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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'll begin. Just introduce yourself and you can begin. State Senator Justin Boyd from Fort Smith. So Senate Bill 519, 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 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 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. And so it says it would
start, this would become effective on January 1st, 2026. And then the two, it had a 30-day surrender in there. The challenge with that 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 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 and then finally 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 there any questions seeing none
Speaker 7
2:08
there's no one signed up for against is there anybody wants
Speaker 9
2:11
to testify for against this bill seeing none uh what's the will that you want to close the bill i'm closed and
make a motion to pass. Motion in a second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:31
All opposed, like signed. Thank you, Senator. We will
Speaker 9
3:02
is senate bill 544 you can present it from there
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:06
Senator Johnson all right just introduce yourselves and thank you mr. chairman Mark Johnson Senate district 17 and with me is mr. John Vinson with the Arkansas Pharmacy Association I'm gonna let mr. Vincent do the heavy lifting on the description but
basically this is the the Senate bill 544 is the Arkansas pharmacy benefits manager licensure act and this is yet another attempt to try to get some clarity and transparency to PBMs and how they work the most important thing probably in this is this opt-out contract definition so I'll ask if I I would ask for Mr. Vinson to be able to
explain this a little bit more in depth. Go ahead, Mr. Vinson. Thank
Speaker 26
4:10
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 contracting entity are 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 this 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 contract what the terms are the the rates the payment terms the prompt payment terms and the provider manual or contract that are specific to Arkansas so it
requires that 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 two of the bill on line seven place on probation there's a definition of what that looks like through line seven through 18 and it can be specific to not just the entire pbm so cvs for example or optum or express grips, a PBM, they might 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. We currently have in the PBM Licensure Act the ability to fine a PBM for certain violations of the act up to five thousand dollars and recently there was a fine levy that was three hundred dollars for example so it's not always the
maximum amount it just depends on the type of violation and how often how frequent anywhere from a hundred dollars to five thousand dollars but this would clarify that that authority goes beyond just two or three things in the licensure act but for any violation of the PBM License Act, they could fine up to $5,000. And then finally, it has a piece in there for underpayments, where if the pharmacy is paid below their invoice costs or 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 and questions that, well, what about the pharmacy themselves they had to spend hours and hours fighting this filing complaints how are they made whole and this would give the ability for the insurance commissioner to charge a 12 percent 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
8:07
seeing none there's no one signed up for against
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
8:15
Mr. Chairman I think this is just Mr. Finston 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
Speaker 9
8:30
would move do pass on the bill motion by Senator Johnson second by Senator Penzo any discussion
Speaker 11
8:37
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT
Derek Smith
Unverified
9:31
you guys introduce yourselves and you're recognized thank you mr. chairman i'm matt mckee from senate district six and i'll let derrick introduce himself my
name is derrick smith with the mitchell Williams, Selig, 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 agents office address. For a while the Secretary of State's office permitted entities to provide the registered agents office address to service 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 all operated for mobile locations they don't have principal offices and two there's a safety concern especially if you're operating a business 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 agreed upon bill. The Secretary of State's office has advised us that they're okay with it. is there any questions no go ahead
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 address help me understand be very clear
Speaker 49
12:37
about which address we're using it's whoever they choose to be
Derek Smith
Unverified
12:41
their registered agent so CT Corp Northwest whoever can accept service of process if as long as that would be service both principal office and registered agent office address primarily for businesses that don't have
principal offices okay so I just want to clarify and again I'm just asking it doesn't make me but like let's say I use an address that's not my address and And then somehow, so I've used an attorney, and I quit paying my attorney, and my attorney doesn't really represent me. Are we going to continue to have the attorney's address, or will that have to be cleaned up at some point? That would
Derek Smith
Unverified
13:21
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. Okay, so there is a
mechanism that would catch that? Yes. Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions?
Speaker 7
13:42
There's no one signed up to speak against this bill. You want to close your
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
13:48
bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm closed, and I make a motion for due pass.
Speaker 9
13:54
All right. Motion and a second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in
Speaker 11
14:02
favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like signed. Thank you, Senator, for running Senator
Speaker 62
14:14
Hammer's bill. Can I do one more? Senator
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
14:27
594. Matt McKee, Senate District 6. this is a very simple bill that hardly does anything just
Derek Smith
Unverified
14:36
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
14:51
questions is there any questions saying none no one signed up for against the bill uh you want to close the
Speaker 7
15:00
I'm closed. I make a motion that you do pass. Motion by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Boyd.
Speaker 11
15:06
Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like a sign. Thank you,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
15:16
Senator, for passing your bill this time. Senator Dismayne on Senate Bill 475.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:30
Should I introduce yourself and your recommendation? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, you know, we've been debating PBMs and their interactions, 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 middleman to the middleman. And we call the PBMs the middle man.
Between the PBMs and the pharmacists, there's actually PSAOs. And those PSAOs act as the contract riders essentially for our local pharmacists. And so when they're contracting with a PBM, it's the PSAOs that set that up. And so at the end of the day, what we heard in Rule 128 in 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 and 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 or not doing would be probably the better way to put that.
But we have local pharmacists in Searcy 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 their 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 middleman to the middleman that is also vertically integrated.
It makes sure that there are contracts and all the 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.
Question by Senator Boyden. So, Senator Dismang, I appreciate you bringing this bill. I think that
we do need regulation on PSAOs. Can PSAOs collectively bargain for pharmacies?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
18:43
legally? Can they collectively bargain for, I don't know, I think you probably know the answer to your
question, so go ahead. I'm just curious if you thought they could collect, I mean, because we're, we're blaming the PSAOs for something, and I'm just, part of
that seems to be, can they collectively bargain? PSAOs
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
19:02
who are in charge of creating the contracts, the pharmacist has punted and
said, hey, I want you to develop this contract to the PBMs, is that correct? That is correct, sir. That's correct. And they're not willing to help enforce the contracts that they're writing.
Is that correct? I don't know what... I've had numerous pharmacies, and in testimony on Rule 128, that was said to be the case. Okay. I didn't make that up. I'm not a pharmacist. I couldn't have made it up. But that is what I've heard over and over again. I even heard it as recent as this Monday when I was told that this legislation was needed because the PSAOs weren't
doing their jobs. Okay. So it is my understanding that they cannot collectively bargain. So I guess the 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 pharmacy and contract? I'll let you answer
Speaker 83
20:00
your own questions. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. Yes, they
Speaker 9
20:12
can. Is there any other questions? I would like the pharmacy association
Speaker 41
20:22
to come up. We have, we have, go ahead and introduce yourself.
Speaker 26
20:27
Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Senator Dismay for working on this. John Vinson, CEO of
Speaker 7
20:37
the Arkansas Pharmacists Association. So we have two bills today to be heard on this issue. What is, if you see any difference or lacking in this bill compared to the other
Speaker 26
20:55
bill, 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 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 Casasio. If you'd like to hear from him, he'd be happy to come up too. 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 Care Distribution Alliance HDA that represents PSAOs and the PSAOs themselves to provide some language to either Senator Dismang or to Senator Boyd who had questions,
who actually has been contracted personally with a PSAO and used to serve on the board of one of the PSAOs, EPIC. Senator Boyd, I don't know if you've disclosed that or not, but used to, not currently, but had knowledge. He discloses all the time. Yeah, so, okay. He's disclosed, okay. 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 Senator Dismang'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 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, 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 PSAOs 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
Speaker 26
23:50
of these bills out? My understanding would be whichever one was signed last would take precedence if there's any kind of conflict between
Speaker 90
24:04
them. Senator, have you reviewed Senator Boyd's bill? Yes, and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
24:09
it's very clear to me 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 can't imagine why we would not want to do that, especially, like I said, when you've got local pharmacists in your 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
24:55
Senator Disman, what I wanted to do was kind of for you to
address some of these things that Mr. just mentioned, that the weaknesses of the bill, So that's my word, weaknesses. As he described those things, especially in relationship to PBMs and how PBMs are in this
circle. Go ahead. Yeah, so the PSAO is the middleman
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:20
to the middleman. We call the PBM the middleman, right?
We need to cut out the middleman. 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 middleman, and it's called a PSAO. They are the ones that are writing 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 the discussion on Rule 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 to that operates with a PSAO. That the PSAOs are walking away? are not doing their job, they're not helping enforce the contract, and it's to the detriment of the patient. It is absolutely to the detriment of the patient because our patients with insurance right now are being told that their insurance does not cover the drugs, the PSAOs 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 determine to be sold at. So
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
26:37
this bill is going to allow AID to enter into that relationship and regulate.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
26:42
Yeah, just to, we're going to peek under and see what's happening with PSAOs. Because right
now, 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 help write them. But they're nowhere in the discussion in regards to Rule 128.
Senator Boyd. So, Senator Disman, you said they help write them. Do they really, do the PSAOs really help them, or are they just signing them on behalf of the pharmacies? I mean, 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. I think
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
27:25
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 duplative 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, 1,000 patients because your PSAO won't sign this on your
behalf? Can then the pharmacy go around and sign it anyhow?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:00
I will let 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 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 back end
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 Mark Johnson
Unverified
28:33
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Dismang, it's kind of hard to, in this context, sit here and compare and contrast the two bills. But one thing that does stand out is the Senate Bill 593 has a prohibition on a take-it-or-leave-it contract, which you just brought up, that issue. And I did not find one in Senate Bill 475. is it?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
29:00
This is a purely licensing and registration bill. The bill that you're talking about goes much
farther and gets into the involvement of PBMs. 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 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'd 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 rather do anything with PSAOs and let them continue
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
29:54
to fly underneath the radar. Well, better to have two bills than no bills, so thank you for bringing this one. We will surely
come up with something. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Boyden. Senator Dismang, page 5, section 23-99-1905.
That appears to get into some audit language. Absolutely. So while I'm for you on audits, it seems to do more than just license and regulate PBMs. I mean, 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
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
30:31
insurance department the ability to go in and gather that information. I mean, that's the way that it reads.
Speaker 7
30:42
Is there any other questions? Senator, you don't have a House member as a sponsor on here. I'll take care
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
30:56
of that. No, we're going to do that today. Okay. Who
Speaker 7
30:58
are you going to help? I guess I'm not meeting a committee that has that rule. Well, you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
31:06
know me well enough to know. If you don't do it. Okay. All right, then I'll pull it down, I guess, and wait
Speaker 7
31:12
on a committee. Do you want to amend it today?
Speaker 7
31:18
name here in just a few minutes then. All right, we'll come back and whenever you get somebody and we'll
Speaker 41
31:25
do that amendment. Okay. All right, thank you, Senator.
Speaker 84
31:41
Senator Gilmore. This is Senate Bill 481.
Speaker 91
31:45
That's correct, Mr. Chair. Do what? That's correct. Thank you, sir. 481. 481. Members, Senator Gilmore, District 1. Just for the record, this
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
31:52
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. 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 two 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 percent increase. I know, for instance, we saw 180 percent increase in premiums in one instance alone 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 two 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 rising premium costs associated with, you know, weather patterns and all sorts of things that we're seeing. So what this bill does is it creates a framework. 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 that 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 in the transition of the new program. And as such, what this bill does is it moves, it creates this program at the shared services department and is
given very broad rulemaking authority so that they can implement this bill. And 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 risk that they'll be taking on under the program. The rules will state that any coverage other than the full coverage will be agreed in writing describing what the property is being insured, the institutions of understanding risk institutions retain into 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, higher ed institutions, and make sure that we keep up with the necessary maintenance. I state 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 properties, 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 open
Speaker 7
35:21
to any questions, members. Senator, do you have any idea what, you know, the possibility of managing cost, you
Speaker 126
35:29
know, how much do you think they'll be in savings if we're doing this more or less self-insurance?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
35:36
Well, and I think, again, there's a lot of variables in the equation. 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 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 basically sitting there in reserve, will sit there and 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,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
36:34
sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator Gilmore, for your diligence in this and all the legislators that preceded you.
There's been a lot of work done on this over the past couple of years. And so I do appreciate, and I appreciate you bringing me information that was critically important to the questions I had. So, and obviously, the no-brainer part of this conversation is premiums are going up. And we're seeing an increase in all of 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 10.
Page 10? Page 10, yeah. Page 10, if we look at lines
17 through 23, because so much of what we're doing here is speculative and we're guessing, educated, there it be, and hoping and praying that things, because in insurance, you know, we predict a lot of predictions. There's a lot of trends and things that are looked at of what will happen.
We won't know until days pass. But one thing that's being mandated in this that I think is problematic is that it requires a public school district to be insured under the state captive insurance program, respect insurance coverage of the buildings, blah, blah, blah, structure, et cetera. But in order to get the financial participation from the academic facilities partnership program, they must do this. I think we go way too far of a reach, and I know you call it an incentive, but I think it's a mandate almost.
Speaker 130
38:19
Don't take my words before I can get there. I think it's a mandate almost that
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
38:26
handicaps districts for being able to make 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 along with their other resources that have come up with some options during this research and development time, R&D period.
So to put this section in there, I think it's a section that should not be there. I think that 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 on whether they want to be a part of this or no. I don't think we should say, because this quasi is a mandate, you must do it to get the money. We know the districts need that facility money. So I just don't think we're doing it right as a legislature if we force them to do it.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:21
Well, thank you, Senator Murdoch, and our conversation. I think you know what I'm going to say to that, but I do want to expound. And so, first of all, I do think that you raised some good points. 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 K-12 institutions.
One's with the school board association and one's with the state. and those two programs will be consolidated under this I think there was one maybe two schools that I know of that weren't a part of either of those programs 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 conversations 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 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 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 reached 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
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
40:59
be a school district not want to participate. Wow. That's interesting. That testimony is interesting. I appreciate it and I believe you. So what I'm probably led to believe that I'm dealing with is maybe people feeling pressured that they must do you know, inherent 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 think I've said what I need to say. Sure. And hopefully those others will speak for themselves as I am, because now I'm kind of out here on a limb, because I've said something, and hopefully they'll follow up with the backup of what they've said to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
41:39
me. And I would be happy to 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 did some things that were a little bit different than what Tennessee did when they did this to try to avoid that. That was a concern and raised by the superintendents and school board associations. So I think there was a lot of things that we tried to address. This conversation has been going on for two years. Again, I think
they've had an opportunity to have a lot of input,
and we've certainly sought that input. And my last, Chair, if
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
42:32
I may, that paragraph was put in 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 create. Still in
Speaker 130
42:43
my words before I can get there, but you're good at
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
42:47
what you're doing. So I guess that makes sense. No, it does, and again, that was certainly one of the things that they actually said in the meeting was, we get what you're trying to do. You're trying to pool 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 it's written and the funding. I don't necessarily see it that way because, again, the goal is to incentivize what we're trying to do in this program and to incentivize them to be a
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
43:18
part of something that will actually help them. And so really all the major organizations are, you're saying, and this stuck with me, is consolidated together. They've come together. The two major providers, if you will, have come together, you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
43:29
said, in this. Yes. So we're basically, so one of the issues that I think
was identified over the course of 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 anything on anybody here other than this needs to be set up, and it's 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 regulatory entity, put it 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 review of those rules before they're promulgated or as they're promulgated.
Speaker 9
44:36
So I think that's important to point out too. So it was the school board association had a foot in this thing, right, to begin with?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:45
For two 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
Speaker 126
45:07
out-of-control premium increases. And so this is where we got to with that. And if we can set that 130, what is it, 35 million? 136. 136 million aside, that in itself will help those rates in this process.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
45:22
Well, it will help, yes. And then I think there's also a look down the future of with that money working for us, You know, is there a way to then also look at options down the road? And 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 something that we're trying to be
Speaker 29
45:48
mindful of. Is there any other questions? Seeing none, no one signed up for or against this bill.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
45:56
Do you think it makes sense, Chair, to hear from those other entities? ASBA I mean okay make them come but they're so integral in this conversation if they're here and want to speak I'm happy
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
46:08
to do that but in the room is
Speaker 29
46:11
any of those entities in the room there's no one in the
Speaker 7
46:21
room so I would say that they're they've got to be pretty good with the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
46:26
bill so i will tell you they pay quite close attention to the bills we run around here so i don't i don't think again do i think and 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 the one thing that i think that i told them in talking with them is we want you 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
Speaker 6
47:00
record as I told him I would. All right. Any other questions? There's no one signed up for against the bill. You want to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
47:11
close your bill? I'm going to quit belaboring the point. I'd ask for a good vote. I appreciate the committee's time and thank you. I'm closed. Motion
Speaker 9
47:18
by Senator McKee, second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Senator. You passed your bill.
Speaker 60
47:47
Senator Boyd, do you want to run 593? If you would like for me to, I
Speaker 148
47:54
do. Have at it. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity, sir. So
Speaker 6
48:14
introduce yourself and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Justin Boyd-Fortsmith, and he'll introduce himself, but I've got Randy Casasilla, a pharmacist here in central Arkansas, who is going to help me
Randy Casasilla
Unverified
48:29
present this bill. Thank you, committee members. My name is Randy Casasilla. I'm a pharmacy owner here from
central Arkansas in Little Rock. So already this morning we've heard some information on a pharmacy service administration organization
or administrative organization also known as
a PSAO. And this bill will work to regulate, license, register,
Speaker 75
48:57
was the word I was looking for, PSAO in the
state of Arkansas and provide for some definitions. So with that said, I'm going to hand it over to Dr. Casascia to give a little bit further background
on this bill. Thank you,
Speaker 156
49:24
Senator. I believe as someone that contracts with one of the six 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-specific amendments or contracts that are specific to our laws here in our state. This legislature has done a tremendous job passing previous laws, giving 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 Dismang's point earlier, and he said that the PSAOs are not doing their jobs. In my opinion, I agree. They aren't doing their jobs, but it's 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 it 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 three 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 PSAOs 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 want to add something. So, 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-own, 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 rate was just changed, and the PSAO didn't know. The PBM just unilaterally changed that rate. 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 oversight. This is a good first step in making that happen. Was there any
Speaker 7
52:35
questions? Seeing none, we have no one signed up for against the bill.
Speaker 29
52:41
Does anybody want to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, you want to close
your bill? I'm closed for my bill. I'd appreciate a good vote, and I make a motion due
Speaker 9
52:54
pass. Motion by Senator Boyd, second by Senator Johnson and Penzo. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like signed. Thank you,
Speaker 36
53:23
Senator. All right, we're going to go to House Bill 1079.
Speaker 11
53:37
DO YOU WANT TO BRING ANYBODY TO THE TABLE WITH YOU, SENATOR WALLACE? THIS HAS AN AMENDMENT. WE'RE GOING TO LET THE
Speaker 163
54:06
STAFF PASS THAT OUT AND THE AMENDMENT AND
Speaker 9
54:21
THE HANDOUT. Introduce yourselves, starting with Senator Wallace.
Speaker 165
54:25
Sir, Senator Dave Wallace, district 19. STATE REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ALLEN, DISTRICT 77.
Speaker 166
54:34
I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE CLINICAL RESEARCH DEPARTMENT AND GENETIC AND GENOMIC PROGRAM AT CARTAI. I AM REPRESENTING THE PATIENTS
Speaker 126
54:45
HERE. JUST BEND YOUR MIC DOWN. THAT SUCKER IS WILD. JUST
Speaker 9
54:50
BEND THAT BOTTOM PART, THAT FLEXIBLE PART, BEND IT. THERE YOU GO.
THAT WAY WE CAN HEAR FROM YOU WHENEVER WE GET THERE. All right, go
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
55:02
ahead, Senator Wallace. Sir, this bill, and members, this bill will
Speaker 9
55:07
save lives. Not many bills that we have. Hold on, we're going to adopt your amendment. Motion by Senator McKee to adopt an amendment, second by Senator Penzo. Any discussion? All in
Speaker 7
55:21
favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like a sign, go ahead and present your bill as amended.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
55:27
Yes, sir, thank you. Every one of this 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 and our efforts to fight and save lives of all Americans, this bill isn't about politics, it's about people.
We have worked hard with other stakeholders to be collaborative in this bill, and there is no cost to the state, and there is 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 is projected to be around $1 or less per member per month. That's less than a cup of coffee.
THIS BILL IS ALREADY PASSED IN THE HOUSE, AND MEMBERS, I ASKED YOU TO PASS IT AS WELL. AND WITH THAT, I
Speaker 166
56:44
UP. NEW SPEAKER: GO AHEAD AND PRESENT THE WILL. NEW SPEAKER: 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 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, a 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 1,000 more this biomass. Which means that even if we don't inherit something from our parents, one of the 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 dollars.
AT THIS POINT, WE CAN DO THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME IN TWO, THREE WEEKS FOR A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS. 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 DOLLARS 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 Arkansans.
Out of those, 10%, which is 2,000, would have some genetically transmitted disease or cancer, I would say, predisposition to cancer. And out of those, 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 a 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 a genetic mutation, we count about somewhere between eight and ten who might be also carriers, and the first, second, and third degree relatives, which means really we can 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 WE CAN LEAVE THEM ALONE A LITTLE BIT LONGER. SO 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 THESE GENES, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE A SPECIFIC ONE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS about, the Angelina Jolie gene, this famous Hollywood actress who was discovered that she had the gene and went through bilateral mastectomy to prevent cancer. These are the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
They were discovered respectively in 1994 and 1995. The 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 $7,000. Until everybody started 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 EXPLOSION OF TECHNIQUES AND EVOLUTION IN THAT REGARD. AND THAT'S WHERE REALLY THINGS STARTED BECOMING VERY EASY ON US. NEW SPEAKER: DOC,
Speaker 9
1:01:37
I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I DON'T WANT TO TAKE GENETICS
Speaker 36
1:01:42
AGAIN. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY. IF YOU NEED TO CLEAR ANYTHING
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:01:49
UP LATER, GO AHEAD, REPRESENTATIVE VALEN. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I think there's some hidden costs in doing nothing. I think the highest rate lies best due to late stage detection.
I think that stage one cancer treatment is $50,000 versus stage four, which is $150,000. So the earlier we can detect disease, the less money we will save and more lives we will save. And with that,
Speaker 175
1:02:16
I'm closed. All right. Thank you. TO TESTIFY FOR THIS BILL, I'LL START WITH LINDSAY PENN.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:02:38
MR. CHAIR, I'VE ASKED OUR WITNESSES TO SPEAK NO MORE THAN TWO
Speaker 6
1:02:42
MINUTES. All right. If you would, just introduce yourself and who you're with and you're recognized. Sure. Thank you.
Speaker 179
1:02:49
I'm Lindsay Penn, and I'm a volunteer
Speaker 180
1:02:51
with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network because I'm a cancer survivor. In August 2019,
Speaker 179
1:02:57
at age 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 non-profit, non-partisan 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
Speaker 180
1:04:23
recommend a treatment plan, especially for me, and I've been in remission for almost
Speaker 179
1:04:30
five years. As tests 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 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 support of House Bill 1079. Thank you
Speaker 9
1:05:13
for that testimony. Just next time, I know you're getting nervous. You did a great job. Just talk to us. All right.
Thank you for your testimony. You're dismissed. Next is Linda. Mr. Chair. Yes. We will
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:05:31
waive the other folks. All right. All right. Is there any questions from the committee?
Speaker 27
1:05:37
Go ahead, Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just
Derek Smith
Unverified
1:05:44
have to point this out. I'm in favor of what you're trying to do. But every coverage that we mandate only adds a dollar 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 we can't mandate coverage for every ailment that affects us as people? And so, 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 balance that, Senator Wallace?
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:06:27
We're talking about a dollar a month, a cup of coffee, and we're saving lives.
Speaker 27
1:06:38
Sir, that's my answer. is there any other questions would you close for your bill mr. chairman we're closed all
Speaker 9
1:06:51
right what's the will of the committee motion by senator mckee or senator murdoch as amended second by senator penzo any discussion all in favor say aye aye all opposed like sign thank
you guys. Thanks, Doc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No offense, but I like science, but not everybody
Speaker 7
1:07:14
likes science. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to come and share with us.
Speaker 36
1:07:33
Representative Kozart, 1468. Oh, sorry, I didn't
Speaker 7
1:07:50
even see you. There's an amendment on this bill, if you would. Staff's
Speaker 36
1:08:33
All right, if you would look over the amendment. Senator
Speaker 7
1:08:47
Boyd makes a motion to adopt the amendment, second by Senator Penzo. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right, please present your bill as amended. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:09:02
that. 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 doesn't let them be involved in the civil enforcement. That's what the amendment did. And I forgot it. Got 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 gave it all to Petty and then here we are down here. What this bill basically does, being a building contractor, as a few of you guys in here are, I think everybody at this table is, so in some way or form or fashion. What this does basically is allows a contractor that has built a project, done a project, whether it's a remodel or a new home or something in that matter.
Okay, thank you. That's probably easier to read than my phone. It allows you, if there's a problem that arises between you and the customer, that there's a period of cure that 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 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 they could start procedures against you. But you have 28 days to try to negotiate this or fix the problem. If it's something small, which 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, people have moved into the house and it's six 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
Speaker 7
1:11:20
the bill. So are the lawyers good with this bill? Do what now? Are the lawyers good with
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:11:26
this bill? The lawyers, that's exactly why it's only about three pages. It started out as 15.
Speaker 27
1:11:32
They cut most all of it out. Well, I think it's a good bill trying to mediate a situation that we don't
Speaker 7
1:11:48
other questions? Seeing none, you want to close your bill? I'm closed for it, and I
Speaker 9
1:11:54
appreciate a good vote. All right. Motion by Senator McKee, second by Senator Boyd. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like a sign.
Speaker 27
1:12:03
Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. All right. Senator Wallace, do you got
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:12:35
another good bill? Yes, sir. House Bill 1321. Just introduce yourself and Sir, Senator Dave Wallace, District 19, and I have with
Speaker 198
1:12:42
me. Caitlin Hyland, Executive Director of the Arkansas Medical
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:12:53
Equipment Providers. You're recognized, you're recognized. Mr. House Bill 1321 protects patients' access to life-sustaining equipment items like noninvasive and invasive ventilation 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 it over to Kaylin.
Speaker 198
1:13:48
Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. 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 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 less capable device like a CPAP or a BiPAP. Those are clinically tested to help with disorders like sleep apnea. Whereas a RAD device, which is a non-invasive, sorry, that's a RAD device, a non-invasive ventilator in NIV 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
Speaker 202
1:14:37
any questions? Go ahead, Senator Murdoch. Yeah,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:14:41
just excuse me for my ignorance, the fail first concept, so just educate me a little bit
Speaker 198
1:14:49
on that. Yeah, so basically what happens is you get diagnosed with ALS or COPD or something of that nature, and your doctor prescribes you to be on a ventilator of some sort.
You take it to your insurance, and not in the state of Arkansas, we've not seen it as much, but 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
Speaker 206
1:15:12
um capable of i mean let's stay right there because fail
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:15:17
first could be with those diseases you're talking about exactly pretty fatal exactly um and so i might not have a second chance if i fail
Speaker 206
1:15:24
first exactly so that's what we're trying to
Speaker 198
1:15:29
keep from happening here in arkansas i will say this has already passed in oklahoma and louisiana and
they've seen a great increase in their patients um outcomes um so yes we're
Speaker 209
1:15:37
trying to keep that fell first away from the state?
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:15:43
Simply put, we're laying our doctor's doctor and keeping the administrators out from making health choices for our families, our friends, our neighbors. It's saving their lives. Yes, sir. Any other
Speaker 7
1:15:58
questions? Seeing none, no one signed up to speak for or against the bill.
You want to close for your bill?
Speaker 9
1:16:07
Sure, I'm closed. All right. WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE? MOTION BY SENATOR MCKEY. SECOND. SECOND BY SENATOR BOYD. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MEMBERS. WE SAVED LIVES TODAY. HANG
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:16:30
ON JUST A MINUTE. I'M TRYING TO GET CAUGHT UP HERE.
Speaker 213
1:16:38
All right. You got 1794, Senator Penzo?
Speaker 6
1:16:57
Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 1794
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:17:08
just pretty much allows exemptions from CEs.
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 five years, and no delinquent continuing education fees or classes, I guess I should say, within the last five 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 people over a certain age, and that's 72, and they have had to have had 25 years of consecutive active real estate duty to be allowed for this exemption. I see no
Speaker 9
1:18:13
one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there any questions from the committee? Go ahead.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:18:22
Real quick, is it just an age exemption basically that you hit a certain age, you've had the required education?
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:18:29
Yeah, we can assume if you've been an active agent for 25 years and you're over the age of 72, taking CE classes is kind of redundant at that point. Should do probably a lot of things. Senator Murdoch? Real Estate Association looked over, requested a few changes, and
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:18:51
we made those. Senator Penzo, look at page one. line 34 through 36 I'm sorry did you say page 1?
yes, line 34 through 36 so previously a commission made
some decisions as it relates to the members what this is doing is giving I'm just looking at this first sentence it's giving that now to the director himself. I'm always just a little cautious when we take a plurality of eyes away from a dischoice of 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
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:19:43
taking it away from THE COMMISSION? IT'S SAYING THAT WE'RE ADDING THIS EXEMPTION TO IT AND IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE, YOU KNOW, THE PARAMETERS ARE HERE, SO INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH EVERYBODY, YOU MEET THESE CRITERIA, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CAN GIVE
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:20:06
the exemption. No, I heard that's what I read, what you said. I just was wondering why we would take, because generally you know, because you're waiving 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 Blake, just
Senator Johnson, excuse me, making all the decisions. You know, it just seemed like we should be careful of that. And I don't know the 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? Gotcha. Good question.
Speaker 7
1:21:18
Is there any other good questions? Seeing none, there's no one to speak for against this
Speaker 9
1:21:36
bill. What's the will of the committee? I'll make a motion, do pass. Motion by Senator Penzo, second by Senator Boyd. Any discussion on good questions? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Senator.
right senator johnson you're recognized if you want to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:22:20
motion to amend the 1814 to put me on
as a as a sponsor i'm gonna send
it in we've got a motion and mckee seconds uh all those in favor say aye. Okay, you're now amended as the Senate sponsor. Please introduce yourself for
Speaker 175
1:22:38
the record and proceed. 1814. I think
Speaker 7
1:22:49
there's a song about this. All right, Representative Gassaway told me about this about before spring break, and it just amends one code section,
Speaker 223
1:22:59
and that's about all I know about it. If
Speaker 7
1:23:20
you've got any good questions. I don't think it applies to this situation or there's been a problem in this in the application
because it didn't apply in situation in all situations. I think that's what the change in the code section makes it more applicable. It's the same thing, but it has also 14.201.129. Yeah, it keeps the first one, but it makes it more applicable to the situation. And I think that really applies to those municipal-owned entities, those powers.
I have to think it was a problem. Yeah, I think it's been a problem to where interpretation, it needs the additional code section.
Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, Senator Blake Johnson, if you'd like to close for your
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:24:32
bill. I'm closed and I make a motion to pass House Bill 1814.
As amended. As amended. And Senator McKee has seconded it. All those in favor say aye. Congratulations, Senator. You passed your
Speaker 175
1:24:59
newly amended bill. Yep. Lee, do you want to run 527?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:25:07
the health opportunity yes you do i i don't think i do want to run that right now uh sitter this is uh sitter urban's bill uh 527 to amend the health and opportunity act for me yeah you want to run
that i'm prepared to run that go ahead but i i think that that is still having some discussions around it, and I'm not thinking that's... See, 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
Speaker 250
1:25:47
be passed over. Okay. Yeah. All right. I appreciate the
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:25:50
opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Well... It was a real opportunity. It was. It was a real opportunity. I know. I know. I know. But I think the right
Speaker 60
1:25:58
thing to do is to hold off on that. Well, I hadn't heard from Senator Irvin on that situation, But anyway, so do you want to start with $1,300? I would like
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:26:06
to start with $1,300, Mr. Chairman, if I can.
Speaker 254
1:26:11
And committee, I'll try to be brief. I know you all have been here a while already this morning. I've got House Bill 1,700. Are we going to hear
Speaker 41
1:26:27
that? Because I'm going to amend it. Hang on just a minute. We'll get to let Lee do his thing, and then I'm going to let you go. I've got to go run a bill. All right? Thank you, sir.
Powerful. All right. Representative Johnson, which bill are
you presenting? House Bill 1300. Okay. Representative Johnson, introduce yourself for the record, and then please begin presenting
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:26:54
House Bill 1300. 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 health care providers and health insurers. It creates the Prior Authorization Transparency Act trust fund within the Department of AID to deposit monies based on fines related to any violations of the Prior Authorization Transparency Act,
and then allows 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 three, there's a whole list of items starting on B little i down through B little x, which are other names that have been used within the industry for prior authorization. So we're just trying to clarify in 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
as well if needed. Committee, do we have any questions? Seeing no questions, is there anyone signed up to speak for or against? No one signed up to speak for or against. Do we have anybody who wants to speak for or against House Bill 1300? Seeing none, Representative Lee Johnson.
are you closed do you want to close for
Speaker 264
1:28:25
your bill i'm closed from a bill and
appreciate a good vote thank you okay do we have a motion do pass got a motion uh we got a second all in favor say aye uh congrats any opposed okay congratulations representative johnson you passed your bill thank you mr chairman okay are you
here to present did he say if you want any are you prepared to present any more? House
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:28:52
Bill 1301 I'm prepared to present. I'd like to pass over House Bill 1602
till next Thursday next meeting. Okay well let's hear House Bill 1301 if you'll introduce yourself again for the record
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:29:06
and 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 in the prior authorization space. So if you're a healthcare 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 negotiated last session through the insurance companies. One of the things we failed to do in passing that legislation is we failed to define what gold card was. And so we're adding a gold card 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 gold card 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 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. Okay. You're good. Any
questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, do we have anybody signed up 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? Seeing none, Representative Johnson, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for my bill. All right. Representative Johnson is closed. Do we have a motion due pass? We've got a motion due pass. Do we have a second? I will second. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, Representative Johnson.
You passed your bill. Do you have any more you're prepared
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:31:09
to run? I don't. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THANK YOU, COMMITTEE. WE'VE GOT MORE BILLS, SO PLEASE DON'T RUN OFF YET. SO ANY IDEA WHEN HE'S GOING TO COME BACK? DO ONE OF Y'ALL WANT TO COME RUN THE CHAIR REAL QUICK WHILE I PRESENT A BILL?
Speaker 268
1:31:39
can we run is there any rules that says somebody can't
run it from there yeah I'm not sure if you have seniority or Penzo has seniority
you're older than he is okay okay is Murdoch seniority yeah All right, if you'll come.
Mr. Chair, with your permission, we're handing out an amendment to House Bill
1700. Yes, sir, you have permission. Okay, so this is an agreed-to amendment between the two people who had concerns about this. We've previously heard House Bill 1700, 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 both sides. So with that said, I'd like to make a motion to adopt
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:33:21
the amendment. Been moved and second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Your amendment has been adopted. Are
you recognized for the bill? 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 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 physician's 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 GET IN TOUCH WITH THE PHYSICIAN WHO HAD DENIED THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. SO THIS IS AGREED TO
LANGUAGE NOW THAT IT'S AMENDED, AND I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:34:40
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? SEEING NONE, IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK
Speaker 274
1:34:48
FOR OR AGAINST? NO ONE SIGNED UP. WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE -- WANT TO CLOSE FOR YOU, BILL? I'm closed. I'll make a motion do
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:34:56
pass. Motion do pass. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. As amended. Excuse me. You want to stay here and
Speaker 273
1:35:04
do the other one? Your bill passed as amended. Thank you.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:35:17
You're recognized for the next. What bill is it? House Bill 1467, Mr. Chair.
House Bill 1467. So, Senator Justin Boyd here to present House Bill 1467. I've got some backup to help me present who will introduce themselves. Please
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
1:35:44
introduce yourself. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Campbell McLaurin.
I'm the Deputy Commissioner at the Arkansas Securities
Speaker 282
1:35:53
Department. in care and tyranny arkansas
securities department so this bill updates some things 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
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
1:36:13
of explaining you recognize as senator ward mentioned this 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 kiosk 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
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:37:23
it's a it's a large bill and whenever you see this much underlined i mean added legislation is just
always just a little concerning um 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 twenty thousand dollars to this you know bit 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 we and there needs to be a level of freedom to make these kiosk available but it's trying to balance that to help
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:38:19
protect vulnerable Arkansans and there's some authority again on page three beginning at line 17 it gives the commissioner some discretion it adds some the commissioner having some discretion to
require applicants for surety bonding for the surety bond to to add to obtain additional security coverage to address related to cyber security. So it gives some additional authority also to the commissioner. And
that's become necessary because of what? That is correct, Mr. Chair. That's
Speaker 282
1:38:58
adding to the surety bond provisions. Right now we do require surety bond provisions for all of our licensees. However, we do know that some companies may have
a riskier profile. Several years ago, several of the large exchanges went into bankruptcy and consumers were harmed like FTX, BlockFi, 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
Speaker 291
1:39:27
that more Arkansas consumers would be covered. Is there some
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:39:35
published 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 commission authority to impose something.
Is there any checks and balances in that type of
authority, if that makes sense? Um, we don't
Speaker 282
1:40:03
have anything published right now, 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 to raise it, so it wasn't just an arbitrary addition to it. You know, 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 easier measure to come to rather than imposing, you know, stricter standards on some other areas right so it's
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:40:34
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 yeah and if
Speaker 282
1:40:46
I can clarify the commissioner already has an 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 their goods to Arkansas this would allow us to impose that additional surety bond requirement on the somebody coming into Arkansas
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
1:41:11
and and we would anticipate the guardrails for that provision to be
specified through our rulemaking process and in the other acts that we govern there are similar discretionary allowances for our commissioner in certain areas and we always flesh those out by rulemaking so
that there are some known specific guardrails that sort of contain what the commissioner can do in those situations okay appreciate that appreciate
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:41:37
those responses any other questions any other anything from the committee you'd like to close for you
bill is there there's nobody speak for excuse me i'm sorry is anyone here to speak for or against no one you want to
close for your bill yes sir i am 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 and 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 they've done to get this where it is and I make
a motion to do pass. Motion to do pass and second. Second.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:42:36
Senator McKee, all in favor say aye. Aye. Ayes
have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Is there anything else coming for the
Speaker 148
1:42:54
committee? thank you 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 uh chair to gavel us out
and to expect to meet 15 minutes upon an adjournment this afternoon so i don't see anybody then we're going to keep the meeting open or come back recess until 15 minutes after adjournment today. Thank you.
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 7
Speaker 9
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 26
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 84
Speaker 91
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 130
Speaker 60
Speaker 148
Randy Casasilla
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 156
Speaker 36
Speaker 163
Speaker 165
Speaker 166
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 127
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 175
Speaker 179
Speaker 180
Speaker 188
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
Speaker 273
Campbell Mclaurin
Unverified
Speaker 282
Speaker 291