's, they will say that if this passes, it's going to raise premiums, but as Representative Wardlaw outlined, you look at the premium differential between those surrounding states, they're almost all similar. Mississippi. Lower Oklahoma's about $58 or $100 difference, so there's not that much difference in the
premiums, but the payments, the differential is huge. So we're very concerned about this, um, I think the insurance companies will say it will raise premiums. I think they'll say that utilization is the cause of this, but the utilization in Arkansas, I think, would probably be very similar to Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi. So I think the solution is this piece of legislation as Representative Wardlaw outlined, it's got a five-year implementation plan sets a floor. It allows for reimbursement between healthcare providers and insurance
companies and also the insurance. commissioner is in charge of gathering the data and tabulating the data that helps set this floor. So we think this levels the playing field, not only in Arkansas but with other states. And I think the data suggests that premiums don't have to rise that they can premiums can remain the same. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Questions from the Representative Johnson, I
believe you're first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Representative Beau.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:55:41
Uh, so I'm, I'm trying to understand one of the
things you said War law. Um, you said these rates are based on Medicare, so is that they established as a percent of Medicare. Is that how normally rates are established. That's true. And so because our Medicare rate is the lowest in the country. Is that what you said? The only way we're ever going to move the needle on rates is if that number changes. Or if we were to implement some sort of legislation like this,
that, that feels to me like why this legislation is partly important is because we can't afford to wait for Medicare rates to change or adjust, and we need to make some changes now. This is the way to try to overcome that. Is that correct? This is the only way that we have
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:56:27
control of the issue. If we wait on Congress, then we're waiting on Medicare to go up, and we're waiting on something that this is a five-year ramp up. could be looking at a 10 to 12, maybe even 15 year ramp up. And by that point, all 57 rural hospitals that are on that
closure list are probably going to be closed. I
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:56:47
want to make sure I understand the phase in correctly too. So the first year that this would roll out,
what, what's the percent of the average rate that we would have to 45% so you're saying that the first year, whatever the RAND calculated rate is for the surrounding states, they would just have to go up to at least 45% of that rate. So we're not even saying match the rate around us. We're not even saying get to half of the rate around us. We're saying get the 45% of the rate around
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:57:15
us, and we think most of them meet that. Today. The only insurance provider in question is UnitedHealthcare, which are the lowest payers. So, so
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:57:23
in the first year, the impact of premiums should be minimal, I would think. Is that correct? Yeah. And then the second year, what do we go to 55. It's
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:57:30
a 10% per year until the last year's 25 hospitals believe, I guess
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:57:34
this is a question for you. The hospitals believe that like 50 to be 55%, like half of the average that would potentially be a pay increase for some of the hospitals. Yes, it would.
So you're, so you're telling me if I came to the table with the bill that said, I'm gonna pass a bill that says, well, we're going to charge is half. Of the commercial rates around us. Half of the commercial that gives the hospitals in the Arkansas a raise. Yes, it does for a number of hospitals. That, that answers that question. Thank you. I
may have more questions, but I'm done for now. Thank you, Representative Represent Wootton, did you have a question?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:58:17
Yes, I do. Uh, Mr. Chairman. What, what would the average Employer employee increase in their premium be? Can you answer, do you know that? I do not know that answer. And, and, and I'll go back to
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:58:34
last session, OK? Um, My real good friend, Representative Lee Johnson ran a number of bills in public health and in this committee, and we were told at the end of session, we were going to see Representative Johnson, you may
have to help me with this number, but I want to say it was hundreds of millions of dollars of increases at Blue Cross Blue Shield. We're 2 years down the road today, we never saw a single increase that I can name from those bills. Now, they did come out this last quarter with a 200 and something million dollar loss and maybe they can contribute that to Representative Johnson's bills, but it, it's a lot of scare tactics involved in some of these numbers. A lot. Follow up if I may, uh,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:59:22
How did, how did we get in this situation. Most of those
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:59:27
dudes in the Medicare reimbursement levels and where they're set and how long it's been since they've been changed. I'm not, I don't remember the exact year, Mr. Bo, can you answer that? Yeah, it was before my
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:59:37
time when they set the Medicare area wage index and certainly that's been adjusted through the years, but not in a positive way. It's kind of a pushes down as other, other states go up, it pushes down Arkansas, so ultimately we we lose money as a percentage every year on the area wage index.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:59:55
OK. One more question. Will this, this will save our local county. Hospitals, those that are suffering because of the low. In reimbursement rates. It will save most of them. Representative, I'm going to
tell you something, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart. I don't know if
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:00:14
this will save them. I can't tell you that it's going to save them. But I can tell you right now that I don't want to be sitting here a month from now, looking at Camden Hospital and uh having to
transfer dollars and tell them I didn't do everything in my power to try my best to make sure we alleviate a problem that was on the books. We've all known this problem is on the books. We've known it for. years. We've worked on this bill for, for multiple months to try to make the impact is minimal as possible on the private business to, to premiums, to all of it, but the fact of the matter is this thing costs money. Money can come from two places, the way I see it today. We can take it out of general revenue and we
can hand it to the hospitals in the form of a one-time check like we have done, or we can fix an ongoing issue by doing the one step that we have the control to do it. this level, and that's bringing the commercial rates up to what they're already paying with our premiums today and all of our neighboring states. And that's where we're at. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Representative Baker, you recognize? Mr. Chair, thank
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:01:22
you for bringing this bill. Representative Wardlaw, um, I think.
It's no secret that I have concerns when it comes to um quotes from insurance companies, consultants, sort of just ballparking some of these uh. I don't know, doomsday numbers. Um, what I appreciate about your amendment, if I'm reading it correctly, is that it does appear that you're adding factors. That have to be considered by the insurance department before any of these premium impacts occur. Is that correct? That is correct. And I think, If you remember when, when we were looking at rule 128, there
was again, it's all about turning over the data and justifying that, right? I mean, what we're looking for is for people to show their work and to not just take them at face value and really see why these have to occur. Um, and so as a health care provider who gets audited myself, I have to prove on claims that I was even underpaid on. I'm sure that your members get audited on claims that They were already underpaid on and now they have to show their work and I think that it's appropriate to have insurance companies held to that same standard, wouldn't you agree? I do.
Speaker 3
2:02:31
Thank you, Representative Representative Eaves. He recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:02:39
have A couple of questions. Um, Representative Wardlaw, um, and I'm writing these down as fast as I can as I think of them, but do mandates like this. Does it in any way limit the ability of insurers and providers to negotiate payment rates based on my market conditions. I don't think so because the way
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:02:56
we, if you read the bill, the way we set the rates out, we left the insurance commissioner
to be in the, the end all be all to set that off of the ran. So I think it still leaves room there for proprietary information for them to negotiate rates on their own. Mr. A, do you agree or do you see an issue with the way I explain that? No, I agree with you. Yes,
Speaker 262
2:03:19
I think it leaves room for negotiation, definitely. But does
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:03:24
it account for regional cost variation because I'm assuming that There are some costs that Camden, for example, deals with that may be Northwest Arkansas
is entirely different. I mean, is this, are we using a one size fits all approach to solve the problem, or are we taking into consideration that hospitals in rural areas are different from hospitals in more urban areas. Hm. I, I don't, I don't think
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:03:59
that it messes up what's going on already and regionally because Medicare already has differences
in those areas. So those rates are already different by those same percentages. We're at 170% above Medicare today in those areas. Are you saying Medicare is a different reimbursement
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:04:14
rate like for a hospital in South Arkansas versus what they reimburse for in a big urban area like say Northwest Arkansas. That's different. All right, um, are there any other states that mandate minimums that would be similar to what's proposed under this bill. I don't know. All right. And have you considered doing a fiscal impact
on the commercial insurance uh plans because what I'm worried about is that these That we're going to save hospitals at on the backs of every other group plan or commercial plan on the backs of businesses in Arkansas. So The rates are
Speaker 139
2:04:48
set at the contract level and not at
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:04:52
each service. And that, and again, that goes back to what I explained earlier when I answered your first question, and that's the reason the bill's written the way it is. Uh, they would, they would have to get to the overall average. So they'd
even have to be at those averages percentages at one year 1 through 5 are the interest department would intervene. Um, so as long as they're negotiated rate in their contracts were above 45, 55, 65. 5 and 100 as the years hit, then they would meet the definition. So yes, they would still be able to negotiate
Speaker 139
2:05:26
those individually. OK. And what about the comment that we're gonna Attempt to save struggling hospitals, and I
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:05:37
understand they're in a bad situation, but are we doing that on the backs of every other person that that pays for healthcare businesses, individuals, group plans, and all of that. Well, the answer to that is yes, we're doing
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:05:47
it on their backs, and we're doing it on their backs today, because if you look at how the one-time payments have come out has come directly out of their tax dollars, so you, you're just redirecting that fee to the insurance company versus to the state of Arkansas. Um, OK, that's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose we're gonna have someone from
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:06:09
the insurance office at some point come up and testify.
Speaker 235
2:06:13
OK, thank you, thank you, I suppose we're gonna have somebody from every
Chair
Unverified
2:06:18
aspects testify, but yeah. Thank you, Representative A
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:06:21
Chasson Luster. You recognized. Thank you. Um, just a quick question, what is the average percentage of the patient population at the hospital there's Medicaid versus Medicare. That
certainly varies by hospital, but statewide, I would say Medicaid and Medicare are about 55 to 60% for commercial insurances.
A little bit lower than that. OK. That just makes me wonder if we've had what our population is increasing on Medicaid, and we're making it harder on ourselves by increasing that population. Wouldn't
you agree? Well, I would say that having a paraso is certainly better than having uncompensated care, and that's where a lot of the Medicaid people
Speaker 263
2:07:03
would go if we lowered the Medicaid eligibility or decrease Medicaid. OK. Does this bill have exemptions for different
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07:12
populations to not participate in In this process, universities are different businesses. What are the exemptions? Right now, the only exemptions are EBD and not higher ed
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:07:21
institutions. By exempting EBD and higher ed, are we picking winners and losers
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07:26
and putting this on the backs of businesses. Uh, you could put it that way, but I, I don't think
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:07:36
feel like by year 2 or 3, because you 2, you guys would be
or your year one, you'll be back in session, but by year. 3 to 5, you will come back and include those populations in. I just don't think it's a healthy time to put them in at this point.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07:55
And that would be what, what, what is your opinion on that? It's because it costs. Mostly because of cost. OK. Well, I'm just, I'm concerned where, because it costs the state, we, we exempt them, but because it's costing businesses, we're kind of passing on the cost to them, so help me understand that.
I mean, that's just a decision that was made or
Chair
Unverified
2:08:25
it's just a decision that's been made, OK, all right, thank you, Representative Wardlaw. in strom. Any further questions
Speaker 3
2:08:31
from the committee for? Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. So members, we have numerous people signed up and we're just going to do it like we do um every time. I
do want to say we will not be finishing this bill before we go to session today, so we will be coming back after
to finish this. I apologize to everyone, but that's just how we're going to have to do it. We're getting towards the end of session. So the 1st
Speaker 3
2:08:54
1st person to speak against the bill. Is David Mann, and I believe Looks like Alicia Berkema. You're welcome to come together if that's Be better just introduce yourself, who you're
with, and you can proceed with your testimony.
Speaker 273
2:09:18
David Mans with Arkansas Blue Cross. And Alicia
Speaker 276
2:09:28
Burke by Arkansas Blue Cross. Thank you for the uh opportunity today to, to testify about this bill, um. I want to start by saying that I really appreciate the difficult situation that you all are in, um, it's obviously a challenge to um To grapple with issues such as
this, you've got people pulling from many different directions. All at the same time and uh and oftentimes I think you find yourselves in, in, in no win situations. Um, and this is, this is one of those situations where you have, um, constituents on one hand, um, who are facing issues with health insurance, not being affordable, uh, and then we also have hospitals and
doctors that, um, need higher reb. rates. So that's sort of the, the big picture view of, of, of what you're, what you're struggling with. Um, I do want to take just a minute to, um, to mention, you know, one of the things that was, uh, that was talked about, and that is that, you know, Medicare rates are, are really low, and they are and and that's one of the things that makes this issue so difficult, because in, in the state of Arkansas,
Medicare and Medicaid. Pay 5 Of the claims in the state. So let me repeat that. So Medicare and Medicaid pay half the claims in the state of Arkansas. And they are the lowest reimbursement. And so that What that effectively means is that Oh Everyone else is shouldering the burden, do that low reimbursement rate.
And um you know, I would say I've I've had discussions with many people about this. I, I think. You know, does it take an act of Congress to change Medicare rates? It does. Um, but I think we all agree that the rate that Arkansas is being reimbursed. Is is unfair. And uh someone else, is someone gonna gonna have to take a pay reduction. Absolutely.
You know, it reminds me of back, you know, about 30 years ago, the same thing existed with the Highway Trust Fund. Arkansas was a donor state. And today we're a donor state in Medicare. Now we're no longer a donor state in the highway funding because Congress fixed it. Was that easy? It was not. But we got it done because the delegation jumped on board and
there were other states that were donor states as well. And, and they all chipped in. And I think that's something that we need to work on. Um, I don't see that mentioned. Um Very often, but I think our, our healthcare providers, we would love to join with them, uh, to really step up the efforts on that. And I think we can together we can get that done. Um I want to talk about the general
principles for just, just a minute. Um So You know, the, the, one of the challenges that I that I see in this is is someone who has been, um, In government for for a while. I, you know, the, the, um, the government philosophy of, of how you deal with problems. when, when the market doesn't seem to be working properly,
right? And so at what point does government step in in a situation like this to establish a price. Um, versus allowing the market to work. What are the issues that um That the market is grappling with. So from from our perspective. You know, it was mentioned, Mr. Ryle had indicated that, you know, um, That there are issues with
respect to reimbursement. There are Or excuse me, not reimbursement, but with the um Uh, utilization and and utilization definitely has gone up. Where are we with respect to other states, um, you know, I can't really speak to that exactly. We haven't been a part of these discussions. I would have loved to have been able to have an opportunity to delve delve into that so that we could do some, some comparisons. um, I will say this, um,
When you, when you look at um When you look at the other things that, that we're facing, Arkansas is one of the most unhealthy states, uh, in, in the country, unfortunately, and that is one of the issues that that drives the rates here in the state, um, so every benefit plan is not the same. Uh, every premium is not the same, you know, if we go through and and look at premiums in our, in our group market. Well, they will
bury $2000 easily. Um, it depends on what the risk pool is, and states do the same thing, states have have different risk pools and they have different Mandates with respect to benefits. Uh, there are a lot of different variations that will impact what rates are in a state. So, um,
I, I think I'm going to let Alisa talk for just a minute about about hospital reimbursements, um, so Absolutely. Thank you
Speaker 279
2:15:51
for the opportunity. So I think as David has mentioned here today, we certainly recognize the low Medicare reimbursement for our state, even to that tune last April, we hosted the chief operating Officer John Blume here in Arkansas and traveled around the state, throughout the state, but South Arkansas, Central Arkansas, North
Arkansas, and allowed that opportunity for Medicare to be here present and show the challenges we have. Specifically in the rural parts of our state, but really across the state. We have worked hard. Camden was mentioned earlier. We have traveled down there. We have met with them. We've listened with them, and what we hear is a large part of their, their population is that Medicare and Medicaid. So we, we're able to increase for our populations, but we can't make up for those others, and so that's part of the challenges that we certainly see. We have been working with many of the
hospitals for many years now and value initiatives and looking at alternative payment besides just fee for. Service, looking at sharing risk and risk opportunities over a population and collaboration and coordination through them. We really see the hospitals as partners and we've been at the table working with them, and we appreciate the time today. So I'll close with, um, with this
Speaker 276
2:17:04
because rate rates were mentioned, um, and I did a, uh, I had a spreadsheet to kind of
calculate, um, what, what a rate increase might might look like and so I was able to just punch in a different percentage with the uh with the new, new scale of 45% for the first year, um. So the and, and again, I'll, I'll preface by saying averages are always difficult, right, because there really is no average, um, but if I, I mean there is an average, but you know what each person experiences will obviously be different, but on a uh for
instance, on a plan that let's say, you know, the base is, you know, 6 a little over $6000 and for a family of 4 that would the premium would be a little over 170. 00 $0. Excuse me. We would expect that premium next year to rise by about 5, you know, a little under 5.3% and that'd be about $911 with this bill, the way it's drafted, we would foresee that
premium potentially rising, um. To a total of, so instead of going up, uh, $911 it would go up a little over 3000 or $3,071. Um, which would be, which would be about a 20037% increase in terms of just the rise of that premium over what it would um the previous year, um. And I, and I wanna, um, add a
little bit to what Alicia said, you know, we've heard about numerous hospitals. I think Mina was one that that we looked at recently, um, You know, so it's a critical access hospital, they're in the process of becoming a critical access hospital, um, they, um, I think the increase was 10 or 8. 8% recently that we had given them, but they also, and this is something that we see with with
many hospitals is they actually don't charge the full rate that they could charge, and, and so, um, You know, there were, there were a few hospitals around the state who they're always at their max. And then there are some that don't always do that, um, and, and some of that is because they look at affordability in their community, and they don't want to be seen as charging exorbitant rates, and so, you know, they may keep those rates
lower as a result, um, and they're and they're leaving money on the table, but, um, But they could, they could charge more and if they did charge more, we would be paying them more. So with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you for your presentation. We have a
Speaker 282
2:20:09
couple of questions. Richardson, you're first in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Man, did I hear you, I
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:20:15
think I heard you correctly, where you said there are hospitals that aren't charging the full rate.
Speaker 279
2:20:25
How many of those hospitals do you know aren't doing that? We don't have a specific number here today. There are just certainly some instances that the chargemaster is not being billed fully.
Speaker 284
2:20:39
So that um it's very involved the hospital. So
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:20:43
Is it Your experience that some of the hospitals
that we've identified that are struggling and potentially
closing or not charging the full rate and leading to their own demise.
Speaker 279
2:20:56
Potentially I would have to match up the hospitals, but there are multiple challenges. And we can, we'll be happy to
Speaker 276
2:21:03
to later sit down if you've got a specific hospital in in mind, we could look at their rates and see what they're charging. What I'd be curious for you guys to provide, I mean, you,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:21:13
you said that they're, they're not charging the full rate, so I'd be curious to see the data that you base that on. It'd be easier if you gave us a
Speaker 276
2:21:20
list of like the one you wanted to look at because there are a lot of them in the state, um, we could
provide that a lot faster. Thank you. Represent. Thank you,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:21:38
Mr. Chairman. Would Mr. Mayor, would you go back over I, I lost you when you, you talked about $6000 in a 5.3% and then you mentioned 17,000. And, and then you, you talked
Speaker 287
2:21:57
about $911 would you go back over that again? Yes,
Speaker 276
2:22:04
sir. Um, so for a family of 4, The premium would be about $17,00256 under this bill or right now, right now, OK, yeah, yeah, that would be that that would be like an average, uh, right now for for a family of 4. Obviously some will be a few 1000 higher, some will be a few, maybe a couple 1000 lower, OK? Um, But
we would expect next year now, so there's a term called trend, OK, and that's kind of what we expect year to year, an increase to be. Um, I use 5. 28% as trend. It was higher last year, it was 5.85% was the increase, uh, for the, for that group. With that trend, the increase would, we would expect it to be $911
And that would put the new family policy at $18,00168. OK. And under this bill, we would expect the number to not increase by 911, but it would be increased by 911 plus this bill, which would be about $3,071. So it
Speaker 287
2:23:25
would, it would be. $4900. Or or close to $5000 3000
includes the 911. 0, it includes,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:23:36
OK. Yes, yes. So it would be roughly 20,000 20,000 of 28, yes. OK. Do you have any estimates or have you looked at how many would drop out and not have coverage if they had to do, we, we may be locked into a position where we have to do this, but how have dropped out or would drop out. You know, that, that is an
Speaker 287
2:24:05
excellent. I'm gonna let Alicia answer that. I
Speaker 279
2:24:08
don't have a specific number, but in discussions with employers I know they struggle every day to meet the premiums for their employees, and when we lose a group more, most of the time, it's because they drop insurance, not because they're going to a competitor. OK.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:24:25
There's a lot of the the premium difficulties. So would this impact Commercial policy group policies the same way, roughly $3000 increase.
An individually, would it be, it would be 20,000 a year if they
Speaker 276
2:24:44
Correct. And I'll, and I'll add this, you know, I, I was, uh, speaking with someone over the weekend about About what I refer to as a doughnut hole, you know, we that was often talked about with prescription drugs and Medicare and, and we're starting to see that in insurance where
If people are, are make too much money to be in Medicaid or in our home, but yet they don't make enough money to really afford health insurance. Right. You know, uh, you kind of have to, we're just, we're starting to see that a little bit more and more. In my part of the country we call this a
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:25:31
mess members, I'll take a couple more questions. We're about to break for lunch
and I want Blue Cross to come back after we're gonna
meet after, and I, I want you guys to be here for the, we we're we've lost some members, and I want them here, because I know they're gonna have questions. I'm afraid they're missing this. So let's take a couple more questions. Where's M Johnson, if you would. I don't mind holding my
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:25:58
questions till after we reconvened. I just want to make sure all
of our members have an opportunity to um hear from Blue Cross and ask their questions because this is obviously going to
be a, a lengthy debate Representative Baker, we're happy to come back too. Thank you. I appreciate that. We're
going to want you here, um, you're, you're good. OK. Reward law you were. Miss, I just want to
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:26:24
make the statement of the hospital administrators hear me. I think it's important that these guys stick around throughout the day to be able to testify this afternoon as well, because we did start off with the naysayers first. I want to make sure the, uh, the
folks that this helps the most get able to talk for their communities.
Speaker 3
2:26:42
Thank you, Richter Wardlaw, and we're going to go ahead and break. We will meet, we will convene 15 minutes upon adjournment today. Thank you.
Agenda
REGULAR BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1354 Lundstrum TO REGULATE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS ACT.
HB1308 Steimel CONCERNING UNFAIR PRACTICES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE REPAIR CONTRACTS; AND TO REGULATE SOLICITING RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORS AND TREE CONTRACTORS.
HB1811 Steimel TO AMEND PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW; AND TO REQUIRE REASONABLE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF A DEDUCTIBLE TO RECOUP RECOVERABLE DEPRECIATION UNDER PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LAW.
HB1813 Gramlich TO ADOPT THE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION COMPACT.
SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
HB1868 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PAY A FAIR AND REASONABLE SERVICE FEE
DIRECTLY TO A FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FIREFIGHTING SERVICES BASED ON TIME ON SCENE.
HB1443 Pilkington TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PAYMENT NETWORKS FROM USING CERTAIN DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS.
HB1930 Wardlaw TO MANDATE MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT LEVELS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES.w
HB1917 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS STUDENT-ATHLETE PUBLICITY RIGHTS ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO ATHLETIC PROGRAM FUNDING.
HB1918 McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SPECIE OR LEGAL TENDER; TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A BULLION DEPOSITORY; AND TO ALLOW FOR A PRECIOUS METALS-BACKED ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS.
SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING ACT.
SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; AND TO REVISE CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.
HB1949 Schulz TO ADD MEDICAL, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, AND AMBULANCE SERVICES TO THE LIST OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT.
HB1950 Torres TO PROTECT LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES FROM TERMINATION OF HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE COVERAGE; AND TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LICENSED FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES BY HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PROVIDERS.
HB1955 S. Meeks TO REPEAL THE SHIELDED OUTDOOR LIGHTING ACT.
HB1956 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS NIGHTTIME ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT.
SB481 Gilmore TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND STATE-OWNED PROPERTY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB519 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE INSURANCE; AND TO REGULATE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON DEFERRED PAYMENT OF ANY CASH SURRENDER VALUE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY.
SB544 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT.
SB594 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION TO SUPPLY A PUBLIC SERVICE OR TO EXTEND A PUBLIC SERVICE.
SB552 K. Hammer TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "PRINCIPAL OFFICE" USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF 1987 AND THE UNIFORM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT.
HB1177 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE PRACTICES ACT.
HB1408 Pilkington TO ALLOW QUALIFYING PATIENTS OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS TO PURCHASE MEDICAL MARIJUANA USING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT OR A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
HB1533 Gramlich TO CREATE THE DECENTRALIZED UNINCORPORATED NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION ACT.
HB1625 Barnett TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED HOME INSPECTORS.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1905 Lundstrum TO CREATE THE BUYER BEWARE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A REAL ESTATE LICENSEE REPRESENTING A SELLER TO DIRECT THE SELLER TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ASSESSOR FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF A RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 7, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative John Maddox Chair
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 8
Matt Mccoy
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 12
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 36
Speaker 40
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 67
Speaker 72
Speaker 75
Speaker 76
Speaker 69
Speaker 88
Speaker 33
Speaker 94
Speaker 95
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 111
Speaker 112
Speaker 79
Speaker 113
Speaker 3
Speaker 117
Speaker 120
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 138
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Speaker 140
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
Speaker 168
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 173
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 192
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 193
Speaker 201
Speaker 203
Speaker 204
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Derek Smith
Unverified
Speaker 232
Speaker 233
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 262
Speaker 139
Speaker 235
Speaker 263
Speaker 221
Speaker 273
Speaker 276
Speaker 279
Speaker 282
Speaker 284
Speaker 287