Insurance & Commerce - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (17)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB140
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…vote on mine, so if you'll let me. What's your bill number? Senate Bill 140.”
|
TO MANDATE THE USE OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES UNDER HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS; TO REQUIRE A HEALTHCARE … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB480
Act 739
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB480 is now Act 739 |
|
SB527
Act 774
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 03/19/2025 @ 7:36PM) Added SB527 Senate Committee on Insurance and Commerce Thursday, March…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ACT OF 2021; AND TO INCREASE … | Irvin | Notification that SB527 is now Act 774 |
|
SB123
Act 553
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…were to catch it later. And so what we are doing here with Senate Bill 123 is something that we have seen done in our neighboring stat…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST ULTRASOUNDS. | G. Leding | Notification that SB123 is now Act 553 |
|
SB331
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHER…”
|
CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING … | G. Leding | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1079
Act 860
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT. 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 |
|
HB1301
Act 511
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1509
Act 452
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1509 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY…”
|
TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FROM USING … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1509 is now Act 452 |
|
HB1700
Act 638
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…lint Penzo RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle 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 |
|
SB463
Act 580
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…R MEDICINES; AND TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES. SB463 M. McKee TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO APPROVE OR DENY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS CONCERNING CLOSING … | M. McKee | Notification that SB463 is now Act 580 |
|
SB475
Act 773
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IMINATING ELECTRIC GENERATION UNITS OR TRANSMISSION ASSETS. SB475 J. Dismang TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIV…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT; AND TO REGULATE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB475 is now Act 773 |
|
SB481
Act 779
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB481 Gilmore TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INS…”
|
TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF … | Gilmore | Notification that SB481 is now Act 779 |
|
SB483
Act 957
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STAT…”
|
TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; … | Irvin | Notification that SB483 is now Act 957 |
|
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 |
|
SB499
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS. SB499 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STAT…”
|
TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; … | Irvin | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 1
0:09
She 463, you're at. Yeah So Introduce yourself and Senator Matt McKee, District 6. Remember a
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
0:35
simple bill. I want to thank each and every one of
you for being a co-sponsor. This bill simply says that in the future when utilities decide to enter into settlement agreements of any kind that result in the closure of Generation assets that the PSC has a seat at the table. They get to be a party to that discussion. I'd be happy to take any questions. Is there any questions? Seeing none, there's no
Speaker 7
1:03
one signed up to speak for or against. Is there anybody in the audience? Seeing none whats the will of the committee,
motion by Senator Boyd, seconded by Senator McKee, any discussion? All in favor say aye. I opposed like sign. Thanks, Senator, you passed your bill. You got any
Speaker 8
1:25
meals, Senator Pennzo? Senator Boyd, if you want
Speaker 11
1:30
to vote on mine, so if you'll let me. What's your bill number? Senate Bill 140.
Speaker 1
1:47
Senate Bill 140 has a physical impact and Senator Boyd, you're just introduce yourself and you're recognized. Thank
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:54
you, Mr. Chair, for giving me a few minutes to talk about Senate Bill 140. This
is an important bill that would help lower the overall cost of drugs. Unfortunately, um, Our consultant Siegel came back with an $18 million fiscal impact and so basically
the way I understand it is they ask our PBM pharmacy benefit manager
Navius, what the cost would be and uh basically Navitas said that the bill would eliminate utilization management for generics and biosimilars and fear these medications could be prescribed by any provider for any indications, but actually there's an exception in the bill that says if you a
pharmacy and therapeutics committee. And you have a cost effective reason, you could continue to use the brand or the reference
product, um, so I don't really agree with their interpretation of what's going on, uh, so I think it's unfortunate that this is the way it played out. I'm
sorry that, you know, we, we did that, so basically we've got a supposed fiscal impact of $18 million. I'm not going to ask anybody to vote on something that, you know, is on green paper that says it's $18 million so with your permission, I'm
just gonna pull this down and ask that we continue to ask ourselves whether or not we're doing the right things for the citizens of Arkansas to use Siegel and Navvitis when they come back and don't seem like they can interpret the legislation. Could
Speaker 7
3:35
I ask a question uh. How would a generic have a higher cost than I'm, I'm glad you
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
3:42
asked that, Mr. Chair. So what happens is originally PBMs or pharmacy benefit managers,
their role was really to help adjudicate claims. And they had a very important role. It's still a very important role from that standpoint. We need that quick, basically real-time adjudication of claims. So that is something that they're good at, they're very efficient at, and at the point of sale, you know, the pharmacy knows what it's getting. paid and it knows what the copay is for the patient. And so that's a very important function, but as time passed and things evolved, they figured out, hey, we could control a formulary, so we could say what
medicines we should pay for and which ones we shouldn't and which ones should have higher copays and which ones should not. And so then they get a direct traffic, one to the pharmacy, 2 on the medication. So, Drug companies figured this out and so they started paying to play. So now we have this written non what is not really a transparent rebate game that happens. So what what can happen and what has been documented by the Federal Trade Commission to
happen is we, you know, say, hey, we're, we want this drug to be on formulary and it might be the brand name drug, and that's supposedly advantageous because this non-transparent rebate gets kicked back to the PBM and that supposedly is used to lower costs. But what I can tell you is, is historically insurance companies were really not worried about the cost of drugs. Now this is one of the most significant, if not the most significant cost to a health insurance program because
that percentage of claims has skyrocketed. So, um, because of these kickback things, uh, schemes, I would call them. That's, that's where they're doing that, but again, like I said, in my bill, I think it clearly had language that said that if you have a P&T,
a pharmacy and therapeutics committee, and there was a cost effective reason that you could do that. So I don't know if we just have a misinterpretation, but I'm, I'm not going to ask this committee to vote on something
with an $18 million. You know, fiscal impact, even when I I think it's wrong. All right. Did that answer your question satisfactorily, it
Speaker 6
6:04
just doesn't make, I guess I'm not in that it's a, but it doesn't make sense to me. It's a complex
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
6:12
system, and this is what happens when we don't have full transparency, right? We have transparency at one place, but we don't have transparency at all the places and the unfortunate thing is is taxpayer dollars and premium dollars are going to support this type of
system, and so we need fundamental change. I think this legislation really was step in the right direction, but unfortunately the people we the state pay, uh, came back and said this legislation costs $18 million and I disagree, but at this point in the session, I don't have time to go prove that, you know, I don't have time to disprove that number. So
Speaker 19
6:50
thank you, Senator. Thank you. Senator Leadding.
Speaker 8
6:58
You have 2 bills, uh, you want, you want to start with 123. You have a handout, give us a second. I hate this one. It's broken.
Speaker 1
7:28
All right, if you would introduce yourselves and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
7:33
Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee, Senator Greg Letting for District 30.
Lauren Marquette
Unverified
7:39
You want to Hi, my name is Lauren Marquette. I'm with
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
7:44
Susan G. Komen. OK. Uh, Everyone in here, if they haven't been personally touched by cancer, they know someone who has. Many legislators over the last several years, including myself, have passed legislation to help Arkansans detect and treat cancer earlier in its stages because we know that the earlier we catch it, not only
most importantly, are we more likely to save someone's life, but that the cost of the treatment should be much less than if we were to catch it later. And so what we are doing here with Senate Bill 123 is something that we have seen done in our neighboring states of Texas and Oklahoma. I believe there's also similar legislation on Governor Junin's desk in Virg right now just to make sure that high risk individuals who might need a supplemental breast examination that there's no barrier to getting that done. We don't want a woman out there knowing that there might be a small cost to getting this necessary
examination, and she passed on that and unfortunately later discovered that she could have caught cancer much earlier had she had this diagnostic examination. So we just what we're doing here is just removing the cost sharing part for this. I will say much like Senator Boyd with his bill. We did have a fiscal impact note come back from Siegel. It was $700,000 so thankfully. nearly as much as the fiscal impact on Senator Boyd's bill. but we are talking specifically about high risk individuals with this legislation, and I asked Siegel if they use that as part
of their calculation, and they said they based their calculation on the general population, so we know that number is much higher than it would be, but again, like Senator Boyd said, we don't have a way to calculate
Speaker 6
9:17
our own number. Is any questions? You got a question for yourself. No, I'm good. The, uh, No one is signed up to speak.
Speaker 7
9:34
4 against the bill. Do you want to say what's the will of the committee motion by Senator Penzo, seconded by Senator Murdoch. Any discussion? All in favor
Speaker 1
9:46
say aye. All opposed like signed. Thank you, Senator. You've got one more. One more. This
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
9:51
is a bill that we became very close to passing 2 years ago to this committee. It involves genetic testing. Some years ago I was approached by a genetic counselor, and was asked to spend the day in their office to learn more about genetic
testing because I was unfamiliar with it, and during the day that I spent with her, there was actually a local teacher who came in and she had a strong history of stomach cancer in her family, and so while she had no symptoms or anything yet, the genetic counselor walked her through her family history, and they did some and discovered that she had the gene for stomach cancer and unfortunately that's one of the more lethal cancers, so that's one that you generally can't detect until it's much too late And so genetic testing can be a very powerful tool to help somebody make preventative decisions to help.
ensure that maybe they don't ever contract cancer if they do have a strong family history of that. So again, what we're doing here with Senate Bill 331 is trying to make sure that these tools are as available and accessible as possible to all Arkansans to give them the means necessary to again take preventative measures that will be more cost effective not only again, most importantly, potentially save their life, but make the treatment much less expensive. Is there any questions?
Speaker 7
11:06
Seeing none, uh, there's no one signed up
Speaker 35
11:12
to speak for or against the bill. Uh, you want to close your bill? Unless
Lauren Marquette
Unverified
11:19
Ms. Marquette has anything she'd like to say, I'm closed. Yeah. I could add just a few things to. One of the things that genetic testing does is I recently met a metastatic breast cancer patient and she first had been denied genetic testing twice, then was able to get receive her genetic testing and
her genetic testing actually came back with she had a certain gene that she could get on a clinical trial because she had, and that clinical trial has kept her alive for 14 months now, and so a lot of times we think of genetic testing just as what screenings follow that genetic testing and to monitor, but it also determines your treatment paths as well, so I did want to add that. All right,
Speaker 7
12:02
uh, what's the will of the committee?
Motion by Senator Flowers, second by Senator Penzo, any discussion, saying none, all in favor say aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator. You're, you're You're 2 for 2 today, buddy. Not gonna press my luck. Thank you committee.
Speaker 21
12:48
Is there anybody have their Senator Irvin, can you do 480 for Senator Hammer? Do you want to
Speaker 7
12:52
call in backup from the treasurer's office. I And in case you wonder, I don't have my amendment yet. I was
1700, but I'll have it on Tuesday. If you would, uh, this Senate Bill 480, uh, just introduce yourselves and you're recognized. Thank you, Senator Missy
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
13:40
Urban District 24. This is Senate Bill 480. I am Michael Harry, chief compliance officer and director
Speaker 49
13:49
of government affairs for the Treasurer's Office. You recognize? Thank you. Um, so this bill, um, Serves two functions. One, it's a cleanup bill of sorts. Um, we were approached by our investment team that some of the language in the code was it looked to have been brought over from the banking code, and it didn't really apply to us. So we just wanted to clean some of that up.
Um, and then also you'll see that there's a change on page 2, which we are It was previously required that we'd get um at least 2 ratings investment grade ratings, but there are some banks in Arkansas that only receive one. So by changing it from 2 to 1, it allows us to invest with more local banks. All right. Is there any, any questions?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:51
Seeing none. Go ahead, Senator Flowers. And, and you all do look for the highest interest rate. I'm
sorry, the highest interest rate is what you're looking for. When you the best deal, yes, ma'am. So in all your, your banks, local banks, FDIC, OK. Do we try to
Speaker 56
15:11
keep it in state, you know, if possible, yeah, we like to invest
Speaker 49
15:14
in local banks as much as we can. That's good to hear. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 7
15:22
Any other questions, seeing none. I have no one signed up to speak for against the bill, uh, what's the will of the committee motion by Senator Flowers, seconded by Senator Ervin, any discussion? All in favor say aye. All oppose like sign. Thank you, Senator. Past your
Speaker 8
15:40
bill, uh, do you want to do Senate Bill 527. Uh, yeah.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
15:45
Can I do, um, 483 real quick. That's our, OK, and I need to do
a verbal amendment to add a Representative Maddox, I believe, as the house sponsor. Hang on. This is our um Bill to repeal those unnecessary reports. We've already talked about it. 483. All right.
Speaker 7
16:13
I accept a motion to motion in a second to add Representative Maddox. Do we need to suspend the rules? No,
you don't have to suspend the rules, OK, all in favor say aye. All pose like sign. Thank you, Senator, your bill is amended. If you would present your bill as amended to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
16:38
get rid of the reports that we don't need
Speaker 7
16:41
that. There you go, motion as amended motion motion by Senator Irvin, seconded by Senator McKee. All in favor. Say aye. I'll oppose. Thank you, Senator. OK.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
16:50
And then Citel 49999, no, no, it's a mistake.
This is not the correct language for this bill, OK, so I'll have to get with BLR because this is a complete it's the same bill that we just passed. And it's, but it's the incorrect language, so I'll have to it has the language from the bill we just passed. Somebody
Speaker 70
17:11
had a drafting error. So I'll have to get. I,
Speaker 7
17:30
I, I was up, I was up in state agencies a while ago and I
Speaker 75
17:36
thought I was going to have to gavel in up there, that's never happened to me I'm going
Speaker 73
17:44
first. Yeah. All right, 2727 Senate Bill 527. Thank you, members. I, I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
17:48
don't intend to ask for a vote on this today, I know that it's been filed this week. I kind of gave the highlights to the to the Senate about the bill, but we'll let
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
18:05
about it after they hear me. OK, but um, Yeah, I, I, uh, so anyway, folks, this is our uh reauthorization of the Medicaid waiver program through our home, uh, if you'll, I'll just go through this, um, very, very succinctly. I think we've made a few changes, but the big highlights of the bill are that it will capture the pharmacy rebates will be captured and
come back to the states, and then it adjusts the medical loss ratio. from a current 80/20 to a 9010, um, and it adds also that a federally qualified health center can also qualify for a carrying bridge organization, carrying Bridge Bridge organization is a terminology we utilize for the maternal homes. Um, we have not had uptake on the success home or the rural home. They're looking at combining those into one, but
we've kept all of that language in the bill. Specifically for the maternal homes and the other Life360 homes, so that, that is what that is. The definitions that are included on page 5, medical loss ratio is a definition that's new, that's included pharmacy rebate definitions on 19 through 28 are directly taken from the pharmacy benefit managers Licensing Act, um, we are allowing cost sharing, uh, the cost share amount, which is
also paid by uh Uh, the state of Arkansas will be um That will also be included in what we consider for For the premium tax as well as for any medical loss ratio, um, And then on page 7, it what it does is that it just sets up the
uh system for tracking the pharmacy rebates, um, In those two, sections there. And, uh, then on page 8, as you know, the governor announced and has already submitted a waiver to to incorporate work and volunteer service into this program and so this language on page 8 is reflective of what they've actually already done,
but members felt that they wanted to put that language in the bill as well, so that's in there. Um, on that, again, making sure that we comply with all federal and state requirements, um, there are the level of exemptions there of there can be volunteer work as well as work, as well as work, um, it could also be a combination of those things, um. And then, and those, those
exceptions are consistent with what with what I think Arkansas has done in the past, but also trying to align with what changes are being made at the federal level. Um, and then it changes dates. Um, and this would be for another 5 years. It does have the trigger information, and it continues and all of the different types of accountability and quality measures are still part of this. We still have the quality measure reviews panels that are meeting to further develop the
program. Alright. So I, I just wanted to present this information to this bill. We have a whole week of spring break for people to read it and digest it and understand it and that's why I wanted to talk about it today and present it knowing that it can't come to the Senate floor until, you know, at least 10 days from now. All right, Senator Flowers,
Speaker 21
22:03
do you got a question. Uh, thank you, Senator Irvin,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
22:10
uh, I just briefly glanced it yesterday, but and Even though
you have what? Medical loss ratio means I need that. Broken down to understand it how it works and then the pharmacy rebates. That is if I mean, I'd like to know how does that work? Are we talking?
The department Getting pharmacy. Pharmaceutical companies to give a rebate. And then it How does it work?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
22:56
I'm gonna tackle the medical loss ratio part, but then I'm going to ask Senator Boyd to talk about the pharmacy rebate part because I think he's he's very knowledgeable, much more knowledgeable about that than me. Um, the medical loss ratio just means that um you have, you have to, you have to basically
show that of the money that we're giving you that 90% is spent on actual health
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
23:21
care through claims data. So this is
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
23:25
for Medicaid patients. Yes, ma'am. They get real dollars in their hands. No, no, no, no, no,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
23:29
to the, to the providers. Oh, OK, yeah, yeah, so the provider gets
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
23:34
money and then they also get a a a portion of the funds that we give to the payers, to the insurance companies. They keep a portion of that for the
administration of of those of processing those claims. So that's the, that's the 10% part that The medical part is saying that That is the amount of money that has to be spent on the medical treatment, health care that's paid out on behalf of the recipient and yeah, and, and well that would be. Because you
Speaker 91
24:07
have 90%. At the toward the back, I saw that figure. I
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:21
I haven't really thought about public health in a while and
so I'm just not this on page 9, it mentions Maintain a medical loss ratio of at least 90% used to be 80%, I guess. Right, so, so the provider has to
spend 90%. The pay, the payer.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
24:52
Yes, that would be, that's the percentage of the premium, yeah, that's the percentage of the premium income that the health insurers spend on medical care and quality improvement as opposed to administration, marketing, and if applicable, any profit. Do you think their fees are going to go up as
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:10
a result of this? I think that they can provide probably
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
25:14
better testimony than I can about that, and I think what you think.
Uh, well, I, I think that we've, what we did was we looked at, we looked at medical loss ratio at the federal level at different, uh, different levels of of where health insurance is, um, they, they looked at, uh, I'd say they, Department of Health Human Services could probably answer this better as well. But um looked at where other states were in MLR, um, what's allowed under the federal guidelines for the different
components of, of, I would say management of Medicaid. There's a variation in a range that goes anywhere from 80 to 93%, I think. So, uh, I think they just kind of try to take into consideration all those different, uh, factors when looking at the medical loss ratio. What
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
26:13
what is the Patience portioned. So DHS are
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
26:20
probably better answer that question as
Speaker 91
26:25
well. I believe so, yes, and I guess my last question. Yes, she, yeah, cost sharing
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
26:30
component is something that's why we pay the cost sharing component of it, which I, so I think I don't want to over, I don't want to say till
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
26:40
they answer that, but the other question about the, the uh work requirement in the uh The exceptions or the exemptions. So you put this language in there on page 8.
As you anticipate the waiver being approved by CMS. Yes, ma'am. And so if
it's not, we're still stuck with this. They would have to approve it, wouldn't they, for us to even
Speaker 104
27:15
ma'am. Yes ma'am. So we put the cart before the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
27:18
horse. Um, I'll let them come and answer those questions if that's OK, because I think those are good questions, but I, I want to make sure you get good information.
Speaker 109
27:40
Good morning, Janet May, DHS Did you get
Speaker 110
27:45
the question? I hope you did. Yes, ma'am. I think you asked me several. I think I'll start with the work requirement question and work backwards, and if I miss one, please correct me. The language for the work requirement is there and we have gone through public comment. We're in the process of submitting it to CMS either I think Friday or Monday, and our intent is to negotiate and have a work requirement effectively. With the with the waiver, so I think um
Speaker 111
28:14
This language just supports us doing that work requirement is not granted and how does this. What happens.
Speaker 110
28:24
I think the, if the waiver is not granted or CMS doesn't approve it, then I think it would, it would be DHS's responsibility to come back with amendments and additional items for the work requirement and continue to try to get it approved because if you don't get approval, you can't do this.
Speaker 114
28:46
The state can't do this. We can if we don't have
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
28:51
CMS approval, we cannot do a work requirement. Yes, ma'am. That's why I said, you know.
Speaker 110
29:01
the horse. No, ma'am, I think, I think this language supports the intent of us submitting and it's this is a reauthorization. I think there's current work requirement language in the actual statute now and this just continues that so that we can continue to try to have a work requirement. So
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:17
what's in the statute now. is not You can't execute it. That I believe so. You can't require somebody to work now to get no ma'am, that's
Speaker 110
29:31
there it's there and so we submitting to CMS and trying to have a work requirement, we would
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:37
have to have that approval. And so the other thing I asked about was the rebates and how does
Speaker 110
29:43
that work? So I will start and I think Senator Boyd may
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
29:49
have to help me so rebates so I was gonna, I'm I'm not trying to cut you off. I was going to have the pharmacists association with Senator Ever's permission
Speaker 121
30:01
to explain how the rebate situation works if, if
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:04
you're OK with that I had the question about the premium and the medical loss ratio. Yes,
ma'am. The wanting to understand and trying to You know, visualize what is this? how does this it is
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
30:16
a yes ma'am, the medical loss ratio is
Speaker 110
30:20
a requirement that we set a percentage of the premium that we pay to the carriers, they must spend 10%age on medical claims, so it does range between 80 and 93% across the country and so we've Set in this proposed legislation is setting it at 90%, which would charge the carriers to spend 90% of what they are paid as the premium on medical claims
for the for the beneficiaries.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
30:55
And, and I remember uh Several years ago when
I was closer to public health committee, um. The state would get a refund or money back from the insurance carrier if they had not Expanded
the percentage of Money for medical care, is that
Speaker 110
31:22
right? this is about? Yes, ma'am, that is correct. So the our home program is matched at 90% federal money, 10% state money, so at the end of the year and after close out of claims, they are reconciled and then if the medical loss ratio is not matched, the carriers will will refund that or rebate that money, then the state has the responsibility to rebate that money at a 90. split to the federal government and 10% back to the state.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
31:54
The of the refunded money. Yes, ma'am, of the refunded money. And so are we, am I supposed to understand that We've been getting quite a bit of refund back, and that's why we're increasing it to
Speaker 127
32:11
90. No, ma'am, just the opposite. Now, ma'am, we
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
32:14
have gotten rebates in previous years, I would have to go back and look at how that split
Speaker 110
32:19
happens because we really don't get it. I think it's almost 18 months later, um, I
think the carriers can correct me if I get that number wrong. They have a time period for the claims to be filed and then reconciled. So they've, we've not gotten a rebate every year. It depends on the claims
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
32:39
and what happens with that population and so we we increase
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:42
it. About 10%. We're wanting them to spend more
Speaker 110
32:47
of the money on medical claims. We're wanting them to spend as much money as possible on medical claims, I guess, because
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:56
they haven't been giving us money back because they've had that 80%. Medical loss ratio. Does that make sense? I mean, I'm just trying to understand why, why would we increase it except for some benefit.
Speaker 110
33:14
To the state. Well, I think the benefits to the beneficiaries. I'm wanting more. We are wanting more spent on
Speaker 116
33:21
medical claims, so we're increasing that percentage for the carriers to spend, but
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:27
if they don't spend it, if they don't comes back
Speaker 115
33:29
into the state's coffer. The state and
Speaker 131
33:32
the federal, yes. So that's why I'm saying. I'll
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:38
let it go. I just Can't really grasp that up. Thank you, Senator. Senator
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
33:44
McKee, you got a question. I think, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I've missed
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
33:51
a little bit of the discussion on the work requirement. I apologize about
that, but can you explain, obviously, we have to get a waiver for that to go into effect, but is there a way within this we couldn't just create a work requirement so that if the federal if they give us a waiver, we handle that, or is
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
34:13
this a trigger? Can you explain? Yes, so we have to apply for a waiver to add the work requirement into this program, but This whole program is a waiver. So the whole program is under a
section 1115 waiver from the federal law, so that Section 1115 waiver basically dictates the parameters around what we can do in this program because CMS, you know, CMS's Center for Medical Services, Medicaid and Medicaid and Medicare services, um, but, but they the The federal government funds a portion of this program, so it's a 9010, so 90% is paid by the
federal government 10% of the program is paid by the state government. So when they are paying 90%, they have a lot of say in how we structure this program. One of those is a budget neutrality, which I think is very important, and that's why we utilize the 1115 waiver in that language, um, and so,
yes. CMS would have to approve this waiver as, as we have presented it
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
35:31
so this is, so this is a waiver and What, what actually
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
35:39
creates the work requirement. Again, the middle to CMS for approval. So we actually have existing language that we never struck about the work requirements, and we just wanted to make sure it was included here in this waiver request as well. OK. I can't wait. Senator Johnson.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
36:03
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and Senator Irving, man, I would like to hear both of your comments on this. I'm, I'm not trying to compare and contrast. I do want to compare and contrast something though, um, first, could you compare and contrast the waiver that we sought previously that was was denied under the Biden administration with this particular one and how they differ.
Speaker 114
36:34
Yes, sir. So we have, we had a waiver that was struck down by the court in 19, it had
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
36:40
some very prescriptive language that we had requested and I'm going from memory, so I'm I. We got time as senators said we're not going to today. I can,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
36:50
you can clarify the comparison document is sitting on my desk, so, um,
Speaker 110
36:54
we had, um, you can email those to me. I can do that. So. It was very prescriptive and it
was struck down because it was a condition of eligibility in the previous waiver that was what was struck down in this waiver, we are attempting to make it an individualized approach with the beneficiaries and we are trying to leave some things open-ended to be able to negotiate with CMS to have some of our some of our descriptions through the terms and conditions. That is, and we are not making it a condition of eligibility.
We are making it if you do not comply, it will, you will have your benefits suspended, which is terminology in practice we use with other individuals when they are no longer currently eligible but could be again. So that's the biggest difference is condition of eligibility versus suspension, but I can get you the comparison document. I would appreciate
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
37:58
that and quick follow up, Mr. Chairman. I'm OK, with everything in the, the listed things on page 8, the only thing I'm not
100% cool with is the volunteer hours. I, and I like volunteer hours. I think great people do that, you know, we've got it in
the Learns Act and all this, but Uh, it's, it's, it's a little squishy as far as, you know, someone is
working, you know, they have a, they can show you their check stub or you get a W-2 or whatever and they qualify that that may meet that requirement. Volunteerism is a little more I'm just, let me just say that we could possibly
have a potential for abuse, and I do want to see if there might be some way to to
tighten that up and I realized you've got to write something at CMS will approve. I mean, I, I get that and I I'm not trying to, you know, throw a poison pill into this, but on the other
hand, uh, the intent, it appears, Senator, is we want people to be off Medicaid and off welfare and standing on their own 2 ft and drawing having a good job and having training to do that good job,
and so I just want to make sure we're, we're making progress with that with each beneficiary. Yeah, I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
39:18
really appreciate the conversation and the question, and let me just say there are, there are areas in the state, and I've had this conversation with many where jobs may be plentiful. There are areas in our state there where jobs are not plentiful, and that we know that we have put in, you know, a lot of time and effort in economic development in the areas of the state, particularly the Delta where there just isn't
that job opportunity. So to me, I feel, I feel like this is the right approach, but I'll also say, you know, if you look at the claims data and the recipients and the people that have come into this program and who have left the program. There are success stories, right? And so
you, it's so much better when you analyze who is the recipient of the program for you to be able to make better policy decisions, and that's what we've been able to do in this program,
and it's because of the work that we did in the original our home that we passed, uh, 2 years ago, 3 years, I don't know, but we, we have met periodically quarterly, I think, was it quarterly? Yeah, quarterly. We've met quarterly and we've had an excellent discussions
around this program. We've looked at the claims data, we've looked at like the spend, and we've identified the people that are actually on this program and and and how long
they stayed on the program. It's not very long. So to me, I think this is a Great component of the bill. It really ties back to that rule and success home, which is
if you're, if you are, you feel a lot more successful if you're actually spending your time, you know, developing a career, getting your education, volunteering for something, working, it really just gives you yourself a lot of self-worth and
value, and I think, I think that was the whole idea behind a
rural home and a success home. And so the work requirement kind of fits into that whole idea. I also want to say once somebody volunteers sometimes. It really can spark something in them that then creates a whole entrepreneurial spirit. At the, at the black caucus, Senator Murdoch had somebody who came and spoke, and he was incredible, um, and he talked about entrepreneurialism, and he talked about entrepreneurship and he talked about how so many
times it actually starts by somebody just volunteering in a capacity that leads them into an idea to create their own business, and So I think there's so much value that we're kind of skipping over, um, but that's really important with this this component and and to your point, Senator Johnson, we do have to ride it in such a way that the that the federal government will approve it, and so, you know, we don't want to make, we want to make sure that the eligibility
language is very, very clear and distinct as this man stated, there are very clear things that we cannot. with when it comes to eligibility of Medicaid, so and it's based
solely on your percentage of income. Well, if I could, I just want to end by saying
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
42:35
that I'm, I'm very supportive of the work you're doing on this, and we're going in the right direction. You've heard the saying that, you know, public assistance should be a safety net and not a hammock, and I want to make sure that if
someone is, for lack of a better word, flouting the work requirement that they can be removed. and if y'all can provide me, and again you can send it to me information that would make that suspended more clear. Yes, sir, we will. Thank you. Thank you, Senator
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:13
Flowers. You know, in respect to his comments about uh Welfare and stuff.
Individuals we got plenty of corporations that are considered persons. That are accepting welfare, and I just want that to be on the record.
When you talk about people's health care and whether that's something we shouldn't provide people that need it, can't afford it. We give so much. The corporations.
I, I, I don't know if you even consider that.
But you should. Yeah Is that a question or Mr. Chair, it was my comment. That's all it was, so do we want
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
44:11
pharmacy rebate information, OK, Senator Johnson, we're not
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
44:14
going to be done with discussion, but for his schedule, the pharmacists Association, I've asked
them to come to the table because this is a complex issue and um
they're not here to speak for or against this bill, but to help provide expert testimony on something that's
complex. So with that, John Vinson, you're recognized. Introduce yourself for
Speaker 164
44:38
the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, they'll sponsor and bill sponsors. I'm John Vinson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association and on Senate Bill 527. see what page page 5, and then get
My glasses on. Or on the copy I have, I was looking at, I think 17, yeah, there's several places. It's referenced, but the concept of a of a rebate for pharmaceutical in the traditional Medicaid program is defined in federal law, and there's a formula and there's regular rebates and supplemental rebates, and those rebates are discounts off of both brand and generic
prescriptions. The larger amount would be on brand prescription drugs because those are more expensive. prescriptions and there's deeper discounts on those under the traditional Medicaid system, and our home program with private insurers, those rebates are negotiated outside of that traditional program between a pharmacy benefit manager and the actual manufacturer, and this legislation, the way I understand it, seeks to clarify and bring some transparency to that process for the department
to be able to see what that looks like and if those discounts being used to lower the premiums to their maximum amount and the way they do in the traditional fee for service Medicaid program. I would, I would bring to your attention that of the two major carriers in the state that currently use that program. One of them uses CVS. One of them uses Express Scripts. There's a couple of examples that have been in the news recently where it's even more
complicated than what I just described that they use an intermediary. Between the PBM and the manufacturer called a group purchasing organization and a couple of those are located offshore. One of them is in California, in the state of Illinois, and the US Federal Postal Workers was actually through a similar transparency program actually able to find millions of dollars that wasn't being passed through, and they were able to get that rectified, so I lauded the state to try to to do that here in our homes.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
46:58
And I'd be happy to answer questions. Senator Murdoch. Thank
Speaker 6
47:11
you, chair. Um, Mr. Benson, uh, Are we still on the same bill we're not gonna vote
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
47:18
on. OK. All right. Thank you. Um continually frustrated. And confused by
the PBM. Um Existence in in these
relationships. It seems to convolute, um, sometimes contradict and cause. Issues that are hard to be determined by us, you know, as it comes to us, it's not clear, you know, and it seems to always have, and I hate to be always so um. Well, you know, negative, I guess about PBMs and that, but nothing seems to be clear, concise, or even fair and it always ends in something
that we have to revisit and I know that our department is there to be our safeguard in this, at least that's what I hope is still happening, but It doesn't even make sense to me. Part of your conversation made sense. Then when you get to the PBM part and then the third party part the other part, the GP's, why does it have to be so confusing for a simple transaction and it seems to be because of
Speaker 164
48:34
The PBMs in this world. I agree. I would say there's a I'm not going to talk about other bills, but there is bigger policy discussion of if there are discounts, should those discounts come directly to the state the way they do in Medicaid versus through an intermediary. This is a good, I think, build upon the transparency that the department has created in the past system to increase the transparency in our home, and I know I've had really good conversations with, with Janet and with Elizabeth. With Medicaid in the past, so to
me it looks like that's what they're doing and this step is to, to make sure that what they believe is happening to lower the price for the state is happening and ensuring to the best of their ability that those discounts are passed to lower the price of the program. We,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
49:21
we're going to discuss it later because we're not going to vote today, but I just wanted to add that and I'm sure I'll hear from the PBM people pro PBM and I, and
I love the conversation because it just never seems to
Speaker 164
49:35
make sense, and I shared the example of Illinois and the US federal postal workers because those are state funded plans or federal funded plans that did exactly this and when they started digging, in fact, the rebates weren't all coming through. They had to actually have a lawsuit because of those findings, and there were settlements, and I hope that's not the case here, but this would bring the transparency. Thank you.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
49:56
Um, members, the governor's going to be in my district to visit the tornado damage and the people that suffered the damage from the tornado, and so I have to leave
immediately to to be able to meet them there, so I will let you guys continue your discussion. This man is here to answer all the questions. I know that Mr. Mans is here with Blue Cross Blue Shield as well, and I'm not sure if Jack Hopkins is here. He's here as well, so you
see no other questions, you're I'm gonna
Speaker 7
50:29
let y'all continue with this man we're not we're done. All right. We're gonna go on, uh, House Bill 1509
Speaker 8
50:38
is the is the only person I see here to run the bill. And Uh, have a
Speaker 7
50:50
handout. Senator Representative Beatty, you want to come up to the table. We, we would be remiss in in not having you up here. unless unless members have something in here to run for. Somebody this will probably be it.
We are on 1509. OK, uh, you're just introduce yourselves and you're recognized. Ricky Hill
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
51:25
District 11. Representative Howard Beatty District 95. Mr. Chair, I
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
51:36
will assure you one thing this bill has nothing to do with
PBMs, so we're so and I'm doing that for for Senator Murdoch. Oh.
Bill 1509 uh is a bill that would prohibit a requirement for the usage of firearm code by any firearm retailers in Arkansas as well as unlawful disclosure of any such protected financial institution Just so you'll give you a little background back I think it was 2 or 3 years ago, the internal organization for the Standardization created a code 5723, which says any firearm transaction. She'll have a code on it whenever it's with a credit card
or a debit card. And so what this is doing for the state of Arkansas will say you do not have to do that. You do not have to distinguish a firearm purchase. If I walked into a store and I paid cash, there's no transaction record. So this is just saying there's not a transaction record if you use debit card or credit card or some type of that type of form for for digital transaction on it. And so With this bill, now the major credit card companies. Let me back up one step. This, this.
This was passed because of one bank out of New York City that asked for these transactions to be recorded and kept a record of it as a way of tracking firearms, not just firearms, but ammunition purchases as well. And so this was all created for our bank out of New York and it's kind of kind of picked up with the credit card processing companies. In which is a third party transaction that takes place which I didn't even wear wasn't even wear this. There's only one bank in Arkansas right now that has their own. Credit card processing company,
which is our best. The rest of them use third parties. And so this might just prevents us If this takes place where we can find the merchant service company that does the transactions. We'll turn it over to the Attorney General. They'll do the processing of everything, and they'll do an investigation if they are recording these and keeping up with it for a reason they shouldn't be, which is basically the Track where gun purchases are ammunition that they will
Go after the third party company, and they will not go after what I call our local community banks because our local community banks are a small group that use a third party for this processing in the we're doing this mainly to protect the third to protect our community banks because they put so much money back into our communities they sponsored baseball games, basketball teams, you name it, they do that. So this would actually really hurt our small community banks if went forward and they were able
to be fined. In fact, actually you would end up with a large bank in your local community. And then not have any say so whatsoever. And I'd like to let Representative Beatty
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
54:43
add anything to it that he'd like to. Basically all all I would add to the bill is that What's in this bill is the banning of use of that code for tracking and for other other reasons. So the bill bans that code and that's what we agree on, but what this, what this bill,
there are 3 lines in the bill that basically exclude financial institutions from the definition of the third party, third party payment network, and it just, it just says that the banks facilitating that transaction. We're settling. debits and credits. And if we just settle those debits and credits and do the wishes of our customer that wants to make a purchase
and that electronic information comes in, takes money from your account, and we send it back out through the network to the
retailer. We don't have any control over the codes and the coding that that third party utilizes. Therefore, we shouldn't have the liability if they choose to use that. It should be on that network company and not on your community banks. So
that's the point of contention. That's the priority in this bill to protect your Arkansas institutions. I said in my closing in on the House floor, it's kind of like you're a passenger in a car and you're, you're going down 5:30 coming to Little Rock, and you get stopped by state police and because
Beatty's going 85. I actually said 90 or 95, when you get pulled, I get pulled over and you're in the car with me, the state police start writing citations out and they get everybody in the car. You know, the
banks are passengers in that car. We don't have control. We may tell the driver, you may say, Beatty, slow down. I told you to slow down, you're gonna get it now. And we get pulled over
and we get stopped and, and you're getting a citation too. It's not fair. It's not right, but you
know that that's that may be the way that law would work. That's how this would work for your financial institutions. You're in
the car, you can't control the driver and and you're going to be punished and so that's, that's what this bill. Let's asking for. It gives the enforcement authority back to the courts for a fine against the AG investigative authority to look
into these uses, and it's something we don't want in Arkansas. We don't want that tracking code in Arkansas and infringing on our rights what we want to do with our money,
especially when it's related to anything. I mean outside of just guns, ammunitions or gun accessories, but that merchant code shouldn't be out there. And again, as the senator said, It was one bank in New York City that created and asked for this code and states throughout the nation have fought back against this, so with that, I I appreciate the opportunity to sit here in this committee and answer
any questions or concerns that you may have. All right, we got Senator Murdoch, then
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
57:37
Senator McKee, and then Senator Flowers. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for bringing this. I've heard from a couple of my bankers on this and appreciate the protection that this does for them as being, you know, a third party does it and but and so it won't be attached. The question I did have, but I think you just answered it. Are there any other merchant? codes For other things besides the firearms.
Or or this was just done for firearms and merchant codes are
uncommon except for what. set for firearms, so we're just trying to highlight them or exclude them. I'm trying to make sure that
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
58:19
we're being consistent. they're merchant merchant codes for every, every business or type of industry will have a code. There's one code that's just retail, uh, retail code and I, I, it skips my mind exactly what that code is, but you know this bill primarily just focuses on 5723, uh, which is I think
the gun industry or a gun retailer code that singles out that industry. So there, there may very well be other industries that, uh, that have a tracking code, but this is the one that would would target in on gun sales, accessories, and ammunition. I guess the
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
58:57
thing I want to make sure of is if that 5723 for the guns and they're using it, whatever code that applies to other items. The
They're not just are we saying that they're just Doing something special for the firearms? Is that what this is or, or, or they're just doing the same thing with firearms as they're doing with
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
59:22
other products. What they'll do, Representative Murdoch, is I'll just say sports academy. I'm going to use him as an example. They can have a sporting goods code and they can use that to code whatever they want to that would show some transaction from them. This code number here is specifically used for firearms or ammunition where they could
Speaker 186
59:41
use because you can buy firearm. at a sporting goods
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
59:45
place so they can still use the 8761, which I'm, but instead they're using this to show directly the firearm. That is correct and that's inconsistent with what they're doing with everybody else. That's what this bill is dealing with. Thank you. Senator McKee. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:00:04
so the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5.
Top of page 5 it says this section does not apply to an electronic payment transaction at a retailer outside of the state. So
does that mean online transactions and those things will still have the code and may still have the code applied. That would
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:00:25
apply to the state that it's it's in that transaction, so it's Oklahoma. I'll just use Oklahoma for example. Oklahoma. May allow this and at that point it would be legal, OK, because I'm all in
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:00:36
favor of this. They're, they're using any and every tool that they can to get information on people who are
purchasing firearms that ability, their availability. Thank you.
Speaker 1
1:00:45
Thank you. Senator Flowers and then Senator Johnson. So I'm trying to understand, are we trying to Avoid
Speaker 195
1:00:53
A law that's Existing Senator Flowers are we trying to avoid a law
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:01:04
that is on the books now. What what are we trying to do here? Well, what we're trying to do here is to
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:01:14
make it to where they can't come to Arkansas and use these codes, and they can use them in other states. So
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:01:21
yeah, they, they are actually coding or have been the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:01:26
code is that from federal. Law or it's, it's not a law center. this this organization uh the ISO basically they established these codes for the industry, and once they establish that code, then a lot of these network operators or third party operators utilize those codes
and put them in in place for their merchants and all this is saying is we will not use that code established by ISO in the state of Arkansas. And another reason for this most law-abiding citizens that are going to a gun store or going to the merchant, going through all the background checks, everything else that you have to have. Those are law abiding citizens and to track that information on them, that's, that's not going to do anything to deter the issues that we have with with guns captured the one
off the street. It's not, it's not captured the bad actors that are out
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:02:22
there and we just don't want that code used in Arkansas. Well, OK, so I'll this international organization for Standardization. It's not
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:02:33
a governmental Switzerland that organization's headquartered in Switzerland. I do remember that.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:02:38
So I mean, I guess the organization is trying to
Has a mission to track weapons or something. Is that what this is? Yes, ma'am. And so, It doesn't do anything. To try to avoid any federal law. No, it's not avoiding a federal law, OK? It's just trying to prevent Any Liability on the part of a bank. I mean, what's the financial
institution, I mean, how can the iOS do anything to a financial
Speaker 21
1:03:21
institution, Senator, is this, is this about data tracking that's your privacy can't be breached privacy and all that,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:03:28
yes sir. But how is the IOS, I
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:03:31
mean they're not a governmental agency. How can they No, ma'am but
what they did, they went to the to the
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:03:40
emergant service companies who are processing these and got them to go along with it. They, they're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:03:48
kind of the governing body that establishes the codes and that are utilized by these payment parties and third party organizations, so they established a merchant code and then sent it out and and the payment processors utilize those codes in the industry. So it's kind of like a governing advisory board. They don't mandate they use them, but, but they're out there and a lot of these providers utilize those codes and what we're saying is we don't want those those network operators in the state
of Arkansas to use that code and the penalty back on the bank comes in because this bill imposes a fee. We tell them we don't want it and then we're telling them, if you do it, we're gonna hit you with a $10,000 fine. And that's included, yes, ma'am, it includes a $10,000 fine in the bill if they utilize it because we don't want it is the payment processors where might they be? They're, they're operating several different
areas. They could be in state or out of state, but most of them are out of
Speaker 1
1:04:56
state. Most of them are out of Florida,
Speaker 7
1:04:58
I think, Senator Senator and Representative, those are, those are like money rails. Those are like your Visa, Mastercard, and uh any of those kind of things that's the money rails are the are the what they're talking about the other states have Legislation
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:05:15
like this there's not, I think it's 1919 other states, yes, so
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:05:18
is this something new that's just come
Speaker 1
1:05:23
on the scene and, and about 2 years ago. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Senator Johnson, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator Hill
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:05:34
and Representative Beatty, uh, is this bank, and I want to ask you
to name them that was doing this. Is this an ESG thing for their, their back, in your opinion, I mean, are you, it it could be that. OK, now, and the, the The disincentive in the bill is not an individual right. This is
something that the only the Attorney general would be instituting a civil fine for violators. Is that correct? That's correct. So it's not if they did it to my account, I might be mad, but this didn't give me a cause of action. Is that correct? That's correct, yeah, you could take
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:06:08
your causation to the Attorney general and say, hey, this is what they've done to me. Would you investigate this, OK? And then
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:06:15
it's something that keeps coming up anytime we talk about, you know, firearms type. thing. You're familiar with the case of Mr. Malinowski, who was
killed by the ATF agent here in Little Rock would this be the kind of thing that someone might have provided to voluntarily maybe to an agency to say, well, he sure is buying a lot of stuff through his Visa or Mastercard that was had this code on it and maybe created a situation that might have caused The search warrant for his premises to be issued. Is that I'm not saying that happened. I can't answer for that.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:06:58
Would this be a protection protection from that happening, OK, well,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:07:02
it's, I'm not being presumptuous. I know it's theoretical, Senator, but
I, but I do want to see if that was the case because, you know, you, you they were building a case and if this is something that data that, that, and of course the feds can go into a bank and ask for anything they want to, so I just wanted to see if that was a At least theoretically a possibility. It's a very good possibility something like that
Speaker 182
1:07:21
could have happened. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say Senator Catfish
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:07:29
Johnson, that was a pretty good, a pretty good um question that lays
out a real-life case. It's always good. It's always good to have a good question from Catfish Johnson, Senator Flowers. What, what is this? Did
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:07:43
we get this with this bill? They did they pass this out for this bill? I think so.
What, what does this have to do? I mean, it says HB 357. What? I thought we were on Senator, that's the Kentucky
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:07:59
bill. I think what that was handed out for is this exact language in this bill was passed by the state of Kentucky. I think you probably all got a few emails and messages, um, and this, that I think that's why they handed out to you. So it's the same bill that was passed in Kentucky and praised by that organization that's been sending you those emails. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 41
1:08:22
I throw it away for you, Senator. I'll throw
Speaker 154
1:08:25
it away for you that was our bankers association
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:08:30
letting us know that it had been
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:08:32
passed in other states. All right, and put on there. That's real good. I
Speaker 7
1:08:40
can't support it seeing no other questions, uh, we have, we have two other people to speak for this bill, and I don't think they want to do that and And uh You want to close your bill? I'm
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:08:55
closed. I think I'd appreciate a good vote. Now
Speaker 7
1:09:02
Motion by Senator McKee, seconded by Senator Boyd, any discussion? All right, all in favor, say aye. I'll oppose like sign, thank you, uh, we are adjourned.
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
CALL TO ORDER
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.
REGULAR AGENDA
SB123 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST ULTRASOUNDS.
SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING ACT.
SB140 J. Boyd TO MANDATE THE USE OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES UNDER HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS; TO REQUIRE A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER TO PRESCRIBE BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES; AND TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES.
SB463 M. McKee TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO APPROVE OR DENY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS CONCERNING CLOSING OR ELIMINATING ELECTRIC GENERATION UNITS OR TRANSMISSION ASSETS.
SB475 J. Dismang TO ESTABLISH THE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ACT; AND TO REGULATE PHARMACY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.
SB480 K. Hammer TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS.
SB481 Gilmore TO CREATE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND STATE-OWNED PROPERTY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB483 Irvin TO REPEAL CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE SECURITIES DEPARTMENT; AND TO REVISE CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.
HB1300 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT.
HB1301 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT.
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.
HB1424 L. Johnson TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR SEVERE OBESITY TREATMENTS.
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.
HB1509 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FROM USING CERTAIN DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES.
SB527 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ACT OF 2021;
AND TO INCREASE THE MEDICAL-LOSS RATIO IN THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME PROGRAM.
ADJOURN
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE, Mar 20, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 7
Speaker 8
Speaker 11
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 19
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Lauren Marquette
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 36
Speaker 21
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 49
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 70
Speaker 75
Speaker 73
Speaker 91
Speaker 104
Speaker 109
Speaker 110
Speaker 111
Speaker 114
Speaker 121
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 127
Speaker 116
Speaker 115
Speaker 131
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 164
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 186
Speaker 195
Speaker 182
Speaker 41
Speaker 154