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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
Are we taking this out of order? Good morning, committee. If we could find our seats.
We are going to go somewhat out of order this morning. But before we start just a little housekeeping here, we are going to start with Representative Shepard. He's going to run his bill first. Then we're going to do some fairly what I hope are non-controversial bills before we get into 1930,
which now I can tell is going to take a long time. So just so everyone knows, that's the plan. That's how we're going to try to work the schedule. We'll just see how long it takes. So
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
0:49
with that, Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the chair's permission, I have 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 to answer questions. Members, 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 for the past several years, you'll recall that I believe four years ago I ran the bill that created the Student Athlete Publicity Rights Act, and then two years ago we made some modifications to it that were necessitated just because of how things have developed over time. And now we're back one more time for some further tweaking of the bill. You know, I think as we've said the last several times we've been here,
I know there's a lot of different feelings on NIL and paying student athletes, But the fact of the matter is, this is the state of play as it is in intercollegiate athletics today. And what we did four years ago in implementing the Student-Athlete Publicity Rights Act allowed Arkansas to, allowed Arkansas's institutions of higher education to be competitive at the intercollegiate athletics, in intercollegiate athletics.
But we can't just 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 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, This is coming about not because of what we're doing in Little Rock,
but this is really where things are headed at the national level, 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 provide that athletic conferences and other organizations that they can't punish or penalize our student-athletes unless it's been expressly agreed to by the institution.
You can see that given that now money is being paid over to student-athletes from the institutions themselves, We provide for a limited exemption on that income from taxation. And 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 waives any type of immunity on the part of the institution of higher education.
And we further clarify that there's no liability or we insulate coaches from some degree of liability in the event that maybe student-athletes think that because of playing time or otherwise that they've been mistreated. And so those are kind of the high points. Again, this is not something that I think any of us necessarily, this is not something necessarily originating from here in the state of Arkansas.
This is just 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 Mr. McCoy
Speaker 8
4:49
to make any follow-up comments he might have, and we'd be glad to answer questions. Thank you.
Matt Mccoy
Unverified
4:57
As he said, my name is Matt McCoy.
I'm the Senior Associate General
Speaker 11
5:02
Counsel for the University of Arkansas system over athletics. I think that was a very accurate, succinct representation of 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 state, all of our institutions, to be able to comply with those provisions and the related rules and procedures that their conferences are going to be implementing in response to this litigation. I
Speaker 12
6:00
will add there is one additional provision that was provided in here that
Speaker 11
6:06
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 I believe that's going to help also protect our student-athletes who have been taken advantage of by agents who maybe 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. But other than that,
Matt Mccoy
Unverified
6:41
I think Representative Shepard covered all of those provisions
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
6:45
accurately. And just to be clear, because I can imagine that one of the points maybe some might have a question about is the paying of players directly.
My understanding 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 where collegiate athletics is heading. And certainly I think we want to make sure that our institutions are able to operate under this new world.
And as Mr. McCoy pointed out, you know, one of the things that we did four 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 very fair piece of legislation because we understand that those student-athletes are kind of in a vulnerable position, that there may be actors out there that do not have their best interests in mind.
And so I would refer the committee back to the fact that we have 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 Shepard. We do have
Chair
Unverified
8:19
a few questions, if you would take some questions. First, Representative Eubanks, you're recognized.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
8:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Shepard, this bill doesn't have anything to do with raffles, does it?
Chair
Unverified
8:35
Thankfully, no. It doesn't have anything to do with casinos either. Thank you. Representative Richardson, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
8:43
Mr. Chair. Representative Shepard, I appreciate what you guys are trying to do because I think the way NILs are working across the country, I don't know if it's beneficial or negative, to be quite honest with you. But
in the bill, it states that an athlete 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 paying a student athlete, How do you get
around from them not being employed by it?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
9:19
That question is probably way above my level of expertise. And Mr. McCoy can speak to this. But I think that's part of what has been litigated and is, I guess, to some degree, being resolved by way of this settlement. But 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'll defer to Mr. McCoy on kind of where those discussions are and those arguments
Speaker 12
9:54
have been. There is pending litigation in federal court to decide that very issue. So it
Speaker 11
10:00
very well may be in the future we would have to 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, the ability to use their signature.
And that is 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. But I
Speaker 12
10:46
think that's certainly a fair question, and it's being litigated right now in separate litigation.
Chair
Unverified
10:52
Okay. Thank you. Representative Wooden, you're recognized.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
11:00
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say, first of 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 Shepard, asking to modify the law so others can be involved. Mr. McCoy, would you explain to me where 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 is this going to end? Now, also
Speaker 11
12:14
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 how all of this moved.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
12:26
Well, that's a problem throughout society with lawyers.
Speaker 34
12:30
So, well, my full-time job is working with them. You are
Speaker 11
12:36
one. And I am one, that's right. I try to cling to athletics more now. But, no, I think a lot of people in this room recognize that that has been a slippery slope that's gotten slipperier even in the last three to five years, but each time that we've come back here, I would say the majority of those reasons is because the law has changed. The injunctions
were granted, and where we are with this settlement today, Judge Wilkin will likely approve a settlement that will allow all institutions to pay up to $20.5 million to student-athletes. I think the silver lining to that is there is supposed to be a cap, 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.
I think all of the athletic directors and coaches are hopeful that that plays out the way it's been represented, but I think Athletic Director Juracek, Coach Pittman certainly share your concern over all of this because I think they would like to get back to coaching and running an athletic department. So I believe this bill is our response to try to address those changes
that we cannot impact that are happening to us as reasonably as we can. And I
Speaker 36
14:20
think that's the main point is that, and I think I said
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
14:25
this four years ago, in my view and where I would like for intercollegiate athletics to be, I would prefer not to be dealing in NIL and not to have to go down this road. But the fact of the matter is, we're one state among 50 states. This is, and actually, Mr. McCoy can correct me if I'm wrong, but 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 a response to a settlement. And it's our response to it. So this is not necessarily what I think the U of A or ASU or any of the other institutions are not here to say to try to push this forward. 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 across the country.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
15:25
Okay. But would you answer my question? how did the university and the foundation get involved in making the payments? I thought it was for 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 that changed my assumption? That's a fair point.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
15:55
When NIL began, it was about third parties paying student-athletes basically to promote products or services or whatever the case may be.
You know, Mr. McCoy can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think that it comes about because of litigation that student-athletes have brought and those on their behalf that has to do with the amount of money that institutions make that is made in part based on the student-athletes athlete, but at least until present, the institution has not shared those funds in a direct way. Fair enough, they provide 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. And I guess it's not even that it's allowing it, it's directing 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
17:02
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-- the 30 or 40 million
a year that flow in. - Generally, I think you're correct.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
17:22
When we ran this four years ago, 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 nonprofits to do that. 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 utilize the bill, to utilize the laws we already have in place, to tweak that, to open it up, to allow the institutions, under this bill, they can pay for name, image, and likeness. So they could pay a student-athlete to promote their institution based on their name, image, and likeness.
But then on top of that, they can also pay or are going to have to pay a percentage of those funds that they receive, those are going to have to be paid out to student-athletes. So we're kind of piggybacking on the law we already had, but to your point, yes, it has changed, but that change has been dictated from forces outside of the
Speaker 40
18:35
capital and outside of the state. Representative Wooden,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
18:40
if you can, we're going to have to move this along.
Let's let somebody else have an
opportunity. Okay. Thank you, sir. President Lightyman, you're
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
18:52
recognized. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I'm all for our universities being competitive nationally, and I understand the reasoning there. But I've got a question about this lawsuit. So this is final in what court in Northern California? This
Speaker 11
19:11
is in the Northern District of California. It's the lawsuit against all of the A5 conferences and the NCAA, of which the University of Arkansas is a member of.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
19:23
So this is a district court?
Speaker 11
19:29
It is right now. So will this be appealed and to what level? I would imagine it would be appealed to the federal circuit. It may make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The last challenge to the NCAA's payment of grant and aid made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And as far as I can remember, one of the only unanimous opinions against the NCAA for the payment. 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, because we're a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
20:20
part of that. So, I mean, this is
a generational change here in what we're talking about. Absolutely. And then we're talking about they're not employees, they're exempt from tax. How's the money? Does every player get money? Who decides who gets how much money?
Is it an average for everybody on the team? Do walk-ons get paid? I mean, I know that's going to have to
Speaker 53
20:46
be worked out, but there's a lot of complications here.
Speaker 11
20:50
That's true. Each institution will 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. So that's the challenge.
Part of the other challenge to being in an antitrust lawsuit is that you can't call 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 their school. which is a reason why we've been here with Representative Shepard 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. And a lot of collaboration from other institutions across the state have helped us get to at least how this is drafted. Okay,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
21:58
just one more question. If this does go to higher courts and it's knocked down, what do we do with this bill? Is it still in effect? Is it still law in
Speaker 11
22:11
Arkansas? What do we do? Well, the other thing we were trying to anticipate, even four and two years ago on the initial inaction
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. But as we just discussed with regard to employment, if there is a decision that's upheld that is controlling upon Arkansas that there are employees, then a lot of this would have to change. But that may never happen, and if we wait on that, then we're not able to compete in the current environment that's set.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:51
Thank you. And Mr. McCoy pointed out, and just in case I misspoke, so the revenue sharing, all of the payments are optional, but the fact of the matter is if you want to compete, this is part of what you're going to have to do to be competitive. I would also point out that this is providing a means by which the athletic departments can provide those funds and hopefully minimize the impact that could be, 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 compete, and this helps to provide a means by which they can do that. And so, you know, I think it makes sense. But again, it's responsive to a trend and to litigation that is even outside the state of Arkansas.
Okay, thank you. Any further questions? Thank you for your testimony. We do have certain people signed up to speak. We don't have anyone signed 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
24:11
order to expedite, could we maybe have the coaches come down together to offer testimony? Absolutely. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Good morning. So we all know who you gentlemen are, but if you don't mind, just introduce yourselves for the record. Butch Jones, Arkansas
Speaker 67
24:55
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 69
25:10
Representative Wooten, is that correct, sir? Yes, sir.
Speaker 72
25:18
We're not the youngest guys in the room, would you agree? I appreciate your notice. Yes, sir. So I think at times, you know, all these changes, including me, 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. Hell, when we was dealing with the same thing, we went from four and 20 to top 20 in the first two years that I was fortunate enough to be the head coach at the University of Arkansas. Then this revenue changed, or excuse me, then all these collectives came in. At some point, you have $20 million over here, and you may have a tenth 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, with this new revenue sharing, I think, Coach, I think we can get back to equality again. Obviously, some states don't have state tax, you know, so there's another advantage that they may have on Arkansas. So everything that we're trying to do is get back to equality.
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 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. It takes a third party out of payments and lets it come through the university, which 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 we appreciate the support that the state has given us, and especially the governor has given us, but we need equality. And whether we like where it's headed or whether we don't, 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 don't maybe understand,
where these kids in the collective were getting X amount of dollars. And I 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 these kids have gotten money off of two techs, off of nobody knows their name, image, and likeness, but they're making $150,000 a year, That's not where it originated.
Now with this new bill, if it's over $600, they have to get it okayed through a committee. So I think the equality of this, coaches can't go, I'm going to 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 fans. I mean, that's what we want to please those both of us. And so I did want to address that. I think the 10%, we need it because equality. Somebody else has it. Somebody else already has it in their state, 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
Speaker 75
29:45
to know that. Okay. Same thing, you know, that Coach Pittman said, and I think he
Speaker 76
29:51
said it very eloquently. And first of all, I want to 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 SEC kind of sets the bar and then us being in the Sun Belt. But, you know, as a coach, 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, we're kind of in uncharted 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. And 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 guardrails in our industry right now. And I think we're trying to get back some of the guardrails and
some principles and values for which we stand for. So, again, I appreciate everyone, their support. You know, you can have an opinion whether you like it or not. Unfortunately, it's here. And the legendary head football coach Nick Saban said it, you either adapt 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 where we have to continue to adapt.
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 you both so much for your testimony. Would you gentlemen take a
couple of questions? Absolutely. Okay. Representative Ladyman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, coaches, thank you for being here. I really appreciate your lighting. Your mic's off.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
32:14
Sorry. Thank you for being here. Appreciate your comments and glad
that you 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. But I got another question. Do either one of you have tickets for the ASU Arkansas
game September here? I need some. Thank
Speaker 75
32:38
you. Well, I know this, and Coach Pittman and I spoke about this,
Speaker 76
32:44
and nobody really understands kind of our relationship. It goes back a long period of time. And 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 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, 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 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 for the state. I told Coach Pittman we may need to have a running clock, 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 in terms of that, equality for us within the Sunbelt Conference, you know, we're pretty much last in overall operating budget. We're last in coaches' salaries. We're 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. We have a couple more
Speaker 67
35:01
questions. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off, Coach. Go ahead. Yes,
Speaker 69
35:10
I can find you some tickets. It depends on how this bill goes, where the availability of seats will be with those people. Go Hawks. I
Speaker 75
35:19
can do better. I can throw in some sideline passes.
Chair
Unverified
35:31
Okay. Representative Wooden, question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
35:37
Chairman. Let me qualify where I am in this mix, because I've got mixed emotions now. My grandson, Coach Jones, played with your son at Valley View, Ryder Wooden. Okay. And I think you've been out to several of their ballgames. And, by the way, on the recruiting side, he was down at Mississippi State over the weekend.
And you too, Coach Pittman. But anyway, my question has to do with the cap as it relates to what these players are paying and follows up what Representative Lederman asked earlier. 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. Will 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 shed a little light on that? This revenue
Speaker 72
37:04
sharing has a cap in it.
If you go over that cap, it could cost you the next year times five 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, go over a 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 that have $20 million. You have guys that have a million. You have all that. 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 expresses that along with myself, what that value may be. The contracts that you're speaking of, Hopefully those are the ones that are going to get – I don't want to hurt the kids financially, but if I wanted to pay somebody – if we wanted to pay somebody $3 million out of our revenue sharing,
we could do it. We could do it. Now, that's going to cut down on your team, you know. But what's happened in the past, these guys have gone out and 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 two 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 has 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're not going to pay him anything. We're going to
Speaker 88
39:02
treat him just like gold, but he's not going to make anything out of respect for Brandon Burlesworth and the Burlesworth family. Okay. One more question.
Speaker 75
39:12
If I could just – Yes, sir. One more thing is, you know,
Speaker 76
39:18
it's all relative because, you know, there's different levels. We're in the group of five. 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 peer 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.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
39:55
My question has to do, it's in line with NIL. I feel like relative to going down further into the ranks As a former high school football coach, I'm concerned about, 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 an awkward situation that we face. But do you see it going down into the high school ranks?
Speaker 76
40:37
Well, there actually is states that have passed name, image, and likeness. 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 Pittman 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 kind of coming to being raised a different way. But there are states that do have NIL bills already in, that have already passed, and they're actually going. And then there's other states that that's going down that pipe right now.
Speaker 72
41:19
Thank you. Coach Pittman. Well, I was a high school coach when I started out for five years, 17. 420 was my first
Speaker 94
41:31
contract. I coached every sport, loved every second of it. Yeah, I think
Speaker 72
41:36
you have to check your ego at the door if your ego is financially driven. I mean, I think you do. 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.
But at the same time, I don't think either one of us won't sit here and lose ballgames and not have the state be proud of us. And so we were raised in a different era of football, as you were, sir. And we're either going to change or they're going to change the head coach. And I'd rather just damn change. Okay, thank
Speaker 95
42:16
you, Representative Wooden. Thank you. Representative Ferguson, you have a question?
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
42:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, it was a question that Representative Allen was going to ask. But I want to have a follow-up to the question that he's going to ask. So if I can get in 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 can go ahead. You can ask both. Go ahead.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
42:45
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all coaches, for being here. I just want to know who determines the value of the athlete's pay.
Speaker 76
42:56
Well, I think Coach spoke about it earlier, is when you get in the rev share, 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. Your starting running back, this is his value. So I think we're learning as we go because, like I said, we're in uncharted 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
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
44:03
the field. Okay. Follow-up. Occasionally you will have athletes with big egos. Really? So how will you differentiate or how will you deal with that situation? If one athlete says, hey, I'm more valuable than this athlete,
So somewhere down the line, it could create some
Speaker 72
44:23
dissension. Imagine we all were sitting in this room, and we're sitting here at 18 to 22 years old,
and I make $30,000. I, by the way, 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 $30,000. 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 four-yeared and everybody knew what you made and all that kind of stuff.
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 going to fire you. I'll never forget that as long as living. I was going, man, what have I done? I came to work, you know, and I sat right there. For whatever reason, you usually sat down there, you know. But it makes sense. It's called ego. It's called jealousy. It's called whatever. So it is hard to deal with. But our, you know, we have a general manager, myself, you know.
Obviously, we have before, when it was just in 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 him? How much do you think he's worth? And can you replace him with the money that he wants? So if you think you can replace him with better for the same financial amount of money, you let him walk. If you don't, then you might have to up the ante a little bit to keep him on your team
depending on the value that Coach spoke of, leadership, community value, team value, whatever that may be. which before you could go in the collective and say, oh, hey, 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 is a little more difficult. Thank you. Any further questions?
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. Thank you, guys. We appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you very much. We do have other witnesses signed up.
Chair
Unverified
46:52
I think we have some athletic directors here, if they could come forward just as a group. Yes,
Speaker 70
46:56
let's bring them all together at the same time if we can.
If you gentlemen would just introduce yourselves, and you can proceed with any testimony you'd like to give
Speaker 111
47:20
regarding this matter. Yeah, Hunter, you're a director of athletics at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. My apologies if I'm a little gun shy in front of this committee. Last time didn't work out very well for me. But the coaches said it very well, as did Representative Shepard and Matt McCoy. I mean, this is a bill, first and foremost, that helps us get on a level playing field but allowing us through our athletic department revenue to pay student-athletes significant advantage
with that revenue that we share with the student-athletes not being subject to state tax. That gives us an advantage 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 that 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 Ninth Circuit Court and any future federal legislation. But thank you for your support. Jeff Purinton,
Speaker 112
48:29
Arkansas State. Yes, thank you for your time. Thanks for all the hard work on this. 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. 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, played for the conference championship. Our women just made the NCAA 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. And I think pushing this through keeps us up to date with our conference peers. And, again, thanks for your time. Good morning. My
Speaker 79
49:19
name is Frank Cuervo. I'm the director of athletics at UA Little Rock.
And I don't want to take
Speaker 113
49:25
up the committee's time by echoing other sentiments that have been made, but I do want to thank Representative Shepard for his work in leading this effort and for the committee for your time today. I often say that athletics is not the most important thing that happens on any campus, but oftentimes it is the most high profile. And with that comes an incredible opportunity to shine a spotlight on all the other great things that are happening at our respective universities.
And so support in this manner by you all and from the private sector allow us to go out and recruit the best and the brightest student-athletes to represent our institutions, our areas, and this great state in as top-notch a manner as possible. So we appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to try to represent all of our programs in as best a manner as we can. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, very much for
your testimony. We greatly appreciate you coming and chatting a lot on this.
It does not appear we have any questions. for you so you're lucky thank thank you and there's no one else signed up to speak representative shepard when you are ready you may close
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
50:53
chairman i want to thank the members of the committee for your time and
consideration obviously you've heard from the coaches and the athletic directors and as we all can imagine to have all of them at the Capitol when it's when they stay very busy I'm sure that I think they're both probably in spring football and other things that demonstrates the the importance of this piece of legislation want to pick up on something that was just said athletics is not the most important thing but it certainly may be one of the most high profile activities that takes place on our college campuses and for that matter
we all know that 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 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 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. Not to mention the fact if nobody's showing up to go to ball games, can you imagine the economic impact, the loss of economic activity that takes place? 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 over the past six and a half 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 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
Speaker 8
53:36
times, and with that, I would appreciate a good vote.
Thank you so much for your presentation, Representative Shepard. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized. We have a motion due passed. We have a motion due passed by Representative Ladyman. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Congratulations on those good seats.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
54:24
committee, and so he's 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 one in particular bill. So
Representative Lundstrom, 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
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
54:58
actually have two bills. One is for Mindy McElindon, who ran it last week, so we can concur with that, or not concur, but House Bill 1918. This was the legal tender to authorize a bullion depository, and I move to pass.
You recognize to present the bill? Well, thank you. Robin Lundstrom, District 18. House Bill 1918, this was the one that Representative McEl-Linden ran last week to allow a bullion depository to be set up in Arkansas, should they choose. There's no financial impact. It just opens up competition. And I move to pass. Do
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
55:45
we have any questions for Representative Lundstrom?
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. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Congratulations. You have passed Representative McElindan's bill. Thank you, Chairman. HB 1354,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
56:08
and I do have an expert in the field that I'd like to have come up, John Vinson, if you would. If
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
56:15
they will identify themselves for the record.
Speaker 138
56:21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. John Vinson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
56:26
Representative Blundsham, you recognize, present the bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
56:29
Thank you, colleagues. This is House Bill 1354, 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
Speaker 138
56:40
a little background. Thank you. So most of the members on the committee have heard testimony about PBMs this 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 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 legislature can look at. And so this draft bill does that. It addresses the reimbursement formula would not allow 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 on a market-based formula that's based on data that's 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 and three or four 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 it out of
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 Washington, D.C. for U.S. postal workers have sued and settled for $44 million to $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 name drugs
of a proven system and a formula rather than behind a black box where no one knows what is happening. It also reforms, for those of you, you've heard lots of testimony 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, 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 for Representative Lundstrom or myself to take questions. Thank you for the opportunity to present the bill. Are there
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:00:10
any questions? Representative Baker, you recognize for a question.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:00:15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, John, Representative Lundstrom, for bringing this to our attention. I think what most legislators are kind of concerned about is the fiscal impact. As I'm reading through it, though, I have some concerns with the fiscal impacts data, how it was developed, and really the fact that it seems to ignore about 75% of your bill. 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
1:00:54
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 passed through because some of the dollars from the manufacturers never make it to the PBM. There's a middleman to the middleman to the middleman literally located in Switzerland 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 those numbers held true in this plan, it would produce $30 to $40 million in savings a year for EBD alone,
Speaker 140
1:01:53
not to mention what it would do for Municipal League and other public two- and four-year
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:01:59
universities. Follow-up. So instead of a $30 million in potential costs, we're looking at actually a $30
Speaker 138
1:02:05
to $40 million 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% being taken out by the PBM. Yes. Follow-up.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:02:23
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 are in 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 he 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 Navidus 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. Again, I'm just, as a whole, 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. And wouldn't you agree? I would agree completely. This
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:03:58
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 fiscal 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 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. Due to the lateness of session and timing, I'm going to ask that this bill be put in an independent study, and we're going to come back. You will see this bill again. Do you have any other comments
that you'd like to make? Thank you for allowing
Speaker 138
1:05:02
us the opportunity to present the bill, discuss it, and be happy to work with you in the future on it.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:05:09
Representative Rooten, do you still have your question, considering that Representative Lundstrom is going to move this
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:05:17
to an ISP? Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. You recognize. My question is, 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's their tie-in with the medical insurance industry? Do they have any, or where are they coming from?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:05:41
Representative Wooten, that's an excellent question, 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 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. They're supposedly a good reputation and a good group, but I don't know anything about them. Would you have anything to want to add to that?
Speaker 138
1:06:07
I agree. I know there should be discussion on a lot of questions on PSAOs last week about them being the middleman of the middleman.
And these consultants that make recommendations on PBM design, they also should be overseen by the insurance department for PBMs. And, sir, we also need a
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:06:25
neutral entity that gives us information. If they're not neutral, we don't
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:06:33
need to hire them. And I don't know what that is. And I agree with you. I'm concerned about who they are, where they are, and how they arrive at their information. The staffing, the analysts, we have no information relative to their position, neutral or otherwise.
Is anyone in the crowd from Siegel? I don't believe
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:06:59
so, sir, but I 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
1:07:12
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,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:07:21
I don't know whether they're 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. Still, it didn't change the contents. So we need information, and we need good information. We need it in a more timely fashion. With that, I'll leave it there. Thank you, Representative
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:07:47
Lundstrom. So is your intent to refer this to an ISP, is that correct? Yes, sir, it is. All right, thank you for presenting your bill.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:07:56
Thank you, committee, for your time, and we'll
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:08:00
see you again on this. All right, members, now we're Representative Gramlitz. are you ready to present? HB 1813? You're recognized to present your bill if you'll identify yourself
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:08:20
for the record. Zach Graham, state representative, district 50, House Bill 1533.
Chair
Unverified
1:08:30
I see your name. Max Avery, Vice Chair of the Arkansas Blockchain Council and Chief Business Development Officer for Digital Ascension Group Family Office. All right, Representative Bramlett, you're recognized to present the bill. Thank
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:08:46
you very much, 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 to get to where we are today,
I'm going to start with something called a DAO. A DAO is a decentralized autonomous organization. Let me turn you off for one second. What a DAO does is it's a pseudo-business entity, but they don't necessarily have any legal framework or any code that they fall upon. They are their own private thing that makes money in a variety of ways. There was a DAO called The DAO that operated years ago who had a number of things happen where there should have been some court cases and some lawsuits,
but because they weren't a legal-recognized entity, 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. Wyoming, last year, came up with this new idea of something called a DUNA, which is a decentralized, unincorporated nonprofit association. A DUNA is a legal entity business, kind of like a DAO, except it actually has regulations around it. 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. But really what this is, it's a pro-business bill that allows organizations that want to operate in this kind of style to come to the state and exist like they are doing in Wyoming right now. And there's a lot more to that, like the specifics. There's a lot to the bill, but it's very, very similar to our current Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act. It's just a modification of it to allow it for this new kind of entity.
Would you like to add anything? The state
Speaker 168
1:10:37
of blockchain in the 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 good actors and bad actors in any emerging asset class. And so as someone who works in digital assets and has been around digital assets for a long time and seen both the good and the bad, 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
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:11:20
it. Members, are there any questions? Representative Dalby,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:11:25
you recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Representative Gramlich. I read this bill earlier, and that was a high-level view of it, but when you start looking at it, I'm somewhat concerned as to,
and I'm reading pages 6 and 7 and 8. Like I said, I read it earlier. 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.
I'm a little bit concerned that when something goes awry, why the process of the aggrieved person can't really be addressed very 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 going to know who we need
Speaker 173
1:12:49
to sue if there's a problem? So as a governance process, individuals are allowed
Speaker 168
1:12:54
to participate within the DUNA 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 how to track that individual. So do you have to be
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:13:13
a member who has a token to see that, or can I who doesn't, who I don't have one?
Speaker 168
1:13:20
Anyone in the public can access the public ledger to view those transactions and holdings.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:13:24
And one final question, Representative Gramlich, have you asked the Bar Association to take a look at this because they have groups of attorneys 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? I don't know if they're here today,
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:13:50
but I've had meetings and multiple conversations with members on the Bar Commission, or Bar Committee, excuse me, who deal specifically with the Uniform Code Commission nationally. And to be honest, he does have some concerns, but 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, there may already be DAOs 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. The second piece is there's kind of this idea of, like, LLCs came out of 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 truthfully I'm concerned if we don't go ahead and provide regulations and acknowledge these kind 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. But yeah no I've talked I'm not going to name drop people but there's some individuals I'm sure we mutually know who spoke in committee before who we spoke with and we just We kind of disagree on his fears, to be honest. Representative
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:15:17
Dalby, did you ask for somebody from the Bar Association? I didn't. Okay.
Is there anyone in the audience from the Bar Association? Okay. Seeing nobody. Are there any other questions? Representative Dalby.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:15:32
I'm sorry. Do we know if there's any physical impact on this? I mean, what's it going to cost the state to regulate this or anything like that? I mean, this is real, and I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I think that we're on a new frontier. Should we really take this and vet 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 mechanism to oversight this? Well, with specifics, Secretary of State would
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:16:12
have authority to regulate, do all the filing and stuff like that. So whatever it would normally cost to set up a new kind of entity, that'd be a cold gesture question, to be perfectly honest.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:16:24
Has there been a fiscal impact statement?
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:16:29
I'm not aware of any fiscal impact. Are you asking for a fiscal impact on
this? I am. Okay. Representative Gramlich, we have a member that's asking for a fiscal impact. I understand. Well, with
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:16:42
that, because ultimately we're not going to have time in session to finish this bill then, I'm going to withdraw this and put it in as an ISP. Okay. I think that's a good idea, sir. All right. Thank you very much.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:16:59
Representative Torres. I hope this is a short
bill. Me too, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and you're recognized.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:17:14
Yes, sir. Randy Torres, State Representative, District 17. Do you have an amendment? I do.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:17:29
Amendment for House Bill 1950. Mr. Chairman? You're recognized
Speaker 167
1:17:38
to explain the amendment? Yes, sir. So this
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:17:40
amendment came by 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 amendment. All right, we have a motion to adopt the amendment.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:18:00
Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed
nay. We've adopted the amendment. Now you're recognized to explain your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:18:11
Chairman. At the moment, can I please request Tanya Williams with ADE to join me here? Certainly. If she'll come to
Speaker 167
1:18:18
the table and identify herself, she'll be recognized. Thank you. Aye. Tonya
Speaker 192
1:18:28
Williams, Office of Early Childhood at the Department of Education.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:18:33
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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. 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 child care providers. Licensed family child care 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 policy 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 three 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, Health Bill 1950 strikes the balance. It protects small child care 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
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:21:19
with that, I'll open it up to any questions. Representative Perry, you recognize her question.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:21:26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Torres, so I may have some questions for the insurance department. But so you apply for homeowner's insurance, and they underwrite it based on a risk. And then five years later, you decide to start keeping kids, and now you have a daycare.
And you notify, if you do, a lot of people don't, you notify your carrier, and they didn't file their plan with the insurance. They didn't file the rating structure with the insurance department, so now 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 are owned 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
1:22:34
Representative Perry, the legislature passed a law in 2015 that requires all licensed providers, including family child care, to have coverage 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
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:23:00
2015. Liability insurance, but not liability insurance to cover daycare. Well, it's connected
Speaker 193
1:23:06
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 have
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:23:18
that coverage. So let's go back to the question. So would this allow a company to cancel the coverage?
Because five years ago when you bought the home, 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 re-inspect, find out that you now have a daycare on premises, so they give you notice of cancellation. 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
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:23:58
questions? Is anyone from the Insurance Department here? If you'll go to the end of the table, identify yourself.
Speaker 201
1:24:24
Jimmy Harris, Deputy Commissioner of Market Regulation, Arkansas Insurance Department.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:24:31
Representative Perry, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harris, so is it current
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:24:37
procedure now for companies to, whenever they have a rate filing, to automatically include the exposure for child care or day
Speaker 203
1:24:51
care? There's some nuance to that question. Thank you for the question.
Under 2078-202, in Arkansas law, a registered child care family home, you can keep up to five children and only get a voluntary license. Many personalized insurers already cover that risk. A licensed child care family home would be in Arkansas, one with six. Please correct me if I'm wrong, six to 16 kids.
No, no. On personal lines policy, generally that's a risk that's not considered. That kind of moves more into the commercial space. Right. So
Speaker 204
1:25:41
no is your answer. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are there
Chair
Unverified
1:25:48
any other questions? Representative Richardson, you're recognized for
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:25:55
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:25:57
Could you kind of walk through your thoughts on what you're seeing in this building from you guys' perspective?
Speaker 203
1:26:06
I think most likely personal insurance insurers are going to non-renew a homeowner's policy If you're operating a licensed child care facility, that's fine in the state of Arkansas, 6 to 16 kids. They're going to look at that more like a commercial policy. They're going to want to get off that risk if it is in a personal loans, homeowner's policy. You know, regardless of any amount of excess liability they're required by the state to carry.
It's just not a risk contemplated 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. You know, there's some language in this bill about rates, you know, not allowing an insurance company to raise rates.
due to the operation of a licensed child care facility. That could run into, you know, some inadequate rate situations because, you know, you do have quite a bit of risk that you're accepting when you're operating a child care facility in your home. And companies, you know, their risk appetite for something like that will vary. Even, you know, it could vary from year to year.
So we generally are going to allow a company to set their own underwriting guidelines like
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:27:46
that. So in your opinion, then, if we move on this and this passes, how do you see this impacting families that are trying to obtain this insurance? Do you think those insurance companies will vacate and no longer offer this as a cover? Or how do you see this impacting?
Speaker 201
1:28:07
Well, you know, as it's written right now, there's no homeowner's policy in my belief
Speaker 203
1:28:15
that covers a licensed child care facility in the market. So I think this bill has the potential to require all companies to cover licensed child care facilities in their homeowner's insurance policies, which we all purchase. I don't know what that impact could be. I'm sure there's people in the industry here that could speak on that.
But currently, homeowners insurance does not contemplate this particular risk. If this said registered child care family homes instead of licensed, and I don't know the intent, I'm sorry. I think it could be feasible because many carriers are already covering that risk in their homeowners' policies. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:29:17
Members, any other questions? Representative Perry, you have
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:29:21
another question? Go ahead. Just a follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chairman. So you mentioned without a separate policy, but is there a way to exclude liability? So I have a standard homeowner's policy, which would cover up to five kids under the incidental. If I do a separate commercial policy to cover the six to however many, is there a way to exclude liability under the homeowner's insurance?
Speaker 203
1:29:51
You know, that's going to be up to the risk appetite of the carriers. If a carrier is offering that risk and those coverages, potentially yes. but most likely would have
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:30:02
some incidental liability exposure that defense costs would probably end up. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Members of Representative Ledeman, you're recognized
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:30:15
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:30:19
I just, a 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? Yes, sir. There
Speaker 193
1:30:33
are 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 five or more unrelated. They can be registered with five. 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 2,000 to 3,000 children, depending on the exact number they're keeping. But most of them keep around 10. So the minimum
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:31:05
number is 5. Is there a maximum number? 16. 5 to 16.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:31:13
All right. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you for coming to the end of the table. We have no one signed up to
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:31:23
speak for or against the bill. Representative Torres, you're recognized to close
for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, we need more child care 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, 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
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:32:03
for this bill. What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion due pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Representative Ledeman, you're recognized
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:32:16
for discussion. Representative Torres, I, you know, I like this bill, but there's a lot of unknowns here. A lot of people 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'd do more work on it and bring it back to us where we can pass it.
I appreciate you to consider pulling it down. Okay.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:32:41
Madam Chair, with that, I will pull it down, do some additional work on this
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:32:46
bill. Without objection, we have a motion on the table. Would you like to withdraw your motion, Representative? The motion to do pass has been withdrawn off the table. Representative 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 thinks it's a good idea, but we want to get it right. So, and if you don't know how to do interim study, go see Martha J. Rowe in the House,
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:33:22
and she'll help you get it put over into interim study. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. I appreciate your time on this bill. Members, with
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:33:32
that, 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
1:33:45
If you'll identify yourself, you're recognized. Les Warren, State Rep, District 84. I am presenting this for Representative John Milligan. Couldn't be here. SB 594 is codifying the current practice that no certificate of public convenience and necessity is required when transmission lines are connecting power plants to the grid.
But the PSC and energy and the independent power producers are all in support of this. So this is just codifying the current practice that they've got, but the law is silent to it. So this is just codifying the way they're practicing right now, and everybody's in support. Members, you've
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:34:37
heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions.
We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Warren, you're recognized
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
1:34:51
to close for Senate Bill 594. I'm closed, and I would make
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:34:55
a motion to do 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, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes haven't. The bill has passed. Thank you, committee. Members, we're 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. Representative Eaves, if you'll recognize yourself and your guests at the end of the table, you're recognized to proceed with
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:35:43
the presentation of Senate Bill 552. Representative Eves, District 58, and I'll let Derek introduce himself, and you've got about 30 seconds when you get started, apparently.
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:35:51
Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee. My name is Derek Smith with the Mitchell-Williams-Sealig Gates and Woodyard Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of Northwest Registered Agents. Madam Chairman, I'm going to let
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:36:02
him give you the details on the bill so we can get through it pretty
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:36:10
quick. Certainly. Go ahead. Thanks. 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 businesses being formed in 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
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:37:03
don't have one. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any questions from the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:37:10
committee? Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious,
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:37:16
what happened to make this bill come up? Did something happen? Sure. I think for a period of time, the Secretary of State's office was allowing, as a courtesy, 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
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:37:40
further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Eades, you're recognized to close for Senate Bill 552. I'm closed. Make a motion to do 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. 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
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:38:29
is an amendment that's being passed out. Yes, ma'am. Is this the amendment that you're waiting on?
Are you waiting on another amendment? Waiting on a grammical
Speaker 232
1:38:41
change to this amendment, but I can go ahead and start explaining it. Okay, let's
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:38:44
go ahead and explain this amendment then. Let's go ahead and pass out the amendment. Madam
Speaker 233
1:38:53
Chair, it's a numerical change, not a grammical. Can you point out where
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:39:00
the numerical change is going to be? I'd be glad
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:39:21
to in just a second. Madam Chair, it's under 2A on the second page, and the 90 percent will be changed to 85 percent.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:39:29
All right, members, if you'll note, page 2, 2A, 90, that percentage number is going to be changed. With that, 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
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:39:49
present your amendment. So, Madam 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. Page 5, delete lines 35 through 36, basically changes the rollout for the increase to the hospital reimbursement, changes that rollout very significantly. 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 second year.
Third and fourth and fifth 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 second 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 going to recognize him to explain the second part of the
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:40:53
amendment. Members, Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. So I have a bill, House Bill 1295, that's been sent 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 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 Wardlaw's 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.
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.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:41:51
Members, you've 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 from the committee, we'll 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 motion until we get it correct.
So, Representative Wardlaw, 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 amendment.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:42:23
Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. You ask yourself, why is this bill needed? Well, Arkansas health care providers receive some of the lowest reimbursement rates in the country. Medicare, Medicaid, commercial plans all pay less health care services in Arkansas than any other state. This is a trifecta that has put many of our rural hospitals and providers at an 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 five years through the COVID epidemic. You've seen all these hospitals come to council 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 the 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 basis as I go through this explanation, those doctors in Camden cost the same as those doctors in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The light bills are 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. Health care providers in Arkansas need comparable reimbursement rates to neighboring states in order to survive. Hospital transparency pricing shows disparity in reimbursement rates between Arkansas hospitals and hospitals in adjoining states.
For an example, one large national payer, United, pays $119 to an Arkansas-based hospital system for a mammogram compared to $330 in Springfield, Missouri, $301 in St. Francis and Tulsa, $402 in Alliance Health in Durant, Oklahoma. There's no reason that Arkansas hospitals providers should receive this reimbursement for this type of service for the same credentials in the surrounding states. There's a huge difference in these reimbursements.
Another clear example from the same payer, emergency room reimbursement at Ashley County Medical Center in CrossFit, right 15 minutes from my house, $628 compared to $1,100 in Shreveport, or
$825 in Natchez Regional in Louisiana. Okay, you took a breath, so that
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:45:23
gives me an opportunity to hold you off. We have your correct amendment, so let's get that signed and get that adopted.
Since you took a breath, that gave me an opportunity. I only have a few more
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:45:37
paragraphs, but it's very important. The chair will entertain a motion to adopt the amendment.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:46:14
I'll make that motion now. Members, you've had an opportunity to look at the amendment to the amendment. Any questions? Representative Johnson, you're recognized for your motion.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:46:25
Members, what you're getting now is the same as the last amendment. It's just changing one number from 90% to 85%. Members, we
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:46:34
have a motion to adopt the 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 ayes have it. The motion has been adopted. Now we're in procedural correctness. Representative Ward-Law, I'm sorry to have interrupted your train
of thought, but you're recognized to proceed on your
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:46:56
bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Three recent reports highlight Arkansas's health care challenges. February 2025, the 2025 Rural 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, Rant's pricing paid to hospitals by private health care plans report, found that Arkansas is the lowest commercial reimbursement rates in the country. Only five 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 an Arkansas Health Care Vision 2030 report, found that payment rates for health care services remain the lowest in the United States. Providers in Arkansas are at 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 $5,725 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, $14,567.20. Texas, $17,346.60. 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 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 these same reimbursements that I just screamed out to you guys. So why are Arkansas employers paying outside of state health care 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've said that twice today. I've 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 apple cart in another state by bringing it down. So the only way they add more money into Medicare is a whole other act of Congress. It's the only place in Washington, D.C. 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 per enrolled employee for employer-based health insurance is not significantly higher than Arkansas premiums. As I quoted a while ago, Arkansas average premium $7,362, Oklahoma $7,420, only $100 difference, and they almost get twice the reimbursement. Texas, $8,180, $900 difference, and they do get more than twice.
Louisiana, 79-66. Mississippi, 72-43. 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.
Diz 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, then 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 to these hospitals to keep them open, and now we're sitting here looking back, and we're going to have to start the cycle 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. And with that, Madam Chair, I'll yield to my witnesses at the table to present. I've got Mr. Bo Ryle. I'm going to go back to my
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:52:41
chair so I can ask some questions.
I wanted 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
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:52:53
sit and be comfortable and ask questions. Thank you. If
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:52:56
you'll identify yourself for the record, you're recognized. I'm Bo Ryle, President and CEO of the Arkansas Hospital Association. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee, for letting me testify on this very important piece of legislation. I think as Representative Wardlaw has outlined, hospitals are struggling. You've certainly heard that through the last five years. Inflation has really hit hospitals.
Supplies, expenses have outpaced revenue in the hospital industry, and it's made it tough for hospitals to maintain the services that they've had in the past and certainly to maintain their viability. So when we saw the RAND report that Representative Wardlaw outlined here that listed Arkansas as lowest in the nation in commercial insurance reimbursement, it certainly got our attention. And 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. 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's 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. I think the insurance companies will say it'll 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. It sets a floor. It allows for reimbursement between health care 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 level is a playing field, not only in Arkansas, but with other states. And I think the data suggests that premiums don't have to rise, that the premiums can remain the same.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Questions from Representative Johnson?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:55:34
I believe you're first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative and Bo. I'm trying to understand one
of the things you said, Representative Ward-Long. You said these rates are based on Medicare. So are 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?
Yes, sir. 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 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
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:56:22
correct? This is the only way that we have 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. We 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
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:56:42
to be closed. I want to make sure I understand the phasing correctly, too. So the first year that
this would roll out, 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? Yes, sir. 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 to 45% of the rate around
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:57:11
us? And we think most of them meet that today. The only insurance provider in question is UnitedHealthcare, which are the lowest payers.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:57:18
So in the first year, the impact to premiums should be minimal, I would think. Is that correct? Yeah. And in the second year, what do we go
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:57:25
to? 55. It's 10% per year until the last year is 25%.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:57:29
And the hospitals believe, I guess, Bo, this is a question for you. the hospitals believe that to be 55%, like half of the average, that that would potentially be a pay increase for some of the hospitals? Yes, it would. So you're telling me if I came to the table with a bill that said, I'm going to pass a bill that says what we're going to charge is half of the commercial rates around us, half of the commercial. That gives the hospitals in Arkansas a raise? Yes, it does for a number of hospitals.
That answers that question. Thank you. I may have more
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:58:06
questions, but I'm done for now.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Wooden, did you have a question? Yes, I do. Mr. Chairman, what would the average employer-employee increase in their premium be? Can you answer that? Do you know that? I do not know that
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:58:29
answer. And I'll go back to last session, okay?
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 two 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-something million loss, and maybe they can contribute that to Representative Johnson's bills,
but it's a lot of scare tactic involved in some of these numbers, a lot. Follow-up, if I
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:59:15
may. How did we get in this situation? Most of it's due to the
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:59:22
Medicare reimbursement levels and where they're set and how long it's been since they've been changed. I don't remember the exact year. Mr. Bo, can you answer that? Yeah, it was before
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:59:32
my 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 pushes down. As other states go up, it pushes down Arkansas, so ultimately
Speaker 39
1:59:47
we lose money as a percentage every year on the Area Wage
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:59:53
Index. Okay. One more question. Will this save our local county hospitals, those that are suffering because of the low reimbursement rates?
It will save most of them?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:00:07
Representative, I'm going to tell you something, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart. I don't know if 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 I having to transfer dollars and tell them I didn't do everything in my power to try my best to make sure we alleviated a problem that was on the books. We've all known this problem was on the books. We've known it for years. We've worked on this bill for multiple months to try to make
the impact as minimum as possible on the private business, 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 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 at this level and that's bringing the commercial rates up to what they're already paying with our premiums today in all of our neighboring states and that's where we're at
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Aker.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:01:17
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
bringing this bill, Representative Ward-Law. I think it's no secret that I have concerns when it comes to quotes from insurance companies, consultants sort of just ballparking some of these, I don't know, doomsday numbers. 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 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. 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
Speaker 3
2:02:29
do. Thank you, Representative Eves. Here we are going to ask for a question. Thank
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:02:34
you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions. Representative Wardlaw, 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, like, market conditions?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:02:51
I don't think so because the way we, if you read the bill, the way we set the rates out,
we left the insurance commissioner to be in 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. Rowell, do you agree or do you see an issue with the way I explain that? No, I agree with you.
Speaker 262
2:03:14
Yes, I think it leaves room for negotiation, definitely.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:03:19
But does it account for regional cost variation? Because I'm assuming that there are some costs that Camden, for example, deals with that maybe 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?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:03:53
I don't think 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
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:04:09
Medicare is a different reimbursement rate like for a hospital in South Arkansas versus what they reimburse for in a big urban area like, say, Northwest Arkansas? Yes, sir. That's different. All right. Are there any other states that mandate minimums that would be similar to what's proposed under this bill?
I don't know. And have you considered doing a fiscal impact on the commercial insurance plans? Because what I'm worried about is that we're going to save hospitals on the backs of every other group plan or commercial plan on the backs of businesses in Arkansas. So the rates are
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:04:47
at each service. And, again, that goes back to what I explained earlier when I answered your first question, and that's the reason the bill is written the way it is.
they would have to get to the overall average. So they'd either have to be at those averages, percentages at year one through five, or the interest department would intervene. So as long as their negotiated rate and their contracts were above 45, 55, 65, 75, and 100 as the years hit, then they would meet the definition. So, yes, they would still
Speaker 139
2:05:21
be able to negotiate those individually. Okay. And what about the comment that we're going
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:05:29
to attempt to save struggling hospitals?
And I understand they're in a bad situation, but are we doing that on the backs of every other person that pays for health care? Businesses, individuals, group plans, and all of that? Well, the answer to that
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:05:42
is yes, we're doing 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, it's come directly out of their tax dollars. So you're just redirecting that fee to the insurance company versus to the state of Arkansas. Okay, that's an interesting way to look at it.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:06:02
I suppose we're going to have someone from the insurance office at some point come up
Speaker 235
2:06:08
and testify. Okay, thank you. I suppose we're going to have
Chair
Unverified
2:06:13
somebody from every aspect testify. But, yeah. Thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:06:16
you, Representative Dave. Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized. Thank you. 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%, 60%
Speaker 268
2:06:34
where commercial insurance is a little bit lower than that. Okay. That
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:06:40
just makes me wonder 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 payer source is certainly better than having uncompensated care, and that's where a
Speaker 263
2:06:58
lot of the Medicaid people would go if we lowered the Medicaid eligibility or decreased
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07:04
Medicaid. Okay. Does this bill have exemptions for different populations to
not participate in in this process, universities or different businesses? What are the exemptions? Right now the only exemptions are
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:07:16
EBD and higher ed institutions. By exempting EBD and higher ed are
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07:21
we picking winners and losers and putting this on the backs of businesses? You could put it that
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:07:31
it that way. I feel like by year two or three because year two you guys be or year one you'll be back
in session but by year three to five you will come back and include those populations in. I just think it's a healthy time to put them in at
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07:50
this point. And that would be, what is your opinion on that? Is it because it costs? Mostly because of cost. Okay. Well, I'm just, I'm concerned where, because it costs the state, 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
Chair
Unverified
2:08:12
a decision that was made or? Yep. It's just a decision that's been made. Okay. All right. Thank you,
Speaker 3
2:08:26
Representative Woodlock. Thank you, Representative Lundstrom. Any further questions from the committee for the witness? 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 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 the
Speaker 3
2:08:49
session. So the first person to speak against the bill is David Mann, and I believe it looks like Alicia Berkemeyer. You're welcome to come together. If that would
be better, just introduce yourself, who you're with, and you can proceed with your testimony.
Speaker 273
2:09:13
David Manns with Arkansas Blue Cross.
Speaker 276
2:09:23
Alicia Burke by Arkansas Blue Cross. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify about this bill. I want to start by saying that I really appreciate the difficult situation that you all are in. It's obviously a challenge to grapple with issues such as this.
You've got people pulling from many different directions all at the same time, and oftentimes I think you find yourselves in no-win situations. This is one of those situations where you have constituents on one hand who are facing issues with health insurance not being affordable. And then we also have hospitals and doctors that need higher reimbursement rates.
So that's sort of the big picture view of what you're struggling with. I do want to take just a minute to mention one of the things that was talked about and that is that, you know, Medicare rates are really low, and they are, and that's one of the things that makes this issue so difficult, because in the state of Arkansas, Medicare and Medicaid pay half 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 what that effectively means is that everyone else is shouldering the burden due to that low reimbursement rate. And, you know, I would say I've had discussions with many people about this. I think, you know, does it take an act of Congress to change Medicare rates?
It does. But I think we all agree that the rate that Arkansas is being reimbursed is unfair. And does someone else, is someone going to 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 they all chipped in. And I think that's something that we need to work on. I don't see that mentioned very often, But I think our health care providers, we would love to join with them to really step up the efforts on that.
And I think we can, together, we can get that done. I want to talk about the general principles for just a minute. So, you know, one of the challenges that I see in this is someone who has been in government for a while is, you know, the government philosophy of how you deal with problems 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 versus allowing the market to work? What are the issues that the market is grappling with? So from our perspective, it was mentioned Mr. Ryle had indicated that there are issues with respect to reimbursement.
There are, excuse me, not reimbursement, but with the utilization, and utilization definitely has gone up. Where are we with respect to other states? You know, I can't really speak to that exactly. We haven't been a part of these discussions. Would have loved to have been able to have an opportunity to delve into that so that we could do some comparisons. I will say this.
When you look at the other things that we're facing, Arkansas is one of the most unhealthy states in the country, unfortunately. And that is one of the issues that drives the rates here in the state. So every benefit plan is not the same. Every premium is not the same. If we go through and look at premiums in our group market, they will vary $2,000 easily.
It depends on what the risk pool is. And states are the same thing. States have different risk pools, and they have different mandates with respect to benefits. there are a lot of different variations that will impact what rates are in a state. So I think I'm going to let Alicia talk for just a minute about hospital reimbursements.
Speaker 279
2:15:45
Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. So I think, as David has mentioned here today, we certainly recognize a low Medicare reimbursement for our state. Even to that tune, last April, we hosted the Chief Operating Officer, John Bloom, here in Arkansas and traveled around the state, throughout the state, both 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 population is that Medicare and Medicaid. So 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 in 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,
Speaker 276
2:16:59
and we appreciate the time today. So I'll close with this, because rates were mentioned. And I had a spreadsheet to kind of calculate what a rate increase might look like, and so I was able to just punch in a different percentage with the new scale of 45% for the first year.
And, again, I'll preface by saying averages are always difficult, right, because there really is no average. I mean, there is an average, but, you know, what each person experiences will obviously be different. But on a, for instance, on a plan that, let's say, you know, the base is, you know, a little over $6,000. And for a family of four, that would, the premium would be a little over $17,000.
Excuse me. We would expect that premium next year to rise by a little under 5.3%, and that would be about $911. With this bill, the way it's drafted, we would foresee that premium potentially rising to a total of, so instead of going up $911, it would go up a little over $3,000 or $3,071.
which would be about a 237% increase in terms of just the rise of that premium over what it would the previous year. And I want to add a little bit to what Alicia said. We've heard about numerous hospitals um 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 percent um recently that we had given them but they also And this is something that we see with many hospitals, is they actually don't charge the full rate that they could charge. And so there are a few hospitals around the state who are always at their max, and then there are some that don't always do that.
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 they may keep those rates lower as a result, and they're leaving money on the table, but 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.
Speaker 282
2:20:04
Thank you for your presentation. We have a couple of questions. Mr. Richardson, you're first in the queue. Thank
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:20:10
you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Mann, did I hear you? I think I heard you correctly
where you said there are hospitals that aren't charging the full rate. How many of those hospitals do you know
Speaker 279
2:20:26
aren't doing that? We don't have a specific number here today. There are just certainly some incidences that the charge master is not being billed fully.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:20:38
hospital. So is it your experience that
some of the hospitals that we've
identified that are struggling and potentially closing are not charging the full rate and leading to their own demise?
Speaker 279
2:20:52
Potentially. I would have to match up the hospitals, but there are multiple challenges. And
Speaker 276
2:20:58
we'd be happy to later sit down if you've got a specific hospital in mind We could look at their rates and see what they're charging.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:21:08
I'd be curious for you guys to provide. I mean, you said that they're not charging the full rate, so I'd be curious to see the data
Speaker 276
2:21:15
that you base that on. It'd be easier if you gave us a list of, like, the one you wanted to look at because there are a lot of them in the state. We
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:21:33
could provide that a lot faster. Thank you. Representative Wooden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, would you go back over, I lost you when you talked about $6,000 and a 5.3%,
and then you mentioned $17,000, and then you talked about $911. Would you go back over
Speaker 276
2:21:59
a family of four, the premium would be about $17,256. Under this bill or right now? Right now. Okay. Yeah, that would be like an average right now for a family of four.
Obviously, some will be a few thousand higher, some will be maybe a couple thousand lower. But we would expect next year, now, so there's a term called trend, okay? And that's kind of what we expect year to year an increase to be. I use 5.28% as trend. It was higher last year was 5.85% was the increase 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 $18,168. Okay. 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.
Speaker 287
2:23:20
So it would be $4,900 or close to $5,000? No, the $3,000 includes the $911. Oh, it includes the $911.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:23:31
Okay. Yes, yes. So it would be roughly $20,000. $20,300. A family of four. $28, yes. Okay. Do you have any estimates or have you looked at how many would drop out and not have coverage if they had to do it?
We may be locked into a position where we have to do this, but how many have dropped out or would drop
Speaker 287
2:23:58
out? You know, that is an excellent. I'm going
Speaker 279
2:24:03
to let Alicia answer that. I 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 most of the time, it's because they drop insurance,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:24:20
not because they're going to a competitor. There's a lot of the premium difficulties. So would this impact commercial group policies the same way, roughly $3,000 increase?
And individually, it would be $20,000 a year if they... Correct.
Speaker 276
2:24:39
And I'll add this. You know, I was speaking with someone over the weekend about what I refer to as a donut hole. You know, that was often talked about with prescription drugs and Medicare. And we're starting to see that in insurance, where if people 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, you kind of have to – we're starting to see that a little bit more and more. In my part of the
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:25:26
country, we call this a 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 because we're going to meet after, and I want you guys to be here. We've lost some members, and I want them here because I know they're going to have questions.
I'm afraid they're missing this. So let's take a couple more questions. Representative Johnson, if you would. I
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:25:53
don't mind holding my questions until after we reconvene. I
just want to make sure all of our members have an opportunity to hear from Blue Cross and
ask their questions because this is obviously going to be a lengthy debate. Representative Baker. We're happy to come back, too. Thank you. I appreciate that. We're going to want you here. You're good. Representative Wardlaw, your word.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:26:19
Mr. Chair, I just want to make a statement so the hospital administrators hear me. I think it's important 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 folks that this helps the most get able to talk for their
Speaker 3
2:26:38
communities. Thank you, Representative Wardlaw. And we are going to go ahead and break. 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
Speaker 1
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 69
Speaker 72
Speaker 75
Speaker 76
Speaker 88
Speaker 94
Speaker 95
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 70
Speaker 111
Speaker 112
Speaker 79
Speaker 113
Speaker 3
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 54
Speaker 229
Speaker 232
Speaker 233
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 39
Speaker 262
Speaker 139
Speaker 235
Speaker 268
Speaker 263
Speaker 221
Speaker 273
Speaker 276
Speaker 279
Speaker 282
Speaker 284
Speaker 287