Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (53)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1906
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “and I'm presenting HB 1906. This is simply a parent's right to be involved in their ch…”
|
TO REQUIRE WRITTEN CONSENT OF A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN WHEN PRESCRIBING LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1954
Act 869
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…VISE THE ARKANSAS FIRE TRAINING ACADEMY ON CERTAIN MATTERS. HB1954 Andrews TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS BEHAVIOR ANALYST REGISTRATIO…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS BEHAVIOR ANALYST REGISTRATION ACT; AND TO INCLUDE QUALIFIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS UNDER … | Andrews | Notification that HB1954 is now Act 869 |
|
HB1893
Act 819
· 5 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FOR INDIVIDUALS. HB1893 M. Brown TO AUTHORIZE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER OR BUSINESS…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER OR BUSINESS OWNER TO BAN AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1893 is now Act 819 |
|
SB473
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB473 Stone TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION S…”
|
TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD; AND TO PROVIDE FOR … | Stone | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1164
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…llen Rep. Wayne Long REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1164 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW A PHYSICIAN OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER TO…”
|
TO ALLOW A PHYSICIAN OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER TO OFFER COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS; AND … | J. Mayberry | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1332
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1332 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EVALUATE CLAIMS FOR DIAGNOSES FREQUENCY OF OBESITY-RELATED CONDITIONS … | Pilkington | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1588
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O KNOWN AS GLP-1 AGONISTS, WHEN PRESCRIBED FOR WEIGHT LOSS. HB1588 McAlindon TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFOR…”
|
TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SEEKS OR … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1762
Act 1009
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1762 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF…”
|
TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL … | Hall | Notification that HB1762 is now Act 1009 |
|
HB1776
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1776 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTA…”
|
TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1791
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSION OF A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT. HB1791 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND…”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION … | C. Cooper | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1795
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE OR IMPLEMENT ACTIONS IN THIS STATE. HB1795 A. Brown TO CREATE THE FERTILITY CLINIC LICENSURE ACT. HB18…”
|
TO CREATE THE FERTILITY CLINIC LICENSURE ACT. | A. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1818
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ION OF MEDICAL RECORDS UNLESS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. HB1818 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED CARE TRANSPA…”
|
TO CREATE THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED CARE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1869
Act 868
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1869 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE MATERNAL OUTCOMES MANAGEMENT SYSTE…”
|
TO CREATE THE MATERNAL OUTCOMES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; AND TO ORGANIZE … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1869 is now Act 868 |
|
HB1880
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1880 Hudson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND THE ARKANSAS UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT … | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1882
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSAS UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT TO ADD CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS. HB1882 Pilkington TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ENROLLABLE MEDICAID B…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ENROLLABLE MEDICAID BENEFICIARY POPULATION AND ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1890
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATED TO EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS. HB1890 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BILL FOR HEALTHCAR…”
|
TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BILL FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID … | J. Mayberry | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1908
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION TO A PERSON WHO IS YOUNGER THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. HB1908 Long TO CREATE THE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE…”
|
TO CREATE THE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1909
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CE; AND TO REQUIRE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR ADULT APPLICANTS. HB1909 Long TO CREATE THE PUBLIC SERVICES ONLY FOR CITIZENS ACT; A…”
|
TO CREATE THE PUBLIC SERVICES ONLY FOR CITIZENS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1915
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1915 Eubanks TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUE…”
|
TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUEST A BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY WAIVER FOR … | Eubanks | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1943
Act 962
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND THE ASSET LIMITS UNDER THE PROGRAM. HB1943 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CAR…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT; TO IMPROVE THE ENROLLMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1943 is now Act 962 |
|
HB1961
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1961 Achor TO ALLOW MEDICAL PROVIDERS TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM…”
|
TO ALLOW MEDICAL PROVIDERS TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM FEDERAL INFORMATION-BLOCKING REGULATIONS TO SAFEGUARD PATIENTS DURING INFORMATION … | Achor | Delivered to the Secretary of State |
|
HB1963
Act 963
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1963 Gonzales TO CLARIFY THAT AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NU…”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE WHO PRESCRIBES A STIMULANT MAY SUBSTITUTE A … | Gonzales | Notification that HB1963 is now Act 963 |
|
HB1965
Act 870
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ANT MAY SUBSTITUTE A THERAPEUTICALLY EQUIVALENT MEDICATION. HB1965 McCullough TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT O…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT OF 2025; AND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES … | McCullough | Notification that HB1965 is now Act 870 |
|
HB1969
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1969 L. Johnson TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE ACCESS; TO…”
|
TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE ACCESS; TO AMEND THE ASSESSMENT FEES ON HOSPITALS; AND … | L. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB117
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LS; AND TO CREATE THE HOSPITAL DIRECTED PAYMENT ASSESSMENT. SB117 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT; TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIANS IN … | C. Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB238
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…G FOR SALE A FOOD PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS CERTAIN SUBSTANCES. SB238 J. Payton TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILI…”
|
TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. | J. Payton | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB440
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB440 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMBALMERS AND FUNERA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL DIRECTORS; TO REGULATE THE USE OF ALKALINE … | D. Wallace | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB9
Act 622
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB9 B. Davis TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT MANUFACTURING, SELLING, DELIVERING, DISTRIBUTING, … | B. Davis | Notification that SB9 is now Act 622 |
|
HB1008
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DROLYSIS FACILITIES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1008 A. Collins TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTH…”
|
TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1010
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH. HB1010 A. Collins TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS ME…”
|
TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1011
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES. HB1011 A. Collins TO CREATE THE RESTORE ROE ACT; AND TO RESTORE A…”
|
TO CREATE THE RESTORE ROE ACT; AND TO RESTORE A WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1012
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ACT; AND TO RESTORE A WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES. HB1012 A. Collins TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EXTE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EXTEND ELIGIBILITY TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FAMILY PLANNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1013
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…BILITY TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES. HB1013 Hudson TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE.…”
|
TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE. | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1029
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Hudson TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE. HB1029 D. Garner TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MED…”
|
TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND … | D. Garner | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1032
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SERVICES RELATED TO ADDICTION. HB1032 A. Collins TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY. HB1132 Pilkington TO…”
|
TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1132
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO ADDICTION. HB1032 A. Collins TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY. HB1132 Pilkington TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVID…”
|
TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES; AND TO AMEND … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1224
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIPTIVE AUTHORITY OF AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE. HB1224 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; AND TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC … | Nazarenko | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1244
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT TO MASSAGE THERAPISTS. HB1244 K. Brown TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF FULL INDEPENDENT PRACTICE AUTHORITY BY A … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1270
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CERTIFIED NURSE PRACTITIONER OR CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST. HB1270 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH A PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC EXTENDED CAR…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC EXTENDED CARE PILOT PROGRAM THROUGH A SECTION 1115 MEDICAID DEMONSTRATION … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1302
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEDICAID DEMONSTRATION WAIVER; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1302 L. Johnson TO ADD DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TO THE UNIVER…”
|
TO ADD DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TO THE UNIVERSAL NEWBORN SCREENING ACT. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1401
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TROPHY TO THE UNIVERSAL NEWBORN SCREENING ACT. Page 3 of 4 HB1401 Pilkington TO INCLUDE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY SERVICES WIT…”
|
TO INCLUDE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY SERVICES WITHIN THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1532
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…G UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD TO INCLUDE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. HB1532 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COU…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COUNCIL. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1566
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…hnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COUNCIL. HB1566 McClure TO REQUIRE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE PRACTICAL NURSIN…”
|
TO REQUIRE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE PRACTICAL NURSING PROGRAM CORE CURRICULUM TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY IN … | McClure | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1592
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LUM TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY IN PRACTICAL NURSING EDUCATION. HB1592 J. Mayberry TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. | J. Mayberry | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1723
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EVACUATION IN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES LICENSED IN THIS STATE. HB1723 Pilkington TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS…”
|
TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS ACT; … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1731
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ADMINISTER A GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS. HB1731 Vaught TO STRENGTHEN CHILD LABOR LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATE…”
|
TO STRENGTHEN CHILD LABOR LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES. | Vaught | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1781
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES. HB1781 Crawford TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENT…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENTERS, OR OTHER FACILITIES IN WHICH A PREGNANCY … | Crawford | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1816
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1816 L. Johnson TO PROHIBIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTHCARE…”
|
TO PROHIBIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS FROM USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DELIVERY OF … | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1819
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1819 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE THE STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL RECORDS…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL RECORDS TO COORDINATE WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS … | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1888
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1888 Steele TO AMEND THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW; AND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT RECORDS … | Steele | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB168
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST MATERIALS OR TEST DATA. SB168 Rice TO ESTABLISH A STATE EXAMINATION FOR LICENSURE OF MASS…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A STATE EXAMINATION FOR LICENSURE OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS. | Rice | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB187
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CENSURE OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB187 Irvin TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID DRU…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID DRUG UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD TO INCLUDE PHYSICIAN … | Irvin | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB348
Act 567
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB348 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ANNUAL CAP FOR DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY…”
|
TO AMEND THE ANNUAL CAP FOR DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES WITHIN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB348 is now Act 567 |
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
Here's the quorum. We're going to go ahead and get started. Representative Brown, are you
prepared to run House Bill 1893? If you will, identify yourself for the record and you'll
Speaker 3
0:12
be recognized to present. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55 on House Bill 1893. Sorry the numbers
Speaker 5
0:17
all run together. Members, this should is a non-controversial bill, no known opposition, and it's very quick. So y'all may remember last year we did some legislation on emotional support animals. This is kind of in that same vein. It was brought to me actually by retailers.
The issue that has become is people are bringing their emotional support dogs into places like restaurants and grocery stores and it's causing a problem. This bill simply gives a business of that nature the ability to put a sign on their door that says no emotional support animals allowed. I've noticed here in Little Rock there's a lot of restaurants starting doing that. This just gives them a little bit of law to be able to back up on, hey, you can't bring your emotional support animal in. I would like to point out that an emotional support animal is not in any way, shape, or form a service animal. Those are still 100% okay. recognized by federal law and we all know that there's a big difference between an actual service animal that's trained and does never causes a problem and emotional support pit bull or some
other little yuppie dog that yips. Another thing this bill does is it just gives these property owners a little bit of protection that if someone does bring an emotional support animal into their property you cannot sue the store if that animal like say were to bite somebody or something like that that's the owner's responsibility not the store's. The store would only be liable if there was gross negligence something more than just a simple negligence. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Any questions by the
committee? Seeing none, anyone in the audience that likes to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, you're recognized as close for your bill. I'm close. Appreciate a good vote. What's the will of the committee? Got a motion? Do pass.
Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, sir. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Representative Lundstrom, are you prepared to run 1906? If you will, identify yourself for
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:03
the record, and you're recognized to present your bill. State Representative Robin Lundstrom, and I'm presenting HB 1906. This is simply a parent's right to be involved in their child when they're getting a long-acting reversible contraception.
Right now, a 12-year-old, 15, 16, up to 17, can go in and get an IUD or the inserts, We have, which is great for preventing sexually transmitted disease, but this is not quite the path we need to take with these folks. The problem is we're seeing a massive increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Chlamydia, HPV have gone through the roof. These kids can get these devices same day without having a chance to consult with their parents and their parents know what's going on.
With that, I'll entertain any questions. Any questions by the committee? Representative Richardson, you're recognized
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:54
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Representative Lundstrom, how do you think this is actually going to impact the reduction in some of the diseases you described or even a reduction in birth rate at this point? I mean, I don't know that it'll have. I'm sorry, I interrupted. Go ahead. You know, in some cases, we've got teenagers that are being responsible in doing this on their own because they may or may not have parent supervision.
and so they're taking an initiative to do this. How do we protect those individuals that are being
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:27
responsible? Good question. First of all, an emancipated minor doesn't touch that. Second, there are other birth control devices that they can get. The problem with these two is you think you're completely out of it, you don't have to worry about getting pregnant, but there are so many sexually transmitted diseases that cause long-term infertility later on in life, and these folks are meeting with the child that day, and they're not having a chance to assess whether they're mature enough
to understand the responsibility of what they're taking or what they're putting in their body, excuse me.
Any additional questions by the committee? Seeing none, we do have someone signed up to speak against the bill, Ms. Anna
Strong. If you will recognize yourself for the record in any organization that you represent, you'll be recognized for your testimony. sorry we're
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
4:22
also friends i know right yeah it's always fun up here to figure out um what we can
agree on and this is one that we unfortunately i so i'm anna strong i represent the arkansas chapter of the american academy of pediatrics and we represent over 500 pediatricians across the state of arkansas we are opposed unfortunately to house bill 1906 arkansas as y'all know is number two in teen teen births in the country we have the second highest teen birth rate in the country and when you look at some of our counties they have the highest teen birth rate in the in the nation and we know that long-acting reversible contraceptives are by far the most
effective effective kind of pregnancy prevention that youth can ask access and similar to what representative richardson said you know we know that not all kids in this state are fortunate enough to have what you guys bring to your families i'm sure is you know loving and supportive parents um we we know that sometimes it's a sibling sometimes sometimes it's an aunt sometimes it may be a family friend who brings someone to the physician and that may not be um a person who can consent for the care of that child um and so that in that case a youth might consent for themselves
and we also know that for example um or we also know that we have very high sexual abuse rates in this state um and a lot of that occurs within families and so this would prohibit um for example a 16-year-old girl who was being raped by her father would prohibit her from seeking birth control to prevent becoming pregnant through those interactions. And finally, we all know we want healthy babies in this state, and we work very hard on that as the Arkansas chapter of the AAP. And we believe that preconception care, including access to contraception, is a really
important part of being able to have a healthy baby so we do want to keep the door open so that in those rare cases where a parent may not be present to consent for care because that is sought almost every time or it is always sought but if it is not available at the time of that care when a youth may need that in a timely way when they are already engaging in risky behavior we want to make sure that that provider has the ability to deem that youth responsible enough to make decisions about their care and I do recognize also and agree we do have a really
big issue happening in our state syphilis rates are very high right now we are worried about STIs same we very much agree on that and sometimes this conversation about contraception leads to a conversation or not sometimes it always leads to a conversation about have engaging in risky behaviors with as much protection for that youth as possible and would include ways to help protect themselves from those sexually transmitted infections. So this encounter alone would also provide that opportunity. We just don't want youth to be turned away.
Thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. Any questions by the committee? Representative Bentley? Thank
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
7:18
you, Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Strong, for being here. So going back to the teen pregnancy rate, isn't the vast majority of those teen pregnancies
Speaker 32
7:27
18 and 19-year-olds when we look at it? Many of them are,
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
7:31
yes. Many of them are, but they have, like, some of those teen births that occur in the 18- and 19-year-old period may have become, those youth may have become pregnant when they were younger, when they were 17.
So some of those activities that we know 65% of youth, by the time they graduate high school, are engaged in sexual activity. Okay, my
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
7:50
other question is, these are medical procedures. When we're doing a LARC, it's not just a simple procedure. So I guess that's my great concern, that we would do this without a parent's consent. It's minor surgery, right? So it's minor. It's an implant. The LARC is not, but sometimes if we do an IUD or something else. I'm very concerned that we would do this to a minor without their parent's consent
because there are other options available. So my question is, do you, there are other options available, right, to these besides using a LARC at
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
8:20
that younger age? There are other options, absolutely. There are birth control pills and other types of contraception for sure. I know that for the most part when our members use LARCs, they are doing the Explanon, which is a little flexible rod that goes in under your arm right here. It goes into the tissue under your arm and between the muscles. And it's a pretty simple procedure to put that in, and they last for about five years.
And so they are a very, very safe way to make sure that those teens aren't getting... One last question. Currently in Arkansas, for
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
8:50
a child in school to get Tylenol, they have to get parental consent and sign up to get Tylenol, correct? In a school building, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Any additional questions by the
Chair
Unverified
9:02
committee? Representative Ferguson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I came in on the middle of this, but just for clarity, is this a risky
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
9:12
procedure? I am not a medical professional myself, but I do know that this is not considered a surgery.
It is a small procedure to insert that. Similar in my eyes and risk of like stitching someone up or some other small procedure. I know some of our pediatricians do circumcisions in their clinics. You know, there are procedures that happen in a primary care setting. But no, I don't think, this is not a risky procedure.
Where does the instrument, is it in their arm or another part of their body?
So there are a couple kinds of long-acting reversible contraceptives. I am not a clinician, so I am doing my best here. Our members had to go to clinic. I'm sorry. But so there's one called Nexplanon, and it is kind of like when you get an IV. You know how when you get an IV, you have a small tube that goes into your arm right here when you get an IV. It's kind of similar, except it goes here, and that little tube stays in your arm. It's a little flexible rod, about yay long, a little thicker than like a piece of pencil lead from a mechanical pencil.
And it just kind of stays in your arm. Okay. All right. Thank you. And there is another kind, I
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
10:37
will say, that is inserted vaginally. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Perry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, how would this impact any Title
X funding? Would that be something the health department would need to ask?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:47
Yes, the health department would have to do that. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, and I don't want to tell you wrong.
Mr. Chairman, can we ask the health department? Yes, sir. Is anyone from the Department of Health here that can answer a question? Am I good
to go, or do you need me anymore? We're still asking questions on your testimonies. We'll ask you to remain, if you
don't mind. No, I'm happy to. If you would, identify yourself for the record, and you'll be recognized to answer Representative Perry's
Matt Gilmore
Unverified
11:20
question. Matt Gilmore, Department of Health. Representative, can you repeat your question?
I heard part of it, but
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
11:26
I think I heard what you asked. How would this impact as far as reducing or eliminating any Title
Matt Gilmore
Unverified
11:36
X funding? How would it impact it? From my understanding, the Title X, I think it's been challenged in other states, and the Title X is basically in conflict with this, and I think it's been argued in other states, and I think there's been cases where the Title X has won out
over what this bill is trying to do, I think. That's what I'm seeing. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So they've won some and they've lost some. I don't know all the details. I've just looked at it briefly. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any
additional questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. We don't have anyone else that signed up to speak for or against. Would anyone else in the
audience like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, colleagues.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
12:27
First of all, the IUD does have some implications and some problems. Increased pelvic inflammatory disease. There is a 14% expulsion rate that does uterine injury. The biggest problem here is these kids are getting the same-day service. They are not having time to process what this means for their bodies. Also, medical clinics do not have to inform parents. Physicians in medical clinics are being educated on how to do financing
so that parents do not know about the services they are providing for their minors. LARC surgical procedures are performed the same day, so the female minor doesn't have an opportunity to have the full information of what these long-term, these may be long-term contraceptives, and they may be out in five years, but the long-term effects of sexually transmitted disease are lifetime. Chlamydia is a lifetime. If they don't catch it early, it can cause infertility. And the surge in sexually transmitted disease in Arkansas is unprecedented.
We may be off the hook when it comes to babies, but we're paying long-term on health of these minors. So I would just ask that parents be involved and that the parents be asked to give their permission. Thank you, Representative. What's the will
of the committee? Have a motion due pass. Any discussion on the motion? You're recognized for
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
13:55
discussion. Thank you, Chairman. I think that it's highly important that we have parents engaged and involved with our kids. If that child cannot get a Tylenol in school without their parents' consent,
How do we think it's right for these kids to get LARCs without their parents' consent? I think that to use the excuse of teen pregnancies is not relevant because most of the teen pregnancies are 18 or 19-year-olds where this doesn't matter. An 18-year-old can go get what they need to get without their parents' consent. So I just think it's important for us to take care of our kids and to do this in a responsible manner and work with our parents. Thank you. Any additional discussion
on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The noes have it. Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you for your time. Representative Andrews, are you prepared to run House Bill 1954? You're recognized to go to the end of
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
14:52
the table. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, committee. Mr. Chair, if you'd allow me to
bring up some guests. Yes, sir. If you will, come to the table. Identify yourself for the record. Any organization you may represent, and you'll be recognized to help present the bill.
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
15:08
Let me pull it up real quick here. All right, House Bill 1954. So Representative Clowney had ran basically this identical bill, and before it got too far in the process to make one little change to it, and she's good with this change. What we're doing is just adding Qualified Applied Behavioral Analysis Credentialing Board to this bill. And a labor representative here from it.
Karen Dubon
Unverified
15:40
Hello. Good morning, esteemed members of the Arkansas Legislature. My name is Karen Dubon, and I'm representing the Qualified Applied Behavior Analysis Credentialing Board. And I'm just here to speak on behalf of this Voluntary Registration Act. So QABA is a conservative, merit-based organization and a certifying entity for behavior analysts. We are the second largest certifying entity in the United States and we work largely with military families. This bill is simply asking for QABA to have parity with the BACB for the Voluntary Registration Act for Behavior Analysts. We believe all practitioners deserve a choice when
it comes to certification and having an agency that may align more with their personal values and beliefs provides that choice. I know the state of Arkansas prides itself on being a leader in choice and integrity and by including QABA in this Voluntary Registration Act it ensures freedom of choice and that no one entity has a monopoly even with something like a voluntary registration act. Thank you so much for your time. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none we don't have anyone
signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one representative you're recognized to close for your
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
16:49
bill. I'm closed from bill and hope for a
good vote. Have a motion do pass by representative ladyman any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor say aye all those opposed congratulations you passed your bill thank you while you're at the end of the table are you prepared to present senate bill 473 yes sir thank
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
17:07
you mr. chair if i'd like to ask um
seo tech chancellor and fire department and fire academy directors to come to the table as well Just have
them identify themselves for the record and any organization they may represent, and they'll be recognized to join you for your presentation. Thank you,
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
17:40
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee Wade Andrews, District 98. I don't know if these gentlemen will introduce themselves here in a moment,
But basically what this bill does, the Fire Academy was founded in 1967, and this language was the same up until it was changed two years ago. We're just reversing it back to the way it was, changing one word from oversight to advise. Pretty simple bill, and I'll let these gentlemen talk. Thank you. Good
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
18:08
morning. My name is Jerry Thomas, and I'm the chancellor of SAU Tech.
Speaker 86
18:16
good morning grant warner director arkansas fire training academy good
Speaker 88
18:25
morning james goodwin deputy director arkansas fire training academy so committee um
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
18:30
pretty simple bill just changed it back to the way it was for 56 years um the the fire protective service board the fire associations are still going to be involved their advice and opinions are still going to be taken into consideration.
This just brings it back to the way it was and gives SAU really back to oversight of their own campus. Any questions? Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
19:01
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So can you all give us some background
on why it was changed a couple years ago and now why it's being changed back? What are the issues with the way it currently is?
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
19:18
Well, I've been at the campus a year and a half as a chancellor of SAU Tech.
And prior to the legislative, during the legislative session of 2023, that's when it was changed. Up until that time, the Fire Training Academy has always been on SAU's Tech campus. And up until that time, they served in an advisory capacity. But during the 2023 legislative session, that was changed to giving the Fire Services Board oversight over the Fire Training Academy.
And so that has created some ambiguity by giving an external board oversight over a campus academic program. I'm the Chancellor of SAU Tech. I report to the president of the system at SAU-Magnolia, and we report to a board of trustees that's governor-appointed by the governor at SAU-TEC.
And we're under the auspices of the Department of Education. So this bill really goes back and ensures that the authority to make decisions regarding the college operations and the implementation of the curriculum, of the training at the Fire Training Academy is protected, while the Fire Service Protection Board maintains and retains their regulatory role of setting minimum training standards in an advisory capacity.
And so that's what this bill is about. It's really clearing up the role of the Fire Services Protection Board that they have a regulatory responsibility, but in terms of the operational responsibility of how that training is carried out, that is under the purview of the college. We do things very similarly with the nursing board that we have. We have an LPN program at the college, SAU Tech. We also have an RN program at SAU Tech, too.
And so in those capacities, the State Board of Nursing, they set all the training standards and education, but the college has that responsibility. And the college also shared that liability in terms of carrying that out. Certainly as a chancellor, I cannot be held liable for a decision that's made by an external body. And so with that said, we deeply value the relationship with the Fire Service Protection Board.
Their experiences and their perspectives will continue to be. It's important. This legislation is changing one word. From, you know, oversight over the college to advising, it does not diminish their contributions. Their input is invaluable. They represent a broad range of expertise to enhance quality. But under this field, the board will continue to provide critical advice and recommendations to the fire training academy.
However, that would be in an advisory role, and the college would maintain its responsibility for oversight over the college. And so we'll continue to work together in a shared way because the goal is just really to train firefighters in the state of Arkansas to the highest standard we can. So, you know, what I heard you say
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
22:54
is we've been doing it this way for 30 years, and now we're going back to that. That's not a
good reason to change, just because we've been doing it that way,
if that's the only reason. But, you know, I know I was here in 23, as some of these other folks were, and this change was made for a reason. You didn't really tell me why that was. The other thing I would like to know, what's the
Speaker 85
23:25
difference in the definition of oversight and advice? How is that any different? Oversight really implies that you have authority, that you are, you also, it blurs the lines.
It also gives you, you
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
23:40
share liability. You share responsibility of what's actually happening, taking place over the campus. That's oversight. And that's where the confusion lies because as an institution of higher education in Arkansas, there's no public institution, college, where an external board has oversight
Speaker 85
24:01
over a college. So you're saying that this
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:07
board has the ability to change things like your curriculum?
I mean, oversight to me is just basically advice. they have authority to change your curriculum and make other changes to what
you do? Is that in our
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
24:23
regulation, our laws? They have taken on this oversight role of when it comes to who to hire on overall curriculum, on classroom changes, on a lot of day-to-day management. All right, thank
Chair
Unverified
24:39
you. Representative Bennett, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
24:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Good morning. I have a question. Is there a
Speaker 100
24:48
cost, a fee to this, if you change it to advise? Not to my knowledge. No. It's not a fee?
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
24:58
It's not a fee for the volunteer firefighters
Speaker 86
25:05
to attend this? The only thing the Fire
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
25:07
Academy currently charges for are for meals for people that attend courses on campus.
That's regardless of whether it's a municipal fire department or a volunteer fire department. And that just started in January because of our budget. That is the only thing the fire academy, let me rephrase that. We also have a $25 testing and certification fee, which helps offset the cost of the testing and our accreditation for SAC and
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
25:39
Pro Board. So, follow up. You're recognized. So there's not a $1,000 charge to take this class?
Speaker 107
25:49
I'm not sure what the $1,000 charge would be that you're referring to. Your mic is off,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:02
sir. There it goes. Sorry about that. I'm not sure what $1,000 fee you're referring to. The only thing we charge for is for reimbursement of the mills for those that are attending courses on campus. And the mills are about 25% of our budget. And Representative,
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
26:20
I will say I'm working on other ways to take care of those costs so departments aren't out that money.
But that's a whole separate issue from this bill. I'm working on other avenues to address that one issue you're
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:38
talking about. Thank you. Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Who's currently on the board that is providing oversight? What is
the board made up of? The board is made up of several different organizations from across the state. The Arkansas Association of Fire Chiefs, Arkansas State Firefighters Association,
the Rural Firefighters Association, the State Fire Marshal's Association has seats on it. It's a total of 17 persons that are on the board.
So all of the people on the board are industry experts, I would say. Yes? Yes. Okay. So if that's the case, why would we not want them to provide oversight for this particular training or this piece of, yeah, the certification and training? If these are industry-specific, knowledgeable, experienced individuals,
Why would we not want them to have oversight over how people
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
27:36
are trained? We're wanting to put them back to an advisory role, and we respect them immensely. Don't get me wrong. We're still going to take into consideration what they say, and they're still going to really respect their opinions and the input. They're not getting cut out of this entirely. Don't mistake that at all. They're still going to have a say. We're just changing from oversight to advise. letting SCU Tech have control over its campus instead of an outside board because this would
be the only instance if I'm pretty sure this would be the only instance in the state where an outside board has authority over a college campus of this nature.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
28:18
So they don't have authority over the campus they have authority over the people in this in this training center right and how the whole training is constructed and advised or not advised is I'm losing my train of thought how the operates okay yes so they have oversight over that correct so it's not over the entire campus it's just over this program over the fire training academy when the way it's
written they have oversight over curriculum and training and when you when you
take those two things that's a very broad statement and when i asked our representative from the attorney general's office what exactly does that mean and he says anything that has to do with training and curriculum i said so if i want to write a policy that says firefighter training will begin at 7 30 in the morning he says that's training that would have to get board approval the way
it's currently written so i read it as curriculum and instructional content of the curriculum.
So it's not, okay, I guess I'm beating a dead horse at
Speaker 85
29:31
this point, but thank you guys, appreciate it. And can I
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
29:37
add something? It's already statutory and regulatory that the Fire Services Protection Board sets the minimum training standards for the Fire Training Academy. That's statutory. They do that. They set the minimum training standards, The education for the training academy, they also review all the policies
because you have to review the policies sometimes to set the minimum training standards. That's their role right now. But the final authority at the college rests with the chancellor, it rests with the president of SAU, and it rests with the board of trustees. That's where the final authority rests with at the college, and that's the governance structure. So
I have a question for you, somewhat follow-up on Representative Ladyman and Richardson's question. So where is the disconnection between this current board and the college?
Like what has necessitated this bill? Obviously, you
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
30:35
all don't agree on something. What is it you're
not agreeing on? Currently, there hasn't been any disagreement. Everything we've had disagreements with, we've discussed and talked through. The problem is that with oversight by them and oversight by the board, the Fire Academy falls under the oversight of two different entities. One of the things we talk about in basic fire officer training is the unity of command. One person has one supervisor.
And in this instance, what's being created is the Fire Academy now has two supervisors. So it's contradictory to what we learn in basic fire officer training. One
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
31:13
person can't serve two masters. Understood. So this is working, but
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
31:19
you're anticipating it not working in the future, and that's why we're putting this into place? Trying to prevent anything
Speaker 106
31:24
in the future. I'm not saying that it will. We just need to prevent it, be proactive. Representative Ladyman, do you have a question?
Your mic's off. Hang on, I'm going to clear all the mics and let you
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
31:54
start again. Try it now. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the board doesn't support this change, or do they support this change? I think
Speaker 129
32:03
it's best that the board speak for themselves. There are members here. Are they here to
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:07
speak for themselves? We do have three, at least three folks here signed up to speak against the bill.
I'm assuming that's the board. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Representative
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
32:18
Henley, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is, is there only one fire academy in Arkansas, and can other two-year colleges or four-year colleges
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:30
offer that training as well? Arkansas statute, back from 1967, states that there is one Arkansas Fire Training Academy and that we are
Speaker 129
32:37
responsible for the training of firefighters in the state. We do have remote locations such as Northwest Arkansas.
They have an academy up there, but it is through us. Little Rock Fire Department has their own academy, but it is
still through us. Any additional questions? Representative,
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
32:58
you're recognized. I was curious about the curriculum. So the credentialed person of the Vice Chancellor of Academics or whomever would set that curriculum, what are the credentials that that person knows about firefighting? Our curriculum is
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:13
actually set by the National Fire Protection Agency,
Speaker 129
33:17
and that's the difference between us and law enforcement. We have a national standard that we meet. It's nationally recognized. We are accredited by IFSAC and PROBOARD, two separate third-party entities that look at our program and ensure that what we are doing meets that national standard. And we just went through our IFSAC accreditation and waiting for it to be finalized, our renewal of the IFSAC accreditation. Does that answer your question? Can I add something to that briefly? Yes.
Speaker 139
33:47
Again, I just want to add something to this briefly. The curriculum that we teach, the curriculum that we have, once it's gone through IFSC and PRO board accreditation, those classes are also used for two separate degree programs at SAU Tech. So we are also accredited through SAU Tech degree programs through their accrediting body as well for this curriculum that we're teaching on our campus. Any additional questions by the committee?
Seeing none, we do have some individuals that are signed up to speak against the bill. I believe you all had signed up to speak for the bill, but we're going to count your time at the table as your testimony if you're comfortable with
that. Bo Higginbotham. If you will, sir, sit down and identify yourself for the record, any organization that you represent, and you're recognized to provide your testimony.
Speaker 143
34:51
Yes, sir. I'm Bo Higginbotham. I'm fire chief in CrossFit, Arkansas, and I'm also the president
Speaker 144
34:57
of the Arkansas State of Firefighters Association. I represent one of the associations that represents the fire service with the fire chief's association, the APFF, which is the professional association, the rural volunteers, and the fire marshals association. These groups make up the Arkansas Fire Protection Service Board. That's each has representatives on that board, which this board represents over 1,000 fire departments and over 10,000 firefighters,
which 80% of those are volunteer, and this makes up what we call Arkansas Fire Service. This group over the years dedicated a lot of time and pride in making our fire academy one of the best around. the Fire Service in this group that come together over the years to be the driving factor to secure funds for all the projects and its growth. The Fire Service has also been there for the Fire Academy to help when there are disagreements with SAU Tech, and there has been some over the 50
years. With those, we support the Fire Academy and try to get them what they need. The Arkansas Fire Protection Service Board, we feel like is the only voice for the fire service to make sure that we are getting the most advanced training and the most up-to-date equipment and to keep it affordable for all the fire service. That's all I have to say. I'll try to answer any questions if I can. If not, I know there's guys behind me that
Speaker 143
36:25
can answer any questions. Thank you, sir, for your
testimony. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
36:31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir,
so would you say that the people on this board represent the boots-on-the-ground firemen that are out there fighting fires? So you're kind of
the voice of those groups? Is that true or not?
Speaker 144
36:51
Yes, sir. We have a voice from different associations here, but we are the Firefighter Association. We represent chiefs, officers, firefighters, volunteer, combination, and professionals.
Chair
Unverified
37:02
We have almost 4,000 members, and, yes, they are boots on the ground. Thank
Speaker 149
37:09
you. Representative Johnson, you're recognized for a question. Hey, Bill, how are you doing? I'm good, thank
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
37:15
you. Good. So I'm trying to scan it through the legislation. This committee knows I run a few bills. I know last session we worked really hard on a lot of fire stuff. I remember having collaborative meetings with everyone, including the director of the Fire Academy at the time, around some bills that we passed. As I recall, we passed a big bill that restructured the Fire Service Protection Board and additionally transferred a lot of services to fire, from fire marshal over to state police.
My feeling at the time was that that was a very collaborative approach that involved all the different firefighter representation, including people from the Fire Academy. Is that your recollection as well? Yes, sir. At the time, the Fire Academy
Speaker 144
37:52
was on board with it. Yeah, because my memory was that we, you know, that
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
37:57
was a bill that we started working on. Well, I can remember coming down, I think I came down to one of y'all's meetings down there in Camden, yeah? Yes, sir. And so had a nice meeting with the Fire Protection Service Board at the time, and we talked about the duties of the board and to the Fire Academy.
And so my memory was that this was not a bill that we passed without a lot of thought and discussion. Is that your memory as well? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
38:24
Representative Richardson, you're recognized. Thank you, and thank you for being here. Thank
you. Based on your experience, why do you
think this change needs to be made, or do you think this change needs to be made? Let me back up. From your experience, why do you think we need to go back to the way that it was
Speaker 144
38:45
rather than the way it is currently? I do not think we should go back to the way it was. I think with the advisory committee, if the voice of the fire service asks for something different and they take it under advisement, they can decide we just don't want to go with that. And you have now SAU Tech would have two people with experience in the fire service telling them what, suggesting what should be done and taking our advice. But if they don't like our advice, they can deny it.
So instead of the fire service representing, it's just two people with the fire service at the fire academy, the director and assistant director. So do you feel then
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
39:24
currently the way that it is now allows you guys to have some accountability to what's happening and how individuals are being trained? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Any additional questions by the
committee? Seeing none, thank you, sir, for your testimony. Thank you.
Next we have Justin, I believe, Scantlin. He's here to speak against the bill.
If you will, sir, identify yourself for the record, any organization that you represent and you're recognized
Speaker 156
39:56
to provide your testimony. Yes, sir. Thank you for having me. I'm Justin Scanlon. I'm the president of the Arkansas Association of Fire Chiefs. So I just want to start out by saying that we did work closely with SAU Tech Chancellor Dr. Jerry Thomas and Senator Matt Stone to try to get this bill amended. So the fire service organizations would have a more of a permanent seat, so to speak, at the table when adjustments to these programs were requested.
While we couldn't come to an agreement, we did appreciate their cooperation. We feel the process was positive. But again, this bill was not just a cleanup from the last legislation. This bill was specifically written in this way in order to ensure that training curriculum and programs are to the minimum standards that the Arkansas Fire Protection Services Board are tasked with setting. The need for oversight over the training curriculum is not isolated to the fire service in Arkansas at this point. The police academy is overseen by a commission that has the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove changes to the training standards and curriculum in the police service in Arkansas.
Another thing to consider is that the fire service is unique in the diversity of our membership. Our training programs need to provide the in-depth and advanced training that a career and some of the more dedicated volunteer firefighters desire. While also providing basic firefighting and life safety training that new career firefighters and volunteer firefighters need to ensure that they are able to go home safely with their families after an incident. Many of these volunteers graciously want to serve their communities but have a limited amount of time and flexibility in their professional schedules to contend with as well.
Some of our training needs to be designed to work with them, not against them. Also, the fees and costs of these training classes can deter volunteers and departments with limited funding from having reasonable access to these classes. These funds are part of the curriculum of courses. The Arkansas Fire Protection Services Board is comprised of representatives from all facets of the fire service. In closing, the bill from the last legislative session was put in place to ensure that organizations are represented by the Fire Protection Services Board and those firefighters receive the training from the Fire Training Academy
and that once they show up at their organizations, they can be counted on to safely join their teams. The firefighters who are trained by the Fire Academy or that are trained, as well as the firefighters who are already trained and existing, they have to work together. And so as soon as they show up at their organizations, they may encounter situations that will be the difference between life and death. And the Arkansas Fire Protection Services Board need the ability to make sure those standards are being met. The ability is part of their statutory responsibility that was
already in place when this board was created. The police academy is held to this standard by the same type of commission. The safety and welfare of firefighters should be held to at least the same standards that the police services afford in the state of
Arkansas. Thank you. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none, thank you sir for
your testimony. Mr. Brad Moore to speak against the bill.
Brad Moore
Unverified
43:10
Good morning, Chair of the Committee. Thanks
for the time today. Good morning, sir. If you will, identify yourself for the record, any
Brad Moore
Unverified
43:17
organization you represent, and you're recognized to provide your testimony. My name is Brad Moore. I'm the legislative chair for the State Firefighters Association. It represents a little over 4,000 membership, as we see here today, comprised of chief officers and chief level, all the way down to rural volunteers in the state of Arkansas. The reason we stand against this bill today is, like the last two chiefs said, we worked diligently with Representative Johnson and Hammer last session to make some changes to trying to bring all fire service under one umbrella.
And like you said, the statute already says that we had the authority to set curriculum and minimum training standards in the state. Well, that conflict of what we were trying to do, we only had oversight, didn't have oversight, we only had advisory to do that. So we made that change to oversight for that reason. And I want to clarify some things I've mentioned and tested on earlier. This came about this session because the Fire Academy brought a policy of the board that was going to start charging for off-campus classes.
For instance, our Northwest Arkansas Training Academy that was brought up holds two to three classes a year, and they were wanting to charge almost $2,000 a student for that. It was going to cost them about $90,000 extra a year. Well, the Fire Academy does put in a little work for that. But them departments up there do 99% of the work in turning them firefighters. The fire company puts in about 16 hours of class. And our opinion is almost $2,000 per student for a class when you're only putting in 16 hours of the work is a little outrageous.
And another question was asked about a certificate fee being $25. When we first started this, the certificates in the state of Arkansas, it was costing a firefighter $5 for a certificate. and they jumped it up to $25. Under their understanding, we was going to be dual certified by two different certifying bodies, a IPSAC and a pro board, and that was going to cost them about $15 for both certificates and a $10 administrative fee like they mentioned. What we have now come to find out, only 10% of the classes they offer are certified in both bodies,
and the majority of the certificates we get cost them a dollar per certificate that they hand out. And so now they're taking $24 out of that $25 for administrative fees and putting it on the – and that's not just municipal apartments. That's voluntary farmers across the state. So that's a big increase to justify for us to approve that new policy to put out in the state of Arkansas. We all know how everybody's budgets are getting cut due to everything else
with inflation and all that. So I would try to answer any questions it may be
from the committee. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Representative Johnson, you're recognized for
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
46:10
a question. Brad, it's good to see you. You too, guys. So, hey, listen, when I'm reading what we did last session, when I read the bill in context, you know, there's a section in code here where it says originally, you know, before we changed it, it said advise the director, and then there's a whole list of things that the Fire Services Protection Board is supposed to advise the director or advise the president of SAU on, right? And we left advise, in my recollection, we left advise in every one of those places
and we only changed oversight in one place and that was specifically around the the training the certification the curriculum that's correct every other aspect of the program we left the word advise in so when we read the bill in context I just want to be clear for committee my understanding is the the the board only has oversight in these two very specific areas and in every other area we intentionally chose to left the word advise alone and currently you only have advisory uh abilities in these other areas is that correct that's correct that's how
we understand it yes sir any additional questions by the committee seeing none thank you sir for your testimony sir we have one
more person signed up to speak against the bill roger smith i believe mr smith if you will identify yourself for the record any
Roger Smith
Unverified
47:32
organization you represent and you're recognized to present your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Roger Smith. I represent the Fire Chiefs Association, the State Firefighters Association,
and numerous other fire-related groups in Arkansas. I want to say first, and I know I appreciate you all taking time to listen to the testimony on this, SAU Tech has the responsibility of maintaining that campus. There's no question about that. And overall, they do an excellent job. And I also want you to know that over time, SAU Tech has been handicapped to the point it's been difficult for them to advocate for funding for the fire academy.
That's where the fire service has always come to the front, and my groups have been the ones that have come to the legislature, to the governor, to advocate for programs for additional funding and so forth. As a matter of fact, the most recent major improvement there was the construction of a new dormitory, which we'd worked for for decades, that when Asa Hutchinson was governor, he committed to do that and got it done. But those
Speaker 172
48:39
were the kinds of things that the associations collectively have done to help the academy. They identify that the
fire academy is almost theirs. They feel that they have ownership in that, because it's the only training facility we have in the state to guarantee that they have the training classes that meet the requirements. So I want to say that the new chancellor, he's not been there long. He kind of inherited this. He is doing his very best to protect the campus. And I want you to know that we asked last week when this was presented in Senate committee that could we not talk about an amendment.
He did everything he could to work with us to provide an amendment we could agree to, and we did. We were very comfortable with the amendment that he put forward. But at the very last minute, they changed that amendment and took the Fire Services Board completely out of it, at which point we could not support that. And we did try to relate that to Senator Stone. When it was presented in the Senate, unfortunately, it was presented in a fashion that suggested that we hadn't been willing to work at all with the Academy.
Roger Smith
Unverified
49:46
or with the chancellor, and I wanted to clarify that because that certainly wasn't true. We find the new chancellor to be an extremely cooperative gentleman that wants to work with us, and we look forward to that in the future. We would appreciate it
Speaker 172
50:01
if you would vote no on this. We think that the advisory capacity was done for a very specific reason, and we don't want to have a conflict or anything like that between the board and the staff. The only thing that the board does is statutorily they are required when there's a position to fill, particularly one single position, and that's the director of the academy, they have to come up with a list of at least three people to turn over to SAU Tech for them to ultimately make the decision to who to hire.
For sure, I think you understand clearly the Fire Protection Services Board is the group of professionals, boots on the ground, et cetera, that know best what is needed for fire training. So with that, I appreciate your time and would appreciate a good vote. Any questions by the
committee? Seeing none, thank you, sir, for your testimony. Members, give
us 10 seconds and let's let Will try to change this mic out. We're having some technical issues here.
We're going to give him 20 seconds. I'm going to go ahead and go through. It doesn't affect my mic, I think, just y'all's.
We don't have anyone else that signed up to speak for or against the bill. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill?
All right. Seeing no one, we'll give Will a hand. He's got us fixed up. And Representative Andrews, you're recognized to
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
51:57
close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I know a lot has been said about this, and this is obviously a very sensitive topic.
I do want to say that the short time I've been here, serving in this role as state rep, I've worked closely with SCU Tech, and Dr. Thomas has been excellent to work with. And the previous interim chancellor before him as well, I worked with her some as well. The Fire Academy is, of course, very important to the state, and I think that this bill, changing one word from oversight to advise, the Fire Protection Service Board, all these different organizations, their advice is still going to be taken.
And I do want to just point out that the lead of the Law Enforcement Academy, which is also just down the street from the Fire Academy, like it's been brought up, their credentials and material and standards, it's all on a state level. In the fire service, the NFPA is a national organization that makes these standards. So it's the same education that you get in Arkansas, that you get in Texas, that you get in Louisiana.
It's a national curriculum. And so it's the national standards that are being pushed. There's some other things that were said. I do want to point out that the overall operating budget really hasn't been increased much for the Fire Academy. Last session, I worked by request of at the time interim deputy director, Mr. Goodwin. We got them some extra money, some ARPA money, to build new training grounds
and got some new trucks in there. So we did help do that. All at the same time as taking, you know, under the advice of the players on the ground. And I think Representative Lightyman had brought up some good points, but I want you all to remember that as someone who is boots on the ground, who at 7 a.m. tomorrow will go into Canada Fire Station 2 and serve my community as a firefighter, someone who went through this academy,
who this is right in my own backyard, I'm simply here advocating for the academy and for SAU Tech. And so with that, I'm closed and hope for a good vote. What's the will of the committee?
We have a motion due pass. Any discussion on the motion? You're recognized for discussion, Representative Johnson. Yeah,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
54:43
members, first of all, I want to say I appreciate Representative Andrews. I know he's doing a good job as a firefighter and supports fire issues. I know he's in a difficult spot. Nobody likes to be in a spot where there's conflict.
There was a lot of hard work that went into this bill last session. It was a bill that I worked on with Senator Hammer for months, and we involved a lot of folks, including the fire academy and the process. And we were very thoughtful in choosing this language at this place to provide oversight over this specific thing. And so it's only been in place for, really, if you think of when it went into effect, it would have been in the summer. So it's probably not even been a year and a half that we've had this change. It wasn't a change made frivolously. It was a change we thought about.
It was intentional. And it was done for a reason with the support of a lot of folks in the fire community. And so with respect to Representative Andrews and certainly to the SAU and the Fire Academy, I'm going to be voting no because I think we made this change for a reason. I think we ought to try to keep it in place a little longer and see if there's problems. If there is, we'll come back and we'll
work on it. Thank you, Representative. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? No. Your bill has
failed. Representative Eubanks, are you ready to run House Bill 1915?
Yes, sir. You recognize, go to the end of
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
56:09
the table. Identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. John Eubanks,
District 46. Members, this bill was something that Senator Dismaine brought a couple years ago, and it was late in the session, and there was some negotiating that went on,
And it was decided that I believe that the DHS would be able to set these asset limits to qualify for SNAP benefits by rule. What this bill does, it sets the amount at a very modest amount that I believe of $6,000, but it allows it to be adjusted for inflation. Members, long before I ever got elected to the legislature, I was concerned about how our public assistance programs work.
I didn't feel like they really helped people move off and out of poverty. And I've served on a school board for 10 years. My daughter is a counselor in a school. I see the effects of poverty in our community. I'm aware of the food insecurity. I know the food banks in my small town and the work that they do. Since I've been in the legislature, I volunteered with serving up solutions the Hunger Alliance puts on every year,
and then they provide grants back to your communities to help with this issue. I supported Senator Dismaine's bill last time, and I believe we need to take another look at it and put it in statue what the amount is and allow for the inflation index so that it increase. Once again, I believe it's a very modest amount.
I think if we want people to move off of poverty, we have to allow them to accumulate something. I don't see any other way around it. And I've heard too many stories in my lifetime of people that had an opportunity to get a better paying job, but because if they were going to take it, they were going to lose some other benefit. We have to allow people to gain more than what they lose if we want them to be able to work their way out of poverty.
And that's the essence of this bill, and I'll take questions. Representative, I want to thank you for bringing this
bill. I couldn't agree with you more. You know, unfortunately, I think a lot of times through these programs we create cliffs that we will walk these folks up to, and then all of a sudden when they start to get their legs under them, they're unable to continue to grow because of that barrier and that cliff. So thank you for bringing this bill. I appreciate that. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none, we don't have anyone who has signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to? Okay. Mr. Nick Horton, you're recognized to
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
59:31
speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you will, identify yourself for the record in any organization you represent, you're
Nick Horton
Unverified
59:36
recognized to speak against the bill. Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Nick Horton, and I am the founder and CEO of Opportunity Arkansas.
We are a policy organization that works to simplify government and solve generational problems. Before I founded this organization three years ago, I worked for a national nonprofit for almost a decade in about 25 states and at the federal government on issues of welfare reform, including Medicaid, food stamps, cash welfare, unemployment, and disability. I'd like to use my time today, if I can, to give you 10 reasons why I believe this bill is wrong for Arkansas.
I have more than 10, but I'm going to limit myself to 10. And I believe this bill should be rejected, as it has been the last two sessions in a row. So if you'll allow me, I'll just run through these really quickly and be happy to try to answer any questions. Number one, as I think many of you know, Arkansas has had long-standing generational problems with government dependency. And contrary to, I think, the best intentions of the bill's sponsors, this bill is not going to solve that problem.
And, in fact, it's going to actually make that problem. This bill would double the existing asset limit for food stamps in Arkansas, which is intentionally in place to ensure limited resources are preserved for those in most need. And, as was mentioned, it would perpetually raise the asset limit every two years for inflation. This would allow more people to enroll in the food stamp program, and it would allow people that are currently on the food stamp program to stay on longer.
We believe, and I believe, we should be focused on helping people out of these programs, not further trapping them in cycles of dependency. And unfortunately, that's what this bill would do. Number two, this bill would move us further away from serving the truly needy. I think most of us probably agree that food stamps should be reserved for those who truly have nowhere else to turn, but this
Speaker 186
1:01:40
bill would open the door to the program to those who have up to $6,000 in liquid cash assets.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of us don't have $6,000 in the bank today, and frankly,
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:01:55
someone with $6,000 in cash can and should buy their own groceries while we make sure that we save limited food stamp benefits for those that are in most need. Number three, the inflation mechanism that was mentioned that's in the bill, it's unnecessary. The federal government already reviews and adjusts the asset limit for inflation every single year. In fact, the Department of Human Services just recently adjusted the asset limit here
in Arkansas to conform with the federal adjustments that already occurred. That happened in the last year. As mentioned, the federal government reviews the benefits as well as the asset limit itself for inflation and cost of living. The notion that the asset limit is somehow locked in time or can never be changed without this bill is incorrect. Number four, inflation is actually coming down, and there are much better ways to help fight the rising cost of food, which we've all struggled with and Arkansans have struggled with over the last several years,
like eliminating the grocery tax. I know that's something that the governor has called for and is being debated this session. I think we should also look at eliminating the city and county level taxes on groceries to reduce the price of food. Number
Speaker 186
1:03:09
five, taxpayers don't even really know the full cost or effect of this bill. There is no fiscal note on this bill. We know it will increase food stamp enrollment because it's gonna double the asset limit, but by how much? and at what cost to hardworking taxpayers?
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:03:26
Those seem like pretty important questions that I think taxpayers
Speaker 186
1:03:31
deserve to have answered. Number six, the mechanism laid out in this bill called broad-based categorical eligibility is a legally flawed regulatory loophole that likely will not exist much longer. This loophole was created by Arkansas's own President Clinton in the late '90s and it was
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:03:50
expanded by President Obama. It allows states to artificially inflate the asset limit beyond what is set out in federal statute.
President Trump last term proposed eliminating this loophole. Congressional Republicans have also proposed eliminating it through reconciliation. And if that loophole does go away, and I think it will in the next few years, if not sooner, and this bill passes, It means Arkansas would have to roll back this expansion and unwind and disenroll folks that we had just put on the food stamp program. Number seven, I would say, just on a more positive note, Arkansas actually has one of
the strongest food stamp programs in the region, and this is something that we should be proud of, but again, I think this bill
Speaker 186
1:04:38
would take that backwards. With work requirements for most able-bodied adults on the program, time limits, lower enrollment and spending compared to other states on a per capita
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:04:48
basis, we have made significant progress to make sure this program, again, serves as a safety net for the truly needy, but not a trap for long-term government dependency. Number eight, this was something that I'm sure there will be some discussion about,
but this was a big point of discussion last session, that expanding this limit would somehow allow enrollees to get vehicles, and that would somehow lead to employment, which I think is a great goal, and we certainly want employment for all Arkansans as much as possible. But this is inaccurate. The food stamp program already allows food stamp enrollees to have, at minimum, one vehicle per household. And then, under several exemptions,
enrollees can qualify for an additional vehicle if they use it for work, if they use it to generate income, and other exceptions. And then, under additional exceptions, they can also have additional vehicles if they're transporting a family member with a disability or a whole list of exemptions and exceptions that exist for folks that need to buy a vehicle. So the idea that food stamp enrollees are currently prohibited from having a vehicle is simply inaccurate, and this bill is not going to do anything to change that.
Number nine, there's been some conversation again in past sessions about the need for this bill because it would allow food stamp enrollees to save money. Again, this is a misconception. Enrollees in the food stamp program are able to have bank accounts. They're able to save as much money as they want. Under current policy, they're allowed to save up to $3,000 and still keep their food stamp benefits. But what this bill would propose is, and
Speaker 186
1:06:34
I should say, they can save as much money as they want, up to a million dollars if they want.
But at some point, they will have to give up their food stamp benefits. And of
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:06:47
course that makes sense, because at some point, they no longer need them. And that's effectively how our current asset limit functions and why I
Speaker 186
1:06:56
believe it's important. So really this proposal here today is not about allowing people to save money. It's about doubling the amount of money that people can save and still keep their welfare benefits. So the question you're really facing today is, do you think taxpayers should be forced to pay for food stamps for
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:07:16
someone who has $5,000 in the bank?
Or do you think someone with $5,000 in the bank should buy their own groceries? And number 10, going as fast as I can, sorry, I'm from Arkansas, talk slow. This one is very important, and it was mentioned a compromise bill from last session. That approach has not even been tried. There was a compromise bill to let people who went over the asset limit temporarily keep their benefits for a year and provide an off-ramp and a bridge out of the welfare program for those folks.
That policy was never implemented. And so, in other words, rather than wait and see if that policy works or if it's even needed, this bill proposes to throw that out the window and instead double the asset limit for everyone. Just to close, and then I'm happy to take any questions, one of the things we do a lot at our organization, Opportunity Arkansas, is we go out and talk to real Arkansans, folks living every day under the policies that you all create here at the Capitol.
And one of those folks was from Fulton County.
Speaker 186
1:08:29
Gary and his wife started a ministry to help people in need, helping them get basic necessities like clothes and cookware. But not long after launching his ministry, Gary noticed a problem, and here's what he told us. He said, when we first started, we visited a charity that gave out 400 bags of groceries to anyone who drove through. It seemed good, but something was missing.
And then we found out what that something was. If you continually give to people without expecting anything in return, they become dependent. You're not helping them out of poverty. You're helping them stay in it. Ultimately, this bill would do just that. It would expand dependency to more people, trap enrollees
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:09:15
in food stamps longer, and help them stay in poverty longer, rather than moving them towards independence. And one other thing I'll just say, it's not in my notes, but since it was mentioned about
a welfare cliff, this bill does nothing to reduce or eliminate a welfare cliff. All it does is push the welfare cliff further out into the future. So right now the welfare cliff, to the degree that it exists, is at $3,000. This bill would say we're going to put the welfare cliff at $6,000 and then we're going to perpetually expand it every two years after that for inflation. That's not eliminating a welfare cliff. That's just simply pushing it out further in the future. And I think as Mr. Phillips said better than I can, the more we extend and expand these
benefits, the further out we're pushing independence and change for so many of these Arkansans. And I think that should be our goal. So with that, I'm happy
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:10:16
to take any questions. Representative Bladyman, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, I don't quite understand. When it talks about asset limit, and you say that has to be cash, I mean, asset can be other things.
So it doesn't say cash. Are you saying they can have $6,000 money in
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:10:35
the bank? Yes, sir. I appreciate the question, because I think there's been a lot of confusion about that as well. Homes, personal possessions, life insurance, pensions, one vehicle minimum per household, those are already exempted from the asset limit. DHS doesn't even look at those things when they look at assets. So this is really talking
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:10:55
about liquid cash assets. Okay, and my second question, you said it doubled, but I don't see 3,000 in here anywhere.
where on line 28 it says $5,500, where's the $3,000? So that,
Speaker 186
1:11:06
yes, sir, so the general, so there's two asset limits currently. It's
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:11:12
$3,000 for most households. It's slightly higher for households that have individuals with disabilities, which I think is another important point. We're already making accommodations, additional cap space for those folks. It's $4,250 for those households. And then the $5,500 that you see, that's a creation of this compromise bill that was passed last session.
So the concern and the approach that was approved by this committee two years ago was, well, there might be people that get close to that $3,000 asset limit, and then they fall off this welfare cliff. So let's create a bridge for folks and give them an extra year of benefits in order to ease them out of the program, and that's where that $5,500 comes in. So they get a year of extra benefits under that policy, but they still have to keep their assets under $5,500 for that 12-month period.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:05
All right, thank you. Representative Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my district, I've noticed the majority of the demographic that are in need of these services are our 65-plus population. In your research, what percentage of that population is receiving these SNAP
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:12:29
benefits? Well, there's about 300,000, roughly, folks total in the state of Arkansas that receive food stamp benefits. I don't have the breakdown exactly of seniors, but certainly they're a significant portion
of that population. But again, I would say they're already being served largely by this program, and I think that the benefit of the asset test that we have in place is that we're making sure that this program is reserved for people that truly need it, not for people that have 4,000, 5,000, or up to $6,000 in the bank. Representative Cooper, you're going to
ask for a question. Not necessarily a question, but
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:13:04
a point of clarification. Something the witness said made me realize, I mean, do we need a fiscal impact on this?
We're increasing the number of people on food stamps, lengthening the time they can be on and expanding eligibility. So is there a fiscal impact? Do we need to know what that is? I mean,
this bill does not require one. I'll put it that way. Well, I mean, I
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:13:31
hate to delay things, but I think it would be prudent to get a physical impact on this. Before we make the
request, let's do this. Can we ask DHS to come to the
table and see if they can just provide us some clarification?
Would that satisfy your request? Good morning.
Speaker 209
1:14:00
Christy Putnam, Secretary, Arkansas DHS. You're recognized. If someone
Speaker 211
1:14:06
could repeat exactly what the question is at hand, that would be great. Basically, we
want to know if you can give us an estimated fiscal impact
or what you think that would be on the increase in
Speaker 209
1:14:21
the asset limit. So there could potentially be some increase based on system changes that would need to
Speaker 211
1:14:27
be made to adjust for the inflation. I don't know exactly what that would be. We are already in the process of implementing late, I will add, Act 675 that was passed in 2023 that does increase the resource limits for that temporary period of time. SNAP benefits that are paid to the individual are 100%
federal funding. There is admin cost that the state incurs. We don't know the impact yet of implementing Act 675. And again, the department is late on implementing that. And so I do not know what the cost would be for implementing an additional increase to resource limits. So to clarify, don't let me put words in your mouth, but to clarify,
we're talking minimal impact to the state because it's just going to be the administration of the funds by DHS, correct?
Speaker 211
1:15:17
It would be an impact. I don't know if I could classify it as minimal because the system changes sometimes take more than we bargained for. We're working on that as well. You know, I think one of the concerns is certainly increasing the number of people who remain on benefits for a longer period of time. But we don't, again, we don't know the impact of the current act that we're implementing. We just passed the rule this morning to increase the resource limits from Act 675, and so I
Speaker 209
1:15:43
think it would be premature to state what the cost would be for implementing an additional. Thank you, ma'am.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:15:50
Does that answer your question, Representative? It answers it in the sense that we don't know what the impact is
going to be. Any additional questions? Seeing none, we do not have anyone
who has signed up in the audience to speak for or against the bill. Would you like to speak for the bill, sir? For or against? You're recognized to go to the end of the table.
If you will, identify yourself for the record in any organization you represent, And you
Speaker 221
1:16:38
recognize to testify. I'm Lance Whitney with Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, who covers the entire
Speaker 223
1:16:45
state of Arkansas, fighting hunger in Arkansas. I'm here to speak
Speaker 221
1:16:50
for this bill on a number of clarifying points. First of all, SNAP is a program that's been the most successful safety net in the nation for many years. It is a supplemental nutritional assistance program. So I want to get some facts first and let you know that SNAP provides $6.25 a day per person.
When I look in the luxury budget here for food, we're looking at $6.25 per day per person on this program. This safety net program set up by the federal program of SNAP that distributes to the state to be able to distribute is totally federally funded in Arkansas with the exception of administrative costs. We are currently looking at seniors, veterans, and households who are looking for the latter to get out of the hole
to be able to figure out what they can do to better themselves to get out of these safety net programs but they need to have the rungs on the ladder to reach that. As we do this, we have to look at how long are people on the SNAP program as an average, and we're looking at 18 to 22 months. We have regulations already on the amount of time without a work provision that allows you to receive these benefits to be able to continue on SNAP.
But we need to be able to allow people to take a job, allow them to also be able to have transportation to that job, child care for that job, and be able to have finances to be able to continue to work for that job, show up for that job, and work their way, or get education to get them out of this hole of food insecurity. We have seniors who don't want to be a burden on their family when they pass, and they have a savings for emergency funds, whether that's for a funeral or for a shelter repair.
When we're looking at $3,000, I believe we've all looked at some expenses, whether it's the category of a funeral, the category of an air conditioner replacement, the category of replacement vehicle. If you were able to do that with $3,000 or $5,000, I believe you probably have a niche on the market that would need to be shared to so many people. This is a minimum bar to be able to stop people from being able to get out of this hole.
This cliff does exist. People are having to choose between getting another job, getting an education to better their community, and to be able to get to a better place so they aren't reliant on the SNAP program. Once again, $6.27 a day is what SNAP provides. It's a supplement, not an answer to an entire budget for the week or for the month. We also have to look at the economic impact SNAP does for a community.
It is for every $1 of federal funding, not state funding, federal funding that comes in, it puts $1.80 back into the community. We have a number of communities without that economic impact in rural Arkansas. that would be challenged. We need to keep the SNAP program, the most successful safety net program provided through federal funding, not state funding,
to 33% of the SNAP households in Arkansas are seniors. We also have one out of four children in the SNAP household. One out of four SNAP households have children in it. One out of five adults face food insecurity. And Arkansas is ranked number one in food insecurity. We need to be able, as a state, to have good policy and a conscious mind
to see what can we do to get these families out of this situation and have access to food. This is an assistance. It's a supplement. It assists the economy of Arkansas. It assists the workforce, the school system. Food is medicine, food is education, and food is sustainability in our communities. All this is asking, instead of making it a temporary, it's making it a permanent.
Yes, inflation has done wonders. Yes, it may be going up or down, depending on what you're looking at. Cars versus food, we're talking food. And as we're looking at this right now, it's never been increased. SNAP has never been increased to match inflation. I'd like to promote you to look through and say what you can do for $6.27 as you're trying to improve your family to get yourself an education as an adult. The average funeral in the state of Arkansas on the low end is $9,000.
An annual higher education on the low end is $9,000, and this is raising it to six. I would like for you to consider this as a positive reinforcement of getting Arkansas in a better place, no longer in food insecurity, and looking at it as a rung on the ladder to get people out of the food insecurity hole and better the state of Arkansas. thank you thank you sir for
your testimony any questions for the witness
seeing none thank you for being here today thank you is there anyone else
in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill seeing
oh representative I'm sorry Madam Secretary you're recognized to come back to the table can I ask if
Speaker 231
1:23:03
you're speaking for or against the bill Thank you for
Speaker 211
1:23:06
inviting me back. I'm actually, and apologetically, I'm speaking against the bill.
We didn't have a chance to talk about this beforehand, and I think that's part of our issue here. We definitely see the benefits cliff and some needs to address that. You know, again, we think that there is definitely the need to address the slightly over income in that period of time to allow a transition. We believe that the Act 675 will be the beginning to address that. And so we are against this because we want the opportunity to see what the impact of that is. Any questions by the committee?
I have one, and I'm not trying to put you on the record here, but I do have a question. So when can we expect that act
Speaker 211
1:23:48
to be implemented? We passed the emergency rule this morning. That will go into effect, I believe. Actually, the system change for that has already gone into effect. And so the rule will go with that. The guidance has gone out to the field, so that should be an immediate impact. We'll be able to look at that immediately. Okay.
Representative, would you like to pull this bill back for now? What would you like to do?
No, I'm ready to move forward. Okay. Any other,
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:24:18
Representative Cooper, you're recognized? I want to request a fiscal impact on this. Okay. I think it would be prudent to do so. We're not doing our job if we don't do that. I understand these issues. I'm very sympathetic to them. Don't get me wrong, but I'd like a fiscal impact, and I would like it to be expedited if possible in respect to Representative Eubanks so we don't hold his bill up too
long. Okay. Before you get off the mic, I'd like to know what you'd like for that fiscal impact to entail.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:24:45
I think the issues that the Secretary brought up in her earlier testimony, the implementation of the program would be part of that. Could we allow her to elaborate on that a little bit? Sure. So we can request
Speaker 209
1:25:02
our finance team to provide the fiscal impact based on system changes, any additional admin costs, which, you know, we can do that based on current enrollment, and then we would need to project the extended enrollment.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:25:15
Okay. How would you project the extended enrollment? Would that be through, do you have a way to
Speaker 209
1:25:24
know what that looks like now currently? I think we would need to look at income trends to see what that increase would allow for, and the number of individuals
who would remain eligible under the increase. Yes, sir. So just to be specific, because I agree with Representative Cooper, I think that time is of the essence, like Representative Jean had mentioned to us. We're trying to land the plane here, so to delay this process very long would not be fair to the sponsors,
so we do want to make sure that we can expedite that with the ability to hear this bill on Tuesday. Representative Allen, did you have a
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:25:59
question? Mr. Chairman, you primarily said what I was going to say, that time is of the essence. And we need to find out exactly how long
will it take you to come up with a financial impact statement. Will it be a day, two days, three days, or four? Can you give us a time frame, if you don't mind?
Speaker 209
1:26:16
We will work as quickly as we possibly can. Typically, our team is used to giving these kinds of estimates based on system changes because we do them frequently.
So we will do our best to get this turned around
Speaker 211
1:26:28
within a day, certainly by Monday, in time
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:26:33
for this next week. I guess my next question, will that be enough time for
Representative Eubanks to get his bill out of committee? If it comes out of committee,
will that be enough time? Yes, sir. So I think that we have discussed and feel good that any bill
that we can pass at the first of next week still has the ability without a lot of opposition to make it through both bodies,
and I believe in Representative Eubanks and his ability to bring everyone together on this. All
right, we'll honor Representative Cooper's request. We'll ask that DHS has that back to us so it can be reviewed prior to committee on Tuesday, and this bill will be back on the agenda. Can I have
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:27:17
a final comment, please? Yes, sir, you're recognized. To be quite honest, I'm a little disappointed in the department. I talked to them this morning. They said they were neutral.
They came to the table. They said that the impact would be minimal. It would be administrative at best. We put a bill two years ago, and they submitted the emergency rule today. So how long are we supposed to wait? I believe we need to move forward on this. We need to go ahead and pass a bill. And I will certainly honor the request of the committee and wait for the fiscal impact.
I will be surprised if we have it in time to allow this bill to proceed through the process. So I just want to express my disappointment in the department. At this point, my sole purpose is trying to move people out of poverty. I happened to be alive when we started public assistance back in the 60s.
I haven't seen where it's been a success. So we need to do some things differently than the way we've been doing them. So I would hope that we are able to come back Tuesday and that this committee will pass this bill. Thank you. Representative, I agree with
you, and I would like to thank you again for bringing this bill. I would also like to say I have an immense amount of respect for the secretary and the department. I share in your frustration that we're here at the last minute delaying this bill,
but I understand and I do want to honor the request of Representative Cooper. So please have that to us timely because this bill
will be heard again Tuesday. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank
you, Madam Secretary. Representative Rye, I believe, has been patiently waiting. Representative Allen, you have a question? Yes, sir. Is it a parliamentary
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:29:35
or? Pretty much. Okay. Okay. Is it true that we can ask for a financial impact statement on any bill?
It is true. So there's a rule, typically, that, I will say this, I don't know that it has to be accepted, but we have done that historically at the request of members, and it's the same as a budget hold. So any member who requests to hold a budget, we've done that out of deference and respect to the member, and we'll continue that today, but I do want to make it clear that we will hear this bill again on Tuesday. We want to make sure that we're able to move forward and vote it up or down throughout the process. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 242
1:30:15
Representative Rye, which bill are you
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:30:18
here to present? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 440? Senate Bill 440. Okay. If you will,
have your witness identify themselves for the record, any
organization that they represent. and you'll be recognized to present your bill. Thank
Speaker 249
1:30:36
you, Chairman, members of the committee, Representative Wright. My name is Amy Gude. I'm the Executive Secretary for the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Cemeteries and Burial Services Board.
for the bill. Senate Bill 440. Representative Wright,
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:30:59
you're recognized to present. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. This bill comes to us through the state board of embalmers, the funeral directors, crematories, and burial service. It's a new technology, and it's a good technology. It's something that is actually moving in strong around us.
There's 30 states that have actually already put this into play, and I would like Amy to kindly explain this process and how
Speaker 253
1:31:33
it works. Thank you. So alkaline hydrolysis is a newer, sorry, this microphone's messing with me, newer form of, I say cremation, because you end up with ashes in the end. You have a, it's a chamber, it's a different chamber than a flame-based chamber,
But it's 95% water and a 5% alkali solution that's put in the chamber with the body. You end up with 90% more cremains than traditional flame-based. It's considered a gentle or more respectful process, if you will. You do get 20% more ashes back, return to the family.
Speaker 249
1:32:24
It says there's a 90% energy savings overall compared to the flame-based. So we're not
Speaker 253
1:32:31
trying to get rid of flame-based. I don't think that is not the goal here. It's just to offer another type of disposition. We have had some facilities in the industry wanting to offer this type of disposition. It's fairly new, as Representative Rye has mentioned. It's actually been around for quite some time.
They've been doing it with animals on the universities for years. And so it's been coming around for the last probably 20-something years with humans. We just wanted to be proactive and have it be an option that our facilities could offer to their families. It's been recently passed in Oklahoma. From what I understand there, they've got families coming from Texas to Oklahoma to have their loved ones use this.
I don't think it's going to take off really fast at first because the machines are quite expensive and the process is quite lengthy. It can take probably a full 12 to 24 hours in the long run to complete a full process of cremation or the alkaline hydrolysis process from the time they enter the chamber to the time they're removed to the time that they are dried and processed and given back to the family.
That's pretty much the only changes we're really making to the law. There was some other minor changes. I don't know if anybody else has any other questions. I don't think I have anything else to add that I can think of right now unless anyone has a question. Any questions
Chair
Unverified
1:34:25
by the committee? Representative Perry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:34:31
Ms. Gu, thank you for being here. I know you've been researching some of this. How many people have expressed an interest in providing the service?
Speaker 256
1:34:40
I think we've had at least two operators would like to
Speaker 258
1:34:48
are there in Arkansas? You mean total 435 operating
Speaker 253
1:34:53
funeral establishments. Okay, all right. And what's the
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:34:56
cost, like the other states? What are other states' costs to have this
type of disposition done? So do you mean the cost
Speaker 258
1:35:07
of the machine, or are you talking about the cost of the family?
Speaker 253
1:35:16
On the average cost to the family. Looking at the, I was only able to actually see one general price list, And it's actually not,
Speaker 258
1:35:31
their prices are not that much higher than a traditional flame-based crematory. I want to
Speaker 253
1:35:41
say, it just depends, obviously, on the establishment and their general price list.
Obviously, prices can be different from funeral home to funeral home. They only offered, this particular facility only offered this type of cremation. And I want to say their direct cremation price was maybe, don't quote me because I hadn't looked at it in a minute, but it may have been like $1,600 for direct cremation.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:36:10
Is that the flame-based? That's this. Okay. Was that in Oklahoma? That was in Oklahoma. Okay.
Yeah. Full disclosure, I'm a funeral director as well and involved with the funeral home. So that's, we have a lot of insight to this. I'm just curious, the
Speaker 253
1:36:33
demand, because what's the length of time it takes? It can take, so the lowest pressure machine and the least expensive machine for an operator to install is around $500,000. Well, it may have gone up, I think it's closer to $700,000.
And those machines take anywhere from 8 to 10 hours to process, to do the dissolution,
Speaker 249
1:36:58
if you will. And then once that's done, they have to, they pull the chamber or the, I don't know
Speaker 253
1:37:05
what they call that thing inside, but I can't think of it right now. But there's a chamber that you're put in that goes inside of it. That is pulled out, then the remains are put on trays, I would say like industrial-sized cookie sheets, and put into an oven to dry.
And then once those are dried, then they're completely broken down. And then if there's anything that they can't break down,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:37:35
because, I mean, they just fall apart. Yeah, was this one piece of equipment, or is
Speaker 253
1:37:40
the drying unit a separate piece of equipment? It's a separate piece of equipment. And then they would go through the pulverizing process if it's necessary, which usually there is. And from there, then they're put into the temporary urn. So it could take, I would say, up to 24 hours for it to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:38:00
be done in the low-pressure machine.
We're asked all the time about different other types of disposition. I know some people have expressed an interest in composting. That is another one
Speaker 249
1:38:11
that we've talked about, and it may eventually be something y'all have to consider at some point
Speaker 253
1:38:17
because we've been asked about it, and I didn't have time to research that one and research this one. That's an interesting one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Any additional questions?
Seeing none, we do not have anyone who signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, Representative, you're recognized to close for
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:38:48
your bill. Turn your mic on, please, sir. Yes, sir. Excuse me. I appreciate you so much, and I am finished with the
bill. Thank you all very much. Have a motion due pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, sir. You've passed your bill.
Unknown speaker
1:39:06
Representative Mayberry in the room. Representative Mayberry. Representative Johnson, you're going to be up next.
If you've got a quick one, Lee, you're recognized to go to
Speaker 149
1:40:02
the end of the table. Which one would you like to start with? House Bill 1869. Okay, you're recognized to present House Bill
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:40:06
1869. Members, this is a bill I presented the other day. This was on the Maternal Outcomes Management System. We didn't quite have an FOS thing to get it out of the house.
Does this bill have an amendment, sir? It does not. Okay, this bill, the amendment was adopted, but we did not hear the bill. Is that? We heard the bill and it failed. Heard the bill and it failed. So
this bill has already been amended and it's been adopted. So you're recognized to present. I assume that's been engrossed? Yes. I'm being told by staff it has
Speaker 149
1:40:34
not been. Okay, so do we have to do the amendment again? No. No? We don't have to present the bill as amended, so you're presenting the bill as amended.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:40:46
As amended, yeah. And this is the bill we talked about today. It got quite a bit of support in committee. I'm just trying to get out of committee if I can. This is one on the maternal outcomes management system within the Department of Health. Again, there's no funding tied to it, no appropriation. It just lays the groundwork in case at some later time we find funding for the program. I'd be happy to take any questions. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none, we don't have anyone signed to speak for or against
the bill. Is anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill?
Seeing none, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed for my bill. Make a motion to do pass. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? As amended? As amended. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Congratulations, sir. You've passed your
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:41:33
bill as amended. Thank you. Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. If I could present House Bill 1943, I think that one would be quick as well. You're recognized. So, members, as you know, people that are on the waiver, the waiver wait list, certain behavioral health people get enrolled in our passes.
That process is a process that can stand to be improved a little bit, and that's what this bill is trying to do. What we're trying to do is create a quality rating system for the passes. So if you look at the first section of the bill, there's a bunch of criteria there where we're going to try to create a grading system for the passes. What we're trying to do is give patients better information about choosing a pass. So when you first come get on the waiver list or you get behavioral health Tier 1 or Tier 2 or Tier 3 services, you get the option of picking your pass for the first, I don't know, it's like 90 days.
There's an open enrollment period. Right now, there's not a lot of great information out there to inform patients which passes might fit their needs better. This is providing a rating system for that. It also provides a stipulation for the passes to have a directory of its provider so that you can get online and look and see, hey, is my doctor in this pass? Maybe they're in a different pass. It's just trying to create informed decision-making for people that are being enrolled in the passes to make better choices about which pass that might fit them the best.
It also requires a beneficiary support office to be formed at DHS so that they can call and ask questions. Again, we're just trying to better inform folks around what their choices are. This is a negotiated bill between DD providers and DHS, and it has no opposition that I know of, and I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, sir, for bringing this bill. Any questions by the
committee? Seeing none, we don't have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against
the bill? Seeing no one, you're recognized to close for your bill.
I'm close for my bill. I'll make a motion to do pass. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, sir. You passed your bill. That's all my quick bills. Representative McCullough has stepped in the room. We're going to let her go real quick.
Are you prepared to present House Bill 1965?
Yes, Mr. Chair. If you will, identify yourself for the record, ask your guests to
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:44:01
identify themselves for the record, and you're recognized. Tippie McCullough, District 74, State Representative. Hope Representative Johnson won't hold this against
Speaker 281
1:44:10
me. Kathy Webb. Wait, wait, wait. Say it again. Sorry, Kathy Webb.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:44:18
You're recognized. Okay. Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today to discuss HB 1965, known as the Healthy Food Retail Act.
This is a bill about food deserts and if you'll be patient with me for just a second, I'm just going to go through the sections of the bill. Food deserts are defined as a geographic area where residents have few to no convenient options for securing affordable and healthy foods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. These exist all across Arkansas in almost every county in rural and urban areas. A working group was formed to address this issue, resulting in a comprehensive report being delivered in December of 2022, and it gave a lot of ways to address this issue.
Based on recommendations from this report, I've been working on this bill with stakeholders since the 2023 session. I'm pleased to have Senator Hammer's Senate sponsor. We believe this is a bipartisan issue that affects all of our communities. The first two pages of the bill addresses important background information as to why this bill is needed. The lack of access to affordable, healthy food contributes to many of our diet-related diseases, including several in which Arkansas ranks really high when compared to other states.
Arkansas ranks among the 10 worst states in percentage of residents struggling with diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and blood pressure. Also, Arkansas ranks among the worst in obesity, exacerbating the risk of developing these previously mentioned diet-related diseases. From national data, we know that convenient access to affordable, healthy food is one strategy to fight the obesity epidemic and improve health. We know access is important to communities because without it, as grocery stores serve as gathering places, economic drivers, and more.
We know that because of margins for profitability for grocery stores, we know that those are low, traditional brick-and-mortar stores are difficult to operate in these areas where our population is shrinking. A variety of options are needed to assist communities with increasing access in ways that make sense to them. Options covered in the remainder of the bill are similar to those passed in other states as well as recommendations from the working group. The bill states that this will be implemented as funding is available.
That funding could then include grants or loans to projects that are approved. The working group studied successful models from across the country, primarily in the south, and noted that most successful projects included a mix of public and private funding. Projects would include grocery stores, farmers markets, as well as models studied by the working group. These included online ordering and delivering to a central hub, mobile grocery stores, and transportation to stores or farmers markets.
As I said earlier, almost every county in Arkansas has one of these areas. If not, maybe the whole county has these areas. And these are often low-income and low-access areas. The Healthy Food Retailer Program could be managed by a non-profit partner in conjunction with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. I met with Secretary McDonald as well as a community development financial institution called Hope Enterprises Corporation that was involved in funding multiple projects
across the South in the working group that was studied. Both Secretary McDonald and Hope as well as Secretary Putnam and the Wholesale Retail Grocers Association offered suggestions to the bill making it stronger than the 2023 bill. The program would work with other nonprofit organizations and entities such as the Cooperative Extension or the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance to offer nutrition education also to residents. And this education should take a variety of forms from the availability of low-cost,
healthy recipes, to cooking demonstrations, to cooking classes, to tours of stores or farmer's markets to help people learn how to shop. These educational programs are not new but would be an important part of this program. Applicants would be able to receive one-time money for a variety of projects, which could include construction of a grocery store, renovations to upgrade availability and quality of a store's offerings, new farmer's markets, mobile markets, delivery options, or other models as determined by the program.
The bill lists the specific ways in which the money could be used, as well as noting restaurants would not be eligible. It details who could apply from private entity organized in a variety of ways, so proprietorships, LLCs, etc., a non-profit working group, a municipal entity, which is in line with successful models that were studied in this working group. The remainder of the bill describes monitoring of the program, including accountability mechanisms, as well as reporting
to the Arkansas General Assembly. As I noted earlier, the bill is clear saying to the extent funds are available. This mechanism for a program to address food deserts in the state. It does not allocate specific dollars, which could be done by the General Assembly through a revolving loan program, through application for federal grants, including several programs available through USDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, rainy day funds, or other sources. Creating the program is
the important first step, and is not without precedent. This is an important issue in all of our districts, and without a one-size-fits-all answer, there's a lot of creativity that can be involved, as shown in the bill, and we'd be ready to take questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions by the committee? Seeing
none, we don't have anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Oh, did you have a question, Representative? Motion? Motion do pass? That's a proper motion. any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations,
you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Yes, ma'am. Representative Gonzalez, are you prepared to run your bill? Yes, sir.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:50:34
House Bill 1963, you're recognized to go to the end of the table. If you will, identify yourself
for the record. It's great to be back in public health. Representative Justin Gonzalez, District
Speaker 287
1:50:52
89. We're proud to have you back, sir. You're recognized. House Bill 1963 is something I've worked on with Representative Johnson. I think he actually passed this original bill two or four years ago. I don't
remember how long ago that was. The intent at the time was that APRNs could prescribe these Schedule IIs, these stimulants that were in the same class. The initial prescription had to be prescribed by a physician, then every six months, the physician has to follow up on the prescription. A nurse practitioner can do the refills in those six months. The intent at the time was that if that particular drug prescribed didn't work, that the nurse practitioner could
change it to a drug in the same class. The nursing board has interpreted it to mean that they could only continue that original prescription. This is just clarifying the original intent. Representative Johnson did say that he, I guess, a medical society or somebody requested an amendment to this that the physician would be notified if there were a change to the prescription. He's wanting to take care of that on the Senate end. I have no problem with it. I do think it's kind of unnecessary, but if they're adamant that that's done,
we'll take care of that on the Senate end, just trying to get it out
of here. Any questions by the committee? Seeing no questions, anyone in the audience who'd like to speak
for or against the bill? Seeing no one, you're recognized as close for your bill. I'm close. Would appreciate a motion
due pass. What's the will of the committee? Have a motion due pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, sir. You passed your bill. Thank you, buddy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cooper, are you ready to run your bill?
I believe it's got an amendment. House Bill 1791. Staff, if you will, pass the amendment out. We'll give members a second to review that.
Unknown speaker
1:53:11
I have one. Thank you. Thank you very much.
All right, members, you should have the amendment in front of you. Representative, you're recognized to present the amendment first to House Bill 1791. Representative Cameron
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:53:52
Cooper, District 57. This amendment just strikes out what I thought was probably some unneeded language. Makes the bill more straightforward and more simple. You have a motion on this amendment, sir?
Speaker 212
1:54:03
A motion do pass. Motion to adopt the
amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Your amendment's been adopted. You are now recognized to present House Bill 1791 as amended. Thank
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:54:20
you, Mr. Chair. This bill is a little bit different from what we're typically tackling in this committee, but it was assigned to this committee, so I'm presenting it in here. House Bill 1791 aims to clarify that this state, nor an agency of this state, will be obligated to enforce any requirement or mandate from the World Health Organization or the United nations, and it aims to protect the private health information of our citizens. This bill was modeled
after language from a bill that was signed into law in Oklahoma last year. Utah and Florida have both passed laws similar to this, and another has been introduced into the state of Louisiana. I filed this bill on behalf of some constituents who are concerned with this issue. States' rights are protected by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and this bill intends to prevent these organizations from overriding state's authority on public health policy. These institutions have no enforcement mechanism of their own.
All of their power is based on voluntary compliance and enforcement by local jurisdictions. And we aim to clarify that these organizations hold no power in our state. I think it's important to note that the United States has recently withdrawn from the World Health Organization. The United States has its own qualified doctors and scientists working within the CDC and the FDA who are more than capable of developing health policy for the nation. Here in Arkansas, the Department of Health is perfectly qualified and capable of developing and implementing health policy for the state.
Simply, our nation and our state should be at the forefront of health policy, not international organizations that have no accountability to our people here at home. This bill just makes a pretty simple and clear statement. It puts Arkansas and its people first. I know of no opposition to this bill. I did share it with the governor's office and was told that they agree with the bill. I don't want that to be taken as a formal endorsement of the bill, but they had no issue with the bill. So I know of no opposition to this bill, and I would appreciate a good vote.
I'll try to answer any questions. Thank you, sir, for presenting the bill. Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:56:36
question. Representative McGee, you're recognized for a question. So thank you, Mr. Chair. So I don't see where the World Health Organization or the United Nations has any authority to do anything. Have there been instances in states that they have come in and told a state that you've got to do this or do that with regards to any health problem? I mean, they make recommendations, but I don't see where this is.
I mean, we're putting it in law, but they don't act
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:57:00
in that capacity anyway, do they? A major point of contention that got this idea started in other states last year was the pandemic treaty that was being written by the World Health Organization. And there were concerns that member countries of the World Health Organization would implement that treaty. And so some of our states across the country filed these bills to just assert their state's sovereignty on that issue.
And I filed this bill to ease the concerns of some constituents that were concerned about this. Representative Richardson, I'm sorry. That's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you
Chair
Unverified
1:57:36
have a follow-up, Representative McGee? No, sir. Thank you. All right. Any additional questions by the committee?
Seeing no questions, there's no one that has signed up to
speak for or against the bill. Is anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:57:58
Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would make a motion due pass. As
amended. As amended. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed? No. Your bill has failed. Representative Gramlich, are you prepared to present Senate Bill 348? Of course. You're recognized to
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:58:39
go to the end of the table. Zach Gramlich, State Representative, District 50, Fort Smith.
Speaker 296
1:58:46
Bill McCrary with Pain Treatment Centers of America. Representative, this
bill has a fiscal impact. We're going to hand it out and give the committee a chance to review that while you're presenting. So give us about 10 seconds. Okay. Mississippi. Mississippi. Mississippi.
Sure. Yeah, absolutely. Representative, if you will, go ahead and present your bill. Thank you, committee.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:59:50
Senate Bill 348 deals with amending the annual cap for diagnostic laboratory services within the Arkansas Medicaid program. This legislation increases the annual reimbursement cap for diagnostic laboratory services under Medicaid. This ensures that patients receiving adequate monitoring and care, particularly patients with chronic pain. The bill addresses patient safety, reduces costs, and helps to mitigate the opioid crisis by allowing more comprehensive testing. I'll hit the four things that this bill does.
So it does increase the cap on diagnostic lab services. It raises the annual cap from $500 to $1,800 for patients experiencing chronic pain, but does keep a minimum cap of $500 for all other patients. It addresses the opioid crisis and enhances patient safety, leads to regular drug screenings that are essential for pain management to ensure medications are used appropriately and not misused or diverted. And, you know, failure to monitor patients adequately contributes to the opioid misuse, overdoses, and increased costs to the health care system. It reduces costs to the state.
Prevention is cheaper than emergency care. Increasing the cap for chronic pain patients will allow early detection of medical conditions, reducing avoidable ER visits and hospitalizations, and saving programs funds over time. This will ensure patients receive the right of medication and treatment early, which will reduce long-term Medicaid costs. And there is an emergency clause. This bill must take effect by July 1, 2025, to allow the Department of Human Services time to update rules and federal waivers. Delays would prolong inadequate patient monitoring, leading to worse health
outcomes and higher health care costs for Arkansas taxpayers.
And with that, I would take any questions.
Any questions by the committee? Representative Bentley, you're recognized for
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:01:32
a question. I'd like to hear from DHS, if that's
okay, since they're here. DHS, can you come to the table, please? You will identify yourself for the record, and you're recognized to
Speaker 303
2:01:48
answer the representative's question. Good morning, or maybe afternoon, Elizabeth Pittman with the Department of Human Services.
Speaker 268
2:01:53
It's been that kind of day. You're a
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:01:57
recognized representative. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. I think we would be wrong to ask
the fiscal impact on this. We've seen the fiscal impact, but is this anything in our budget right now? So is this going to negatively impact our
Speaker 305
2:02:11
Medicaid budget at this point? That's my question. Yes, ma'am. So, no, we don't have any increases built into our budget right now outside of the maternal health bill that has already passed. That was accounted for in our budget that was approved last year. No other increases have been approved.
Our budget is actually flat from the previous year. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the question. Any
additional questions from the committee? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
2:02:44
none, Representative, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you. The Medicaid patients deserve access to proper diagnostic care. This bill is a critical step towards improving health care, fighting the opioid crisis, and reducing long-term costs. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote, and I motion the bill to pass.
That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, sir. You passed your bill. members we have a few more
bills that we want to hear today we're going to try to get you out of
here as quickly as possible we do have about three additional bills that we want to hear so hold tight for just a minute I'll see you next time.
Representative, are you wanting to run 1164? It's got a fiscal impact. We're going to go ahead and pass that out, give the committee a few minutes to review that, and then
you'll be recognized to introduce yourself and present your bill.
Representative, if you will, please identify yourself for the record and you are recognized to present your bill.
Speaker 312
2:05:36
State Representative Julie Mayberry. David Cook, Director of
Government Affairs for the Alzheimer's Association. You
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:05:47
recognize to present House Bill 1164. Okay. Thank you, members. We have shared some information with a committee yesterday. It will be on the House floor about some new medications that are available to treat early Alzheimer's. But one of the keys in treating early Alzheimer's is getting an early diagnosis, and that's why this bill is so important.
to make sure that we get cognitive assessments at an early stage. I have worked with the Arkansas Medical Society. I've worked with Blue Cross and have worked with DHS. Everyone is neutral on this bill. We think this is a fantastic bill. Did I let you introduce yourself? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And David Cook from the Alzheimer's Association. We have presented and we've talked about this bill. We answer any questions if you have any. Any questions by the committee?
We have a motion. We'll accept that. What's your motion? Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. Before we accept that motion, is there anyone
in the audience who'd like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, you're recognized to close for your bill. I am
Chair
Unverified
2:06:50
closed for the bill. I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative
Richardson, recognized for a motion? Motion to pass. We have a motion. Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you,
members. all right members we uh we have one more bill that's uh at least one more bill that is slated
to be heard today it's a house bill 1969 representative johnson is in a separate committee presenting a bill he said he'll be back in a few minutes we're going to stand in recess for 10 minutes.
Unknown speaker
2:08:00
Thank you.
Good luck to you. I think you can do it wrong. Oh, thank you.
Speaker 75
2:09:30
How are you doing? I'm doing great. How's
Speaker 326
2:09:42
Erica? Is she out of pleasure? Yeah, she
Speaker 331
2:10:00
I've been to Spain and Portugal, this other part.
Speaker 333
2:10:09
ago. Oh, you did? I was trying to learn the Spanish language. It didn't help much, but it was nice. Yeah, right, absolutely. You know, my sister went to Germany,
Speaker 338
2:10:28
and my other sister went to France, so.
Speaker 330
2:10:31
Yeah. We like travel. Cool. Cool. Yeah. I was in France.
Speaker 320
2:10:56
He is. People are racist, too. Oh. Because they have all those moors that come up from Morocco. Yes, right.
Hey, I need that. Sure. Hey, Woodridge.
Speaker 346
2:11:16
No, that's right. Which bill is still? 1969.
Speaker 352
2:12:55
This one we're making a kill. Thank you. Thank you. Jay is the same. What's up? Look, I need to
Speaker 317
2:13:15
understand. I need to answer any questions. Oh, it's very much a challenge. Why? Because I got confused with Vince O'Reilly. Do I need to answer any questions? We're missing the state.
Speaker 357
2:13:41
We're missing our state across the street. I thank
you for that. I thank you for that. This meeting back to order. We've got one more bill that we're going to hear today. That's House Bill 1969. Representative Johnson, are you prepared to run
Speaker 360
2:14:01
that bill? I'm prepared. I say with confidence. You're recognized to introduce
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:14:06
yourself for the record. You're recognized to present your bill. Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. And I appreciate the patience of the committee today.
I appreciate you waiting on me. I was running another bill with the witness, and thank you for letting me run those bills. Happy to accommodate. So, members, in our current system, there is a discrepancy between what providers are paid for Medicaid services and commercial rates. And to try to overcome that discrepancy, the federal government has set up some programs to try to close that gap for certain health care providers whose burden of Medicaid patients is greater than others, right? We have a system like that currently in place in Arkansas with our fee-for-service Medicaid.
This is upper payment limits. This is a process where hospital providers can pay a tax that tax fronts the state's portion of the federal match. And then we're able to draw down federal dollars that can be redistributed to health care providers or hospitals in particular that have a bigger burden of Medicaid patients to try to help them overcome the cost of seeing these patients at, you know, what's a discount, right? So, what this bill that's in front of you is doing, and again, I'm sorry for the way it's structured,
because if you read it, the first thing you see is this GME account, and you're like, what does this have to do with anything? The drafter of the bill, when you're going in code, that's the first number in the code. So, I apologize for the first thing you see in this bill being around GME. I'll explain that to you shortly, but the reason that's there is just the order of the code. What this bill is really doing is setting the groundwork for what's called state-directed payments. State-directed payments are the equivalent of upper payment limits for managed care patients.
Right now, the only managed care in Arkansas is the passes. And we don't anticipate any time in the near future pushing for any more patients to go into managed care. But I think we have to concede the possibility at some time that might become a necessity. This is laying the groundwork for that necessity to set up the program that would close the gap for hospitals who have an inordinate share of Medicaid patients the same way the upper payment limit program is. These are mirror entities. One's for fee-for-service Medicaid.
The other is for managed care. When we're doing this, the other thing we're doing in this bill, we're doing several things, and I'm going to have Jodi Ann come to the table in a little bit, Ms. Tripp, to speak in detail. But because you have a new managed care program, we're creating a premium tax, which is already in place. Every insurance company pays a premium tax. So if we ever go to managed care, just like the passes pay a premium tax, whatever managed care company comes into the state would have to pay a 2.5% premium tax. Currently, the pass premium tax has a dedicated purpose.
We're creating a new dedicated purpose, if this ever happens, where we would dedicate the premium tax 40% to general revenue, 10% to graduate medical education expansion, which is why that account's there. The other 50% would go back to hospital providers, divided proportionately based on their burden of Medicaid patients. So just wanting you to understand why that account's there. There's a lot of information in the bill, but it's mainly just setting up the process.
And if I might have Ms. Trick come to the table, she could help me answer any questions you have on the process. I want to point out a couple other things that it's doing about state-directed payments that's a little different from upper payment limits. One of the things that's unique about state-directed payments, in addition to being able to set a minimum rate with managed care companies, it also allows you to set the discrepancy that we've talked about to make up the difference. But a third thing that it does is it allows you to set up value-based reimbursements so that you can hold a portion of money at risk for providers and hold providers accountable to certain performance metrics.
So you'll see if you read in the bill, we have set up, again, if anything ever happens, right now this bill does nothing, but if there's ever populations moved into managed care, this is something we would need. It sets up a committee to look at what kind of incentives would be important to push within the primary care space, the OB, maternity health space, in the way of performance metrics to make sure that our providers are performing to the best ability that they can and put some of their reimbursement at risk.
That's a lot of conversation. I know these are topics that are sometimes complicated and confusing. If the members have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. And the one other thing I want to say, and again, at the last part of the bill, under the Do Not Codify section, that's the part that says, hey, look, this is the trigger. None of this stuff, none of this stuff in this act happens unless at some point in the future the decision is made to put people in managed care. And if at some point in the future we make that decision, I can assure you this state-directed payment plan is going to be very important,
and we'd like to try to get that framework set up as a precautionary measure, and I'd be happy to let Jody Ann.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:19:17
If you will identify yourself for the record and you're recognized to testify.
Speaker 361
2:19:20
Sure. I'm Jody Ann Tritt. I'm the Executive Vice President for the Arkansas Hospital Association. I don't know how we want to do this. If you want me to talk about where it came from or if you all want to ask me questions, I'm open to you. Talk about a little bit where it came from. So one of the things that we're nervous about is we're hearing from the federal administration
that any sort of provider assessments or sometimes folks call them provider taxes, maybe on the chopping block if something happens where we're going to have to cut Medicare or Medicaid programs at the federal level. So the reason why we'd like to bring this opportunity here now that just enables a state-directed payment program if we have to go to managed care. Trust me when I tell you providers in Arkansas hate managed care and I'm at the top of that list. That's not what we're trying to do. But if for some reason we have to go to managed care in some way,
the current fee-for-service UPL model that we have, that supplemental payment program goes away. The federal government doesn't let us do the same supplemental payment program for fee-for-service people if those people are then assigned to managed care unless you have this kind of authority in your state statute that says, hey, the same way you allowed an assessment for fee-for-service supplemental payments, you have to create and allow an assessment for state-directed payments over managed care.
So if one fee-for-service patient moves into managed care, the only way to get a supplemental payment for that is if a bill like this passes and allows a state-directed payment. One of the major things I want to point out about this bill, and there may be some amendments in the Senate to make sure there are clarifications for different provider groups, but on page 8, line 10, section 2077-2907, when it talks about exemptions, it lets the Department or the Division of Medical Services decide if someone needs an exemption. For example, if the qualified health plan population went into managed care and that
didn't impact kids, there's no way we'd want children to have to pay an assessment for a population to where it doesn't get a benefit. So this, the reason why there's some exception language in there and some ability for the Department of Human Services to help create the program in a way that makes sense for the populations that might be put into managed care itself. So we want to make sure that all boats rise. You'll see some specific information in there about UAMS. UAMS is a governmental hospital. It's not eligible for a state-directed payment in
this private pool. It's not eligible for our UPL program now. It has to do things called intergovernmental transfer. So we wanted to make sure that all hospitals, all boats could potentially rise if this in fact has to occur. So again, there may be some amendments if you all are lovely enough to let us get this out and Dr. Johnson can get it off the House floor and the Senate that makes things a little bit more clear for certain hospitals, for certain populations, depending on the populations that might go into managed care.
But I want to emphasize everything Dr. Johnson said. If nobody goes into managed care, which is our preference, then this bill doesn't do anything. It's just out there as a just-in-case. The other reason for the timing is we know that the previous Trump administration authorized many directed payment programs over and above managed care in his first term as president. We have not seen a lot of those be approved right now in the second term of the Trump presidency,
but what we do know or what we have experience in knowing from the federal government is many times if you have authorization on the books, even if future projects are told that the program's going to end and stop at a certain date, if you have the authorization on the books now, you're grandfathered in. And what we don't want to do is lose the ability for the hospitals themselves to assess themselves the non-federal share and allow ourselves a supplemental payment that doesn't cost you a single penny in state general revenue. In fact, as Dr. Johnson said,
the premium tax in this, 40% of it would go into RSA for you all to use the way that you need it to work for the premium tax portion. The assessment itself and the way the assessment program would work. The rest of those dollars would be allocated for hospitals to, like he said, supplement. That's the right word here. Supplement the underpayments that we get when we care for Medicaid patients, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Jodi Ann, I've got a question for you, and then I'll
start recognizing committee members. So you and I think probably are kindred spirits on managed care, and I visited with Representative Johnson about this also prior to, but But what's the necessity, the hurry to implement this? I know it's a trigger, and I'm comfortable with that portion of it. But I guess a couple of questions. Does this allow the development of framework prior to the trigger being enacted? And then if so, we would have to come into special session to move into managed care
given the scenario you mentioned about QHPs or any other change from the federal government. So why would we
not enact this at the time that we made that decision? That's
Speaker 361
2:24:42
a great question, and it's still an option. The reason I would contend we shouldn't is if, in fact, that the payment cuts come to Medicare and Medicaid in the way that we think they will. There are many states right now that already enjoy the opportunity to do state-directed payments at average commercial rate.
What we want is to also have your authority on the books to where we can have an average commercial rate state-directed payment if we need it. That way, if future programs are cut off, if any new programs are disallowed, we would be grandfathered in along with those other states that have those state-directed payment programs. Representative Barnes, you're
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:25:26
recognized for a question? Yes. After meeting with Jefferson Hospital, I remember in the conversation
they were talking about the supplemental difference between Medicaid and they get a lot of Medicaid payments. So will this help them in recuperating some of that money? And also, if that's a yes, then that will also probably help them in retaining some of the better doctors because of the ability to get that pay. Is that correct? Both
Speaker 361
2:25:53
things are true. But let me reiterate, the only way anything in this bill occurs, the only way the state-directed payment authority for DHS to start working with the federal government
on what a program might look like. The only way that works is if you all decide as a legislature or if the federal government requires you all to decide as a legislature that there's more people, more Medicaid-eligible people in Arkansas who must be put in a managed care organization. If
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:26:23
I may make a comment as well, there has been legislation introduced this session that would allow the governor to move populations into managed care without us coming into special session.
you know, you don't know in a session what bills are and are not going to pass. And with that possibility out there lingering, even though those bills haven't made progress yet this session, that's another reason for us to feel like, hey, listen, we may need to get this in place. While I would like to think we would come back for a special session before any decisions like that were made, there's nothing to guarantee that that's the way that would work out. I'll follow
up on that, Representative. I think that bill did not
make it out of this committee. Isn't that correct?
Speaker 149
2:27:05
That's correct, but I also would say the session isn't over. Touche, sir. Any additional questions by the
committee? Could DHS come to the table? Representative Richardson, you're recognized
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:27:27
for a question. Identify yourself for the record, please, Ms. Ma'am. I should say good afternoon.
Speaker 366
2:27:30
Janet Mann, DHS. Hey, how are you doing today, Ms. Mann?
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:27:36
I'm okay. Give me your thoughts on how
Speaker 366
2:27:43
this impacts what you guys, give me your position on this. At the highest level, I think directed payments is a methodology for supplemental payments in a managed care setting. We only have one such program passed right now that could qualify for a directed payment. I do think being proactive without knowing what is going to happen at the federal level is always, could be beneficial, but I'm kind of neutral and kind of want to be proactive.
I'll be perfectly honest. I've been in revenue tax trying to work on a different bill, so I haven't heard all of the conversation, but overall directed payments is something done in a managed care setting. Providers have discussed it with us. We've said that we don't really have a lot of managed care in the state to do this. I do think it is always good to have extra tools in our toolbox to be able to protect the providers
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:28:40
up on Representative Richardson's question while you're at the table, Ms. Mann.
So, again, I'm just trying to think through this. So, state-directed payments, could this not be done through, like,
a waiver process? I mean, does this have to be done through codified legislation?
Speaker 366
2:29:02
I know this is a trigger, but. I'm trying to think through that answer. Directed payments, I believe, so a managed care program is usually administered through Section 1915 and will have a different waiver program.
I'm going to ask Elizabeth Pittman also to make sure I get this correct so she may join me at the table. At that time, given the authority under that type of delivery system, I believe we have to obviously obtain permission from CMS, but I don't know if it's a separate waiver or a state plan.
Speaker 303
2:29:37
Elizabeth Pittman, Department of Human Services, to do the actual directed payment, we do not need any statutory authority. To do the tax, we do have to have statutory authority.
Speaker 372
2:29:50
So that's why there is a statute. If
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:29:52
I might have a clarifying question, because I thought that was the case. So you could set up the program, but
Speaker 149
2:29:59
we couldn't do the tax, which is essential to the program. That's correct. So I guess then
my follow-up to that would be, and again, not trying to be confrontational, but this is preemptive to be a trigger for if we ever went to managed care. But it sounds like to me the answer was we could set all this framework up now. We wouldn't have to put anything in legislation. We could then do a bill like this to allow the tax in the same special session or session that we went to manage care.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:30:27
Is that not correct? I would say yes. You could certainly do this in a special session at the same time you're putting people in managed care. I guess the point I would make is there's no world in which we can do managed care without state-directed payments. And so, I mean, my thing is let's get this in place. It doesn't do anything. It just sits there. And, you know, just having it be an added specter to a special session, to me, if I'm coming in for a special session, it's designed around one topic usually,
and I'm wanting to come in and get out as quick as I can and not have a lot of debate over a lot of legislation, it would allow us to just do one piece of legislation around moving populations
to managed care and not two. Right, and I understand that, and I appreciate that feedback. I guess the part that I'm still confused on is if we have the ability to set the framework up without statute, I kind of subscribe to that theory. You know, we ought to pass legislation when it's absolutely
necessary and anything that we can do outside of statute, we probably should do that way.
But any other questions by the committee? Seeing no questions, Ms. Tritt, does that count as your testimony? All right, there is no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none,
Representative, you're recognized to close for your bill. Close, make a motion, do pass. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, sir, you passed your bill.
All right, members, seeing no other business for the day, I will remind you like we have in the past couple of meetings, if you've got bills on the deferred list, time is drawing near, So please get with Shanice, get those moved to the regular agenda, and we stand adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1164 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW A PHYSICIAN OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER TO OFFER COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS; AND TO MANDATE THAT INSURANCE POLICIES COVER ASSESSMENTS FOR COGNITIVE FUNCTION FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS.
HB1332 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVER GLUCAGON- LIKE PEPTIDE-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS, ALSO KNOWN AS GLP-1 AGONISTS, WHEN PRESCRIBED FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
HB1588 McAlindon TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SEEKS OR IMPLEMENTS AN EXPANSION OF COVERAGE FOR THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM.
HB1762 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL OR PASTORAL APPLICATION FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS.
HB1776 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT OR AN EXPANSION OF A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT.
HB1791 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER IN THIS STATE AND DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE OR IMPLEMENT ACTIONS IN THIS STATE.
HB1795 A. Brown TO CREATE THE FERTILITY CLINIC LICENSURE ACT.
HB1816 L. Johnson TO PROHIBIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS FROM USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DELIVERY OF HEALTHCARE SERVICES OR THE GENERATION OF MEDICAL RECORDS UNLESS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
HB1818 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED CARE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
HB1819 L. Johnson TO REQUIRE THE STATE REGISTRAR OF VITAL RECORDS TO COORDINATE WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES TO CONTACT MOTHERS FOR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE DURING THE POSTPARTUM PERIOD.
HB1869 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE MATERNAL OUTCOMES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; AND TO ORGANIZE MATERNAL HEALTH RESOURCES.
HB1880 Hudson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND THE ARKANSAS UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT TO ADD CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.
HB1882 Pilkington TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ENROLLABLE MEDICAID BENEFICIARY POPULATION AND ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE MEDICAID POPULATIONS TO BE ENROLLED UNDER THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT.
HB1888 Steele TO AMEND THE DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES LAW; AND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FOR INDIVIDUALS.
HB1893 M. Brown TO AUTHORIZE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER OR BUSINESS OWNER TO BAN AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL FROM THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OR THE BUSINESS PREMISES; AND TO REGULATE LIABILITY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATED TO EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS.
HB1890 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BILL FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO REIMBURSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE SERVICES.
HB1906 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE WRITTEN CONSENT OF A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN WHEN PRESCRIBING LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION TO A PERSON WHO IS YOUNGER THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
HB1908 Long TO CREATE THE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; AND TO REQUIRE PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR ADULT APPLICANTS.
HB1909 Long TO CREATE THE PUBLIC SERVICES ONLY FOR CITIZENS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCY IN ORDER TO RECEIVE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
HB1915 Eubanks TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUEST A BROAD- BASED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY WAIVER FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND THE ASSET LIMITS UNDER THE PROGRAM.
HB1943 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT; TO IMPROVE THE ENROLLMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS IN RISK-BASED PROVIDER ORGANIZATIONS; AND TO EMPOWER BENEFICIARIES WITH INFORMATION.
SB9 B. Davis TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT MANUFACTURING, SELLING, DELIVERING, DISTRIBUTING, HOLDING, OR OFFERING FOR SALE A FOOD PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS CERTAIN SUBSTANCES.
SB238 J. Payton TO AMEND THE USED TIRE RECYCLING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
SB348 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ANNUAL CAP FOR DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES WITHIN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB473 Stone TO AMEND THE DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ARKANSAS FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD TO ADVISE THE ARKANSAS FIRE TRAINING ACADEMY ON CERTAIN MATTERS.
HB1954 Andrews TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS BEHAVIOR ANALYST REGISTRATION ACT; AND TO INCLUDE QUALIFIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS UNDER THE ARKANSAS BEHAVIOR ANALYST REGISTRATION ACT.
HB1961 Achor TO ALLOW MEDICAL PROVIDERS TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM FEDERAL INFORMATION-BLOCKING REGULATIONS TO SAFEGUARD PATIENTS DURING INFORMATION DISCLOSURE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1963 Gonzales TO CLARIFY THAT AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE WHO PRESCRIBES A STIMULANT MAY SUBSTITUTE A THERAPEUTICALLY EQUIVALENT MEDICATION.
HB1965 McCullough TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT OF 2025; AND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HEALTHY FOOD RETAILERS IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
HB1969 L. Johnson TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE ACCESS; TO AMEND THE ASSESSMENT FEES ON HOSPITALS; AND TO CREATE THE HOSPITAL DIRECTED PAYMENT ASSESSMENT.
SB117 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT; TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIANS IN ARKANSAS; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF NATURAL MEDICINE.
SB440 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL DIRECTORS; TO REGULATE THE USE OF ALKALINE HYDROLYSIS; AND TO REGULATE ALKALINE HYDROLYSIS FACILITIES.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND LABOR COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 3, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Chair
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 5
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Speaker 32
Chair
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Matt Gilmore
Unverified
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
Karen Dubon
Unverified
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 88
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 85
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 107
Speaker 106
Speaker 129
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 143
Speaker 144
Speaker 149
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 156
Brad Moore
Unverified
Roger Smith
Unverified
Speaker 172
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Nick Horton
Unverified
Speaker 186
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
Speaker 209
Speaker 211
Speaker 221
Speaker 223
Speaker 231
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 242
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 249
Speaker 251
Speaker 253
Speaker 256
Speaker 257
Speaker 258
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 281
Speaker 287
Speaker 212
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
Speaker 296
Speaker 303
Speaker 268
Speaker 305
Speaker 312
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 322
Speaker 320
Speaker 75
Speaker 326
Speaker 331
Speaker 332
Speaker 333
Speaker 338
Speaker 330
Speaker 346
Speaker 349
Speaker 350
Speaker 352
Speaker 317
Speaker 357
Speaker 360
Speaker 361
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
Speaker 366
Speaker 369
Speaker 372