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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
1893. You will identify yourself for the record and you'd be recognized to present. Thank
Speaker 3
0:17
you chair Matt Brown, District 55 on House Bill 1893. Sorry, the numbers all run together. Uh,
Speaker 5
0:22
members, this shit 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 that same vein. It was brought to me actually by real retailers. The issue that has become is people are bringing their emotional
support dogs into places like restaurants and grocery stores 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 muscles in. I'd like to point out that emotional support animal is not in any way, shape, or form a service animal. Those are still 100% OK, recognized by federal law, and we all know that there's a big difference between the actual service animal that's trained and it never causes a problem, and emotional support, pit bull or some other little UP
dog that yips, um, other thing this bill does is it just gives uh these property owners a little bit of protection that if someone does bring a Emotional supporting on to 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 stores. 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. See no one, you reckon that's close for your bill. I'm closed. Appreciate good vote. What's
will the committee get a motion to pass. Any discussion
on the motion? See none all those in favor say I opposed. Congratulations, sir, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Lustrom, are you prepared to run 1906? You will identify yourself for the record and you're recognized to present your bill. State Representative Robin Lundstrom
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:12
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, 1516, 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 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 for a question. Thank
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:59
you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, Representative Lindstrom, how, how do you think this is actually going to impact. The reduction in some of the diseases you described or even a reduction in 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 and doing this on their own because they may or may not have parent supervision, so they're taking an initiative to do this. How do we protect those individuals that
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:32
are being responsible. Good question. First of all, in 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 bodies, excuse me. Any additional questions by the committee. See them, we do
have someone signed up to speak, um, against the bill, Miss Anna Strong.
If you will recognize yourself for the record in any organization that you represent, you'll be recognized for your testimony.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
4:27
Sorry, we're 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, 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. Um, we are opposed, unfortunately to House Bill 1906. Arkansas, as y'all know,
is #2 in teen teen births in the country. We have the 2nd highest teen birth rate in the country. Um, 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, uh, effective kind of pregnancy prevention that you can 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 a family friend who brings someone to The physician and that may not be 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, we also know that we have very high sexual abuse rates in this state, 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 prohibit her from seeking birth control
to prevent becoming pregnant through those interactions. And finally, um, we all know we want healthy babies in this state and we work very hard on that as um as uh the Arkansas chapter of the AAP um 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 um 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, 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 um provide has the ability to deem that youth responsible enough to make decisions about their care. um, and I do recognize also and agree we do have a really big issue happening in our state, um, syphilis rates are very high right now. We are worried about STIs, um, same, um, we have 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 how engaging in risky behaviors with his 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 um 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 you, Chairman. Thank you,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
7:24
Mrs. Strong, for being here. So, um, going back to the teen pregnancy rate isn't the vast majority of those teen pregnancies,
Speaker 32
7:32
18 and 19 year olds, when we look at it. Many of them are,
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
7:36
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 7, 16, or when they were 17, um, so some of those activities that we know 65% of youth by the time they graduate high school are engaged.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
7:54
sexual activity. OK, my other question is, um, these are, these are medical procedures and we're doing a LARC. It's not just a simple procedure, so I guess that's my grave concern that we would do this without a parent's consent. It's, it's minor surgery, right? So I'm. Myers and implant, the lark is not, but sometimes if we're doing an IUD or something else, I just, I'm very concerned that we would do this to a minor without their parents' consent because there are other options available. So my question is, there are other options available, right to this besides using a lark. At that younger age. There are
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
8:25
other options, absolutely. There are birth control pills and other types of contraception for sure. Um, I know that for the most part when our members use LAks, they are doing the explanon, which is a little um flexible rod that goes in under your arm right here. It goes into the tissue under your arm in between the muscles, and it's a pretty simple, um, a simple procedure uh to put that in, and they last for about 5 years and so they are very, very safe way to um make sure that those teens aren't. aren't getting, one last question.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
8:56
Currently in Arkansas for 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. OK, thank you.
Chair
Unverified
9:07
Any additional questions by the committee? Representative Ferguson, you're recognized. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I came in on the middle of this, but just for clarity, is
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
9:17
this a risky procedure? I am not a medical professional myself, but I do know that this is not considered a surgery. It's a, it is a small procedure to insert that, um, similar, I mean, similar in my eyes and
risk of like stitching someone up or some other small procedure um that 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, but no, I, I, I don't think this is not a risky procedure. Where
does the The instrument is is it in their arm or another part of their body. Um, so there
are, there are a couple kinds of long
acting reversible contraceptives. I am, I am not a clinician, so I'm doing my best here. Our members had to go to clinic, I'm sorry, um, but so for, um, so there's one called Nexplanade and it is, um, kind of like when you get an IV, you know how you, when you get an IV, you have a uh a small tube that goes into your arm, right here, when you get an IV, it's kind similar except it goes here in that little tube stays in your arm. It's a little flexible rod, about ya long, um, a little thicker than like a piece of pencil lead from a mechanical pencil, and it just kind of stays in your arm.
OK. All right. And there are, there is another kind I will say that um is inserted vaginally. OK. Thank
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
10:42
you, Mr. Chair. Representative Perry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, how would this impact any Title 10 funding. Would that be something the
health department would need to ask. They would have to, yes, the health department
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:52
would have to do that. I, I, 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 testimony, 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'd be recognized to answer
Matt Gilmore
Unverified
11:25
Representative Perry's question. Matt Gilmore Hartman Health. Representative, can you repeat your question? I heard part of it, but I think I heard what you
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
11:31
asked. How would, how would this impact as far as reducing or eliminating any Title 10 funding. How would
Matt Gilmore
Unverified
11:41
it impact it? From my understanding, um, the Title 10, um, I think it's been challenged in other states, and it's a Title 10 is basically um in conflict with this, and I think there it's been argued in other states and I think there's been cases where the Title 10 has won out
over what this bill is trying to do, I think that's what I've seen, but. 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, I've looked at it briefly, but yeah, all
right, thank you. Any additional questions by the committee? Saying none, thank you for your testimony. We don't have anyone else that signed up to speak for or against anyone else in the
audience like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing nonpresentative, you recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, colleagues. First of all,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
12:36
The IUD does have some implications and some problems, increased inflammatory pelvic inflammatory disease, there is a 14% expulsion rate, um. 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 and 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.
Mark 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 that these may be long term contraceptives, and they may be out in 5 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. 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 discussion. Thank you,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
14:00
Chairman. I think that it's highly important that we have parents engaged and involved with our kids if we cannot, 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 um
larks 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. Well 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. Opposed no habit. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your time.
Representative Andrews, are you prepared to run House Bill 1954? You recognize I to go to the end of the table? Good
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
14:57
morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, committee. uh, Mr. Chair, if you 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
15:15
Let me pull it up real quick here. Our House Bill 1954 um. So Representative Clowney had ran basically this identical bill and um before. And it got too far in the process to make one little change to it and and she's good with this change. Um, what we're doing is just adding, um, disqualified applied behavioral analysis credentialing board to this bill and we have a representative here ferment. Hello, um good morning esteemed
Karen Dubon
Unverified
15:46
members of the Arkansas Legislature. My name is Karen Dubon, and I'm representing the qualified applied behavior analysis Credentialing Board, um, 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 2nd 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 bills or anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing no one representative, you're
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
16:54
recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed for a bill
and hope for a good vote. Have a motion passed 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 a Senate Bill 473. Yes sir. Thank you.
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
17:18
Mr. Sheriff, I, I'd like to ask um SEU 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, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Betty White Andrews, District
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
17:49
98, um, and all these gentlemen introduce themselves here in a moment, but basically what this bill does, um, 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, uh, changing one word from oversight to advise, um, pretty simple bill, and I'll let these gentlemen talk.
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
18:13
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jerry Thomas and I'm the Chancellor of SAU
Speaker 86
18:19
Tech. But I see. Good morning, Grant Warner, director of Arkansas
Speaker 88
18:30
Fire Training Academy. Good morning James Goodwin, Deputy Director, Arkansas Fire Training Academy. So
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
18:35
it can be, um, pretty simple bill, just change it back to the way it was for 56 years, um. The The Fire Protection Service board uh fire associations are still going to be involved, they're they're advice and
opinions are still going to be taken into consideration, um, this just brings back to the way it was and gives SAU over um tech really back to oversight of their own campus, um. Any questions? Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
19:06
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So can y'all give us uh some background on
why it was changed a couple of years ago and now why it's being changed back. What are the, what are the issues with the way it currently is.
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
19:24
Well, um, I've been at the campus a year and a half as as a chancellor of SAU tech and uh prior to the legislative ad during the legislative session of 2023, that's when um 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.
For oversight over um the fire training academy, and so that um has created some, some ambiguity. Um, by giving an external board um oversight over a campus academic program. Um, I'm the Chancellor of SAU Tech. I report to the President of this system at SAU Magnolia and we report to a board of trustees that's governor appointed by um
By the governor at SAU Tech and we're under the uh the auspices of the Department of Education, so this bill really goes back and assures that the authority to make decisions regarding the college operations and the implementation of the curriculum of the training, um, at the fire training academy, it's protected while the fire Service and Protection Board maintains and retained their regulatory role, um, of setting minimum training standards. s Um, you know, an advisory
capacity and so that's what we're, this bill is about. It's really clearing up the role of the vier's Protection Board that they have a regulatory responsibility, but in terms of the operational responsibility of how that training that's carried out, that is under the purview um of the college. We do things very similarly with the uh nursing board that we have, we have an LPN program at the college. It's so you We also have an REN program at
SAU Tech to, um, and so in those capacities, the state board of nursing, they set all the, the, the um training standards and the education, um, but the college has that responsibility and the college also shared that liability in terms of carrying that out, uh, certainly as a chancellor, I cannot be held liable for a decision that's made by an external um body and So with that said, uh, we, uh, deeply value the the relationship with the fire
servicevice Protection Board and their experiences and their perspectives will continue to be, um, it's important, um, this legislation is changing one word from, you know, oversight over the college, uh, to advising it does not diminish their contributions, uh, their input is invaluable. They represent a broad range of expertise and um to enhance quality, but under this bill, the board will continue to provide uh critical advice and recommendations to the fire
training academy, uh, however, that would be in an advisory role and the college would maintain its um it's responsibility for oversight of the college and so um we'll continue to work together in a shared way because the goal is just to really to train firefighters. in the state of Arkansas to the highest standard we can, so, um, you know, what I heard you say is we've
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
22:59
been doing it this way for 30 years and now we're going back to that. 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 of some of these other folks were in uh this change was made for a reason. You didn't really get tell me why that was. The other thing I would like to know. Uh, what's the difference in the definition of oversight and
Speaker 85
23:30
advise. Why, how, how's that any different? Uh Oversight really implies that you have um authority uh that
you are, you also, it blurs the lines, it
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
23:45
also gives you, uh, you share liability, you share responsibility of what's actually happening taking place over the campus, uh, that's oversight, um, and that's where the confusion lies because as a institution of higher education um in Arkans. So there's no public institution college, um, where an
Speaker 85
24:06
external board has oversight over a college.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:13
So you're saying that this board has the ability to change things like your curriculum. I mean, oversight to me is just is basically advice. They have authority to change your curriculum and make other changes
to what you do. Is that
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
24:28
in our 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.
Chair
Unverified
24:44
All right, thank you. Representative Bennet, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
24:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Good morning. I have a question. Is there an, is there a
Speaker 100
24:53
cost a fee to this? If you change it to a vise. Not to my knowledge. No. It's not a fee. It's not a
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
25:03
fee for the volunteer firefighters to attend this. The
Speaker 86
25:10
only thing the fire academy currently charges for are for
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
25:14
meals for people that attend courses on campus. That's regardless of whether there's a municipal fire department or a volunteer fire department, and that just started in January because of our, our budget. That is the only thing the fire academy, right, 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 if sacking prole board. So
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
25:46
Follow up. You're recognized. So there's not a $1000 charge to take this class. I'm not sure what the 1
Speaker 107
25:56
$1000 charge would be that you're referring to. Don't, I said the only thing. Your mic is off, sir.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:07
Yeah again. There it goes. Sorry about that. I'm not sure what uh $1000 fee you're referring to. The only thing we charge for is for reimbursement of the meals
for those that are attending courses on campus. And the mills are about 25% of our budget. And I will
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
26:25
say we're, I'm working on other ways to take care of those costs so departments aren't out that money, um, but that's, that's a whole separate issue from this bill. I'm working on other avenues for to address that one issue you're talking about. Thank you. Representative Richardson, you reckon to ask
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:43
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, who, who's currently on the board
that is providing oversight. What is the board
made up of? 2 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 marshals 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. OK. So if that's the case, why would we not want them to provide oversight for this particular training. Or this 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 are trained or or wanting to put them
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
27:41
back to an advisory role, and we, we respect them immensely. Don't, don't get me wrong, we're still gonna take into consideration
what they say and they're still going to, you know, really respect their opinions and, and, and the input. They're not getting cut out of this entirely, don't, don't mistake that at all. They're still going to have a say. It's just we're just changing from oversight to advise and 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
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
28:21
authority over a college campus of this nature, so they don't have authority over the campus, they have authority over the people in this, in this training center, right? And how it's how the, how the whole training is constructed and advised or not advised is uh OK. I'm, I'm losing my train of thought. How, how the Operates, OK, yes, so they, they, they are, they have. Oversight over that, correct? So it's not over the entire campus,
it's just over this program 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, OK, I, I, I guess I'm beating a
Speaker 85
29:36
dead horse at this point, but thank you guys. Appreciate it. And can I
Jerry Thomas
Unverified
29:42
add something? It's already statutory and regulatory that the fire service, fire services protection board, um, sets the minimum training standards for the fire training academy.
That's statutory. Uh, they do that, they set the minimum training standards, the education for the training academy. They also reviewed all the policies, um, because you have to review the policy sometimes to set the minimum training standards, that's their role right now, but the final authority um for 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, um, somewhat follow up on Representative Ladyman and Richardson's questions. So where is the disconnection between this current board and the universe or the college like what has necessitated this bill. Obviously,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
30:40
y'all don't agree on something. What is it you're not
agreeing on? Currently there hasn't been any disagreement. Everything we've we've had disagreements with, we've discussed and talked through the problem is 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 talked 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 2 supervisors, so it's contradictory to what we learn in basic fire
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
31:18
officer training. So this one person can't serve two masters.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
31:24
So this is, but you're anticipating it not working in the future, and that's why we're putting this into place, trying to prevent
Speaker 106
31:29
anything in the future. Not saying that it will. We just need to prevent it, be proactive. Representative Ladyman, do you have a question? June So you you mic's off. Uh Oh
Hang on, I'm gonna clear all the mics and let you start again.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
31:59
right 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
32:08
it's best that the board speak for themselves. There are members here to speak
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:12
for themselves. We do have 3, at least 3 folks who are signed up to speak against the bill. I'm assuming that's
the board. OK, OK, thank you. Representative Henley, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
32:25
you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my question is, is there only one fire academy in Arkansas and can other two-year colleges or 4-year colleges offer that
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:35
training as well. Arkansas statute back from 1967 states that there is one Arkansas fire training academy and that we're responsible for
Speaker 129
32:42
the training of firefighters in the state, and 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, you're asked.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
33:03
I was curious about the um the curriculum and uh so the credentialed parson of the vice chancellor of academics or whomever would set that curriculum. What are, what are the credentials that that person knows about firefighting. Our curriculum is actually set by the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:18
National Fire Protection Agency, and that's the difference between us and law enforcement. We have a national
Speaker 129
33:26
standard that we meet is nationally recognized. We are accredited by ISA and Pro or 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 ifAC accreditation waiting for it to be finalized or renewal of the ISAC accreditation. Does that answer your question? Can I add something? Again, I just want to
Speaker 139
33:52
add something to this briefly. Uh, the curriculum that we teach,
the curriculum that we have once it's gone through ISA 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, um, degree programs through their accrediting body as well for these, for this curriculum that we're teaching on our campus. Any additional Any additional questions by the committee.
See, no, 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. Um, Be
Higginbotham. If you will, sir, uh, sit down and identify yourself for the record, any organization that you represent, and you're recognized to provide your testimony.
Speaker 143
34:56
Uh, yes, sir. I'm Bo Higginbotham. I'm fire chief in
Crossett, Arkansas, and I'm also the president of the
Speaker 144
35:02
Arkansas State Firefighters Association. I represent one of the associations that represents the fire service with the fire chiefs association, the APFF, which is a uh professional association. Uh, the rural volunteers in the Fire Marshals Association. These groups make up the Arkansas Fire Protection Service Board. That's each, uh, has a has representatives on that board. Uh, which this board represents over 1000 fire departments and
over 10,000 firefighters, which 80% of those are volunteer. Uh, and this makes up what we call the Arkansas Fire Service. Uh 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. Uh, 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. Uh, with those, we support the fire academy and try to get them what they need. The Arkansas Fire Protection Service Board, we feel like it's 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
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
36:33
affordable for all the fire service. Uh, that's all I have to
say. I try to answer any questions if. Uh, if I can, if not, I know there's guys behind me that can answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony, Representative Ladyman. You're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, so Would you say that the people on
Speaker 144
36:56
this board represent the boots on the ground firemen that were out there fighting fires, uh, so you're kind of the voice of
those groups. Is that true or not? Yes, sir. There's, we have a voice from different associations here, but my, uh, we
Chair
Unverified
37:07
are the firefighters Association. We represent uh chiefs, uh, officers, uh, firefighters, volunteer, uh, combination and professionals. Uh, we
Speaker 149
37:14
have almost 4000 members, and yes, they, they are boots on the ground. Thank you. Representative Johnson, you're recognized for a question. Hey
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
37:20
Bill, how are you doing? I'm good, thank you. Good. Uh, so I'm trying, I've been scanning through the legislation, you know, this committee knows I run a few bills. Uh, 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, we, 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, and my feeling at the time was
Speaker 144
37:57
That was a very collaborative, uh, uh. Approach that involved
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
38:02
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 was on board with it. Yeah, because my, my memory was that we, you know, that 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, and so had a nice meeting with Fire Protection Service support at the time when we talked about the duties of the board and, and to the to the fire academy and, and so my memory was that this
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
38:29
was not a A bill that we passed without a lot of thought and discussion. Is that
your memory as well? OK, thank you. Representative Richardson, you recognized?
Thank you and thank you for for being here. Uh based on your experience, Why do you think This change needs to be made, or do you think that change needs to be what, let me back up. From your experience, why do you think that, why do you think we need to go
Speaker 144
38:53
back to the way that it was rather than the way it is currently. I do not think we should go back to the way it was. I, I think with the advisory uh committee if the voice of the fire service asked for uh something different and they take it under advisement
that they can decide, we just don't want to go with that and you have now SAU tech would have 2 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 is just two people with the fire service at the fire academy, the director and assistant director. So do you feel
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
39:29
then currently the way it is now allows you guys to have some accountability to what's happening and how individuals are being trained. Yes, sir. OK, 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. here to speak against
the bill. If you will, sir, identify yourself for the record, any organization that you represent, and you're recognized to provide your testimony. Yes, sir. Thank you for
Speaker 156
40:01
having me. This, I'm Justin Scanlon. I'm the president of the Arkansas Association of Fire Chiefs. Um, so I just want to start out
by saying that uh we did work closely with the SAT SAU Tech Chancellor Doctor 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 uh were requested while we couldn't come to an agreement. We did appreciate their cooperation. We feel the process was positive, um, but again this bill is not just to clean up from the last legislation. Uh, this bill was specifically written in this way in order to
ensure that training curriculum programs are to the minimum standards that the Arkansas Fire Protection Services Board, our task was 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 and the and the police service in Arkansas. Another thing to consider is that the fire service is unique and 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 to their families after an incident. Excuse me. 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, 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 can provide, uh, sorry, excuse me, 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 received 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 are trained by the fire academy that are, or that ours were trained are uh as well as the firefighters are already training existing, uh, have to work, 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? See no, thank you, sir, for your testimony. Mr. Brad Moore to speak against the bill.
Brad Moore
Unverified
43:15
Good morning, chair of the committee. Thanks
for the time today. Good morning, sir. If you identify yourself for the record, any organization you represent,
Brad Moore
Unverified
43:22
you're recognized to provide your testimony. My name is Brad Moore. I'm the legislative chair for the State Firefighters Association that represents a little over 4000 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. Um, the reason we stand against this bill today is like the last two chiefs said, we work diligent with Representative Johnson Hammer.
assess and uh make some changes to bring it all, trying to bring all fire surface under one umbrella and like you said, the stat statute already says that we had the authority to set curriculum and minimum training standards in the state, while that conflict of what we were trying to do, we only had an oversight to 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 that I mentioned, uh, in test on earlier. This was, this came about this session because the fire. time he brought up policy.
Uh, of the board. That was going to start charging for off-campus classes. For instance, our Northwest Arkansas Training Academy that was brought up, uh, holds 2 to 3 classes a year, and they were wanting to charge almost $2000 a student for that. It's going to cost them about $90,000 extra a year. Well, the fire company does put in a little work for that, but some departments up there do 99% of the work and training them firefighters. The fire company puts in about 16 hours of class.
In our opinion is Almost $2000 per student for a class when you're only putting in 16 hours of the work as little outrageous. And another question was asked about a certificate fee being $25. Uh, when we first started the, the certificates in the state of Arkansas it was costing a firefighter $5 for a certificate. And they jumped it up to $25 on the understanding we was going to be dual certified by two different uh certifying bodies, the IPSA and a pro board, and
that was gonna cost them about $15 for both certificates and a $10 administrative fee like I mentioned. What we have now come to find out, only 10% of the classes they offer are certified in both, both bodies just and majority of those certificates we get cost them a $1 per certificate that they hand out. And so now they're taking 25 $24 out of that $25 for administrative fees and and putting it on the, and that's not just municipal apartments, that's voluntary farmers across
the state. So that's a, a big increase to justify for us to approve to to have um To prove that that new policy to put out in the state of Arkansas when we all know that How everybody's budgets are getting cut due to everything else with in place and all that, so I would try to answer any questions that may be from the committee. Thank you, sir, for
your testimony, Representative Johnson. You're recognized for a question. Brad, it's good to see
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
46:15
you. You too. Um, so, hey, listen, when I'm reading what we did last session, what I'm, when
I read the bill in context, you know, there's, 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 Service Protection Board is supposed to advise the director or advise the president of SAU on, right? And we left avis in my regulation, we left advise and every one of those places, and we changed oversight in one place, and that was specifically around the, the training, the certification of the curriculum. 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 lift the word advise alone and currently you only have advisory. 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? See none, thank you, sir, for
your testimony. 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 organization you represent and
Roger Smith
Unverified
47:37
you're recognized to present your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Roger Smith. Um, I represent the fire Chiefs Association, the state Firefighters Association. Uh, and, uh, 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, uh, has the responsibility of maintaining that campus. There's no question about that. And overall they do an excellent job. And I, 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, uh, that when Asa Hutchinson was governor, he committed to do that. and got it done. But those were the kinds
Speaker 172
48:44
of things that the associations collectively have done to 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. Requirements, so. I want to say that 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 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. 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
Roger Smith
Unverified
49:51
academy 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.
Speaker 172
50:06
We would appreciate it. And 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 is 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 3 people to turn over to SAU tech for them to ultimately make the decision to who to hire, uh, for sure, I think you, you understand clearly the fire protection service. Board is the group of professionals boots on the ground, etc. that know best what is needed for fire training. So that, I appreciate your time. I would appreciate a good vote. Any questions by the committee? See none.
Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Members, give us 10 seconds
and let's let Will try to change this mic out.
Unknown speaker
51:01
We're having some technical issues here. You put me on a timer now. We're gonna give him 20 seconds. Sorry
I'm gonna go ahead and go through, um, it doesn't affect my mic, I think just y'all's, um, we don't have anyone else that signed up to speak for against the bill. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill. All right, see, no one
will give. We'll give Will a hand. He's got us fixed up and Representative Andrews, you're recognized. To close for your bill. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Wade Andrews
Unverified
52:02
Chair. So, I know a lot has been said about
this, and this is obviously a very sensitive topic, um. I do want to say that the short time I've been here um serving in this role as state rep, um, I've worked closely with SEU Tech and Doctor Thomas has been excellent to work with, um, And the previous interim chancellor before him as well, uh, I worked with her some as well, uh. The fire academy is of course very important to the state, and
I, I think that this bill changing one word from oversight to advise, um, the firete Service board, all these different organizations, they're their advice is still gonna be taken. Um, 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. Uh, like it's been brought up, they're, they're they're. They're their credentials and material and standards, it's all on the state level.
In the fire service, the NFPA is a national organization that that makes these standards. So, uh, it's the same education that you get in Arkansas, that you get in Texas that you get in Louisiana, that's, it's a national um curriculum. And so it's the national standards that are being pushed, um. There's some other things that were said. Uh, I do want to point out that The overall operating budget really hasn't been increased much. Um
For the fire academy, um, last session, I worked from my request of at the time interim deputy director, uh, Mr. Goodwin, we got them some extra money, some ARPA money, um, to build new, um, training grounds and got some new, new trucks in there, um. So, so, so we did help do that, um. All at the same time as taking, you know, uh, under the advice of the the players on the ground
and I think some Whitey Man had brought up some good points, but I want y'all to remember that. As someone who is boots on the ground, who at 7 a.m. tomorrow we'll go into Cannon Fire Station 2 and serve my community as a firefighter, someone who went through this academy. Who's this is right in my own backyard. I'm simply here advocating for the academy and for SCU tech, and so with that, I'm closed and hope for a good vote. What's the will of the committee? Have a motion do pass?
Any discussion on the motion? You reckon for discussion, Representative John? Yeah,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
54:48
members, first of all, I want to say I appreciate Representative Andrews. I know he's a, he's doing a good job as a firefighter and supports fire issues and now he's in a difficult spot. Nobody likes to be in a spot where there's conflict, you know, 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 in the process, and there were, 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, 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? See none. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed. Your bills failed. Representative Eubanks, are you ready to run House Bill 1915? You recognize, go to the end of the table, identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair, John
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
56:15
Eubanks, District 46. Uh, members, this, this bill was
something that Senator Dismay brought a couple of years ago, and it was late in the session, and there was some ah 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, uh,
what this bill does, it sets the amount at a very modest amount that I believe of $6000 but it allows it to be adjusted for inflation. Uh Members long before I ever got elected to the legislature, I was concerned about how our public assistance programs work. I, I didn't feel like they really helped people, uh, 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, uh, I'm, I'm aware of the food insecurity. I know the the food banks in my small town and the work that they do. Um, since I've been in the legislature. I volunteered with serving up solutions out of the Hunger Alliance puts on every year and that, and then they provide grants back to uh the your communities to help with this issue. Uh. I supported Senator Dismay's uh uh.
Bill last time and I believe we need to take another look at it and, and put it. In statute what the amount is and allow for the inflation index to so that it increased. 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, 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 gonna take it, they were gonna lose some other benefit. We have to allow people to gain more than what they lose if, if we want them to be able to uh work their way out of poverty and uh 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 a cliffs that we will walk these folks up to, and then all of a sudden when they start to get their legs under them, um, they're unable to continue to, to grow because of that, that barrier in that cliff. So thank you for bringing this bill. I appreciate that. Any questions by the committee? See none. We don't have anyone who has signed up to speak for or against the bill, or anyone in the audience that would like to? OK, Mr. Nick Horton.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
59:25
You're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you will identify yourself for
Nick Horton
Unverified
59:41
the record in any organization you represent, you're 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 3 years ago. Uh, I worked for a national nonprofit for almost a decade and about 25 states, and at the federal government on issues of welfare reform, including Medicaid, food stamps, cash welfare, unemployment, and disability. Uh, 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. Um. And uh and I believe this bill should be rejected as it has been the last two sessions in a
row. So, uh, if you'll allow me, I'll just run through these really quickly and be happy to try to answer any questions. Uh, 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. 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 perpetually raise the asset limit every 2 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 2, 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
1:01:45
bill would open the door to the program, to those who have up to $6000 in liquid cash assets. willing to bet that a lot of us don't have $6000 in the bank today. And frankly, someone with
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:02:02
$6000 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 3, 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.
Um, 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, is, uh, is incorrect. Number 4, 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 in 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
Speaker 186
1:03:14
food. Number 5, 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
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:03:29
to hardworking taxpayers. Those seem like pretty important
Speaker 186
1:03:33
questions that I think taxpayers deserve to have answered. Number 6, 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
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:03:55
was 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 and disenroll folks that we had just put on the food stamp program. Uh, number 7, 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
Speaker 186
1:04:43
bill 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
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:04:53
capita 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 8, this was something
that I'm sure there'll 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 that would somehow lead to employment, which I think is, is a great goal and we certainly want employment for all our Kansans 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, that need to buy a vehicle. So the idea that food stamp and rollies are currently prohibited from having a vehicle is simply inaccurate and this bill is not going to do anything to change that.
Number 9, 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. Um Enrollees are 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 $3000 and still keep their food stamp benefits. But what this bill would propose, I, and I should
Speaker 186
1:06:39
say that they can say, they can save as much money
as they want, up, 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
1:06:52
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 believe it's
Speaker 186
1:07:01
important. So really this proposal here today, It's 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 someone who has
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:07:21
$5000 in the bank. Or do you think someone with $5000 in the bank should buy their own groceries. And number 10, Going as fast as I can. Sorry, I'm, I'm from Arkansas. I talk slow. Uh, this was 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. Uh, 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 uh every day under the policies that you all create here at the Capitol. And one of those folks from Fulton
Speaker 186
1:08:34
County. 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,
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:09:20
trap enrollees 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, uh, 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
that $3000. This bill would say we're going to put the welfare cliff at $6000 and then we're going to perpetually expand it every 2 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, I think that should be our goal. So with that, um, Happy to take any questions. Representative Layman, you have a question.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:10:22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just for clarification, uh, I don't quite Understand, uh, 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 that they can have $6000 money in the bank.
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:10:40
Yes sir, I appreciate the question because I think there's been a lot of confusion about that as well. Holmes, personal possessions, life insurance, pensions of 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
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:11:00
talking about liquid cash assets. OK, and my second question, you said it doubled, but I don't see 3000 in here anywhere on line 28, it says 5500. Where's the 300? So that, yes
Speaker 186
1:11:11
sir, so the, the general, so there's two asset limits currently. It's $3000 for most
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:11:17
households. It's slightly higher for individual or households that have individuals with disabilities,
uh, which I think is another important point. We're already making accommodations additional cap space for those folks. It's 4250 for those households. And then the 5500 that you see, that's a creation of this compromise bill that was passed last session, so the concern and the and the approach that was approved by this committee 2 years ago was, well, there might be people that get close to that $3000 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, um, in order to ease them out of the program, and that's where that 50 $500 comes in. So they get a year of extra benefits under that policy, but they still have to keep their assets under $5500
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:12:09
for that 12 month period. OK. All right, thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:12:14
Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my district, I've noticed the majority of the demographic that they are in need of these
services are our 65 plus population in your research, what percentage of that population is receiving these SNAP benefits. Well, there's about 300,000
Nick Horton
Unverified
1:12:34
roughly folks total in the state of Arkansas, they received food stamp benefits. I don't have the breakdown exactly of seniors, but certainly there are a significant portion of that population, but again, there are, 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 4000, 5000, or up to $6000 in the bank.
See, Representative Cooper, you're going to ask for a
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:13:09
question. Not necessarily a question, but a, a point of clarification, uh, something the witness said made me realize, I mean, do we
need a fiscal impact on this where 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 is not, does not require one.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:13:36
I'll put it that way. Well, I mean, I, I hate to delay things, but I think it would be prudent to get 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.
Speaker 209
1:14:03
Would that satisfy your request? Good morning. Christy Putnam, secretary, Arkansas
Speaker 211
1:14:11
DHS. You recognized. Um, if someone could repeat exactly what the question is at hand, that would be
great. Basically we're wanting to know if you can give us an estimated fiscal impact or what you think that would be on the increase in the asset
Speaker 209
1:14:26
limit. So there could potentially be some increase based on system changes that would need to be made, um, to adjust for the
Speaker 211
1:14:35
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, um, SNAP benefits that are paid to the individual are 100% federal funding. There is admin cost that the state incur. Um, we don't know the impact yet of implementing Act 675, and again, the department is late on implementing that, um, and so I,
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
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:15:19
of the funds by DHS, correct? Um,
Speaker 211
1:15:22
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 bargain for. We're working on that as well. Um, 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, um, but I, 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,
Speaker 209
1:15:48
and so I think it would be premature to state what the cost would be for implement. ing an additional Thank
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:15:54
you, ma'am. Does that answer your question, Representative? It
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:16:02
answers it in 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 reckon to go to the end of the table. If you will identify yourself for the record in any
organization you represent and you recognize to
Speaker 221
1:16:43
testify. I'm Lance Whitney with Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, who covers the entire state of Arkansas fighting
Speaker 223
1:16:50
hunger in Arkansas. I'm here to speak for this bill on a number of
Speaker 221
1:16:55
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 a 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, uh, program of SNAP that distributes to the state to be able to distribute is totally federally funded in Arkansas. With the exception of administrative cost.
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 our people on the SNAP program as an average, and we're looking at 18 to 22 months. OK. We have regulations already on the amount of time without a
work, uh, 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, childcare for that job and be able to 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 $3000 I believe we've all looked at some expenses, whether it's the category of a funeral, the category of uh air conditioner replacement, the category of replacement vehicle. If you were able to do that with $3000 or $5000. 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 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 back into the community. We have a number. I've, I've, of communities without that economic impact. In rural Arkansas. They would be challenged.
We need to keep the SNAP program, the more 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 4 children. In the snap household every 1 out of 4 snap households have children in it. 1 out of 5.
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 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've liked 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 $9000. An annual higher education on the low end is $9000 and this is raising it to 6. 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. Is
there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill?
See uh oh, representative, I'm sorry, Madam Secretary. You're recognized to come back to the table.
Speaker 231
1:23:01
Can I ask if you're speaking for or against
Speaker 211
1:23:11
the bill? Thank you for inviting me back. I'm actually um in 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. Um, we, we definitely see the benefits cliff and some needs to address that, um, you know, again, we think that there is definitely the need to address the slightly overcome in that period of time to allow a transition, um, we,
we believe that the Act 675 will be the beginning to address that. And so I'm, I'm, we are against this because we want the to see what the impact of that is.
Any questions by the committee? I have one and, and I'm not trying to put you on the record here, but I do have a question. So when
Speaker 211
1:23:53
can we expect that act to be implemented? We passed the emergency rule this morning that will go into effect, I believe. It's 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. OK. Representative, would you like to pull this bill back for now? What would you, what would you like to do? No, I'm
ready to move forward, OK? Any other Representative Cooper, you're
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:24:23
recognized. I, I want to request a fiscal impact on this. Um, 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 um I 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, OK. Before you, before you get off the mic, I'd like to know what
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:24:50
you'd like for that fiscal impact to entail. Uh, I think the issues that Secretary brought up in her earlier testimony, um, the implementation of the program, be part of that. Um, could we allow her to, to elaborate on that a little bit.
Speaker 209
1:25:08
So we can request our finance team to provide the fiscal impact based on system changes, um, any additional admin costs, which, you know, we can, we can do that based on current enrollment and then we would need to project the extended enrollment. OK,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:25:22
how would you project the extended enrollment? Would that be through, do you have a way to know what that looks like
Speaker 209
1:25:29
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 of the essence like uh Representative Jean had mentioned to us, we're on the, we're trying to land the plane here so to 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 question? Mr. Chairman,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:26:04
you, you primarily said what I was going to say that time is of the essence and
we need to find out exactly how long would it take you to come up with a financial impact statement. Will it be a day, 2 days, 3 days, or 4? Can you give us a time frame
Speaker 209
1:26:21
if you don't mind? 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, um, so we will do our best to get this turned around within, you know, a day,
Speaker 211
1:26:33
certainly by Monday in time for this next week.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:26:38
I, I guess my next question, will that be enough time for
Representative Eubanks to get his bill out of committee if it, if it comes out
of committee, will that be enough time? Yes, sir. So I think that, 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 um 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, uh, so it can be reviewed prior to committee on Tuesday, and this bill will be back on the
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:27:22
agenda. Can I have a final comment, please? Yes, sir, you 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'd be administrative at best. 2 years ago.
And they submitted the emergency rule today. So how long are we supposed to wait if 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. And the department. At this point And uh My Sole purpose is trying to move people out of poverty. Uh 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. Uh, 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 or pretty much. OK, OK, uh. Is, is it true that we
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:29:40
can ask for financial impact statement on any bill. It is true. So there's a rule, uh, typically that I, I will say
this, I don't know that it has to be accepted, uh, 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. Representative Rye, which bill
Speaker 242
1:30:21
are you here to present? Yes sir, Mr. Chairman,
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:30:26
Senate Senate Bill 440 Senate Bill
440. OK. If you will have your uh
witness identify themselves for the record, any organization that they represent. And
Speaker 249
1:30:41
you'll be recognized to present your bill. Oh, thank you, Chairman, members of the committee, Representative, my name is Amy Guard. I'm the executive secretary for the
Speaker 251
1:30:51
embalmers and funeral directors. The cemetery, the cemeteries and burial services board, um, I'm
here today to speak for the bill. Senate Bill
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:31:04
440. Representative Bright, you're recognized to present. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Uh, this bill comes to us, um, through the state board of embalmers. The funeral directors Crematories and uh and 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 it
Speaker 253
1:31:38
works. Mm Thank you. So alkaline hydrolysis is a newer, sorry, this microphone's messing with me. Newer form of uh cream I say cremation, um, because you end up with ashes in the end. Um, 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% um alkali, uh, solution that's put in the chamber with the body. Um, you end up with 90% more cremains, um, then traditional flame-based, um, it's considered a gentle or more respectful process, if you will, um, it's a, you do get 20% more ashes back, um, returned to the family, there's
Speaker 249
1:32:31
Uh, it says there's a 90% energy savings overall compared to the flame-based, so we're not, you
Speaker 253
1:32:36
know, we're not 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. Uh, we have had some, um, facilities in the in the industry, wanting to offer this type of disposition. It's fairly new as as Representative Rye has mentioned. It's, it's actually been around for quite some time. They've been doing it with
animals, um, on the universities for years, um. And so it's been coming around for the last probably 20 something years with with with humans, um, and, uh, we just wanted to be proactive and have it. be an option that our facilities could offer to their families, um, it's been recently passed in Oklahoma, um, 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 gonna take off really fast in the at first because of the machines are quite expensive and the process is quite lengthy. Um, it can take probably a full 12 to 24 hours. in the In the long run to to complete a full process of of cremation, um, or the alkaline hydraulis process from the time they enter the chamber to the time they were removed till the time that
they are dried and processed and given back to the family. Um That, that's pretty much the only changes we're really making to the to the law, um, 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 by the committee? Representative Perry, you're recognized for
Chair
Unverified
1:34:30
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gu, thank you for being here. I know
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:34:37
you've, uh, you've been researching some of this. How many people have expressed an interest in
Speaker 256
1:34:45
providing the service. I think we've had at least 2 operators would
Speaker 258
1:34:53
how many operators are there in Arkansas? Um You mean
Speaker 253
1:34:58
total oper uh 435 operating funeral establishments right.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:35:01
And what's the cost like the other states, what are other states?
Speaker 258
1:35:09
cost to have this this type of disposition done. It's um, So the But Do you mean the cost of the machine or
Speaker 253
1:35:23
are you talking about the cost of the cost of the family. On the average cost to the family, um, looking at the, uh, I was only able to actually see one general price list, um, and it's actually not. Their prices are
Speaker 258
1:35:36
not that much higher than a traditional flame-based. Crematory, um. I've I say.
Speaker 253
1:35:43
They're, uh, It just depends, obviously, on the um establishment and their general price list, obviously prices can be different from, from funeral home to funeral home, um. They're, they only offered this particular facility only offered this type of cremation. And I want to say they're direct cremation price was maybe. Don't quote me cause I I I hadn't looked at it in a minute, but it may have been like $1600
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:36:13
for direct cremation. Is that the flame-based or that's OK. Was that in Oklahoma? That was in Oklahoma,
OK, yeah, full disclosure, I'm a funeral director as well and involved with the funeral home. So that's And we, we have a lot of insight to this, uh, I'm just curious the demand cause what's the length of time it takes. It,
Speaker 253
1:36:38
it can take, so the, the, the lowest pressure machine in
the in 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 $7000. Um, And those machines take anywhere from 8 to 10 hours to process the to do the, the dissolution, if you
Speaker 249
1:37:03
will, and then once that's done, they have to, they pull the, the, the chamber or the, I don't know
Speaker 253
1:37:10
what they call that thing inside, but I can't
think of it right now, but there's a um chamber that you're put in that goes inside of it that was pulled out then the 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 because I mean they just fall apart
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:37:40
piece of equipment or is the drying unit a separate piece of equipment? It's a
Speaker 253
1:37:47
separate piece of equipment and um then they would go through the pulverizing process if it's necessary, which usually there is. And, um, from there, then they're. Put into the temporary urn, so it could take, I would say, up to 24 hours, you know, for, for it to be
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:38:05
done and in the low pressure 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
1:38:17
that um We've talked about and it may eventually be something y'all have to consider at some point
Speaker 253
1:38:22
because we've been asked about it and I didn't have time to research that one and research this one. It's a, that's a 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. See no one representative, you're recognized clothes for
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:38:48
your bill. Turn your mic on, please, sir. Excuse me. I appreciate you so much and I am finished with the bill. Thank you all very much.
Have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion? So you know all those in favor, say I opposed. Congratulations, sir, you've passed your bill. Representative Mayberry in the room. Representative Mayberry. There you go. You.
Representative Johnson, you're going to be up next. You got a quick one, Lee. You go to the end of the table. say
Speaker 149
1:40:03
Which one would you like to start with? to this. House Bill 1869. OK, you're recognized to present House Bill 1869. Maybe this is
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:40:11
a bill I presented the other day. This was on the maternal outcomes management systems. We didn't quite have enough folks then to get it out of the house. Does this bill have an amendment, sir?
It does not. OK, this bill, the amendment was adopted, but we did not hear the bill that we heard the bill and it fell. He the bill and it failed. So this bill has already been amended and it's been
adopted, so you're, you're recognized to present. I assume that's been engrossed. Yes. I'm being told
Speaker 149
1:40:39
by staff it has not been, we have to do the amendment again. We don't have to. been amended. So you're presenting the bill as amended.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:40:51
As amended, yeah, and this is the bill we talked about today, got quite a bit of support in committee. I'm just trying to get out of committee if I can. This is one of the maternal outcomes management system within the Department of Health. Again, there's no funding attied 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? See none, we don't have anyone sign to speak for or against the
bills, anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill. Seeing then you're recognized the clothes for your bill. I'm close for my bill. Make a motion to pass. That's proper motioning discussion on the motion as amended. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? So you know all those papers, say ah.
Congratulations, sir, you've passed your bill as amended. Thank
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:41:38
you, uh, Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. If I could present House Bill 1943. I think that one will be quick as well. You're recognized so members, if you, as you know, people that are on the wave or the waiver wait list, certain behavioral health people get enrolled in our passes, uh, that process is is is is a process that could stand to be improved a little bit, and that's what this bill's 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 healthier 1 or 2 tier 2, 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. Uh, this is providing a rating system for that. It also
provides a director provides a stipulation for the past is to have a directory of its providers so that you can get online and look and see, hey, is my doctor in this past, maybe they're in a different past. It's just trying to create informed decision making for people that are being enrolled in the passes to make better choices about which paths 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. s 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? See none. We don't have anyone signed to speak for or against the bill, anyone in the audience who
would like to speak for against the bill. See no one you're close for your bill. I'm close to be able to make a motion to pass. It's proper motion any discussion on the motion? See none all those in favor, say I. A post. Congratulations, sir, you passed your bill.
That's all my quick bills. Let's, um, Representative McCola 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, you will identify yourself for the record, ask your guests to identify themselves for the record,
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:44:06
and you're recognized. Tippi McCullough, District 74, state representative, um, hope,
Speaker 281
1:44:11
uh, Representative Johnson won't hold this against me. OK, Cathy Wait, wait, wait. Said
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:44:23
again, sorry, Kathy Webb. You OK. Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today to discuss uh HB 1965 knows the healthy food retail Act. Um, this is a bill about food deserts, food desert, and, and if you'll be patient with me for just a second, I'm just gonna go through the sections of the bill. F 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. Um, 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, um, I'm pleased to have Senator Hammer Senate sponsor, uh, we believe this is a bipartisan issue that affects all of our communities. The first two pages of Bill Um, 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 Arkans in which Arkansas ranks really high when compared to other states. Arkansas ranks among the 10 worst states and percentage of residents struggling with
diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease and blood pressure. Also, Arkansas ranks among the worst in obesity, 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 improved health. We know access is important to communities because without it, um, its 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 implemented as
funding is available. That funding could then include grants or loans to 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, um, if not, Maybe the whole county has these areas, um, and these are often low income and low access areas. The healthy food retailer program could be managed by nonprofit partner in conjunction with Arkansas Economic Development Commission. I met with Secretary McDonald as well as a community development financial institution called Hope Enterprises Corporation.
Um, 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 uh cooperative extension or the Arkansas hunger Relief Alliance to offer nutrition, education also to residents, and this education to take a variety of
forms from the availability of low cost, healthy recipes to cooking demonstrations to cooking classes, to tours of stores or farmers' 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, renovation to upgrade availability and quality of a store's offerings. New farmers' markets, mobile markets, delivery options, or
other models is determined by the program. The bill is 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, sole proprietorships, LLCs, etc. um, a nonprofit working group, a municipal entity, which is in line with success, 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. 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 US Department of Agriculture, rainy day funds or
other sources, creating the program is the important first step and is not without precedent. Um, this is an important issue in all of our um districts and without. a one size fits all answer. There's a lot of creativity that can be involved as shown in in the bill and, um, 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 to pass.
That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? See none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Ma, I'm Representative Gonzalez, are you prepared to run your bill? House Bill 1963. You reckon that has to go
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:50:39
to the end of the table, if you will identify yourself for the record. Yeah, it's great to be
back in public health. Representative Jessica Gonzalez, District 89. We're proud to have you back,
Speaker 287
1:50:57
sir. You're recognized. Uh, House Bill 1963 is something I worked on with uh Representative Johnson. I think he actually passed this original bill 2 or 4 years ago, I don't remember how long, long ago that was. Um, the intent at the time was that APRNs could prescribe, um, the Schedule 2s, these uh stimulants that were in the same class, the initial prescription had to be Uh Prescribed by a physician, then, uh, every 6 months the physician has to follow up on the
prescription, uh, nurse practitioner can do the refills in those 6 months, um, the intent at the time was that if, 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, uh, Representative Johnson did say that he um I guess the 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 the one 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 that's done, we'll take care of that on the Senate end, just trying to get out of here. Any questions by the committee? See no questions. Anyone in
the audience who'd like to speak for or against the bill. See no one you close for your bill.
I'm close. I would appreciate a motion to pass. What's the will of the committee? Have a motion pass. Any discussion on the motion?
So no all those in favor say aye. Pod. Congratulations, sir, you passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cooper, are you ready to run your bill? I believe it's got an amendment. House Bill 1791? Staff, you will pass the amendment out and we'll give members a second to review that.
All right, members, you should have the amendment in front of you. Um Representative, you're recognized to present the amendment. First to House Bill 1791.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:53:57
Representative Cameron Cooper District 57. This amendment just strikes out what I thought was probably some unneeded language, uh, makes the bill more straightforward and more simple. You have a motion
Speaker 212
1:54:08
on this amendment, sir? Motion to adopt
the amendment and discussion on the motion. Seeing none, I was in favor say
aye. d. Congratulations amendment's been adopted, you are now recognized to present House Bill 1791 as amended. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:54:25
Chair. This bill is a little bit different, uh, from what we're typically, uh, tackling in this committee, uh, 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 the 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 US Constitution and and this bill intends to prevent these organizations from overriding states' authority on public health policy. These institutions have no enforcement 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, I don't want that to be taken as a 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 question. Representative McGhee, you're recognized
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:56:41
for a question. So thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I don't see where the World Health Organization, United Nations has any authority to do anything. Have there been instances in states that they have come in and told the state
that you 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,
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:57:05
but they don't act in that capacity anyway, do they? Uh, 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 members, member countries of the World Health Organization would implement
that treaty and so some of our states across the country and uh filed these bills to just assert their state's sovereignty on that issue and um I filed this bill to ease the concerns of some constituents that were concerned about this. Representative Richardson, you, oh, I'm sorry. That's, that's OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Unverified
1:57:41
You have a follow up, Representative McGee. All right. Any additional questions by the committee?
See no questions. Uh, there's no one that has signed up to speak for or against the bills, anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill. So
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:58:03
you know one you recognize to close for your bill. Thank you committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would make a motion to pass as amended as amended. That's a proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? See none all those in favor, say I
posed. Your bills failed. Uh, Representative Graham, like, are you prepared to present Senate Bill 348.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:58:25
You're to go to the end of the table. Zach Gramlick, uh, state representative, District 50, Fort Smith. He Bill McCrary with pain treatment Centers of America.
Um, Representative, this bill has a fiscal impact. We're gonna hand it out and give the committee a chance to review that while you're presenting, so give us about 10 seconds. OK Mississippi. Mississippi. Uh
Sure, yeah, absolutely. Representative, if you will, go
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:59:53
ahead and present your bill. Thank you. Senate Bill 348 deals with amending the annual cap for diagnostic laboratory services within the Arkansas Medicaid program. Uh, this, 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. Uh, I'll hit the 4 things that this bill does. So it does increase the cap on diagnostic lab services. It raises the annual cap from $500 to $1800 for patients experiencing chronic pain, but it 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 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 the opioid misuse, overdoses, and increased costs to the health care system. It reduces costs. 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, and
this will ensure patients receive the right medication and treatment early, uh, which will reduce long term Medicaid costs and there is an emergency clause. This bill must take effect by July 1st, 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 a question. I'd
like to hear from DHS if that's OK, since they're here. DHS, can you come to the table, please? You will identify yourself for the record and you recognized to answer
Speaker 303
2:01:53
the representative's question. Good morning or maybe afternoon, Elizabeth Pittman with the Department of Human Services. It's been that kind of day. You're
Speaker 268
2:01:58
a recognized representative. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. I
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:02:02
think we will be, uh, Wrong not to ask the fiscal impact on this as we have, we've
seen the fiscal impact, but is this something in our budget right now, so is this going to affect our negative affect our Medicaid budget at
Speaker 305
2:02:16
this point. Like that's my question. Yes, ma'am. Um, 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. OK, thank you, thank you for the question. Any additional Committee.
See none. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak for or against the bill. Seeing
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
2:02:49
non representative, you're close for your bill. Thank you. um Medicaid patients deserve access to proper diagnostic care. This bill is a critical step towards improving healthcare, fighting all 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 motioning discussion on the motion? Seeing all the uh see no discussion, all those in favor say aye. d.
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, um, as quickly as possible. We do have about 3 additional bills that we want to hear, so hold tight for just a minute.
Representative, are you wanting to run 1164? It's got a fiscal impact. We're gonna go ahead and pass that out, uh, give the committee a few minutes to review that and then you'll be
Representative, if you will, please identify yourself for the record, and you are recognized to
Speaker 312
2:05:45
present your bill. State Representative Julie Mayberry. David Cook, director
of government affairs for the Alzheimer's Association.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:05:52
You recognize present House Bill 1164. OK. Thank you, members. We have shared some information with a committee yesterday, um, it'll be on the house floor about um 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, um. Did I let you introduce yourself? OK, 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 motion will accept that. What's your motion do pass? We have a motion do pass, uh, before we accept that motion,
is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak for or against the bill? See none, you're recognized to close for your
Chair
Unverified
2:06:55
bill. I'm closed for the bill. I'd appreciate a good
vote. Representative Richardson recognized for a motion. We have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion? See none all those in favor, say ah 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 gonna stand in recess for 10 minutes.
Unknown speaker
2:07:58
I shower. OK Yeah
good Good luck to you. I think you can thank you.
Speaker 333
2:10:14
abroad there a long time ago.
I was trying to learn the Spanish language. but it was nice. Yeah,
Speaker 338
2:10:33
my sister had to Germany and my other sister went to France, so. like, like traveling. I. definitely Yeah very. It is
Speaker 320
2:10:59
a little too because they have all those mos they come up. Yes, right, exactly, yeah. Hatred. Thank you. Yeah OK, that's right. What which bill is is steal.
Unknown speaker
2:11:29
1969. I'll try run another bill.
Speaker 350
2:12:02
So No I didn't. I think we're getting back to the.
Unknown speaker
2:12:33
Yeah. Yeah. Like See I do thank you
Speaker 352
2:13:05
Yeah, I, I Jay is the same. You, do understand I'm gonna,
Speaker 317
2:13:20
it's very much. Well, I have because I got confused with Benza. I don't even ask questions. everybody uh
Speaker 357
2:13:43
Or mission state. mission I stay 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 gonna hear today. That's House Bill 1969 Representative Johnson, are you prepared to run that bill? I'm prepared, I
Speaker 360
2:14:06
say with confidence, yeah, that you're recognized introduce yourself for the record you 47,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:14:14
and I appreciate the patience of the committee today, um, 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 there to try to overcome that discrepancy, the federal government has set up some programs to try to close that gap for certain healthcare 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 der s 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 healthcare 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
a, at, you know, what's the discount, right? So what this bill in front of you is doing and it's, 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? Um, the drafter of the bill, when you, 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 sort 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. Anytime 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 mere 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 gonna have Jodie come to the table and a little bit, Miss Tret to speak in detail, but um, 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 past premium taxes 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 accounts there. The other 40, the other 50% would go back to hospital providers divided a proportionately based on their
burden of Medicaid patients. Um, 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 of other things that it's doing about state directed payments that 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 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 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 a committee to look at what kind of incentives would be important
to, 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 uh reimbursement at risk. That's a lot of conversation and I know these are topics that are sometimes complicated and confusing, um, if, if the members have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. The one other thing I want to say And again, at the last, 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 decisions 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 in. You will identify yourself with the reckon you're recognized to
Speaker 361
2:19:25
testify. Sure, I'm Jodi Annerid. 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 um we're hearing from the Federal administration that any sort of provider assessments or sometimes folks call and provider taxes, maybe on the cho pp ing block if um something happens where we're gonna have
to cut Medicare or Medicaid programs at the 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. 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 a 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 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, 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 qu al ified 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 uh 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. um, so we want to make sure that all boats rise, um, 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.
Um, 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, um, so again, there may be some amendments, uh, if you all are lovely enough to let us get this out and Dr. Johnson can get it off the house floor in 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,
um, but I want to emphasize everything Doctor 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. Um, the other reason for the timing is we know that the the previous Trump administration authorized many directed payment programs over and above. Managed care in his first term as president, um, we have not seen a lot of those be approved right now in the 2nd 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, your grandfathered in, and what we don't want to do is lose the ability for the hospitals. 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,
uh, the premium tax in this 40% of it would go into RSA, uh, for you all to use the way that you need, you, you need it to work for the premium tax portion, uh, the assessment itself and the way the assessment program would work, um, the rest of those dollars would be allocated for hospitals. like he said, supplement, that's the right word here, supplement uh the underpayments that we get when we care for Medicaid patients, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Jodi and I've got a question for you, and then I'll start recognizing committee members.
So you and I think probably our kindred spirits on managed care, um, and I, I visited with Representative Johnson about this also prior to, but um what what's the necessity, the hurry to, to implement this. I know it's a trigger and I, and I'm comfortable with that portion of it, but I guess a couple of questions. Does, does this allow the development of framework prior to the trigger being enacted and And 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
2:24:47
a great question, and it's, it's still an option, um, the, the reason I would contend we shouldn't, is if in fact the 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 ask for
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:25:31
a question? Yes, after meeting with Jefferson Hospital, uh, remembering the conversation
they were talking about the supplemental difference between Medicaid and they get a lot of Medicaid payments so with this help them in recuperating some of that money and also if that uh 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
Speaker 361
2:25:58
correct? 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 I'm, if
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:26:28
I'm gonna make a comment as well, there, there has been legislation introduced this session that would allow the governor to move populations into managed care without us
coming into special session, um, you know, we, 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. your 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
Speaker 149
2:27:09
committee, isn't that correct? 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? I Representative Richardson,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:27:32
you're recognized for a question, identify yourself for the record, please, Ms. Ma. I should say
Speaker 366
2:27:35
good afternoon, Janet Man, DHS. Hey, how are you doing
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:27:39
today, Miss Man? OK. Give me your, your
Speaker 366
2:27:48
thoughts on how this impacts. Which you guys give me your position on this level I think directed payments is a methodology for supplemental payments in a managed care setting. We, um, only have one such program pass right now that could qualify for a directed payment. I do think, um, being proactive without knowing what is going to happen at the federal level is always could be
beneficial, but um, I'm kind of neutral and kind of want to be proactive. I'll be perfectly honest, I've been in Rev and tax trying to work on a different bill, so I haven't heard all of the conversation, um, but overall directed payments is, 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, um. It is, it's always good to have
extra tools in our toolbox to be able to
Speaker 369
2:28:42
protect the providers in our state. OK. How
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:28:45
about, how about to follow up on Representative Richardson's question while you're at the table, Miss. Man. So, um,
again, I'm I, 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. I know this is a trigger, but I, I, I'm trying to think through that answer, um,
Speaker 366
2:29:10
directed payments, um, I believe, um. So a managed care program is usually administered through section 1915 and we'll have a different waiver program. I'm gonna ask Elizabeth Pittman also to make sure I get this correct so she may join me at the table at that time, um, given the authority under that type of delivery system, I, I don't believe, I believe we have to obviously obtain permission from CMS, but I don't know if it's a
Speaker 303
2:29:41
separate waiver or a state plan. Elizabeth Pit. Department of Human Services to do the actual directed payment, we do not need any statutory authority to do the tax we we do have to have statutory authority. So that's why there
Speaker 372
2:29:53
is a statue I might have a clarifying question because I thought that was
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:29:57
the case, so you could set up the program, but we couldn't, uh, we couldn't do the tax, which is essential to the
Speaker 149
2:30:04
program. So I guess then my follow up to that would be, and again, not trying to be confrontational,
but this is to, this is preemptive to, to be a trigger for if, 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 managed care. Is that not correct? I, I would say
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:30:33
yes, you could also, you could certainly do this in a special session at the same time you're putting people in managed care, I guess the thing, the point I would make is like,
There's no world in which we can do managed care without state directed payments, and, 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 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 in managed care and
not to. Right, and I, I understand that. I appreciate that feedback. I, I guess the 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 unnecessary and
anything that we can do outside of statute we probably should do that way, but any other questions by the committee? See no questions, um, Mr. Tri, does that count as your testimony? All right, there's no one else
signed up to speak for against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the bill.
Seeing nonrepresentative, you're recognized close for your bill. Close, make a motion to pass. That's motion any discussion on the motion? See none all those in favor, say I. Opposed Congratulations, sir, you passed your bill. All right, members
see no other business for the day. Um, I will remind you like we have in the past couple of meetings, uh, if you've got bills on the deferred
list, time is drawing near, so please uh get with Shanice, get those moved to the regular
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 303
Speaker 268
Speaker 305
Speaker 312
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 326
Speaker 320
Speaker 331
Speaker 332
Speaker 333
Speaker 338
Speaker 350
Speaker 352
Speaker 317
Speaker 357
Speaker 360
Speaker 361
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
Speaker 366
Speaker 369
Speaker 372