Insurance & Commerce - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (27)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB544
Act 775
· 7 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “So it's the Senate Bill 544. You can present it from there, Senator Johnson. All right.”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT. | M. Johnson | Notification that SB544 is now Act 775 |
|
SB475
Act 773
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “time. I'm presenting you feel. Senator dismaying on Senate Bill 475. So introduce yourself and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT; AND TO REGULATE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB475 is now Act 773 |
|
SB593
· 5 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…rite it, but it was provided and we do like the language in Senate Bill 593 better, not that, not that Senator Dismay's bill isn't acco…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; AND TO CREATE THE PHARMACY SERVICES … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1079
Act 860
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION BY A PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER. HB1079 F. Allen TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR AN INH…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR AN INHERITED GENE MUTATION FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS; AND … | F. Allen | Notification that HB1079 is now Act 860 |
|
HB1300
Act 510
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1300 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1300 is now Act 510 |
|
HB1320
Act 626
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1320 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRISIS STABILIZATION…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRISIS STABILIZATION UNITS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1320 is now Act 626 |
|
HB1321
Act 513
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERNING CRISIS STABILIZATION UNITS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS. HB1321 Wooldridge TO REGULATE STEP THERAPY AND FAIL FIRST PROTOCOL…”
|
TO REGULATE STEP THERAPY AND FAIL FIRST PROTOCOLS CONCERNING CERTAIN PRESCRIBED VENTILATORS. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1321 is now Act 513 |
|
HB1467
Act 557
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FIRST PROTOCOLS CONCERNING CERTAIN PRESCRIBED VENTILATORS. HB1467 Achor TO AMEND THE UNIFORM MONEY SERVICES ACT. HB1746 M. Br…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM MONEY SERVICES ACT. | J. Boyd | Notification that HB1467 is now Act 557 |
|
HB1468
Act 558
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ATIO IN THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME PROGRAM. HB1468 Cozart TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS. | Cozart | Notification that HB1468 is now Act 558 |
|
HB1700
Act 638
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1700 Achor TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS OF AN ADVERSE … | Achor | Notification that HB1700 is now Act 638 |
|
HB1736
Act 603
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ITTING UTILITY" TO INCLUDE FIBER OPTIC AND BROADBAND LINES. HB1736 M. Brown TO AMEND ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.…”
|
TO AMEND ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1736 is now Act 603 |
|
HB1737
Act 584
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ACT. HB1746 M. Brown TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. HB1737 M. Brown TO AMEND THE TRANSMITTING UTILITY ACT; AND TO AMEN…”
|
TO AMEND THE TRANSMITTING UTILITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "TRANSMITTING UTILITY" TO … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1737 is now Act 584 |
|
HB1794
Act 559
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC UTILITY" UNDER TITLE 14, CHAPTER 200. HB1794 Duke TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REAL ESTATE LICENSEES; AND TO CREATE … | Duke | Notification that HB1794 is now Act 559 |
|
HB1814
Act 712
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1814 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OVER UTILITIES; AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1814 is now Act 712 |
|
SB437
Act 945
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NTRACTORS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS. SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Hester | Notification that SB437 is now Act 945 |
|
SB519
Act 958
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB519 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE INSURANCE; AND TO REGULATE THE PAYMENT OF … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB519 is now Act 958 |
|
SB552
Act 650
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CATION EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN REAL ESTATE BROKER LICENSEES. SB552 K. Hammer TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "PRINCIPAL OFFICE" U…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "PRINCIPAL OFFICE" USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB552 is now Act 650 |
|
HB1301
Act 511
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1301 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1301 is now Act 511 |
|
HB1424
Act 628
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…vin Sen. Clint Penzo REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1424 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENT…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1424 is now Act 628 |
|
HB1602
Act 633
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1602 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; TO ESTABLISH FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1602 is now Act 633 |
|
HB1746
Act 997
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1746 M. Brown TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1746 is now Act 997 |
|
SB140
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/1/2025 @ 8:00 AM) Removed SB140 from Regular Agenda Senate Committee on Insurance and Comme…”
|
TO MANDATE THE USE OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES UNDER HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS; TO REQUIRE A HEALTHCARE … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB481
Act 779
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO REGULATE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS. SB481 Gilmore TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INS…”
|
TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF … | Gilmore | Notification that SB481 is now Act 779 |
|
SB5199
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “in Boyd from Fort Smith. So Senate Bill 5199. We had heard a bill previously and I don't want to talk ab…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB527
Act 774
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CASH SURRENDER VALUE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY. SB527 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME A…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ACT OF 2021; AND TO INCREASE … | Irvin | Notification that SB527 is now Act 774 |
|
SB592
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB592 D. Wallace TO REQUIRE A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO RENEW CERT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO RENEW CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT AT THE HIGHEST INTEREST … | D. Wallace | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB594
Act 705
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB594 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTIFI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NEW … | M. McKee | Notification that SB594 is now Act 705 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
in Boyd from Fort Smith. So Senate Bill 5199. We had heard a bill previously and I don't want to talk about the bill except to explain where this one came from is there, there were some things that turns out that needed to be cleared up to make the bill constitutional and practical. And so what this is is it does that. So first thing it does is this is on we heard testimony previously about how there was an Arkansan who tried to surrender a life insurance policy and And a
In exchange and the insurance company drug its feet. And so what this does is it gives a start date because there's a constitutional issue of both state and federal with contracts and so you need clarity on when it begins, so it says it would start this would become effective
on January 1st, 2026, um, and then the 2, it had a 30 day surrender in there. The challenge with that
is, is the company that was actually surrendering the policy, giving it
to the other one in the exchange, they might actually do everything right and then the other, the people who had requested it might drag their feet, and it could, you know, create a problem. So 60 days just seems like a
more reasonable number, uh, and then finally, um, Yeah, so, so those are really the oh.
And then this clarifies the interest rate, the interest rate was tied to something and there was a problem where it might not be constitutional because you were giving, you know, a different interest rate to this person versus that person, and this ties it back into an interest rate that's already in the life insurance policy or the life insurance code that's consistent and would be the same for everybody. So those are the three updates it makes. Is there any
questions? Seeing none. There's no one signed up for or against. Is there anybody who wants to
Speaker 9
2:16
testify for or against this bill, seeing none. What's the will that you're going to close the bill? I'm closed to make a motion to pass. Motion in the second by Senator Johnson, any discussion. All in favor say aye. All opposed like. Thank you, Senator. We
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:36
will go to uh Senator Johnson, 544.
Speaker 14
2:47
Well. And Hammers. He's gonna run it whoever it was.
Speaker 9
3:07
So it's the Senate Bill 544. You can present it from there, Senator Johnson. All right.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:31
Just introduce yourselves and your. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mark Johnson, Senate District 17, and with me is Mr. John Vinson with the Arkansas Pharmacy Association. Uh, I'm gonna let Mr. Vinson do the heavy lifting on the description, but basically, uh this is uh the Senate Bill 544 is the Arkansas Pharmacy Benefits Manager licenser Act, and this is yet another attempt to try to get some clarity and
transparency to PBMs and how they work, most important thing probably in this is this opt out contract definition, so I'll ask if I
would I'd ask for Mr. Vinson. be able to explain this a little bit
Speaker 26
4:15
more in depth. Go ahead, Mr. Benson. Thank you, John Vinson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association. Senate Bill 544 does have a combination of cleanup of definitions and some new authority to the insurance commissioner. The first part on the definition piece is talking
about opt-out contracts, and those are contracts that a pharmacy or their um contracting entity you're currently have agreed to. But there may be new terms that are set forth by the PBM or the pharmacy benefit manager, and there's not sufficient time given or the pharmacy hasn't been notified in a way that they know there's even changes being made. And so what this would do is it would define what that is and give them a 60-day period of time to review and if they didn't respond to a fax that
they got it via email or certified mail if there was no response. So that's the first piece of it. The other thing is, is that our pharmacies and their contracting entities have been Offered terms and conditions that are part of a national contract that don't have specific rates or terms that comply with Arkansas law, and that's the definition pharmacy benefit manager national contract to pharmacies, and they'll put a statement in there that says, even though our terms don't agree with Arkansas law,
they'll put a section in later that says, but if the Arkansas law makes us, then we'll adhere to that, and this would make it clear that you don't just adhere to the laws, you actually put in the track what the terms are, the, the rates, the payment terms, the prompt payment terms and the provider manual contract that are specific to Arkansas, so it requires that. Um, it also gives from an enforcement side, it gives the insurance commissioner the ability to place on probation as
opposed to just revoke revoke a license. So on page 2 of the bill on line 7, placed on probation. There's a definition of what that looks like through lines 7 through 18, and it can be specific to not just the entire PBM, so CBS, for example, or Optum or Express Scripts or PBM. They individually manage 100 or 200 or 300 networks and it would give a little bit of flexibility for the insurance commissioner
to take action against one specific network and not necessarily the entire PBM if that makes sense. So a little flexibility on that. It strengthens the ability for enforcement for we currently have in the PBM Lozenger Act, the ability to find a PBM for certain violations of the Act, up to $5000 and recently there was a fine levy that was $300 for example, so it's not always the maximum amount. It just
depends on the top of violation and how often and how frequent anywhere from $100 to $5000 but this would clarify that authority goes beyond just 2 or 3 things in the lozenger Act, but for any violation of the PBM Lossinger Act, they could find up to $5000 and then finally, it has a a piece in there for underpayments where if the pharmacy is paid below their invoice costs are below the national average invoice cost,
which is already in the existing law and has been since 2018, back in the fall, we heard a lot of testimony. Question that well what about the pharmacy themselves, they had to spend hours and hours fighting this, filing complaints. Um, how are they made whole and this would give the ability for the insurance commissioner to charge a 12% interest rate back to the pharmacy for any underpayments that were created by the violations of the law. With that, I would entertain any questions. Is there any questions?
Speaker 7
8:13
Seeing none, there's no one signed up for or
Speaker 29
8:16
against the bill, you know clothes your bill. Uh,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
8:20
Mr. Chairman, I think this is just Mr. Finson did a great job of explaining the thing. We've got
some good rules. We have a great insurance department, but this just gives them a little bit of enforcement teeth to
follow through with it. So with that, I would move to pass
Speaker 9
8:35
on the bill motion by Senator Johnson, seconded by Senator Penzo. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. I'll
Speaker 11
8:43
oppose like sign. Thank you, Senator. it does. Do you want to do hammers
Derek Smith
Unverified
9:32
We're gonna do 552. You guys introduce yourselves and you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Matt McKee from Senate District 6, and I'll let They. introduce myself. My name is Derek Smith with the
Mitchell Williamselig Gates and Woodyard law firm on behalf of Northwest registered agents, and if it's
all right with you, I'm going to let
him present what they're trying to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee, several months ago, Northwest registered agents, a commercial registered agent, the entities that companies use to accept a service of process reached out about revising our laws regarding the information that corporations and LLCs provide to
the Secretary of State. Currently entities have to provide both a principal office and a registered agent's office. Address for a while, the Secretary of State's office permitted entities to provide the registered agent's office address to serve as both principal office location and a registered agent location and changed because in reviewing Arkansas law that wasn't consistent with existing law.
The reasons that Some companies do not provide principal office addresses is because one in modern times with businesses being small and operated from personal homes or being operated from mobile locations. They don't have principal offices, and 2, there's a safety concern, especially if you're operating a business out of out of your office. So we approached the Secretary of State's office about allowing entities that do
not have principal office to use. the registered agent's office address to serve for both working with the Secretary of State's office to address their needs, to have that information. We arrived at this bill that again allows LLCs, corporations to use registered agent office address as a principal office if they don't have one, as long as they provide certain information to the Secretary of State's office regarding contact information for officers
and directors. It's again an agreed upon bill. The Secretary of State's office is advised us that they're OK with it. Was there any questions? You know, go ahead, Senator
Speaker 6
12:17
Boyden. I've got a question. I'm just trying to
think of how to formulate it. So, so this is going, so are we using a law office to create a res an address or are we using
somebody's help me understand, be very clear about which address we're using. It's whoever
Speaker 49
12:42
they choose to be their registered agent, so CT Corp,
Derek Smith
Unverified
12:46
Northwest, whoever can accept service of process as long as that would be served as both principal office and register. an office address primarily for businesses that don't have principal offices. OK. So I, I just want to clarify and,
and again, I'm just asking, it doesn't make me, but like, let's
say I, I use an address that's not my address. And then somehow, so I've used an attorney and I quit paying my attorney and my attorney doesn't really represent, are we going to continue to have that address, the attorney's address, or will that have to be cleaned up at some point. That
Derek Smith
Unverified
13:26
would be updated the exact same way that current registered offices. It is a commercial function if you stop paying your registered agent, they notify the Secretary of State's office. You're
required to update with a new registered office,
OK. So there is a mechanism that would catch that, yes, OK, thank you. Is
Speaker 7
13:47
there any other questions? There's no one signed up, uh, to speak against this bill,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
13:53
you know, close your bill. He was chair, I'm closed, and I make a motion for to pass. All right, motion in
Speaker 9
14:01
a second by Senator Johnson. Uh, any discussion, all in favor say aye. I'll oppose Laan. Thank
Speaker 11
14:08
you, Senator for Running Senator Hammer's bill. But I do one more. Senator McKee,
Speaker 6
14:27
McKee, Senate District 6. This is a very simple bill that
Derek Smith
Unverified
14:39
hardly does anything, just a clarification of some statutes. There's some ambiguity in the code as to when certain certificates are required. This just clears up that language and basically codifies existing practice utilities and the PSC have looked at it and they don't have any issues with it, so happy to answer any
Speaker 27
14:56
questions. Is there any questions? Saying none, no one signed up for or against the bill. You're going to close your bill? I'm
Speaker 7
15:04
closed and I make a motion to do pass motion by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Voy. Any
Speaker 11
15:10
discussion? All in favor. Say aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator, for passing your bill this
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
15:21
time. I'm presenting you feel. Senator dismaying on Senate Bill 475. So introduce yourself and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:37
members, you know, we've been debating PBMs and
their interactions and what's been happening, and I think, you know, we've passed a number of laws
in regards to PBMs and the impact that they're having on our local pharmacies, very recently we had a pretty extensive debate on Rule 128. I think it was over the summer, maybe a little bit off of my time, but one of the things I learned about in that meeting was there was actually a middle man to the middle man. We call the PBMs the middle man. Between the PBMs and the pharmacs, there's there's actually PSAOs, and those PSAOs
act as the contract writers essentially for our local pharmacist. And so when they're contracting with the PBM, it's the PSAOs that set that up. And so at the end of the day what we heard in Rule 128 and that discussion was, is that the PSAOs were not doing their jobs. They were not fighting for our local pharmacists to ensure that they were being adequately reimbursed according to the contracts. In fact, they just said, no, there's always a wiggle room, the PBMs know how to get around all the contracts. Well, that's
a fault to the PSAOs. And their inability to do what they need to do to represent our local pharmacists in the contracts that they implement for them on their behalf. I'll just give you some personal examples of things that's happening and it's going to be happening to your constituents if we're not very careful. And again, I do believe it's a direct result to what the inability of the PSAOs, who by the way are vertically integrated are doing to our local
pharmacists are not doing would be probably the better way to put that, but we have local pharmacists in Cersey right now in my district that are using HIPAA to bypass their insurance companies so they can be directly paid on the drugs that they are losing money on and selling. They're using HIPAA to be able to do that, and that's at the direction of some folks with the pharmacy Association. With ties to the pharmacy Association. They're having to
do that because they are losing money. And so when we had a conversation about it, and it's not just with one or two people, but a number of people across the folks that are trying to serve, they're having to do that, which means that their insurance is no good on certain drugs at that pharmacy. Which means they're having to pay higher costs for those drugs than the insurance says they should have to pay. But when I went in and had a conversation about what was going on, I
asked, well, what are the PSAOs doing for you? They're the ones that drafted these contracts. They're supposed to be helping you enforce these contracts. Nothing is too difficult. They're not willing to help. And so what
this bill does is require a registration and licensing process for PSAOs.
The middle man to the middle man that is also vertically integrated. It makes sure that there are
uh that that their contracts and all the
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
18:48
information is going to be made available to the insurance department and with that
I understand where we are in the room and what we have going on. I'll be happy to take questions. Questioned by
Senator Boyd. So Senator Dismay, I appreciate
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
19:07
you bringing this bill. I, I think that we do
need, um, regulation on PSAOs. Can PSAO's collectively bargain for pharmacies legally? Can they collectively bargain
for, I don't know, I think you probably know the answer to your question, so go ahead. Ah, I just was curious if you thought they could collect. I mean, because we're, we're blaming the PSAOs for something, and I'm just, uh, part of that seems to be in the collectivelyOs who are in charge of creating the contracts, the pharmacist is punted and said, Hey, I want you to develop this contract to the PBMs. Is that
correct? That is, that is correct, sir. That's correct.
And they're not willing to help enforce the contracts that they're writing. Is that correct? Ah I don't know what I've had numerous pharmacies and in testimony on Rule 128 that was said to be the case. OK, that that I didn't make that up. I'm not a pharmacist. I couldn't have made it up, but that is
Speaker 83
20:05
what I've heard over and over again. I even heard it as recent as this
Speaker 9
20:17
Monday, when I was told that this legislation was needed because the PSAOs weren't doing
Speaker 41
20:21
their jobs. OK. So, It is my understanding that they cannot collectively bargain. So I guess the
Speaker 26
20:33
question then I would have for you if they can't, then when the PSAO does not sign the contract, then can the PBM go directly to the, to the pharmacy and contract. I'll let you
Speaker 7
20:42
answer your own questions. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. Yes, they can. Is there any other questions? Uh, I'd like the pharmacy Association to come up.
We have, we have, go ahead and introduce yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
Speaker 26
21:00
you, Senator, dismay for working on this. John Vinson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association. So we have 2 bills today. To be heard on this issue. What is uh if you see any difference or uh Lacking in this bill compared to the other bill. Please, please share that
knowledge. Sure. So I think both bills are good in terms of what his goal is to regulate the PSAOs and give the insurance department the tools they need to oversee these interactions that happen between pharmacies and um PBMs. We've heard from members. I've got a member here behind me that owns a store that has a contract with PSAO Randy Cassilla, if you'd like to hear from him. he'd be happy to come up to, but there has been some of the language in Senate Bill 475 is accurate and some of it is I'm not sure where it came from, and they're not necessarily things that the PSAO does for a pharmacy, and I heard from some independent pharmacists from Arkansas and from other states and from the PSAOs that they had
concerns about the language, and so I encourage the health. Healthcare distribution alliance, HDA that represents PSAOs and the PSAOs themselves to provide some language to either senator dismaying or to Senator Boyd, who had questions, who actually has been contracted personally with the PSAO and used to serve on the board of one of the PSAO's epic Senator Boyd, I don't know if you disclosed that or not, but used to, not currently, but had knowledge of it all the time.
Yeah, so, OK. He's, he's OK, so I just wanted to provide language that would be more clean or would, and I didn't write it, but it was provided and we do like the language in Senate Bill 593 better, not that, not that Senator Dismay's bill isn't accomplishing high level what he did present. He's accurate about that. And back to Senator Boyd's question. I know this is a little bit, but on the PSAO being able to collectively negotiate, they do have relationships with the PBMs and
they know them and they execute. contracts and other administrative sufficiencies or efficiencies, excuse me, for the pharmacies, but federal antitrust law does not allow the PSAOs to actually collectively bargain on behalf of the pharmacies they represent, that would be an awesome thing if we had a statewide antitrust exemption for our pharmacies to, at least for statewide plans, neither of these bills do that, but it would be awesome if they could collectively bargain, but
the PSAO simply pass through what they are offered, and many of the PSAOs don't allow the pharmacies to use, or excuse me, the PBMs actually will not even allow the pharmacy to use a PSAO, so it's very PBM specific and size of pharmacy specific. I don't know if that answered your question, but the language is cleaner in Senate Bill 593. So, uh, what happens if we pass
Speaker 7
23:51
both of these bills out. My understanding would be
Speaker 26
23:58
whichever one was signed last would take precedence if there's any kind of conflict between them. Senator Have you reviewed
Speaker 90
24:09
Senator Boyd's bill? Yes, and it's very clear to me
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
24:14
it does a lot more than regulate PSAOs. I don't know what all exactly it does do, but it goes into, it does a lot more than that. And again, this right here is just a requirement of disclosure of conflicts if they
do exist, it's the ability for them to be audited. It's the requirement for them to be registered and licensed with the state. I, I can't imagine why we would not want to do that, especially like I said, when you've got local pharmacists and district right now that are not able to take insurance on certain drugs and having to charge the consumers more, their patients more for the drugs that they need because the PSAOs are not willing to work on behalf of the pharmacies that they are writing the contracts for.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
24:59
So, uh, uh, Senator Murdoch, go ahead. So what I said to this man, what I wanted to
do was kind of for you to address some of these things that uh messengers mentioned that the weaknesses of the bill or you know, that's my word, weaknesses as he described those things, especially in relationship to PBMs how PBMs are in this. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, so this is the
PSAO is the middle man to the middle man. We call the PBM the middleman,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:25
right? That's what we need to cut out the middle man. That's what we've
been looking at in legislation as a legislature for a long time, right? Well, what I found out when we're having the discussion on Rule 128. Well, in fact, there's a middleman to the middle man, and it's called a PSAO. They are the ones that are riding the contracts for our independent pharmacists in the state. And they're also supposed to be the ones that are working on behalf of the pharmacist to ensure that those contracts are followed. What we found in in the discussion on 128, they're
writing the contracts and then they're walking away. They're not helping the pharmacist enforce the contracts they have put in place, and I believe that was his testimony and has been followed up by pharmacists in my district. Pretty much everyone that I've talked
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
26:42
to that operates with a BSAO, the PSOs are walking away or are not doing their
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
26:47
job, they're not helping enforce the contract and to the detriment of the patient. it is absolutely to the
detriment of the patient because our patients with insurance right now now are being told that their insurance does not cover the
drugs. The PSOs aren't arguing for an increase. And so the pharmacists are then using HIPAA to bypass the insurance policies so that they can sell those drugs individually to the patient at whatever price they determined to be sold at. So this bill is going to allow AID to
enter into that relationship and regulate, yeah, just to, we're gonna, we're going to peek under and see what's happening with PSAOs because right now they're, you know, we're requiring that the insurance department collect from the PBMs all of these contracts. Well, guess who else has the contracts? The PSAOs. They helped write them, but they're nowhere in the discussion in regards to Rule 128. Senator Boyd. So Senator Dismay, you, you said they helped write them. Do they really do the PSAOs really help them, or they just signing them on behalf of the pharmacies. I mean, there's a, there's an important distinction, you know, between I write the contract because typically insurance companies write contracts and we either agree to them or we don't.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
27:29
I think you and I both know that that would be a very nuanced way to say something. They're being presented a contract to sign that's being drafted by the PSAOs. That is my understanding. when I talk to pharmacists, and it is a duplicative contract that's being signed by multiple pharmacists as a it's uniform and so if the
PSAO chooses not to sign a contract, can then the PBM go, hey, you're going to lose, you know, 500 patients, 600 patients, 1000 patients, because your PSA won't, won't sign this on your behalf, and
then the pharmacy go around and, and sign it anyhow. You, I will let
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:05
you answer your own questions, right? This is not my world. I am telling you what my local pharmacies have told me and what was the testimony in Rule 128 and for whatever reason we want to protect this entity. I don't know why. This this is this is a problem. My pharmacists tell me they are not being represented by the PSAOs. They're helping with the contracts. But they are not doing the backend work and that is
to the detriment of the patient. And
either we're going to focus on the patient or we're not. Senator
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
28:40
Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Dismay, it's, it's kind of hard to in this context sit here and compare and contrast the two bills, but one thing it does stand out is the Senate Bill 593 has a prohibition on take it or leave it contract, which you just brought up that that issue, and I did not find one in Senate
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
29:04
Bill 475. Is it this is a purely licensing and registration bill that the bill that you're talking about goes much farther and gets into the involvement of PB. Ms. I'm not, this isn't about PBMs. This is about the licensure and registration of PSAOs and allowing the
regulation by the insurance department. What he's wanting to do is something that is vastly different. And when we talk about what you know, changes to this legislation, there's been no one from the pharmacy Association approached me with legislation changes to this
right here. Senator Boyd had talked to me about having an issue or wondering what the possible fees would be, and they could be exorbitant because it's not stated here, but I also remind you that all those fees would have to come before us in a rules committee, and so we would have the final authority over that. That was the one concern that I heard, except for the fact that we would just probably not do rather do anything with PSAOs and let them continue to fly underneath the radar. Well, better to have two bills than no
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
29:59
bills. So thank you for bringing this surely come up with something. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Boyden.
Senator Dismay, page 5, section 20 or 23-991905. That appears to get into some audit language, so, so while I'm, I'm for you on audits, it seems to do more than just license and regulate PBMs. I mean, it, it, would you not say that gives PBMs the ability to go in and ask PSAOs for information that I don't know why they wouldn't
get from the pharmacy themselves that gives the insurance department to the ability
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
30:36
to go in and gather that information
and I mean that's the way that it reads. Was there any other questions? Uh, senator, you
Speaker 7
30:47
don't have a House member as a sponsor on here. I'll take care of that. No, we're going to do that today.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
31:01
OK. Who are you gonna have? I guess I've not been in a
Speaker 7
31:03
committee that has that rule. Well, You know me well enough to know if you don't do it. OK.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
31:11
All right, then I'll pull it down I guess and wait on a committee, I mean, do you want, do
Speaker 7
31:17
you want to amend it today? Do you have, I'll do that. I'll I'll
Speaker 81
31:20
get you a name here in just a few minutes then.
Speaker 7
31:23
All right, we'll, we'll come, we'll come back and, and whenever you get somebody and we'll we'll do that amendment. All right. Thank you, Senator. Senator Gilmore.
Speaker 91
31:49
This is a Senate bill 481. That's what? That's correct. Thank you, 481 81 members Senator Gilmore, District 1, just for the record,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
31:57
this has nothing to do with PBMs or PASOs or PSAOs, whatever that acronym is, just so we're clear, but it has something to do with insurance, um, ready to proceed when you are, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you, members.
Just to give you some background, some context, because I think it's important when we talk about this issue. So about 2 years ago, we were made aware of an issue facing our institutions of higher education and K-12, and that was the rising cost of premiums, staggering cost of premium increase that we were seeing in some cases my house sponsor Jeff Wardlaw testified in committee
yesterday that we saw over a 200% increase. I know, for instance, we saw 180% increase in premiums in one instance alone with with some school districts. So we began a study and I'd like to point out a lot of the names on the bill are folks that have been really involved in this process for 2 years. Some members on this committee were very involved, and I think it's really important to highlight the work that was done to try to
get to where we are. And so this bill is an effort to address what we know to be an issue with brides and premium. costs associated with, you know, weather patterns and and all sorts of things that we're seeing. So what this bill does is it creates a framework, um, it's it's to create a stable and affordable and self-sustaining program for property insurance for all K-12 public and charter schools, public institutions of higher education, state-owned properties, and be administered under one entity rather than having three different entities
as is currently the case handling this coverage. I want to point out. But it's the intent of this bill that this new program will be beneficial to the entities will not cause any undue burdens to them and the transition of the new program and as such what this bill does is it moves it creates this program um at the Shared Services Department and is given very broad rulemaking authority so that they can implement this bill, and it's our intent of this bill that the rules include provisions for the institutions of higher education to determine the level of
insurance coverage and risks that they'll be taking on under the program. The rules will state that any coverage under other than the full coverage will be agreed in writing describing that the property is what is what the property is being insured, the institutions of understanding any risk institutions retain in itself, and it's also our intent that those rules will include provisions to address deferred maintenance issues with K-12 schools and higher institutions, a higher ed institutions, and make sure that we keep up with the necessary maintenance.
I stayed all that because I want to be very clear what the bill does and what our intent in the rulemaking is, so just to circle back, this bill creates a framework for the state to enter into a captive insurance program, so that we can manage risk that we can manage costs and that we can over the course of however long this program is in effect, make sure that we are doing the best we can for our state owned property. be it higher ed, K-12, or state agencies. I think it's important at this point. I'm happy to take questions. I don't want to just keep talking because I can do that a lot. So with that, I'm
Speaker 7
35:24
open to any questions, members. Senator, do you have any idea what You know, the possibility of of managing cost, you know, how much
Speaker 126
35:34
do you think they'll be in savings if we're doing this more or less self insurance. Well, and I think again there's a lot
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
35:41
of variables in the equation. What the one thing that we have been assured over the course of this study and even with our brokerage firms that have been retained and the captive manager that's been retained as a result
of this study, we are going to see what I think is significant cost savings. Some estimates and include 15 million in just the first year, and I think that will end up compounding itself. There's going to be money in addition to that, there's going to be money set aside that will be in a different bill to the tune of about 136 million in one-time funding to capitalize this program, and then that money will sit there, the money that is is basically sitting there in reserve, we'll sit there and work, continue to work for us so that we have monies
available as this program continues to go on and So it's a self-sustaining program, and I think it's important that we understand that Senator Murdoch. Yes, sir. Thank you,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
36:39
Chair. Thank you, Cindy Gilmore, for your diligence in this and all the legislators that preceded you. There's been a lot of work done on this, uh, over the past uh couple of years and so I do appreciate and I appreciate you, um, bringing me information that
was critically important to the questions I had. So, and obviously the, the no-brainer part of this conversation is, is premiums are going up and we're seeing an increase in all that and we do know that there needs to be something done. My concern, if you will, and I think we've talked about this,
if we can go to page 1010, yeah. Page 10, um. If we look at Um Lines
Uh, 17 to 23, uh, because so much of what we're doing here is speculative, and we're guessing, educated, they would be or or and hoping and praying that things because in insurance, you know, we predict a lot of predictions. There's a lot of trends of things that are looked at, uh, what will happen, we won't know until days pass. But one thing that's being mandated in this that I think is is is problematic is that it requires a public school district to be insured under the state capital of insurance
program respect insurance coverage of the buildings about structure, etc. but they, in order to get the financial participation from the academic facilities but partnership program, they must do this. I think it's, it's, it's, it's, we go way too far, far of a reach, uh, and I know you call it incentive. But I, I think it's, it's a mandate on those don't
Speaker 130
38:22
take my words before I can get there. I think it's a mandate, uh, almost that that that that handicaps districts for being able to make
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
38:33
independent good decisions based upon their research, their ability to look into this matter as we have to some degree, we have some school districts with some school boards and some and along with their other resources that could that have come up with some options during this. This, this, this uh research and development time R&D period. So to put this section in there, I think it's, it's a section that should not be there. I think that's section. I think we should allow the district at the end of the day. I think we
should present this to them, give them the opportunity and then let them weigh their options or whether they want to be a part of this or no. I don't think we should say because this quasi is a mandate and you must do it to get the money. We know the districts need that facility. the money. So I just don't think we're doing it right as a legislature if we force them to do it. Well, thank you, Senator Murdoch, and our conversation, I think, you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:26
know what I'm going to say to that, but I, I do want to expound and so first of all,
I do think that um you, you raised some good points, um, I, I do think that this is an incentive to make sure that our school districts are taking advantage of something that will be very beneficial to them. The one thing that I'd like to point out is basically there are two different programs that handle um higher K-12 institutions, ones with the school board association and ones with the state and those two programs will be consolidated under this. I think there was one, maybe 2
schools, um, uh, that I know of that weren't a part of either of those programs, um, and I think one was in Northwest Arkansas and there may be one in the central Arkansas area that weren't a part of those two programs and so I think the likelihood based on my conversation. with the school board association, met with them actually over spring break. Unfortunately, I was working on this bill, that their concerns candidly, they're, they're, I think neutral in this bill. I, I don't think that they were
concerned about a school not participating in this program because they understand what the intent, the intent is and what we're trying to do and at the end of the day we want to try to control costs for the school district, and so I haven't had a school district reach out to me. As a result of this, I haven't heard those concerns other than having my conversation with the school board association and their comments were such we get what you're trying to do and we don't think there will be a school district not want to participate Wow, and that's, that's interesting
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
41:04
that testimony is interesting and I appreciate it
and I and I believe you, um, so what I'm probably led to believe that I'm dealing with is, uh, Maybe people feeling pressured that they must do, um, you know, inherit pressure because I know what I'm getting, so maybe there's some inherent pressure here. I don't know, but I mean, certainly, I, I think I've say what I need to say and hopefully those other, others will speak for themselves as I am because now I'm I'm I'm kind of out here on a limb because I've said
something and hopefully they'll follow up with with with the backup for what
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
41:44
they said to me, and I would be happy to have have those conversations. Again, I think we've tried to look, you know, you were a part of the conversations in this process, and we appreciated your input in those committee hearings. I don't think we've tried to do anything that was sort of, you know, wasn't completely transparent, completely open. I think everyone understood exactly what we were trying to do and where we got to, and in fact some of the comments, some of the questions I was asked was, you know, had we looked at other
states as a result of trying to learn from mistakes. We did. We looked at Tennessee. We, we did some things that were a little different than what Tennessee did when they did this to try to avoid that was a concern raised by the superintendents and school board association, so I think there was a lot of things that we tried to address this conversation has been going on for 2 years again, I think they've had an opportunity to have
a lot of input, and we certainly sought that input in my last act, chair, if I may, that, that Paragraph was put, was put in
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
42:42
probably because and you helped me with this, the more that's in the pool makes this a better deal for us that we're trying to
Speaker 130
42:48
my words before I can get there, but you're, you're good at, so
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
42:52
I guess that makes sense. No, it does. And again, that was certainly one of the things that they, that they actually said in the meeting was, we get what you're trying to do. You're trying to pull as much risk to help manage the cost, and that again, it's an incentive. I know we can call it a mandate because of the way that it's written and the funding, I don't necessarily see
it that way, because again, the goal is to incentivize what we're what we're trying to do in this program and to incentivize them to be a part of something that will actually help them. And
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
43:23
so really all the major organizations are, you're saying, and it stuck with me, it's consolidated together. They've come together as the two major providers, if you will, have come together, you said it in this, yes, so we're, we're basically, so one of the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
43:34
issues that I think was identified over the course this two-year study was that the insurance department, which is
the regulatory entity, was also trying to manage a program, and that's very difficult, and there were some issues that were pointed out as a result of that. Again, not, not anything on anybody here other than this needs to be set up and it's very set up very similar to the EBD program that is in a different agency and then therefore AID, the insurance department, has regulatory oversight and so that is what we're trying to establish here, remove it from insurance because they're the entity, put in a different agency, and therefore there's no
conflicts, there's no, you know, potential issues that arise of an entity that's trying to manage a program and regulate the program, so that was one of the reasons that you see a lot of this language and the way it's crafted, and again, I will point out there's very broad rulemaking authority which will come back through ALC and we will have you know, look at and and review of those rules before they're promulgated or as they're promulgated, so I think that's important to point out. So it was, it was the school boards
Speaker 9
44:46
association had a had a foot in this thing, right, to begin with for
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:50
for 2 years, yes, sir. In fact, they're the ones that, and if I may, Mr. Chair, they're the ones that came to us, if you remember, we did some one time funding to help address some of the premium increases they were seeing across the state in our school districts, and so they're the ones that sort of initiated, hey, there's a problem, this problem is out of control premium increases. And so this is where we got to with that, and, and if we can
Speaker 126
45:16
set that 130, what is it, 35 million 13636 million aside that In itself will help those rates in in this process. Well, it, it will, it will help, yes, and then I think there's
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
45:27
also a look down the future of with with that money working for us, you know, is there a way to then also look at options down the road again, I want to be careful because I don't want to speak out of turn, but look down the road at ways we can help with deferred maintenance on our school districts or higher ed or
whatever it might be and so that's that's something that we're trying to be mindful of. Is
Speaker 29
45:53
any other questions? Seeing none no one signed up for or against this bill. Do you think it
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
46:01
makes sense, uh, chair, to hear from those other entities, uh, ASBA or I mean, OK, make them come, but they're so integral in this conversation if they're here and want to speak, I'm happy to do that, but in the
Speaker 7
46:26
the room no one in the room, so I would say that they're, they've got to be pretty good with the bill, so I
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
46:32
will tell you they pay quite close attention to the deals we run around here, so I don't, I don't think, again, do I think and I, I want to be clear because I don't, I don't want to make it sound like that there's so just to be 100% clear, they're going to watch very closely the rules that are promulgated as a result of this,
and the one thing that I think that I told them in talking with them is we want you to be at higher ed, be it K-12, whoever we want you to have a seat at the table as we promulgate these rules, and I
think it's important, and I'll state that on record as I told them I would. All right. Any other questions?
Speaker 6
47:08
Um, there's no one signed up for against the bill. You want to close your bill? I'm going to quit belaboring the point.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
47:16
I'd ask for a good vote. I'd appreciate the committee's time,
and thank you, I'm closed. Motion by Senator McKee, seconded
Speaker 9
47:23
by Senator Johnson, any discussion? All in favor, say ah. All in favor say aye. All in favor, say ah. Ian. Thank you, Senator. You passed your bill. work
Speaker 60
47:52
Senator Boyd, do you want to run 593 if you would like for me to, I do.
Speaker 148
47:59
I had it. OK. Thank you for the opportunity, sir. Introduce yourself and
Speaker 6
48:19
you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Justin Boyd Fort
Smith and he'll introduce himself, but I got Randy Cassilla, of pharmacist here in central Arkansas who is going to help me present this bill. Thank
Randy Casasilla
Unverified
48:34
you committee members. My name is Randy Cassai. I'm a pharmacy owner. Um, here from Central Arkansas and Little
Rock. I So we've already this morning we've heard some information on a pharmacy service administration organization or
administrative organization also known as
a PSAO and what this bill is a will work to regulate or um License,
Speaker 75
49:02
um, register was the word I was looking for, uh, a
PSAO in the state of Arkansas and provide for some definitions. So with that said, I'm going to hand it over to Mr. Dr. Cassasilla to give a little
bit further background on this bill.
Speaker 156
49:29
Thank you, Senator. I believe as someone that contracts with one of the 6 largest PSAOs in the nation. What this bill does that the previous bill does not do is it gives the PSAOs the ability to require the PBMs to have state-spec specific amendments or contracts that are specific to our laws
here in our state. This legislature has done a tremendous job passing previous laws. the insurance commissioner and that department the ability to regulate different reimbursement rates and things like that and so this just further gives the PSAOs the ability to require the PBMs to make a state-specific contract rather than just saying or we'll just follow the state laws, to speak to Senator Dismay's point earlier, and he said that
the PSAOs are not doing their jobs. It's in my opinion, I agree they aren't doing their jobs, but Because the contracts are so How should I say, convoluted or ambiguous the way that the PBMs drafted the contracts that they're not able to do what they need to do, and so this bill has a big portion of that in here that allows them to have that section and then also Allows them the PSAOs to report to the insurance commissioner
just like if I were to receive a contract from any of the big 3 or any of the PBMs a take it or leave it contract. It allows those PSAOs to then have someone to report to if we want to see what the PSOs are doing, we also need to be able to see what kind of burdens are put upon them, upon the PBMs. The previous bill does not have those protections in my opinion, and this bill does. So I, I want to add something, so I, you know, we have our own
personal stories and so what I would say is I had a situation in a pharmacy where I co-owned. We've disclosed all that where A reimbursement rate was changed on the brand name drugs and typically that is something that's put in the contract, but what happened is that right was just changed and the PSAO didn't know. The PBM just unilaterally changed that rate, um, and so we investigated and found out the
PSAO because they had claims information, they were able to Say that to acknowledge that, yes, that rate change did really, but they weren't able to stop it. They didn't really have, so yes, there's a broken process. Do I think the PSAO is where all the broken process is. No, but what I do think is that they are part of this process, the state needs to know who they are. They need to be registered with the state. The insurance commissioner does need to be able to understand what they're doing and how they're
functioning in the state of Arkansas and have some level of site. This is a good first step in in making that happen. Was there any questions? Seeing then,
Speaker 7
52:40
uh, we have no one signed up for or against the bill. Does anybody
Speaker 29
52:45
want to speak for or against the bill, seeing none. You want to close your bill? Um, at a, I'm closed
for my bill. I'd appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass motion by
Speaker 9
52:58
Senator Boyd, second by Senator Johnson in Penzo, um, any discussion all in favor say aye. I'll oppose like sign. Thank you, Senator. All right, we're going to go to House Bill.
Speaker 11
53:38
1079. You want to bring anybody to the table with you, Senator Wallace. You know This has an amendment we're gonna let staff pass that out. And a hand a handout, and a handout. this Yeah. Yeah Yes.
Speaker 163
54:11
still needed to. Oh Introduce yourselves starting with Senator
Speaker 9
54:26
Wallace. Sir, Senator Day Wallace, District 19. State Representative
Speaker 165
54:31
Fred Allen District 77. Semao I am the director of the clinical research department and
Speaker 166
54:43
genetic and genomic program at Cartai. I'm representing the patients here. Just bend your back
Speaker 126
54:50
down that sucker. is wild. Just been, been that bottom part, that flexible part,
Speaker 9
54:55
bend it. There you go. That way we can hear from you whenever we get there. All right, go ahead, Senator Wallace. Sir, this bill, and members This
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
55:07
bill will save lives. Not many bills that we're we're
Speaker 9
55:13
gonna adopt your amendment motion by Senator McKee to adopt the amendment seconded by Senator Penzo. Any discussion, all in favor, say aye. All opposed like san, uh,
Speaker 7
55:26
go ahead and present your bill as amended. Yes, sir. Thank you. Every one of this
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
55:32
building has seen the toll that cancer takes on our colleagues, our families, and our communities. I'm carrying this bill in partnership
with representative Fred Allen. Who is a cancer survivor.
And who has fought hard to beat this disease and on behalf of the American Cancer Society in our efforts to fight and save Lives of all Americans. This bill is about politics. It's about people. We have worked hard with other stakeholders to be collaborative in this bill, and there's no cost to the state, and there's no undue burden. To the states and other states that have passed this bill.
The increase to private insurers has typically been less than 3%, meaning the increase for private insurers projected is projected to be around $1 or less per member per month. That's less than a cup of coffee. This bill's already passed in the House and members, I ask you to pass it as well. And with that, I would like to have our, uh, our doctors speak up. Go ahead and present it
Speaker 166
56:49
will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wallace and Representative Allen for giving me this opportunity to speak to your committee. First of all, I would like to ask your permission to remind everybody about what the genetic testing is, and that would be something very important because if we know exactly what we are dealing with we understand why we need to support this bill. Our genetic code, which is made up of four letters, but the total number of
letters in our genes is about 3 billion letters, and those are stored in our chromosomes that are 23 pairs, half of them come from the mother, half from the father. Any mistake in reading that code can lead to change of the genes and that can lead to abnormal cell functioning. If we inherit that from our parents, then that becomes something genetically transmitted to the down to the children and grandchildren and
so on, but however, these changes can happen during our lifetime. Why? Because we start with one cell, fertilized egg, right, but every one of us, if you look at yourself, you are made up of 10 trillion cells, 10 trillion cells, and every cell carries The same number of genes, the same number of chromosomes as we are going through life, we produce 1000 more this biomass, which means that even if we
don't inherit something from our parents, one of these genes might read wrong or get some spelling mistake and you have the beginning of possibility of beginning of cancer. The human genome project was published about 25 years ago. It took us about 15 years to decode, to sequence that genome and $15 billion. At this point we can do the entire human genome in 2 or 3 weeks for a few $1000. We're not
asking for that. This bill is asking to cover for small number of genes that can be done with the mere $200 or $300 for every test, and what does that mean? That means for in Arkansas, for example, we make a diagnosis this year. We are going to make a diagnosis of cancer for 20,000. Out of those 10%, which is 2000, would have some genetically transmitted disease or cancer, I
would say predisposition to cancer and out of those we, many of them don't know about it yet because we have not run these tests. If we do these tests, not only will we be able to implement program that would help these patients get screened more intensively to prevent cancer from killing them. But also we can screen their family members for every member of the family who has genetic mutation, we count about somewhere between 8 and 10 who
might be also carriers, and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree relatives, which means really we can't focus our attention on those patients who have the highest risk of cancer, and then perhaps down the road those who don't have any risk of cancer, we can leave them alone a little bit longer. So the, the bill here is talking about trying to offer this testing to patients so they can know exactly if they have the genetic mutations or if they
have acquired something during their lifetime. Now, the issue of the uh these genes, and I'm going to take specific one that everybody knows about the Angelina Jolie gene this famous Hollywood actress who was discovered that she had the and went through bilateral mastectomy to prevent cancer. Uh, these are the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. They were discovered respectively in 1994 and 1995, uh, a company took
hold of that discovery and put the patent on the gene, and since 1996, since the time we started being able to test for that gene, the cost for one test was like 6 $7000. Until everybody start complaining about that. The lawsuit. went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court actually ruled that human DNA cannot be patented. From then on, that happened in 2013. There
was an explosion of techniques and evolution in that regard, and that's where really things started becoming very easy on us interrupt you, but I don't
Speaker 9
1:01:42
want to take genetics again, uh, so we appreciate your testimony. If you need to
Speaker 36
1:01:47
clear anything up later, go ahead, uh, Representative Allan. OK Uh, thank you,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:01:54
Mr. Chairman. Um, I think there's some hidden costs and doing nothing. I think the highest rate uh lies best
due to um late stage detection. I think that stage one cancer treatment is $50,000 versus stage 4, which is $150,000. So the earlier we can detect disease that less money we will save and more lives were saved, and with that I'm close. All right, thank you.
Speaker 175
1:02:21
We have 3 to testify. for this bill, uh, start with Lindsey Pen.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:02:42
And, Mr. Chair, I've asked our witnesses, or to speak no more than 2
Speaker 6
1:02:47
minutes. All right, if, if you would just introduce yourself and uh and who you're with and your, you're recognized. Thank you.
Speaker 179
1:02:54
I'm Lindsay Penn and I'm a volunteer with
Speaker 180
1:02:56
the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, because I'm a cancer survivor. Uh, in August 2019 at age
Speaker 179
1:03:02
35, I was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. I received chemotherapy at MD Anderson in Houston, Texas, and then transferred here to Little Rock where I've been under the
continued care of Dr. Sam McCool. That's why I now volunteer for ACS can, the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society, advocating for evidence-based public policies to reduce the cancer burden for everyone. So on behalf of the many Arkansans who have and will be personally affected by cancer. We urge your support of this bill. Passage of House Bill 1079 will allow more patients to better understand their lifetime cancer risk and access much needed resources and screenings for
risk reduction. Genetic testing is not only a critical tool to enable early cancer detection. It's also an essential part of precision oncology, allowing care teams to create the best treatment plan for each patient. Early detection and more detailed information regarding a patient's unique genetic profile can help control costs throughout the cancer experience and may improve outcomes by Providing the right treatment at the right time. Early in my cancer journey, I underwent genetic testing to better understand my diagnosis and uncover any additional risk
factors. Fortunately, I was not predisposed for any types of cancer, which was an enormous relief for my family to know that heredity was not a factor. And furthermore, knowing the genetic makeup of my cancer cells enabled my oncology team to recommend a treatment plan,
Speaker 180
1:04:28
especially for me, and I've been in remission for almost 5 years. As tests
Speaker 179
1:04:35
such as these become a foundational part of our approach to cancer detection and treatment. Our policies for insurance coverage should evolve to support appropriate access. House Bill 1079 would eliminate
cost sharing requirements for gene genetic tests when clinically appropriate, as well as the recommended screenings based on their results by doing so, we can provide more Arkansans with the vital information needed for the early detection of cancer, personalized cancer treatments like mine and risk reducing medical treatments. Everyone should be empowered to make informed decisions about their health, the removal of barriers to clinically appropriate genetic testing will ensure that more patients across the state benefit from better care. Thank you so much. and I would appreciate your
Speaker 9
1:05:16
support of House Bill 1079. Thank you for that testimony just next time I know you get nervous, you did a great job. Just talk to us. All right, uh thank you for your testimony. You're dismissed. Uh, next is Linda. Mr. Chair, we'll
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:05:36
wave. The other, the other folks. All right. All right. Is there any questions from the committee?
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:05:47
Go ahead, Senator McCain. My name is Chairman. I just have to point this out. I'm in favor of what you're trying to do. But every, every coverage that we mandate only adds $1 to the coverage. Well, at this point I can't remember how many coverages we've mandated this year. And I want to mandate them all, right? I want people to be taken care of. I want them to be covered by the insurance and all that stuff, but at some point doesn't there come a point where Um, we can't mandate coverage for every ailment that affects
us as people and so I, you know, I don't want to tell anybody no, but at the same time we can't tell everybody yes. So how do we, how do we balance
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:06:29
that, Senator Wallace? We're talking about $1 a month, a cup of coffee. who were saving lives, sir. That's my answer. Is there any other questions?
Speaker 27
1:06:43
Um Would you close your bill? Mr. Chair, we're closed.
Speaker 9
1:06:52
All right, uh, what's the will of the committee? Motion by Senator McKee or Senator Murdoch has amended, second by Senator Penzo. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. I opposed like sign thank you guys. Thanks, doc. No, no, no, no offense, but uh I like science, but not everybody likes science. Thank you, thank you Thank, thank you for thank you,
Speaker 7
1:07:23
thank you. Thank you for taking the time to come and share with us.
Speaker 7
1:07:57
Oh sorry, I didn't even see you. There's, there's an amendment on this bill, if you
Speaker 41
1:08:03
would, uh, staff's got it, you're gonna pass it out
Speaker 36
1:08:41
All right, if you would look over. The amendment. Senator
Speaker 7
1:08:52
Boyd makes a motion to adopt the amendment seconded by Senator Penzo. Oh, all in favor say aye. All right, uh, please present your bill as amended. All right. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:09:07
Chair, and I appreciate that. Uh, we had done
this bill and forgot that the Attorney general wanted to make sure that they were not involved in this bill, and that's what this does. It, it doesn't, it doesn't let them be involved in the civil enforcement. That's what the amendment did, and I'd forgot it. Go down to the end and passed it on my end and we caught it and so we tried to get that in, but anyway, what this bill does, and I keep losing my bill because I, I gave it all to Petty and then here, here we are down here. Um, what this bill basically does, being a building contractor is a
few of you guys in here are, I think everybody at this table is so in some way or form or fashion, um, what this does basically is allows a contractor that has built a project, done a project where there's a remodel or a new home or something in that matter. OK, thank you. That's probably easier. read to my phone, um, it allows you if there's a problem that arises between you and the customer that there's a period
of cure that you could, uh, they would have to give you at least 28 days to address this problem, come up with a proposition with them and work with them on a timeframe, time frame to fix it or a time frame to have something that needs to be fixed, such as heat and air unit. refrigerator, it could be any kind of thing, appliances of any sort, anything that could be if it's a major problem that you have, you would have to sit down and address those problems, come up with an agreement, but you have 28 days to respond, 14 days
to actually wait to respond, and if you don't respond within 14 days, then, then they could start procedures against you, but you have 28 days to try to negotiate negotiate this or fix the problem. If it's something small, which, you know, I usually try to stay on top of my side. I'm sure. you guys do too. Stay on top of it, try to do it as it comes along. If you have a little issue, you fix it as you're going, but if it doesn't happen to you, people have moved into the house and it's 6 months later, this gives you a little bit of time before they just openly sue to have those things fixed, and that's basically what
it is. It's a 28 day cure period to do that. That's pretty well the gist of the bill. So Are
Speaker 7
1:11:25
the lawyers good with this bill? Do what now? Are the lawyers good with this bill? The Laws,
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:11:31
that's exactly why it's only about 3 pages. It started out as 15. They cut most all of it
Speaker 27
1:11:41
out. Well, I, I think it's good Bill trying to trying to mediate a situation that that we we don't get into more lawsuits, uh, is there any other questions?
Speaker 7
1:11:54
Uh, seeing none, you want to close your bill. I'm closed for it. I appreciate a good vote.
Speaker 9
1:11:59
All right, motion by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Boyd, any discussion all in favor say aye. I opposed like sign. Thank you very much. All right, all right, uh, Senator Wallace, do you got another good bill?
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:12:26
I 1321. Just introduce yourself and er Senator Dave Wallace, District 19, and I have with me Caitlin Highland, executive
Speaker 198
1:12:48
director of the Arkansas Medical Equipment Providers. You're recognized. You recognize.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:12:59
Sir, House Bill 1321 protects patients' access to life sustaining equipment items like noninvasive and invasive ventilation that they that have been prescribed for them by their physicians. When medically necessary patients should not have to fail first. On a less capable device. This will benefit patients like those with Lou Gehrig's disease, as well as others that suffer
from similar chronic complex respiratory ailments, including chronic respiratory failure. Consequently to chronic obstruction. Pulmonary disease, COPD, basically we're putting the doctor back into doctoring and letting the doctor make the decisions on what and how to treat the patient, and with that I'd like to Turn over to Caitlin. Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee.
Speaker 198
1:13:53
What we're trying to do with this bill is just codify what's already being implemented in the state of
Arkansas. What we're seeing um in surrounding states and on the coast is that insurers are requiring patients that have ALS, COPD or other respiratory diseases to fail first on a non, uh, or a less capable device like a CPAP or a BiPAP, those are clinically tested to help with um disorders like sleep apnea, whereas A rad device which is a noninvasive, or sorry, that's a rad device, a non-invasive ventilator and IV is clinically
tested to help with COPD, ALS, things of that nature. So what we're trying to do is keep insurers from requiring this fail first policy here in Arkansas. All right. Is there any questions?
Speaker 202
1:14:42
Go ahead, Senator Murdoch. Yeah, just excuse me
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:14:46
for my ignorance. The failed first concept, so Just educate me a little bit on that. Yeah, so basically what
Speaker 198
1:14:54
happens is you get um diagnosed with ALS or COPD or something of that nature, and your doctor
prescribes you to be on a ventilator of some sort, um, you take it to your insurance and not in the state of Arkansas, we've not seen it as much, but um in other states we've seen where insurers are starting to require that you fail first on a CPAP or a BiPAP, um, those kinds of equipment are not capable
Speaker 206
1:15:17
of. I mean, let's stay right there because fail first. Could
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:15:22
be with those diseases you're talking. Well, pretty fatal, um, and so I might not have a second chance if I fail first.
Speaker 198
1:15:31
Exactly. So that's what we're trying to keep from happening here in Arkansas. I will say this has already passed in Oklahoma and Louisiana, and they've seen a a great increase in their patients, um, outcomes,
Speaker 209
1:15:42
um, so yes, we're trying to keep that fill first away from
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:15:48
the statelay our doctors, doctor. And keeping the administrators out from making health choices for our, uh, our families, our friends, our neighbors, saving lives. Yes sir.
Speaker 7
1:16:04
Any other questions? Seeing none, uh, no one signed up to speak for against the bill. You want to close
Speaker 9
1:16:12
your bill, sir. I'm closed. All right, uh, what's the will of the committee? motion by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Boyd, any discussion, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, members. We saved lives today. I don't think I got.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:16:35
13. Hang on just a minute. I'm
Speaker 213
1:16:46
trying to get caught up here. So All right, uh,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:17:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. 1794 just pretty much allows exemptions from CEs um there's a few factors you have to be at least 72 years old, active sales or associate broker license for at least 25 years, no disciplinary action taken within the last 5 years and no delinquent continuing education fees or classes, I guess I should say within the last 5 years. There's additional For executive brokers and
principal brokers that none of their licensees they supervise have had disciplinary actions, or no delinquent education from the Agents that they supervise. So like I said, it's just for for people over a certain age and at 72, um, and they have had to have had 25 years of consecutive active real estate duty to be allowed for this exemption.
Speaker 9
1:18:18
Uh, see no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there any questions from the committee? So Go ahead, real quick
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:18:27
it's just an age exemption basically that you, you hit a certain age, you've had the required education. Yeah, we can assume if you've been an active agent for
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:18:36
25 years and you're over the age of 72, taking CE classes is kind of redundant at that point. Should do it probably a lot of things. Senator Murdoch, real
estate association, looked over and requested a few changes, and we made those. Sandy Pennzo look
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:18:56
at page one. Line 34 to 36. It so I'm sorry. How about you say page one? 3 to 36. OK. So previously, A commission made some
decisions as it relates to The the the members. What this
is doing is giving, I'm just looking at this first sentence is giving that now to the director himself. I'm always just a little cautious when we take a plurality of eyes away from a this choice a decision or something and we give it to just an individual. And in this case, that's what we're saying we're adding, why are we taking it
away from the commission. Um, it's, it's, uh.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:19:51
It's saying that We're adding this exemption to it, and it's an administrative. Uh, you know, the parameters are here. So instead of going through everybody, it's you meet these criteria, the executive director can Give the exemption. That, no, no, I heard that's what I read
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:20:16
what you said. I just was wondering why we would take because generally,
You know, because you're waving what you're doing is you're waiving the requirements in certain situations for people to meet certain standards and when that's being done, it just, I just think we should be careful in allowing an individual to do that versus several eyes around the table, kind of like us in the committee making a decision on a bill versus just a chair, just like justenator Johnson, excuse me, making all the decisions, you know, it just seemed like we should be careful of that. And I don't know and I don't. necessity of that. I understand
the other things that you're doing, but what's the necessity of just giving that person all of
that authority, if that makes sense. Good question.
Speaker 7
1:21:28
Is there any other good questioning none, there's no one to speak for against this
Speaker 9
1:21:41
bill, uh. What's the will of the committee? I'll make a motion too fast. Motion Senator Penzo second by Senator Boyd discussion on good questions. All in favor say aye aye, all opposed lean. Thank you, Senator. I have one. Uh
It's 1814. 1914. Uh, you want to do that. Amendment. All right, Senator Johnson, you're recognized if
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:22:25
you want to motion to amend the 1814 to put me on as a as a sponsor. I send
it in. We've got a motion and McKee seconds, all those in favor say ah. OK, you're now amended as the Senate sponsor. Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed.
Speaker 175
1:22:43
1818, 14. Like there's a song about this. All
Speaker 7
1:22:54
right. Representative Gazaway told me about this about before spring break and uh it
just means one code section, uh, And that's about all I know
Speaker 223
1:23:06
about it. If you got any good questions. right. I I don't
Speaker 7
1:23:25
I, I don't think it applies. To this situation or there's
been a problem in the in the application because it didn't apply in situation in all situations. I think that's what the change in the code section, uh, makes it more applicable. Yeah And it's, it's the same thing, but it has also 14 201129. Yeah, and you know, it keeps the first one, but, but it makes it more applicable to the situation. And I think that, I think that
it really applies to those municipal owned entities, those powers. I have a big problem. Yeah, I, I think, I think it's been a problem to wear interpretation it needs the additional code section, so. OK. Um Any
other questions? Singan, is there anyone in the audience to speak for or against this bill saying none, Senator
Blake Johnson, if you'd like to close
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:24:37
for your bill. I'm closed and I make a motion to pass House Bill 1814,
as amended as amended. Uh, and Senator McKee has seconded it. All those in favor say aye. Congratulations, Senator, you passed your newly amended bill. we're ready for,
Speaker 175
1:25:07
uh, Lee, do you want to run, uh, 527. The health opportunity. Yes, you do. I,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:25:18
I, I don't think I do want to run that right now, Senator. This is a Senator Urban's bill 527 to amend the Health and Opportunity Act for me. Yeah. You want to run that? I'm prepared to run
that. But I think that that is still
having some discussions around it, and I'm not think that's you worry about all those things. I do. I think the right thing to do at this moment on that bill is to pass over that one. I think that one needs to probably be passed over,
Speaker 250
1:25:52
OK, yeah, I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Well, it
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:25:55
was. I know I know, I know, I know, but I think, I think the right, right thing to do is hold off on that. Well,
Speaker 60
1:26:03
I hadn't heard from Senator Irvin on on that situation. that, but anyway, so you want to
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:26:09
start with 1300? I would like to start with 1300, Mr. Chairman, if I can. In committee, I'll try
Speaker 254
1:26:19
to be brief. I know y'all have been here a while already this morning. Are we gonna hear that or not because I'm gonna need to amend it. Hang on just a minute. Uh You
Speaker 41
1:26:32
We'll get to let let Lee do his thing and then I'm gonna, I'm gonna let you go. I got, I gotta
go run a bill, so, all right. Thank you, sir.
Yeah Powerful. All right, Representative Johnson, which bill are you
presenting? House Bill 1300. OK. Representative Johnson, introduce yourself for the record and then please begin presenting House Bill 1300.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:26:59
Representative Lee Johnson, District 47 members, this bill creates some clarifying language within the prior authorization Transparency Act, which we already have. This is a negotiated bill between healthcare providers and health
insurers. It creates the prior authorization transparency Act trust fund within the Department of AID to deposit. money based on fines related to any violations of the prior authorization Transparency Act and then allows a AID to use those funds for further enforcement of the act. It helps redefine what a prior authorization is to include a lot of synonyms that have been used by the industry. If you look on page 3, there's a whole list of items starting on B a little eye down through be
little X, which are other, other names. names that have been used within the industry for prior authorization, so we're just trying to clarify the definition that prior authorization also includes these other names and entities. There are other negotiated things within the bill that I'd be happy to answer questions on if anyone has any questions, just let me know, and I have some people here that come to the table to help answer questions well if needed. Committee, do we have any questions? Saying no
questions. Is there anyone signed up to speak for or against. No one's signed up to speak for or against. We have anybody who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1300. Singing Nun, a representative Lee Johnson. Are you closed? or do you want to close
Speaker 264
1:28:30
for your bill? I'm close for my bill
and appreciate a good vote. Thank you. OK. Do we have a motion to pass, got a motion. Uh, we got a 2nd, all in favor say aye. Uh, any opposed? OK. Congratulations, Representative Johnson, you've
passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OK. Are you here to present did he say if you
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:28:57
want, are you prepared to present more House Bill 1301. I'm prepared to present. I'd like to pass over House
Bill 1602 till next Thursday, next meeting, OK, well, let's hear House Bill 1301 if you'll introduce yourself again for the record and and
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:29:11
get started. Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. Members last session we passed. Some legislation that's colloquially referred to as gold
card legislation. This is legislation that rewards good health care providers and the prior authorization space. So if you're a health care provider who say orders MRIs of the knee on a regular basis and you regularly have been approved for those MRIs through the prior authorization process, then you could be given gold card status for a period of time and be exempt from having to ask for a prior authorization for that particular procedure. That's a process we set up and negotiate a last session through the insurance companies. One of the things we failed to do in passing that legislation is we
fail to define what gocart was, and so we're adding a gocart definition so that that's actually part of the law. The other thing is last session, everything was done retrospective because we have new providers coming into the state and there's no retrospective data. We're adding a prospective process for these new providers to gain gain go-kart status, so we're looking at giving them a time period where they could order tests, be followed and tracked by the insurance companies, and if they're proven to be Good stewards of that process, they could be rewarded with a gold card
status for prior authorization. Again, these are negotiated bills that worked on with the providers and with the insurance companies, and I don't know of any opposition to this bill, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. OK, you're good, any questions from the committee? Seeing no
questions, do we have anybody signed up to speak or to speak for or against no one has signed up to speak for or against. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill, saying none. Representative Johnson, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for a bill. All right, uh,
Representative Johnson is closed. Do we have a motion to pass. I've got a motion to pass. Do we have a second? I will second all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Uh, congratulations, Representative Johnson. You passed your bill. Do you have any more you're prepared to run. I don't. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee.
We, we've got more, more bills, so please don't run off yet. Uh, so Um Any idea when he's going to come back? The one of y'all want to come run the chair real quick while I present a bill. Can we
Speaker 268
1:31:47
run? Is there any rules that says somebody can't run it from there. Yeah. Yeah
Well, I'm, I don't, I'm not sure if you have seniority or Pennzo has seniority. You're older than he is, OK. OK.
It is Murdock seniority, yeah. All right. If you're well if you'll come.
Um Mr. Chair, with your permission, we're handing out an amendment to House Bill 1700. Yes, sir.
You have permission. OK, so this is an agreed to amendment between the two people who had concerns about this. We've previously heard House Bill 1700, uh, so this, you know, the there was so when we passed it out of committee, I didn't realize a commitment had
been made to amend it before we passed it out. Well, once it hit the Senate floor, I was notified of that and so we re-referred it to committee. This is the amendment that has been agreed to by, by both sides. So with that said, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the amendment. Been moved
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:33:26
to 2, all those in favor say aye, same time. Are you amendment has been adopted. So for the beer. Yes, so presenting the
bill as amended, so what this bill does
again just a reminder of what it did is on a prior authorization issue, then a physician can review something who works for, say, the insurance company can potentially deny it, but then what happens is that that physician's information goes out to the client, and by client I mean the the member of the insurance, but this physician had no relationship. So it creates confusion, it creates a situation where
someone might call the physician and ask for information, but that physician has no real relationship with the patient, but it makes clear that that physicians' information is available to the medical provider who is actually providing because if there were a denial of care, The physician who was providing the care would have every reason and need to be able to to get in touch with the the physician who had denied the prior authorization. So this is agreed to language, uh, now that
it's amended and I'm happy to try to answer any questions, any questions from the committee. Seeing none. Is anyone
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:34:49
here to speak for or against? No one signed up was
Speaker 274
1:34:53
the will of the are you wanna close for you, Bill. I'm closed. I make a motion to pass. Most you pass 2nd, all in favor say
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:35:01
aye, as amended, excuse me, you wanna stay or do the other one? Your bill passed as amended. Thank you.
You recognize for the next. What bill is it? House Bill 1467, Mr. Chair. I be
a 1467. So Senator Justin Boyd here to present House Bill 1467. I've got some backup with to help me present who will introduce themselves. Please introduce yourself. Good morning,
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
1:35:49
Mr. Chair and members. My name's Campbell McLaurin. I'm the deputy commissioner at the
Arkansas Security Department. In Karen Tierney, Arkansas Securities department.
that the securities that need updating because we've got concerns about fraud and other things, so I'm going to
let them do a better job of explaining. You recognize Senator Ward mentioned, this
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
1:36:18
is an agency bill from the Arkansas Securities Department proposing amendments to the uniform Money
Services Act primarily regarding virtual currency kiosks and data security requirements for money services licensees. The proposal regarding virtual currency kiosks is set set up is to set up a regulatory framework that implements anti-fraud consumer protections and additional compliance measures and disclosure. requirements for operators. These provisions have been negotiated in collaboration with the largest kiosk operators in Arkansas. The proposal regarding data
security is a CSBS model law that leverages the FTC safeguards rule to establish a robust framework for non-bank financial institutions to mitigate cyber threats, prevent data breaches and uphold the integrity of the financial system. There is no known opposition to this bill, and we would appreciate your support and are open for any questions. Questions from the committee. It's a, it's a large bill and
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:37:30
whenever you see this much underlined I mean added legislation is just always Just a little
concerning. Yes, sir. So what, um, Senator Murdoch, what's happening is In this confusing
world you'll have just for instance an elderly person, somebody will convince them, hey, there's an issue, and the way you need to rectify it is go take $20,000 to this, you know, or whatever.
cryptocurrency kiosk and put your money in and then we'll solve your issue. And so what this really is doing is it's putting a limit on those daily transactions because you can't stop that entirely and there needs to be a level of freedom to make these kiosks available, but it's trying to balance that to help protect vulnerable vulnerable Arkansans. And there's some authority
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:38:24
um again on page 3. Beginning at line 17.
Um, it gives the commissioner some discretion. It adds some the commissioner having Some discretion to require applicants uh for surety bonding, um. For the surety bond to to to to obtain additional security coverage to address related. So it gives some additional. Authority also to the
commissioner. And that's become necessary because of what? That is
Speaker 282
1:39:03
correct, Mr. Chair, and that that's adding to the Shurivo provisions. Right now we do require arity bond provisions for all of our licensees. However, we do know that, you know, some companies may have a riskier profile, um, uh, several years ago, several of the large exchanges went into bankruptcy and consumers were harmed like FTX, Block 5, and so if we know that there's an area that develops in the future that is riskier, we could impose Additional surety bond requirements on those companies so that Arkansas consumers would
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:39:35
be covered. Is there, is there some Um Published Uh, way that that's done so that. It's transparent, meaning it's not arbitrary or capricious, is what I'm saying because it just gives the commissioner author authority to impose something. Is there any Checks and balances and in in that type of authority, if that makes sense.
Speaker 282
1:40:06
We don't have anything published right now and and we've never done this in the past. I was talking with another state who recently did it against a company and they worked with the company um to raise it, so it wasn't just an arbitrary, uh, addition to it, you know, they, they discussed with them, you know, what are some options. We are concerned about your company's risk profile and so that, you know, raising the surety bond was an easy, easier measure to come to rather than imposing, you know, stricter standards on
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:40:38
some other areas, right? So it's something that we have not done in Arkansas, and we're giving the commissioner that latitude now and I just was wondering what, you know, that, and
Speaker 282
1:40:51
if I can clarify, the commissioner already has the authority under the law for existing licensee, this would impose it on an applicant. So if we have an applicant we're concerned about, but, you know, we think that they could potentially offer uh their good. to Arkansas. This would allow us
to impose that additional surety bond requirement on the somebody coming into Arkansas. And, and we would anticipate
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
1:41:16
the guardrails, uh, for that provision, uh, to be specified through our rulemaking process
and the other acts that we govern, there are similar discretionary allowances for our commissioner in certain areas, and we always flesh those out, uh, by rulemaking, so that there are some known specific guard rails that sort of contain what the commissioner can do in those
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:41:40
situations. OK, appreciate that. Appreciate those responses. Any other questions? Any anything? Committee You had Any clothes for your bill
there's nobody speak for Excuse me, I'm sorry. Is there anyone here to speak for or against? No one You want to close for your bill?
Yes, sir. I'm closed for the bill. I think this is good government oversight of an area that is becoming problematic for our most vulnerable, and it's agreed to language. The industry
is aware of. They've been involved in the process and what that does is it allows people to come in and operate in a way with they know what the rules are, but at the same token have a balance in place to help protect vulnerable Arkansans in like many areas, we have to keep up with what's going on in the world around us, and this is one of the areas and I appreciate the good work that, uh, the they've done to to get this where it is, and I make a motion
to pass. Motion do pass a second. Second, uh, Senator McKee, all
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:42:41
in favor say aye. I have it. Congratulations, you
passed your bills. I is there anything else to come before the committee? Thank you
Speaker 148
1:42:59
Senator. Yes sir. Is there anybody here
who has a, what might be a non-controversial bill or a short bill or anything. If not, I've been given instructions by
the chair to gavel us out and to expect to meet 15 minutes upon an adjournment this afternoon. So, I'll see anybody then uh we're, we're gonna keep the meeting open or uh come back recess until 15 minutes after adjournment today. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Agenda
Call To Order
HB1602 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT TO ESTABLISH FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; AND TO REQUIRE REPORTING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION BY A PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER.
SB 475 J Dismang To Establish the Pharmacy Services Administrative Organization Act and to Regulate Pharmacy Services Administrative Organization.
HB1079 F. Allen TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR AN INHERITED GENE MUTATION FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS; AND TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR EVIDENCE-BASED CANCER IMAGING FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
HB1700 Achor TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; AND TO EXCLUDE THE NAME OF A REVIEWING PHYSICIAN FROM DISCLOSURE IN AN ADVERSE DETERMINATION NOTICE UNDER THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT.
SB519 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE STANDARD NONFORFEITURE LAW FOR LIFE INSURANCE; AND TO REGULATE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON DEFERRED PAYMENT OF ANYCASH SURRENDER VALUE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY.
HB1300 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT.
HB1301 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT.
HB1468 Cozart TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS.
SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
SB544 M. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT.
HB1320 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRISIS STABILIZATION UNITS AND HEALTHCARE INSURERS.
HB1321 Wooldridge TO REGULATE STEP THERAPY AND FAIL FIRST PROTOCOLS CONCERNING CERTAIN PRESCRIBED VENTILATORS.
HB1467 Achor TO AMEND THE UNIFORM MONEY SERVICES ACT.
HB1746 M. Brown TO AMEND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
HB1737 M. Brown TO AMEND THE TRANSMITTING UTILITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "TRANSMITTING UTILITY" TO INCLUDE FIBER OPTIC AND BROADBAND LINES.
HB1736 M. Brown TO AMEND ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.
HB1814 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OVER UTILITIES; AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC UTILITY" UNDER TITLE 14, CHAPTER 200.
HB1794 Duke TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REAL ESTATE LICENSEES; AND TO CREATE CONTINUING EDUCATION EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN REAL ESTATE BROKER LICENSEES.
SB552 K. Hammer TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "PRINCIPAL OFFICE" USED UNDER THE ARKANSAS BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF 1987 AND THE UNIFORM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT.
SB592 D. Wallace TO REQUIRE A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO RENEW CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT AT THE HIGHEST INTEREST RATE CLOSEST TO THE TERM OF THE PREVIOUS CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT AND FOR THE SAME TERM.
SB593 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; AND TO CREATE THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT.
SB594 M. McKee TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION TO SUPPLY A PUBLIC SERVICE OR TO EXTEND A PUBLIC SERVICE.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE, Apr 1, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Justin Boyd Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 26
Speaker 7
Speaker 29
Speaker 11
Speaker 37
Derek Smith
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 49
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 27
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 41
Speaker 90
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Speaker 81
Speaker 91
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 130
Speaker 60
Speaker 148
Randy Casasilla
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 156
Speaker 163
Speaker 165
Speaker 166
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 175
Speaker 179
Speaker 180
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 198
Speaker 202
Speaker 206
Speaker 209
Speaker 213
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 223
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 250
Speaker 254
Speaker 264
Speaker 268
Speaker 274
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
Speaker 282