Insurance & Commerce - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (15)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB83
Act 424
· 15 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “So next is a Senate Bill 83, and it has a handout. Has an amendment as well.”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES; TO REQUIRE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES; … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB83 is now Act 424 |
|
HB1316
Act 390
· 6 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…VE PAYMENTS TO A PROVIDER UPON CREDENTIALING OF A PROVIDER. HB1316 F. Allen TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR LUNG CANCER SCREENINGS. HB…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR LUNG CANCER SCREENINGS. | F. Allen | Notification that HB1316 is now Act 390 |
|
SB103
Act 425
· 4 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “Members, uh, Senator Penzo has amended Senate Bill 103 and somehow didn't get back on the agenda. I would like to…”
|
TO CREATE THE PHARMACY NONDISCRIMINATION ACT; TO REQUIRE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS TO ACCEPT ANY PHARMACY … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB103 is now Act 425 |
|
HB1271
Act 479
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1271 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MECHANICS' AND MATERIALM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MECHANICS' AND MATERIALMEN'S LIENS; AND TO CLARIFY THE PRIORITY OF … | Warren | Notification that HB1271 is now Act 479 |
|
HB1288
Act 423
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARIFY THE PRIORITY OF LIENS IN MORTGAGE CONSTRUCTION LOANS. HB1288 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT;…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A HEALTHCARE INSURER TO … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1288 is now Act 423 |
|
HB1652
Act 393
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1652 Tosh T0 AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACIL…”
|
T0 AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES; TO ENFORCE AN UNSIGNED SELF-SERVICE FACILITY STORAGE … | Tosh | Notification that HB1652 is now Act 393 |
|
HB1700
Act 638
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DURE FOR A SELF- SERVICE FACILITY STORAGE RENTAL AGREEMENT. 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 |
|
SB140
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Staff Only'. PENDING FISCAL IMPACT Number Sponsor Subtitle SB140 J. Boyd TO MANDATE THE USE OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES UNDER HE…”
|
TO MANDATE THE USE OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES UNDER HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS; TO REQUIRE A HEALTHCARE … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB331
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IOSIMILAR MEDICINES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle 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. |
|
SB420
Act 736
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PR…”
|
TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND … | Hester | Notification that SB420 is now Act 736 |
|
SB437
Act 945
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING LOAN FUND. 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 |
|
HB1275
Act 389
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1275 Cavenaugh TO PROHIBIT PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS FOR HEALTHCARE S…”
|
TO PROHIBIT PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED FOR TREATMENT OF A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1275 is now Act 389 |
|
HB1424
Act 628
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…16 F. Allen TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR LUNG CANCER SCREENINGS. 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 |
|
HB1721
Act 394
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1721 M. Brown TO AMEND SECTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE TO PROHIBIT…”
|
TO AMEND SECTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE TO PROHIBIT GREYHOUND RACING AND SIMULCASTING OF GREYHOUND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1721 is now Act 394 |
|
SB123
Act 553
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…vin Sen. Clint Penzo REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB123 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST ULTRASOUNDS. | G. Leding | Notification that SB123 is now Act 553 |
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 8, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
Senate Insurance and Commerce will come to order. We're going to start with House Bill 1316. Well, we wait on a couple of members to get here. No, don't go all the way down there. Hey, that's too far. Come on.
I feel like the clampets whenever we're all the way
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
0:44
down at the other end. Just introduce yourselves and you're welcome again. Thank
Speaker 9
0:49
you, Mr. Chair. State Senator Dave Wallace, District 19, and my friend. State Representative Fred Allen, District 77.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:00
Go ahead, whoever wants to talk. Members, I run a lot of bills down here, but this is one that I'm really proud of. It's a good bill. This bill is going to save lives.
Speaker 1
1:10
Hang on just one second. We've got a handout that goes with this, I think, and let them get that out for a second.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:30
No. Go ahead, Senator Wallace. Sorry about that. And before I start, I'm going to tell you that to the best of my knowledge, there's no known opposition to this bill. As you know, lung cancer is a leading cause of death in Arkansas. It claims nearly 2,000 lives annually, more than breast, more than colon cancer, more than prostrate, all combined. Arkansas not only has one of the highest lung cancer death rates,
but also one of the lowest survival rates nationwide. And one of the big reasons for this is that too many of our cases just are not detected. It's just we find out too late. Early detection is crucial. However, many Arkansans, especially our folks that live in rural areas, just lack access to necessary screenings. You know, it's important to note that this bill has a zero physical impact on the state. The Employee Benefits Division, EBD, already covers these screens,
and they are neutral on this bill. Neutral or even for it? There they are. You're okay. You just gave me an up, so thank you for that. I appreciate it. Furthermore, under the Affordable Care Act, private insurance company plans are already required to cover preventive services, including lung cancer screenings, without imposing cost-sharing on the patients, so there should be no increase in the premiums. This bill simply ensures that uniform coverage following guidelines set by the American Cancer
Society is in place. Last week this bill passed unanimously out of the House committee and off the floor, showing you that on the House side they think it's a real good bill. that I'm going to turn it over
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
3:22
to my good friend. Thank you, Senator Wallace. Indeed it's an honor and a high privilege for me to stand here or sit here today and introduce this bill. Many of you may not know this, but it's been an 18-year journey for me with cancer. And cancer is something
that's passionate, that I'm very passionate about. And this bill, HB 1316, is going to save lives. And I believe that the sooner a person is detected with cancer, the sooner that person can be treated. And early detection means that a person's survival rate goes up when you detect cancer at an early age. The longer it takes to detect cancer, the more complicated it is for a person to recover and for a person to heal.
I have walked the halls of St. Jude Hospital, La Barna Hospital in Memphis, and also I spent a great deal of time at MD Anderson Hospital down there in Houston, Texas, talking to doctors all around the country. And also I have spent a lot of time at Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York talking to some of the best counselor experts in the world. And we come to the conclusion that if we can detect counts at early stages, the survival rate goes up.
And this is essentially what this bill will do. Is there
Speaker 19
4:46
any questions from the committee? There's no one signed up to testify for or against the bill. You want to close for your bill? I am closed, sir. Motion by Senator Flowers, second by Senator Penzo. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator Wallace. Thank you,
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
5:08
Representative. Members, thank you. We saved lives today. Thank you all.
Speaker 27
5:12
Thank you all so much. Thank you, Senator
Speaker 19
5:21
Wallace, for your motion. Thank you all for your vote. Members, Senator Penzo has amended Senate Bill 103 and somehow didn't get back on the agenda. I would like to suspend the rules to place Senate Bill 103 that we've already heard and the senator has amended as necessary, right, Senator Penzo?
You have made the amendments that was requested? I have. All right. What's the will of the committee on suspending the rules to place it on the agenda? Motion by Senator Boyd. Second by Senator McKee. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like signed. Thank you, senators. we will go to Senate Bill 103. It's already been amended and engrossed.
Speaker 20
6:29
thank you committee might just tell us about the amendments we've already heard a lot
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
6:42
of the testimony the the original version of the bill had one sentence that the hospital association had concerns with after review it was determined the sentence was unnecessary and imposing a standard that exists elsewhere in the law so after agreement from all parties it was removed So the Hospital Association is okay with it.
We just struck some language, and then we added Senator Johnson and Senator Irvin as co-sponsors. They said if we made the amendment, then they'd be happy to join as co-sponsors. Just appreciate a good one. Is there any
Speaker 39
7:16
questions? Senator Flowers? Remind me what
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
7:20
the sentence was that they wanted. Is that, I mean, it's hard to see what was engrossed and what wasn't. I guess you're
talking about page five, relevant and reasonable?
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
7:35
What are you talking about? Simon's here with me, and he made the, worked with him on the amendment, the hospital
Speaker 46
7:50
association, so I'll let him kind of go over the request and what was done. Good morning, senators and committee members. Simon Debritsoff, Highlands Oncology Group. The sentence in question was subsection 5B on page 5, line 15 through 19. It read, relevant and reasonable terms of participation does not include
if the pharmacy benefits manager performs a prohibited practice of requiring accreditation standards. Hold on a second,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
8:15
you're going too fast. I'm so sorry. It's on line 15 on page 5. Are you talking about line 8? It's already been amended. I know. I'm just trying to see what language are you talking about. I see
relevant and reasonable, but that's on line 8 on page 5. Is that what you're talking about? This is the new.
Speaker 51
8:39
The language was removed, so it was... Oh,
Speaker 46
8:45
this is the old version. This is the new version. So on page 5, lines 8 through 12 is the new version. Under 12, there was an additional sentence, and that was the sentence that was removed.
And I have the old version, if you would like for
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
9:16
me to read it, the sentence that was removed. Did the old version have, are consistent with industry standards as
it's written on line eight? Yes, ma'am. So we only struck.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
9:33
You just added a definition, really, I guess. The amendment cut out a sentence. I don't remember
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
9:39
what the sentence was, but this is
Speaker 46
9:42
fine. Do you want to show the sentence right here?
It's B. It's B. This sentence was the one that was removed.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
9:56
Okay, so you did more in the way of defining what relevant and reasonable terms are. Yes, we
Speaker 46
10:02
removed a sentence that all the parties believed was duplicative, present in other areas of the law, and had no reason to be in this bill. And so we just struck that sentence, and that made everyone happy. Okay, I'm happy.
Speaker 19
10:16
Thank you. If you're happy, I'm happy, and I'd ask for a good vote. Is there any other questions? Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? Motion do pass as amended by Senator Boyd, second by Senator Flowers. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Senator Penzo, for working with everyone and being patient in the wait. So next is Senate Bill 83, and it has a handout, has an amendment as well.
Speaker 28
11:15
So, I'll make a motion to adopt the amendment, second by Senator Boyd. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Speaker 68
11:41
all opposed like sign if you would just go ahead with with your thank you mr
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
11:48
chair joshua bryant senate district 32 i'll let my guests introduce themselves push
Speaker 72
12:00
can hear you i'm jennifer moore i'm a practice manager at taylor
Speaker 74
12:05
plastic surgery and reconstruction dr robert taylor here in uh
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:10
uh for this uh very important bill uh committee i just want to set some context up to where where where this came from and and why we're here today march 30th 2023
was the end of our legislative session and i got a call from a constituent about a lapse in coverage for a very important breast surgery after her long battle with cancer. And it happens to be that the facility that was trying to navigate the insurance route happened to be Taylor Surgery Center there in Rogers, Arkansas. And what I thought was a relatively simple conversation about an S-code, S-2068, going away from the CMS rolls,
the Blue Cross Blue Shield was just rolling on what the national pathway was, S2038, or I'm sorry, 2068 was a pathway for a specific type of surgery that was the gold standard in care. The old code, which was a C code, C19342, I believe, was the tram, was an old way of surgery, of which was covered underneath the insurance. While C is good for some, the C code, the flap surgery is good for some,
the DEEP procedure was really required for several that had other comorbidities that required that type of surgery. And so initially I thought, well, if the code goes away, they just can't cover that surgery because they were going to lump that specific surgery in with the traditional surgery. But there were two distinct types of surgery. One had far better outcomes for the woman's health and it was required for radiation patients and other types of treatment for the cancer.
And the traditional kind is the implant-based surgery. Well, what that progressed into was that our local providers that could do this surgery for our local citizens here in Arkansas were not in network to get coverage for those patients. And so our insurance providers were sending them out of pocket to another provider to an order for them to afford it, but they're getting displaced from their families, from their work, from their life, and having to have all those things happen hundreds of miles away at
their expense versus something that could be offered here in Arkansas. And from what I could tell, there's really no reason for it other than that was just what we chose to do here in Arkansas for insurance providers. So what Senate Bill 83 does is it mandates coverage for this gold standard of care that is here in Arkansas because we have several of our organizations demand or ask that we get gold standard care and qualified surgeons to relocate here in Arkansas, but if we cannot pay them to do the work, there's no reason for them to come here.
And so Senate Bill 83, again, is a mandated coverage that all abilities for reconstruction surgeries after a woman has gone through their battle of their life for cancer, they can be made whole to the gold standard of care. One of my main concerns was what is this going to cost? I looked at the studies across for NIH and several independent studies and European studies. This procedure has been out there long enough that they're able to index it in comparison with traditional surgeries.
And so while the upfront costs are higher, the long-range cost, two to five years, is negligible. And so, but the quality of life index, the QLI, is astronomically higher underneath the DEEP procedure, which this bill intends to make sure we get our people covered for. It's dramatically higher than with the traditional tram flap. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Ms. Taylor, or Dr. Taylor and Ms. Moore for their comments.
Speaker 77
15:59
Well, thank you all for giving us the time to come. This is the culmination of a 10-year battle that we've had trying to provide this service for the women of Arkansas. Fifteen years ago, when I would do a breast reconstruction for a patient after a mastectomy, and an implant-based reconstruction wasn't an option for them, we would use tissue from their stomach and bring it up to make a very beautiful breast.
But in doing so, we would have to sacrifice the muscles of the abdomen. And in doing that, that left them with visible and functional deformities of their core. It's all we had. We didn't know any better. It was a satisfactory operation at the time. But then a smart doctor down in New Orleans determined that maybe we don't have to sacrifice the entire muscle of the stomach. We can just take the blood supply and tie it into little arteries and veins in the chest
and make the same beautiful breasts without sacrificing abdominal function. And as soon as I read his groundbreaking article, I never did the tram flap reconstruction again. It was obsolete from that day forward. But the problem that we found was when we tried to do this groundbreaking surgery, we were reimbursed at a rate that was commiserate with the simple surgery. And this groundbreaking surgery, it's 10 to 14 hours in length.
The patients are in the hospital three to seven days. It's a very tense procedure, oftentimes from necessitating bringing them back to the operating room. it became almost impossible to do for the amount of money that we were reimbursed from insurance companies. So not only my practice, but every practice in the state of Arkansas stopped doing free flap breast reconstruction. And in doing that, the patients were being shipped out of the state
where the patients and the physicians doing the surgeries were reimbursed at three to five times what the in-state physicians were reimbursed and the patients were burdened with the cost of going out with not having the support groups of being local and it was just not fair but it wasn't just that many times when I would see patients coming back to northwest Arkansas they would have wound healing problems or infections oftentimes times necessitating going to the hospital. And it was just a horrible system and needed
to be changed. So after, with the help of a very great support group in Northwest Arkansas, we decided to promote this bill asking that in-state physicians reimburse at a level commiserate with the out-of-state physicians so that the women of Arkansas can be treated in their local communities by their local physicians in their local hospitals with better continuity care and overall better results.
Speaker 82
19:27
Again, my name is Jennifer Moore. I've been a practice manager now for over 20 years. Every day I sit across from women that have had radiation, chemotherapy, reconstruction, with failed surgeries coming back in and they just want to be made whole again. And that's what they're looking to us for. One in eight women will be diagnosed with cancer. So whether it's your mother, your sister, your wife, your daughter, this will touch all of us at some point.
The Women's Health Care and Cancer Act is there to protect women. It gives us the right to be deconstructed at our choice. But what insurance companies have done in Arkansas is they have tried to circumvent that. They have looked for the loopholes in the Women's Health Care and Cancer Act. An example is a patient, she's gone through all these surgeries, now she's looking for somebody to do the deep flap, which is the gold standard in all the other states. And Blue Cross says, and I use Blue Cross because they're 85% of our pair mix. They say you're covered. You're going to be
taken care of only to find out there are not surgeons in Arkansas because they claim they cover it, but they keep the reimbursement so low that surgeons cannot afford to do this or we can't recruit good surgeons. So it leaves the patient at a loss what to do. We are the only clinic in Arkansas right now that offered this procedure. The way we are doing it is we are having to go outside of the state. We are legislating it through the No Surprise Act at the
federal level and we are winning 98% of the time. But the issue is we have to wait eight to ten months to get paid and this is really a huge liability and financial thing to take on for a small practice. We can only continue to do this so long, but we want women to have access to this. So, but while we're fighting and we're taking on the debt to offer this to women, Arkansas Blue Cross and these other insurances, they're enjoying
the loopholes and denying women access. It's wrong. We need this bill. What this bill will do is it will allow standardized reconstruction for all women. We have prior authorization. That is key because Blue Cross says we are no longer going to offer prior authorization. That's our pathway to knowing that we get paid and it protects the patient. It establishes a minimum reimbursement so surgeons can offer this in Arkansas.
Patients will only pay in-network rates. That's so important because if they have to go out and they have to reach to an out-of-network doctor, they shouldn't have to pay more for something that by law they should have. This is so key. We talked, this has minimal fiscal impact. The only reason the insurance companies are doing this is so that they don't have upfront costs. We need this for the women of Arkansas. Arkansas deserves the same standard of care that women do in other states.
I ask you please to stand behind this bill. Women should not have to fight cancer and insurance companies at the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
22:51
same time. And thank you. And just to wrap up the
testimony, So where we got to the bill language, I'd like to call out on your desk is a handout by
the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Early on in 2023, when I was visiting with this issue, I
got handed this article about developments and access to the microsurgical breast reconstruction.
And so I reached out to this group because they handle this for all across America. And they were instrumental in the language of the bill and understanding how other states do it. And when they said with this bill, we'd be at the forefront of the fight to make sure women's health care is covered in these issues. I visited with the hospital association, with our medical association, with our different large providers, UA system. and they are all commending the bill and it's progress forward here in Arkansas.
Speaker 19
23:47
So with that, we'll be glad to take any questions. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, there are three to speak for the bill. Are you all two of
Speaker 1
24:06
the three? All right. Where is that group? So, just come forward, all three of you. They're speaking for it.
Speaker 28
24:22
I have handouts. So, I'm going to ask, no, we've had enough handouts.
Speaker 19
24:28
I'm going to ask you to keep this brief because we have a long agenda. Keep it as brief as possible, but I want you guys to be heard because it's important that you be heard. But just keep it as short as you can and don't
Speaker 1
24:46
be redundant. And each one, do it separately and introduce yourselves before you give your testimony. Go ahead.
Dana Brown
Unverified
24:54
Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay, good morning. My name is Dana Brown. I'm a 55-year-old breast cancer survivor. I'm married to my best friend and soulmate Jim Brown for 35 years. We have an amazing son, James Daniel, and I would like to start out by thanking this committee for the opportunity to speak to Senate Bill 83 from a patient's perspective. For the last 31 years, I was an educator in the Mountain Home School District, starting as a business teacher, working my way through administrative roles,
such as high school principal. Then, after obtaining my doctorate, I advanced to the role of assistant superintendent. Ultimately, breast cancer impacted my educational career due to traveling to Springdale for chemo treatments, surgeries, and radiation. I exhausted all of my sick days, personal days, vacation days, and sick bank days. I retired in January of 2024 to work with my husband in our family business. Knowing that I had additional surgeries in 2024, the stress of not having days and not
performing my job to my standards, in essence, breast cancer ended my career in education. In December 2021, I was diagnosed with breast cancer, specifically invasive ductal carcinoma, HER2 positive, so it was hormone fed, stage four, level three, which was considered the aggressive and had spread to my lymph nodes. My treatment was as follows: three rounds of chemo over a three-year period, 25 treatments of radiation, and six
surgeries, which include two deep flap surgeries on my left breast and two pap flap surgeries on my right breast. When going through chemo, I found I could push through the physical aches, pains, fatigue, even losing my hair and nails. What I I found most difficult was the mental aspect of this journey. Being goal-oriented, I would mentally prepare myself to receive chemo, to complete that part, and be able to move to the next phase to have the cancer journey complete. The three times it was canceled and rescheduled
was mentally brutal. It was like two steps forward, three steps back. In my mind, reconstructive surgery would complete this journey. It would make me whole again. I would be finished. When I rang the bell completing chemo, I thought the fight was over, but it was just beginning. In September of 2022, I had a bilateral mastectomy. I developed an infection from my radiation treatments in April of 2023. My handout was to show you my before and after picture to show you the impact of this
surgery. This resulted in an emergency surgery to remove my expander. This surgery left me extremely deformed and prevented me from having what I would call a normal reconstructive surgery, which would have been implants. The deep flap surgery was my only option. After several follow-up appointments with the original plastic surgeon, he stated that reconstructive surgery would not be possible, which was devastating to hear. Wanting a second opinion, I made an appointment with Dr. Kasha Kanya, who is the sole deep flap surgeon within a 150-mile radius of northwest Arkansas.
However, she was facing challenges in becoming an in-network provider with Blue Cross Blue Shield, which was my insurance company and still is. Dr. Kanye gave me hope. She gave me back what cancer had taken. The deep flap surgery made me whole again. Senate Bill 83 would have provided me access to an in-network provider that is essential not only for the financial aspect, but also for the continuity and convenience of my health care. I was told that if I traveled to San Antonio, St. Louis, or New Orleans, it would be in-network.
Traveling out of state for this procedure would not only have added emotional stress, but also disrupt the vital support system provided by my family during this challenging time. Our only choice was going out of network using the No Surprise Act for arbitration at the federal level. It is crucial for the patients to receive treatment without facing excessive financial burdens or out-of-network fees. Dr. Kasha Kanya performed two deep flap surgeries on me in each breast.
Each one was 15 hours. She took me from a cancer patient to a cancer survivor. Senate Bill 83 would have a major impact on future breast cancer patients terms of access to care. Arkansas women should have the same healthcare opportunities as those in San Antonio, St. Louis, and in New Orleans. Arkansas women should have access to doctors like Dr. Konya, Dr. Taylor, and their amazing
support staff in their clinic to help them finish their breast cancer journey. So I would like to thank you for allowing me to share my story with you, and I would appreciate your support for Senate Bill 83 thank you again
Speaker 2
30:09
for your time thank you lady in pink so are you a survivor also turn that piece of paper over that you're fixing
Speaker 100
30:27
Oh, okay. Just talk to us and tell us a brief version and I'd appreciate that.
Shannon Ellis
Unverified
30:33
Yes, my name is Shannon Ellis and I'm representing myself this morning. I had breast cancer twice in 2011 and 2018. We treated aggressively the second time with mastectomy and Dr. Taylor knew that my irradiated tissue and peace of mind needed implant-free, one and done, no replacement, periodic replacements needed, deep flap breast reconstruction. So he referred me on to New
Orleans. A consultation with them went well and I was ready to pack my bags, but their insurance specialist warned me that I would be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars, and mine wasn't going to be in network at all. I do not have Blue Cross Blue Shield. And so I got on the phone and started searching. I found one in network provider at UAMS here,
But inquiry with him revealed that he was not accepting deep patience because he couldn't get paid. So I just kept hunting all around, mostly in Texas and South Carolina because I have family there. And, you know, you've got to travel and have a place to stay and so forth. My insurance card was run over and over again, and I just got refusal after refusal. And in the meantime, Dr. Konya arrived in Northwest Arkansas.
I made that appointment. Their office worked tirelessly to get me a single case dispensation. My insurance company did pay, but it took, it was a five year search. And yeah, it's amazing. You shouldn't, again, I don't want to be redundant. You finish up your treatment, though, and you think you've got this. And in Arkansas right now, it is as if the Women's Health Care and Cancer Rights Act does not apply.
So that's why I'm here today in support of this bill. I hope you guys will think of the women in your life and your constituents and get behind it.
Speaker 28
33:00
Thank you very much for that. Yes, Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
33:05
Ellis, thank you, and all of you, thank you for your testimony. Ms. Ellis, who was your insurance company? Qualchoice. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 105
33:13
Chairman. All right, we have one more to testify for
Speaker 103
33:17
the bill. If you would not read something, just talk to us.
Speaker 107
33:22
Mine is very short, and it's a different perspective
Sandy Carpenter
Unverified
33:25
than the other two. My name is Sandy Carpenter, and I am in favor of the SB 83 bill. I'm a 12-year breast cancer survivor. I found out I had infiltrating ductal carcinoma at the age of 46. At that time in my life, I was a single mother with two children, 10 and 14. I would spend the next year having three surgeries, one at which would be at MD Anderson in Houston, Texas. I would travel to MD Anderson for consultations, testing, surgery, follow-up appointments with the help of my parents,
who were 74 and 78 at the time. They would also leave my friends and families to help me with, and they would have to leave their jobs to help me on this journey. When I returned home, I started a treatment plan of 24 weeks of chemotherapy, 20 radiation treatments, and then had a waiting period of six months with tissue expanders in place, all while trying to continue working to provide for my family. After six months waiting period, I would then have permanent implants placed. I was so relieved and thought I could put all of this behind me to only wake up one morning
wondering why my breast was wet. My incision had opened up and I had to have my implant removed due to not having good blood flow to my breasts from the radiation. Since I was not a candidate for a deep flap surgery due to not having enough tissue, I would need to have a latissimus flap to restore blood flow back to my breasts so I could hold an implant. Over the next year, I would have six surgeries to my left breast. I am grateful to have had my implants for the last 10 years, but the latissimus flap does restrict some daily movements, activities in my left arm,
and will need to have another surgery in the future to remove scar tissue that is forming around my implant. The reason I am sharing this today is because the latissimus flap surgery has been the only option for breast cancer patients that have had radiation in Arkansas for the last 11 plus years. Not all plastic surgeons offer this procedure. Many women are left with no reconstruction at all, failed procedures, or being forced to travel to another state for all their surgery needs. All scenarios adding more strain to what's already an incredible stressful journey for patients and families. These are stories I witness far too often in my job as a
patient coordinator. The women in Arkansas should not have to settle for a latissimus flap nor reconstruction when they can have a gold standard procedure like the deep flap surgery, using their own tissue and offering better quality of life. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my journey. The road to recovery is different for every patient, but I hope this will encourage you to support SB 83 bill to give women in Arkansas the gold standard of care they deserve.
Speaker 14
36:00
Thank you, ladies, for that testimony. And is there any questions for many of them,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
36:08
Go ahead, Senator Flower. Well,
I thank you, ladies, for your testimony. I'm a breast cancer survivor myself. Didn't
have to have breast removed, but lymph nodes removed under my left arm. I appreciate you, Senator Bryant, for bringing the bill. I'll support
the bill, and hopefully insurance companies in Arkansas will be more prone to help people to have a quality of life that they deserve.
But I appreciate all your service, the educator and what you did as a patient rep and the doctors in your clinic. I do appreciate
it. I just wanted to say that. And at the proper time, I'll make a motion to pass. So, ladies, if
Speaker 28
37:08
you would shut your microphones off and you're dismissed. Senator Bryant,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
37:18
I'll keep it brief. I appreciate the committee listening to testimony. It's obviously emotional for lots of families as 50% of our population has this impact. I will say that several physicians that do traditional surgeries have reached out saying that they would love to offer this when they could. So I see this
as an expanding care to, if not most, if not all of our metropolitan areas can start to
Speaker 28
37:41
offer this. So with that, I appreciate it. Good vote. Thank you, Senator Bryant. What's the
Speaker 19
37:47
will of the committee? Senator Flowers' motion, second by Senator Penzo, as amended, discussion by Senator Irvin.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
37:53
Thank you, and I apologize for not being here, but I just wanted to thank Senator Bryant. He reached out to me last year, and we worked together a little bit, and I'm just really grateful that you reached out to me and that we talked through this, and I hope it was helpful, and I'm just really glad that you got to this point, and just happy to see this bill pass and thank you for reaching out to
Speaker 19
38:19
me and and letting me be a part of helping you with it all in favor say aye all opposed like sign thank you senator senator Hester has Senate bill 420 senator
Speaker 117
38:32
Hester, Senator Hester, come up here. Oh, that's
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
38:48
too far. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
Speaker 126
38:53
is Senate Bill 420. Just introduce yourselves and your... State Senator Bar Hester, District 33. West
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
39:00
Ward, Arkansas Department of Agriculture. So this is a bill brought to me by the agency
members. I think it's really important. Every single one of us have water and sewer concerns in our area. We've got a package of bills. This will be the second one. We just ran one in a different committee. But what this bill ultimately allows is if you have a water authority or sewer authority that is not government-owned, they are still eligible. This will make them eligible for our natural resource loans, low-interest loans. They would not be eligible for principal forgiveness. So, for instance, just thinking of a few committee members here,
Liberty Authority that handles the water from Pine Bluff, they would be eligible for loans now. even though they're not a government owned, this would make them eligible for these low interest loans that they're not currently eligible for. Or Hot Springs Village, not currently eligible, this will make them eligible. Look, I don't think the people of our districts care if it's public or private, they just need good clean water at a good rate. And ultimately that's all this bill does. It expands who is eligible for these low interest loans.
And if I miss something,
I'll hand it off to, that's it. It's not really complicated.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
40:25
Senator Flowers. Well, you know, I'm interested now that you mentioned Liberty. And, okay, so with this bill, they become qualified for low interest loan. You said agency when you started talking.
What agency is this that you're talking about? what agency? That's a couple of words, I think.
Speaker 132
40:49
Yes, ma'am. So the Arkansas Department of Agriculture, within the department, we have the Natural Resources Commission, which is the border commission that overviews water financing for the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
41:00
state. And does your agency make
the loans? We do. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And I wanted to know, because I understand Liberty wants to build out our upgrade infrastructure and stuff at some point. That's, as far as I know, the only
water company in the state that's subject to the Public Service Commission, and so I want to know, I would think a low-interest loan that they would receive, if any, from your agency would help
us not get big rate
increases. Would you agree with that? Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 132
41:49
That is the overall goal. Senator Hester has talked about just the overall water and wastewater needs across the state.
We estimate those to be about $13 billion statewide. So to Senator Hester's point of... $13 billion? $13 billion. Yes, ma'am. So to the point of trying to help these entities qualify for low interest loans, help them to be able to implement those without huge rate increases for their constituents at those water and wastewater facilities.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
42:20
But you're saying entities, and we're talking about water, and if Liberty is the only entity in the
Speaker 44
42:30
state that has not qualified in the past?
Speaker 132
42:35
We think there's a few others that have just not submitted applications because they would not qualify. And this just
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
42:42
broadens that eligibility. Liberty is not talking about $30 billion
of infrastructure. What kind of interest rate, low interest loan are you talking about? I would
Speaker 132
42:54
have to pull the specific numbers. So it varies based off the market on what the financing rates are. but it's usually a little bit below what they could get out on, otherwise through a commercial lending entity.
So it helps them be able to finance their loan at a lower cost
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:13
to their customers. Do they have to submit the plan
Speaker 132
43:20
to your agency? They do. So they would submit an application. There's a number of things that are included in that, And then the commission would review that with other entities that
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:33
are applying for funding. And does your department coordinate with Public Service Commission?
Speaker 137
43:40
We have conversations, but our authorities are not overlapping on
Speaker 132
43:44
that. So we don't, as far as the Public Service Commission specifically, we don't work with them on other aspects. So this would just be financing itself for a water project. So, and
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
43:59
I'll jump back in here. So what we're talking about
is the Natural Resource Commission. Right now, they have about $300 million of bonding authority over the past four years.
You see there's stars all over the state and every county that they've issued these loans for, and these loans are leveraged to get federal dollars. So when they go in, they've got to have an engineering plan and put up so much of their own money. That's what these bonds are for, and the whole state's using them, but we did not allow until hopefully now a non-governmentally owned water authority, which would be Liberty, to be able to access these low-interest loans. I think this is a huge opportunity for Liberty Water and Pine Bluff and Hot Springs Village and probably Village Wastewater and the Bella Vista Water Authority up in northwest Arkansas.
And now they may choose not to use it, right? They don't have to. It just makes them as somebody that can actually make application. And if it goes through the process and they're selected, they're just eligible, whereas currently they're not. Well, it
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
45:06
makes sense that they would use it. And I would think that the PSC would consider that when they go over there asking for increased rates. Can I have one of those maps? You
can have this one. Okay. And you said you used the term bond and then you seemed to equate that to loans.
Can you explain what you're talking about? Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 132
45:34
there are multiple avenues of funding. but Senator Hester was talking about right now there's a separate bill that would continue general obligation bond authority. And we use that general obligation bond authority to leverage other programs to maximize the water financing capability for the state of Arkansas. So there's a few different pods of funding. The general obligation bond authority is what helps leverage those dollars
to get what Senator Hester referred to as all these projects on the map. We use that to make sure that that money comes in those
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
46:08
projects are possible. But the money that your agency has for loans that
would be pursuant to this bill is what? Ten million dollars? Are you talking about billions of
Speaker 132
46:22
dollars? So it's it's a certain percentage. So the general obligation bond is primarily used for loans and for matching the federal
programs. So the federal programs comes with a certain a certain portion. It It varies by year of how much of that can be used for principal forgiveness, but it's I'd be happy to follow up with additional
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
46:42
specific details. Yeah, because I'd like to know if you expect something
Speaker 28
46:46
from the federal government for this year. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Go ahead,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
46:55
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, would the loans be to the for-profit entities at the same rate that a
a non-profit entity would be getting in an equivalent situation? - Yes, sir. So it would be
Speaker 132
47:12
similar rates, but they would compete for that. So it would be, as Senator Hester mentioned, they would have to apply, they don't have to apply. We would receive those applications. We would rank those applications. The commission would look at that and say, we've got X amount of dollars that we can loan out. And so it would be a competitive process on trying to get those loan dollars out as far as possible,
but it would be very similar rates for regardless of entity. - This is
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
47:42
turning into quite a great session for for-profit utilities. I've just, you said 13 billion is the estimated need across the state. I knew it was a high number, but so we've got $13 billion worth of need, and now we're going to pardon the pun, and gosh, I hate puns. dilute the ability to use this fund
by bringing in the for-profits that have access to capital markets and pay a dividend, I guess, to their stockholders, which is certainly a legitimate thing. But I'm just, I'm a little leery of that. I have a non-profit water authority in my district that, you know, they struggle along and they need to meet their needs. then this is like well if you're gonna let these other entities, and this is no offense to the folks
in Senator Flowers' district who have, they need their water too. I'm not saying that's wrong, but the question is a subsidy. It seemed that if you had a higher rate, maybe less than market rate, but a higher rate than the nonprofits were using, it might seem to be a little bit more equitable. But, Senator, please, Senator Hester, please respond. So I
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
49:00
think there's some good news to that. Like, we haven't ran out of this money yet. So it's not like we're picking someone or diluting.
In fact, that's one of the debates we have is, like, we have funds that we are not accessing. There are funds available, is what I'm saying. But not $13 billion. I know there are not $13 billion available, right? But we all have needs in our district. Yes. In fact, I've got a handout that I was going to provide to all members before I presented these bills that they have given me that shows all the available options that we're not using for funding.
The problem would be, even if this is a privately owned water system, the cost for upgrades are simply more than a privately owned system. And I'm not sure if Liberty is a non-for-profit or a profit, but it is privately owned. There's simply no ability to go get the loans, or if they got the loans, what the local community could afford. They can't afford for their water bills to go two or three times. I can tell you in Springdale, Bentonville, they're doubling water bills right now, and it is brutal on the community, doubling water bills.
And that's what this is just trying to help prevent in some other places.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
50:19
I appreciate that explanation, but Senator, as you know,
all of us that have been around paying attention, a lot of these massive increases have been because many of these entities have not done the periodic maintenance. And so now they're having to, I hate to say pay the piper, but to come back and raise rates because they didn't take care of the needs along the way.
And I'm not, it's not easy to raise rates along the way. And then when you finally have to, like we saw in Helena West Helena,
it's quite a major hit. So anyway, but thank
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
51:03
you for your answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions? Seeing, okay, go ahead. I'd just like to
say thank you to Senator Hester for bringing the bill and point out that Liberty actually was owned by United Water
and then before that by some other company for profit. So it's not all black and white like you think it is. And bottom line is the people that consume the water, we're paying for this. And we need help. You've got to look at the demographics of the district, the income level. It's like he said up there in Springdale, I think y'all had a lot of money
up there. Well, y'all building out, but we don't have all that money down there in southeast Arkansas, not the average consumer.
So I appreciate the bill, and at the proper time, move, do pass. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
52:01
think anybody's here to speak for or against it, but no, that's it, members. I think there will be ask
of us, what are we doing for water and sewer rates? What are we doing for the people? We've got to package these bills. This is part of that. It's helpful. And look, there are certainly other water. There may be some in each of your districts, I don't know, that are owned by non-profit,
but certainly not government-owned, that this would affect. I didn't bring a whole list of that today, but this is
Speaker 28
52:31
something that's needed. I would appreciate a good vote. Motion by Senator Flowers. Second by Senator McGee. Any
Speaker 19
52:40
discussion? Seeing none, what's all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Like sign? No. Thank you, Senator. Passed your bill. All right. Next, we're going to go to Representative Kavanaugh on 1275.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
53:04
introduce yourself and you're welcome again. Thank you, members. Representative Fran Kavanaugh, District 30. This is a bill that just simply says that will no longer require pre-authorization for a mental health crisis. There is no impact to the EBD when we did the physical impact so it doesn't affect because our EBD currently doesn't require pre-authorization. But there are insurance companies that in the state that do require pre-authorization and we We discovered this through our work with the CSUs, Crisis Stabilization Units.
We found out a lot of them were getting denials on their claims because they said they needed to have a pre-authorization. And for me, it's really a parody issue because it doesn't matter if it's a mental health crisis or a physical health crisis, it's a crisis. And if it's not addressed properly and quickly, then it's going to have the same outcome. It could result of the death of the patient. And so that's why I ran this bill, is so that we can have the same parity on a mental health crisis as we do on a physical health crisis.
Speaker 19
54:07
And I'm glad to take any questions. Members, get your questions out of the way before this gets to the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
54:21
floor, because I've got to run it there. So any
questions? Go ahead, Senator Flowers. I like the bill, Representative Kavanaugh, something I can support. I'm wondering, on the last page you have mentioning the State Board of Finance may promulgate rules to implement this subchapter that may apply to state and public school life and health insurance programs.
Any other agency required to promulgate rules? Not my understanding. That was
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
54:53
put in there for EBD, is my understanding. And when we got the physical impact back, we discovered EBD already doesn't require pre-authorization for a mental health crisis, so they won't really have to permaculate any rules. It's already in there. Okay. Would you put it
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
55:09
in there, just in the event? Yes, ma'am. Okay. That's the only question I have, Mr. Chair.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
55:17
Thank you, Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Kavanaugh, do we have prior authorization for
people to visit an emergency room? No. Was this analogous to that? Yes. Okay. So that was really my catalyst is
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
55:30
we need to be the same parity. It doesn't matter where they're being seen when they're in a mental health crisis. They need to be able to be treated just like if they're in the ER. Exactly. Thank you,
Speaker 20
55:42
ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson, if you're not offended, I may use that on the floor testimony.
Speaker 19
55:49
Thank you. Is there any other questions? Seeing none, no one's here to speak for or against the bill. What's the will of the committee? Senator Flowers, and second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Representative Kavanaugh. Thank
Speaker 1
56:08
you, members. Appreciate it. All right. Senator Scott.
Speaker 166
56:19
are you doing 1721 1721 thank you mr. chair introduce yourself and
Speaker 19
56:35
senator jamie scott district 12 i'm presenting house
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
56:39
bill 1721 and so this bill is a large part of a cleanup bill and it does two things. It repeals the greyhound racing statues
from Arkansas code. The Racing Commission has already repealed the rules on greyhound racing so this is a cleanup of a regulatory change that has already taken place. Southland closed his greyhound tracks several years ago so there's no longer any greyhound racing that is occurring in the state of Arkansas. This bill also prohibits simulcasting of greyhound racing in the state over the past decade or so the sport of greyhound racing has greatly declined in popularity with greyhound racing now illegal in 43 states. There
are only two operating greyhound tracks in the country both located in West Virginia and there is active legislation currently being pursued in West Virginia to phase out those two remaining tracks. You will see that we have set an effective day on this bill for January the 1st, 2028, which is in line with the proposed phase out that's being pursued in West Virginia for the last two tracks that we currently have. The Racing Commission has reviewed this bill and they have no objections. Oak Lawn and Southland have also reviewed the
bill and they're neutral and Saracen does not offer Greyhound simulacasting anymore. So in closing this bill just kind of represents cleanup language and it's an important step forward to align our policies with what is already being done. Is there any questions? Seeing none,
Speaker 19
58:14
no one. Go ahead Senator Flowers. I'm not sure why this is
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
58:23
necessary. We don't have a dog track
anymore. And why wait to 2028? I mean, so
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
58:36
since, thank you for the question. We're really just trying to put in statute what has already been done to align the
policies. But since 2022, Greyhound has been repealed in five other states, Massachusetts, Kansas, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Arizona. So everybody's moving forward, trying to put some policy in place in some of the states. There are similar bills being ran right now in
Oregon and North Dakota. So if all of those bills pass, those five states and the two states that are currently doing it, Greyhound will only remain operational in 11 states. So a lot of states are moving forward to just put some policies in place for what they're already, what is already doing without the policy. Well we don't have Greyhound anymore. Right, as
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
59:23
I said. So I mean why I would be I'm just not understanding the point of this.
Speaker 162
59:32
Are you fostering these dogs until 2028, Senator? Am I? No, sir. Okay.
Speaker 193
59:40
Why would we be waiting on West Virginia to do something? I don't understand this. We are not
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
59:49
waiting on West Virginia. What I said was West
Virginia has the last two remaining tracks, and they have legislation now that they're working through. And the expiration date that they have on there is 2028, and that's the date that's in all the other states as well.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:00:06
But we've outlawed growing hound race in Arkansas. So if we don't, two years ago, but
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:00:13
if legislation is not put in place, somebody could come back and put something in place wouldn't they have to get
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:00:28
a license to do that yes ma'am senator johnson thank you mr
chairman i'm sarah flowers going down the line i was going to go this i assume would repeal any authority the racing commission might have to if someone wanted
to come in and create a new greyhound racing track not southland but you know something i I don't know, maybe in Western Arkansas or something. It conceivably could allow that. So this is really an animal rights bill, isn't it? Just to kind of totally take out of the
Arkansas code any reference to allowing greyhound racing. Am I reading it correctly? - It could
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:01:10
be seen as an animal rights bill, but that's not how, that's not.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:01:15
- But that's why all these states are banning greyhound racing. Absolutely. I mean, I see both sides of it. I've been to the dog track, and I tell you, the dogs seem to love it. But again, some people think that's abuse, and I'm not going to take an opinion one way or the other. And I just want to say that what we're really doing is saying, Racing Commission, you no longer have the legal authority to sanction and approve a
dog track. Is that what this does? Okay. I'm just trying to get it clear because, you know, sometimes we have unintended consequences on legislation.
Speaker 28
1:01:49
Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions? Seeing none, no one's signed up to speak for or against the bill. You want to close for your bill? You want to close for your bill? I'm closed, and I ask for
Speaker 19
1:02:10
a due pass. All right. Senator Irvin, motion to pass. Second by Senator Boyd. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, committee. We'll pass your bill. We'll go to House Bill 1271.
Senator Penzo, tell me which one
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:02:30
is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee. House Bill 1271 received a motion due passed by this committee and was presented on the Senate floor. Senators Caldwell, Hickey, and Hickey requested amendments and I pulled the bill to amend it. The amendment allows for an employee of the lender or title company to perform the inspection and file an affidavit for residential properties.
It also added architects to the list of professionals that may perform an inspection and file an affidavit. And if you remember, this
bill allowed... Oh, sorry. Well, I mean, I don't know if you want me to go over what
the bill did again or if everybody remembers voting on it, but just when it got to the floor, it had some amendments that were requested. We happily made
them and arguably have a better bill now.
Speaker 166
1:03:30
All right. I think we have one to speak for the bill.
Speaker 2
1:03:42
All right. Thank you, sir. Go ahead, Senator Irvin. I just thought
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:03:48
I was just saying that I like that you added an architect to that list. I didn't know if that was part of it or just something that y'all
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:03:58
missed. That was one of the requests made.
I'm not sure which senator requested it.
Speaker 19
1:04:10
I think that was a good catch. Is there any other questions? Seeing none, you want to close your bill? I'm closing and ask for a good vote. Motion by Senator Penzo, second by Senator Irvin. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, committee. Senator. All right.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:04:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your permission, I'm going to get started. Just go ahead and introduce. Justin Boyd, State Senator, Fort Smith. And I think I can get through this without any help, so I might try, but I do have people in the room who can give me some backup if need be. So this updates the regulations on self-storage. This bill seeks to strengthen legal clarity, modernize notifications, and standardize termination policies within the self-storage industry, and the changes below bring Arkansas up to date with other states.
So in Section 1, what Section 1 does is this section updates language to add that a last known address of an occupant could also be found on the occupant's rental application if there is not one on the rental agreement. Section 2 adds that a rental agreement could be in written or electronic form. Section 3 requires the occupant discloses any lien holders of the stored property in a unit. Section 4 adds that a facility owner could use a commercially reasonable method to search for existing leads on properties stored in their facility before a sale or removal.
Section five does two things. As more facilities are moving towards electronic gates and record keeping, there are now facilities that allow you to do an online application. And if approved, you can fill out the agreement and get a code for the gate. So this section just adds that a person does not sign an agreement. Use of the unit for 30 days constitutes acceptance of the rental agreement. And then the second part of the second change in section five is it creates a uniform policy for disposing of property when an existing agreement terminates.
That said, I'm happy to try to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:06:31
answer any questions. - Is there any questions, Senator Flowers?
- So, Senator Boyd, this, in section one, you're saying a last known address Provided means the address or electronic mail address Provided by the occupant and be a written or electronic
application to rent a
lease space at a Self-service storage facility if a signed real agreement does not exist. What about I'm concerned about these electronic mail addresses being a last known address, what if they're hacked? I mean, are we supposed to really trust the computer and these email addresses to serve somebody with notice?
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:07:31
I think I've got a good answer, but let's bring somebody up who is a little
Speaker 19
1:07:41
more knowledgeable than Justin Boyd on the subject. Just whenever you get here, introduce
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:07:50
yourselves and help Senator Boyden. My name is Michael Hall. I'm with the Arkansas Self-Storage Association. Michael Hall with the Arkansas Self-Storage Association. With regards to notice, the law already allows for electronic email as a form of notice.
So we're not, in that sense, we're not asking for
anything new. So what are you asking for? So the three things that we're trying to accomplish with this is,
let me just refer to my notes. So, with regards, we're trying to pass it such that an unsigned lease after 30 days, if they've made their payment, is considered a binding lease.
So, we would have some situations where he mentioned where somebody would come in to the unit, put their lock on a unit, and technically move in, drop a check in the door, and leave. Currently, under that, without a contract, they don't have the protection of the contract. And so what we're asking in that situation is, if they've made the payment and 30 days have gone by, then the understanding is that we have an agreement. And we're asking if we, by agreeing there's an agreement, then we have to follow that agreement
and follow the law as a tenant of the facility. So the goal of that is to get the tenant protection that he may not currently have
Speaker 19
1:09:31
if he doesn't have a lease. So if you have a squatter, then you're putting him under the agreement if he's in that situation and locked to your facility and is squatting in your facility, you're treating him as a tenant. Am I
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:09:46
correct? I believe so, yes, sir. So in that situation, as long as he's made a payment.
If he's a squatter, he's a squatter. But if he comes in and he makes a payment, then the agreement is we've accepted the payment, hence we have the agreement. All right, thanks. So in that case, if he didn't make a payment the next month, we would go
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:10:08
through the lien process. Couldn't just dispose of it. Go ahead, Senator
Flowers. And then in Section 3, you're adding the requirement to
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:10:21
disclose lien holders. So currently, somebody stores personal property. They're not required to tell us that there's a lien holder.
The current statute says that during the lien process, we have to contact the circuit clerk of the county where the property is stored. We think that's very restrictive. We don't think that's fair to the lien holder because you have a gentleman who lives in Little Rock. He buys a boat. He pays taxes on the boat, and he stores it up at Ouachita in Hot Springs, let's say. he doesn't pay his bill. Well, that storage operator only has to check the Hot Springs
circuit court, circuit clerk for a lien. But that boat is all registered in Little Rock. So by allowing us a more commercially viable way to notify, we can use any kind of lien search. Something more along the lines that a bank would use that would check
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:11:22
statewide. And storage facilities are not able to check? STATEWIDE. CURRENTLY
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:11:29
THE STATUTE JUST REQUIRES US TO CHECK WITH THE CLERK IN THE COUNTY WHERE
THE PROPERTY IS STORED. SO WE'RE TRYING TO MANDATE THAT WE CAN GO OUTSIDE
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:11:44
OF THAT. AND SO WHEN YOU SAY
IN SECTION 4, LINE 24, USE A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE METHOD, THAT'LL capture all over the state.
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:11:58
Well, it'll allow us to use third-party lien searches. The statute uses the same language in regards to legal notification, so you can notify in a newspaper
of general circulation or what they say is a commercially reasonable way, which allows the use of online auctions and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:12:18
stuff. So then with that language, using that commercially And it's
an or in there, so you don't have
Speaker 226
1:12:26
to. Correct. We're not trying to change it. We're just trying to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:12:39
ma'am. So I guess the storage facility manager or owner will have in a lease agreement,
if it's in writing, a space on there or a question on there about lien holders? If this
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:12:58
is approved, yes, ma'am, we would allow a line on that. They could always lie to us, ma'am.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:13:06
I believe that. I'm wondering, is it going to be up to the person who is wanting
to store property or is it going to be on the owner of the storage unit to say to that person,
you need to tell me whether you've
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:13:23
got a lien holder? So, yes, we currently ask if they have a lien holder. We're just trying to strengthen that up. Under the current lien process, we're required to do a lien search regardless of what the tenant tells us. Oh, really? Yes, ma'am. And that's why we're asking for a commercially reasonable, because we want to expand outside of the county where the
Speaker 19
1:13:48
property is stored. So if they default on payment, you have to be able to get that title perfected or get you in place of the person who has defaulted since you had to take possession of the property, correct?
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:14:04
Correct. We view them as a first
Speaker 28
1:14:08
lien holder, yes. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, there's only these two are signed up to speak for the bill. So you want to
Speaker 68
1:14:19
close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:14:25
I think those were some good questions. I would appreciate, and I'm closed for the bill. I'd appreciate a good vote. Make a motion
Speaker 19
1:14:32
do pass. Motion by Senator Boyd, second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Senator. You passed your bill. You have one other bill. It is House
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:14:48
Bill 1700. 1,700. Yes, so this bill is House Bill 1,700. It's just what should be a fairly simple update to the law. It's a provider privacy protection bill to maintain the integrity of a prior authorization ruling that still allows for all identifying information available, be available to the ordering provider.
So what it does is it simply prevents the prior authorization review provider's name from being auto-printed and sent to the patient. Whoever did that prior authorization review had no relationship with the patient. They have no medical record on the patient. They only have whatever they reviewed right in front of them, and it is creating some challenges in the market. So, the prior authorization review physician does not have an established history with the patient, nor can they assess the patient's mental status when making their ruling.
So, this requires that the relationship to be maintained between the patient and their physician. There's no known opposition, and it's supported by the hospital association. Any questions? Seeing none. I
Speaker 19
1:16:00
don't see anyone to speak for or against the bill. You want to close your bill? Yes, this is just
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:16:07
a common sense update, and I'd appreciate a good vote and make a motion do pass.
Speaker 19
1:16:13
Motion by Senator Boyd. Second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Like sign. Thank you. We're going to go to House Bill 1288. Senator Irvin is going to run that. And I would ask to suspend the rules and do a voice amendment to add, one of these days, Representative Johnson is going to learn to put somebody on the bills. I'd ask to suspend the rules and put Senator Irvin.
Motion to suspend the rules, second by Senator Boyd. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. We need to pass the voice amendment to put Senator Irvin's name on it. Motion by Senator McKee. Second by Senator Penzo. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 1
1:17:06
Thank you. Would you present your bill at 1288 as amended? Yes. Thank you.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:17:12
Members, Senate Bill 1288 is just very straightforward. It's requiring a health care insurer to make certain
retroactive payments to a provider upon the credentialing of that provider. Sometimes the credentialing process can take a long time. We need these people to be out there working.
and taking care of patients and so this all this does is just clarify that they can make those retroactive payments to that provider for the work already done upon the credentialing approval of the provider. Is there any questions?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:17:54
it that this section does not apply to Medicaid program the reason I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:18:02
think I'm correct I'm not sure
if somebody's in here from Medicaid but I think what what why is because retroactivity is something that we would have to define in our with CMS and we actually do already do that retroactively for beneficiaries but we I think the credentialing process is is already you're either signed up to be Medicaid provider or you're not and so that should never be an issue with Medicaid program this shouldn't be an
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:18:34
issue with that. So they have to be already
credentialed to participate in Medicaid? Yes, if
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:18:43
they're participating in Medicaid, they've already done what they need to do to participate in Medicaid. Would
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:18:50
a clinic have credentials or is it individual providers? Individual providers. So anybody in a clinic, whether it's
a nurse or doctor or lab tech? If they're billing,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:19:07
it would be for those that are
billing under their provider status? Each person, it has
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:19:15
to be a person, it can't be a doctor's office, a corporation. I mean, it's
under the provider's name. My question is, is a
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:19:31
provider a corporation? I mean, they will, they create corporations, but as far as credentialing, your credentialing is, of a provider is based on your certification, licensing, education, all that kind of stuff is
part of your credentialing so that you meet the certificate, you meet the requirements of being able to be paid as a health care provider. So, it's sometimes that credentialing takes some process and some time to get, they're already working inside of a clinic, but their credentialing as being insurance companies when you come into network, they credential you as an individual. Thank
Speaker 162
1:20:14
you. Seeing other questions, seeing none, let me check to see if there's anybody.
Speaker 68
1:20:28
I don't see anybody to speak for against the bill. You want
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:20:35
to close your bill? Yes, closed. I'll make
Speaker 19
1:20:38
a motion. Do pass as amended. All right. Motion by Senator Irvin, second by Senator Flowers, as amended. Yes, sir. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Thank you, Senator Irvin, for taking care of that. Thank you, Senator. All right. We will go to Senate Bill 437.
Senator Hester will be here in just a couple of minutes. Senators, thank you so much. We have cleared off pretty much everything except for Senator Lettings, and he wanted to run those bills Thursday. Yeah, yeah, he came up and asked me to do those
Speaker 1
1:21:27
Thursday. Senator Hester has a handout.
Speaker 19
1:21:33
Senator Hester, just introduce yourself and have your guest introduce herself
and you're recognized in the proceeding. So I'm
Speaker 250
1:22:07
State Senator Bart Hester, District 33, with me. I'm Julie
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:22:15
Morton. I live in Crawford County. I'm an Arkansas native born in Hope and raised all over the state. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:22:26
Chairman. Members, what we've got here is, you know, New industries are up and coming all the time, and we have an unregulated industry in the state of Arkansas in almost any terms.
And there might be some, sometimes I'd be okay with that. We have this particular industry, which I find particularly offensive and hostile to entire communities. It's an industry that does not work financially without almost 100% subsidies from the government, from our taxpayers. I feel like it's an industry that is, when they are erected, is a visual, basically middle finger to all your neighbors and the entire community around.
I think it's something that I would be personally okay with providing an absolute moratorium on. But instead of doing that, we have provided regulations to the wind industry. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't get a lot more complicated than that. It's an industry that simply just doesn't work. It's not sustainable, which is why it only works when the government is funding it. We wouldn't have these projects destroying the state of Arkansas as they've done in other states if it wasn't for federal government funding.
And I hope that you could see after some probably lengthy testimony today, this is not something you want in your backyard or your community either. And if it does, it comes with some what I would consider very basic regulations to defend our property owners. And with that, I'm going to hand it over to Ms. Julie Morton, who can do a much better job of presenting than me. First of
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:24:12
all, I am not a lobbyist. I paid my own room and board last night.
I just retired from 43 years in the energy industry, from oil and gas, to electric utility, to late in my career, wind and solar. I've worked on a lot of big projects in my career, and I've seen the devastation that they can cause, and it is that devastation that prompted me to write the Arkansas Wind Energy Development Act. This is not a ban, and this is not a moratorium.
This is just common sense regulation like every other industry in the state of Arkansas is subject to. Right now, according to the FAA, there are 511 turbines planned for the state of Arkansas, all of which are permitted between 681 feet and 698 feet tall, that is approximately 150 feet taller than the Simmons Bank building that y'all look at
every day. And none of the companies that are developing this are based in America. Scout's parent company is based in the Bahamas. Cordelio is the Canadian Social Security System. SPA, that's shown up in Carroll County recently, is from Italy. And Triple Oak's sole investor, Bridgepoint, is from London. Right now, these foreign companies can come into Arkansas and put one of these turbines right next to your house, your church, your school, your mother's nursing home,
and there's not one thing anybody can do about it. There's no oversight of the construction, the operation, the maintenance, the decommissioning which is vital. There's no emergency plan, there's no fire plan, there is no regulation virtually at all on these tremendously intrusive towers. Now some people have said that this should be based on a county-by-county basis. Well Well, our counties have asked for help because they are not prepared to deal with this brand
new industry. The bill is based on 48 other states' regulations. There's only two of us that don't have them. That would be Arkansas and Louisiana. All of these regulations are very well known to the wind industry. They may be new to us, but they are not new to the wind industry. deal with them
every place else they go. Some of the standards that we used
are also based on wind industry safety regulations and wind industry
recommendations. The wind industry, also the bill
is a integrated regulatory system whereby the state sets a minimum standard, the localities can then tweak it to whatever they need to enhance the protection of their community, and also the wind industry can get waivers on certain requirements if the neighboring landowners have no objection.
The wind industry will send their salesmen into the counties and tell these counties how rich everybody's gonna get, the schools in particular. Apparently, none
of these foreign companies bother to check and see how our schools are funded in Arkansas after Lakeview. And as to the other big tax money that they promise, that is a very questionable thing as to whether the tax money will ever even be paid.
In Oklahoma right now, there are 15 counties embroiled
in lawsuits with the wind industry because the wind industry is trying to get out of the big taxes that they have promised
our counties. Some of the money has been tied up for five years in escrow and the counties have not seen one penny of it yet.
So I would say if the big tax money that the wind industry is promising happens
for Arkansas, that will be a wonderful thing. Am I gonna bet on it? About like I'd
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:29:09
have bet on Vanderbilt to beat Alabama
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:29:16
in football. We've also heard an awful lot
about private property rights in this debate.
Understand, that is the wind industry standard shtick. They use that everywhere they go. They go into the landowners that they want to work with, and they say, nobody can tell you what you can do with
your property. Well, maybe these foreign companies don't understand how property rights in America work. In America, if you own property, you have property rights, and yours are no greater or lesser than your neighbors, and they are not inviolate.
Just try not paying your taxes for a few years and see exactly how autonomous your control over your property is. We
have all kinds of rules and regulations about what people can and cannot do with their property, regardless of what the wind industry tries to say. But this bill is not telling anybody what they can and cannot do with their property. This bill is telling the wind industry, if you are coming into Arkansas, you are going to build these facilities in a safe and responsible manner that protects everybody.
Now, I'd also briefly like to mention our $9.9 billion tourism industry. Right now in Carroll
County, Scout Clean Energy has underleased 9,500 acres of trees that they can clear from our Ozarks for one project. Thousands of people a
year flock to the Buffalo River, the White River, the Little Red, our gorgeous unmarred
Ozark hiking trails, and in the Ouachita's we've got the Casa Tot, Lake Ouachita, Hot Springs.
are we really going to cede our second largest economic sector to foreign companies who are going to take the money out of America while devastating our own economy? I just don't think that's a viable business plan. And if these things are so innocuous, why did Cordelio's home country of Canada in 2023 enact a 21.748 mile setback from their, quote, pristine viewscapes.
Our pristine viewscapes are equally as important to us as theirs, particularly to those of us who cherish them. The oil and gas business in the state of Arkansas has paid millions of dollars in severance taxes, conservation taxes, and other kinds of taxes to the state of Arkansas since the 1920s. Real money put right in the coffers. Far as I know, the wind industry hadn't paid one penny, and based on their behavior, they may never.
In 2023, you all enacted Act 411, which mandated to the state agencies that they could not invest in companies that
discriminated against the fossil fuel business. If we're going to regulate the fossil fuel business as highly as we do, and I know about that because I've jumped through
the Oil and Gas Commission hoops many times in my career. If we're going to regulate them, but we're going to give the wind industry a pass, then
you yourselves will be doing exactly what you told the state agencies they couldn't do. You will be discriminating against the fossil fuel business. I mean, what are we? Gavin Newsom's California, where they went so green so fast that their utility bills doubled and they pay 50 cents more a gallon for gas than any place else in the nation. No, we are logical, salt-of-the-earth Arkansans. We've been blessed with wonderful, abundant natural resources,
and we've had the good sense to take care of them. All I'm asking you all to do is continue that good stewardship so that your children and your grandchildren can wade in the same cool, clear creeks that you waded in, in. And they can swim in our
pristine lakes and fish. And they can sit at your knee and learn how to be
good, responsible outdoorsmen. All I am asking you to do with this bill is
do your duty to protect the health and safety of your constituents and their environment. Thank you, and I'll answer any questions. I'm not going to ask y'all
questions, but I will answer some. Senator McKee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:34:39
thank you for bringing this bill. You mentioned the setbacks. Could you talk a little bit about why you picked the specifics? They seem pretty
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:34:49
aggressive. Yes. We have a setback in here that is, it's
kind of technical the way the wind industry does it. They take the blade height and they multiply it by a number, and that's how they get the setback. So we looked at ordinances from counties and various states. We looked at the safety
manuals, particularly, of the wind industry itself. Nordex, which is a great big blade manufacturer, as you all know, they tell their employees that if it's inclement weather, like the horrible weather we had in eastern Arkansas
day before yesterday, their employee should stay 3,280 feet from the turbine. In the case of fire, this is based on a 602 foot turbine, okay? In the case of fire, they should stay about a half a mile away. What the wind industry usually recommends is a 1.1 setback, which is about an eighth of a mile, so they will tell their employees to stay three-quarters
to a half a mile away during these inclement occurrences, but it's okay for the landowners to only be an eighth of a mile away, and I really cannot figure out how that works. Now we also have in there a four-mile zone in which we want landowners to be notified that this project has been proposed. The reason for that is in your mountainous areas, their source of water for their well,
which is what a lot of them solely depend upon, according to the USGS, that can be four to five miles away. So we want those people who might lose their well from blasting or just the construction of these massive turbines to be able to have some comment. It's the same thing as you do in the oil and gas industry. If you're going to drill a well and you're close enough to the boundary line of your reservoir that you're going to drain the adjacent reservoir, you have to notify those people
that their reservoir might be drained, so they have a chance to comment and give you their concerns. Frankly, anybody within 50 miles of one of these things can see it, and they also should have the right to comment. But we have limited it to the four miles, primarily because of the hydrology. but the physical setback is 3 1/2 times the blade height
or 2,500 feet. It's 2,500 feet. - Thank you. - All
Speaker 28
1:37:49
right, is there any other questions? Senator Irvin and then
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:37:57
Senator Boyd. - Thank you, thank you so much
for your testimony. Just when you go through the regulatory, what you wrote here, and did you model it off after what we've been doing so it's consistent with the policy that we have in other spaces as far as energy?
- Consistent with, I'm sorry-- - Other types of regulations that we do already for other types of energy
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:38:30
industry, yes ma'am. - Actually, we based it more on what we saw from other places because we have no basis here to go on. Frankly, we did not compare it to regulations that you have in other industries, except I do know that you just did a 2,000-foot setback for crypto mining, and I know that
this year you all are considering a 30-mile setback for crypto if it's close to an important national security type so in that respect we did okay but we had so little to go on here that we really had to draw more from other states and we found states iowa recently they had they already had a five mile setback from the mississippi river now they're wanting to
increase it to 10 miles because they have discovered that their migratory birds are being affected
Right. So we have tried to be moderate. We have tried to give y'all something palatable that you have dealt with before so that we're not appearing to be extreme. And we are not trying to stop any projects here. OK, there are projects underway. In fact, we had a meeting with Senator Hester and Senator King and the wind industry yesterday in which we told them we were not trying to stop the scout project.
We suggested that because they have already progressed to a certain point, that we would be willing to waive the setback. We can't ask them to go back and rearrange their entire array. And we would also, I mean, we can't make them go back and put the trees back they've cleared. And we can't make them go back and undo the roads that they've cleared. we said to them what we would like in your case is going forward if you would
comply with the decommissioning bond which is huge all these things these companies walk away from these things all the time whether they've got an easement or not well that if you don't mind can I yeah
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:40:48
and that was one of my questions I mean I so when I look at the pictures that you submitted in your your packet so this huge hunk of concrete that's being poured into the ground which clearly you have to have in order to handle that size of a structure and the weight of it and everything when these windmills are
decommissioned who comes back and removes this concrete it's supposed to be the company
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:41:16
anything that it's supposed to be But is there any, does the state have any authority to say, come back and do this? Not right now, not that
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:41:25
we're aware of. No, this is one thing we're trying to do. This is
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:41:30
one of the things that you're
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:41:32
trying to do. Because this is really important to me. It's very important to everyone, yes, because those, if allowed to, you can see all over the nation where they just fall apart.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:41:43
Yeah, I support your bill. The only problem is I'm
not a co-sponsor. I'm also looking at the Federal Aviation Administration and this handout that you also included. I live in the Ozarks.
I very much share your concern and your passion for the tourism industry in the state of Arkansas. We are the natural state, and it is our second most important industry in the state of Arkansas, second to farming.
and I would argue that both the wind energy is problematic for both the number one and number two industry. It's problematic for farming as it is for tourism. But the aviation heights of these, that really, really concerns me when they're going into the Ozarks and placing these on top of an already very, very high elevation of a mountain because we have so many private planes that fly this area,
and it's incredibly, incredibly dangerous already. And I can speak to a very personal issue with a family member who passed in a plane crash because of it. So I guess, you know, I would hope, and I'm not sure if that's in the bill, but I think you probably it is because you've included these in your packet. Do you mind just speaking of this big, big concern? This is a huge concern.
It's when you're placing on a flat land like Oklahoma, I can understand. But when you're starting to place these on top of mountains, that is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly dangerous. So I don't know why you would even do that, But why we would allow that to happen is beyond my comprehension. And I don't know why we can't stop the project in Carroll County, to be quite frank with you, because that area sees so much air traffic to our private airports in Searcy County and coming into the Buffalo River.
People fly into the Buffalo River area to float the river and be a part of that. And that air traffic is going straight over that area if you're coming anywhere in from Springfield, St. Louis, Kansas City, coming down into the Buffalo River area and the Ozarks. And we have a ton of private aviation in that area. So could you speak to that?
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:44:30
Yes. This is the new vogue thing with the wind industry.
They're ripping out ridgetops all over the country. If you will look at that, you will see not only are the turbines permitted to an extreme height, the total height is a half mile in the air. You're gonna have these meat grinders sticking up a half mile in the air. I saw maps that want to wipe out countless ridges in the Ozarks and the Ouachita's. Now the FAA we discovered can't actually stop anything.
All they can do is make a recommendation of the maximum safe height. Every turbine that Scout is planning exceeds the maximum recommended height. The reason that the turbines are so big and the wind industry is really proud of this is that they can't catch the wind if they're any shorter when it's an iffy wind situation. So these massive turbines that they're so proud of
are going to affect air traffic, whether the FAA can do anything about it or not. Now all we can frankly do, because that is the purview of the federal government, is say that you are going to get everything approved through the FAA. We have included in this bill that they have to use aircraft detection lighting. In other words, those lights will only come on
when there is an aircraft in the area. And we found, incredibly, that the FAA's own regulations say they have to notify all the airports in the area. So one of the members of the opposition in Carroll County called all the airports. None of them even knew about it. So their process is not exactly highly protective of anybody, but we can only do so much about that because that is the
FAA's purview. But I'm with you. If you're going to stick something on top of a ridge that's going to extend a half mile in the air, and you're flying a private plane on instruments only, that would be a big concern to me. I'm very concerned about the crop dusters. That's one of the most dangerous professions in the United States. And if we don't have crop dusting, we ain't going to have an agricultural industry.
So power lines take these guys down sometimes. So there's all kinds of air traffic concerns that I wish we could address, but we are rather hogtied because we can only do so much. Thank you. Thank you, Senator
Speaker 282
1:47:38
Irvin. Senator Boyd? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:47:42
Ms. Morton, you're clearly both passionate and
knowledgeable on this important issue. I did want to ask you about page 17, lines 9 through 11.
That identifies a retroactive start date of September 1st, 2024. Oh, yes. And so, first of all, I'd like some clarity on how you have that date. And then I'll have a follow-up question. Well, if you really want to know the truth, it was the date
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:48:07
we finished the bill and gave it to Senator Hester to give to the BLR. It was really, we probably should have had more forethought, I'll just say that. Okay, but it's in
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:48:21
there, and so if this bill passes, it's got a retroactive start date before the bill was even heard in committee.
So I guess my question, is that even constitutional from your standpoint? I mean, doesn't that get in the way of the state and federal constitution
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:48:40
to have a retroactive start date? Well, look, I've never done
anything like this, and I was unaware that it would cause such an issue. We're certainly open to altering it. I mean, we're not trying to be intransigent in anything here.
So if the date needs to be changed to a later date, that's fine, because two projects are already underway. Cordelia is already underway in the Delta. Scout is underway in Carroll County. So anything else is going to be subsequent to that. Now, there are companies that are acquiring easements, but that's a risk that they take. Anytime you start a project, you're taking a risk during the acquisition phase. So we're open
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:49:32
to discussing a change if that needs to occur.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:49:36
Senator Board, I would say we pass, every session I've been here, we pass laws with
retroactivity. I just did one in city, county, local 15 minutes ago. But I do take your concern on the retroactivity of this. After the debate from this committee, I'm very open to talking about a date. Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions? Senator Flowers?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:50:06
And then Senator Johnson. So you say FAA has some regulations that apply to these windmills,
and they're not sufficient? Is that what you're saying? Well, I guess it depends
upon your point of view. To me, they're not. But in your point of view, they're not. To
my point of view, they are not.
Okay, and what about local communities? Do they not have zoning laws that would
regulate where some of these windmills are placed? Not to
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:50:51
our knowledge, ma'am. To our knowledge, Madison County is the only county that has taken any action. Now, the people in Carroll County have presented ordinances after ordinances to their quorum court, and they have steadfastly refused to do anything to protect anyone except the people that have signed easements.
But as far as actually having done anything, as far as I know, Madison County is the only one. And they have put a moratorium on for a year until
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:51:34
is going to affect them. So that's Madison County. So, and you mentioned East Arkansas, and I see on your list, I don't understand what is a Federal Aviation Administration list of proposed cases for Arkansas.
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:51:49
They have to go through the process of, well, there are various aspects of it. Do they have to make application through FAA? They have to make application and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:52:02
they have to have everything reviewed and all of that. Before they can construct or
erect some of these? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And how long has the FAA had regulations? Oh,
I don't know. long time? I would assume
a long time, yeah. And some of a case number goes back to 2022. I don't
see necessarily any that
go beyond 2022. Well, and they
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:52:29
roll off that list. They go, they have various stages. So that is a list of only the proposed cases. There are other lists of ones under construction, ones that are interim cases, so that's
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:52:46
just one list. Right, there are some
that are, you have a page, circularized case notification, and
under that it says determined, I'm not sure what all this means, but it appears to be Park in Arkansas. That's over there near you, Senator Murdoch. Do they have windmills over there? So, you know, obviously you have to have, you mentioned property owners' rights,
And certainly even the ones that you are objecting to would have to get some kind of lease or a deed. You have to buy an easement. Yes, ma'am, you have to buy an
easement. They might even buy the property in fee simple. Some
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:53:48
of them do. We have seen that Scout has, after they acquired easements, they were having trouble getting all the road access that they needed, and they went in and
just bought fee simple property. Yes,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:54:00
ma'am. So you're trying to deny these people
that own the property the right to do what they want to do with
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:54:10
it? Oh, no, ma'am. Nothing in our bill says that you can't sign an easement. No, ma'am. All our bill says is to the wind industry, You can come in here, you can buy your easements, but you're going to have some rules to follow that protect not only those people who have granted you easements, but their neighbors.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:54:32
Well, do you have some property that's affected by these windmills? No ma'am, but the maps that
I saw, it would affect my property. Is there something being constructed near your property now? No,
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:54:55
in fact, the only actual turbine construction that I know of is the crossover project out in Wynn.
I believe they may have constructed turbines already. At this point, those are the only two that are actually under construction. Now, there are others that the easements are being bought on, but the only ones I know of that are actually under construction are the ones in Carroll County and the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:55:29
ones in Wynn. So, in Wynn,
they were permitted through zoning, or what?
Pardon? How did they come to erect these wind turbines? Did they have to go through
zoning? No, ma'am. Not that I'm aware of. I don't think, you know, I
don't know when's county ordinances. Okay. Well, if you
don't know, you can't answer. So that's fine. I appreciate it. Thank you. Bye. Thank
Speaker 126
1:55:58
you. Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:56:02
Chairman. Ms. Morton, thank you for your testimony. Just a few
questions I have. And before I ask it, let me just say that I am on windmills about like I am about hog farms.
I like bacon. Matter of fact, I think we have some bacon waiting on us later, but I didn't like having one on the Buffalo River, but I'm okay with having one on the Liango River and some of the other farm areas in East Arkansas. And that's kind of how I feel about this. And I know that you mentioned we in Cross County, and of course they are struggling. They came back, are trying to come back from a devastating tornado
in that area, and these things are under construction there. Your retroactive date really gives me pause. And first, I appreciate this tremendous amount of data, but just like on that wonderful bill, Senate Bill 207, I would like to have had more time to digest something that is this long and is this complicated, and all the data that went along with it. And I'm the co-chair of Joint Energy,
but we've changed the rules, so I don't get to hear bills like this in Joint Energy anymore. But the simple fact is that this is a whole lot of regulation and we're just kinda getting, having it dumped on our head and having to make a decision. That gives me problem. I'm not saying that once I've totally digested everything, and again, I appreciate the fact you've given us a lot of data. I like that. But I haven't had time to go through that and to do that.
So please understand that my questions are about not just going forward, but as Senator Boyd pointed out, you're going backwards. And I'm hoping that there could be some, I'd almost rather see a delayed date, a time when, you know, things that people have, and I don't just mean broken ground and made orders for equipment, made significant investments, bought land and done these things.
You know, we have a strong ex post facto tradition in this country. We don't make things on people retroactively, and that's constitutional. So I'm just, I'm grateful for the amount of information you've brought, and it's been enlightening. There are some, I know some people have, we had a hearing in Joint Energy before the rule was changed, and it had to do with the bill about the waterfowl.
Right. And we did not pass that bill because there were some significant discrepancies into what witnesses said about it and even some evidence that the fears that were brought by the proponents of that legislation might not be accurate based on some studies in other states. So this is something that I'm not ready to support until we slow down and digest it. I could very well support it in the future, but at this point, I'm just, I'm concerned.
And if you have something that I've said that maybe I'm off base on, I'm certainly, you're very articulate, and I know you could
Julie Morton
Unverified
1:59:43
help me work through that. So please do. Well, I understand your concern. I mean, there's a lot of language in here. I know that you all deal with regulations all the time, so you have knowledge as to how to parse them out as whether it's acceptable or not. The date, just forgive me on the date, okay?
I don't know what I'm doing about that. But, like I said, we are willing, certainly, to change the date. The problem that you get into is because you've got various aspects of this. Early on, you're acquiring easements, and every project I've been involved in, the risk management aspect of that project takes into consideration when we're acquiring easements
or an oil and gas lease. There's never a guarantee that our project is going to be finished. So when you're just acquiring easements, you have not commenced your actual construction. You may not have even started buying your components yet because you're not sure that you're going to ever finish your
Speaker 264
2:01:04
project. Yes, ma'am. If I could interrupt you, Ms. Morton.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:01:10
Sure. I think you're right in the case of oil and gas exploration. And certainly there have been a lot of wells that have been drilled that turned up dry.
And I'm not going to get into fracking and all that, but traditionally you do your geology, you think it's here, you drill, and you've spent that money and it didn't work out. In this case, you know that if you build this tower and put this turbine on top of it and the wind
blows, it's going to generate electricity. So to me, I'm not sure that's an analogous thing to that.
Yes, things can go wrong, and even your meteorological studies might be wrong, but that's nothing, I don't think it's anywhere near the same as the oil and gas. And I'm sorry I interrupted you on that. That's okay. But I don't think
Julie Morton
Unverified
2:01:59
it was quite, but please proceed. Well, I also, I've been monitoring all the bills that you all have been reviewing, and there are a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
2:02:09
number of bills that are changing the rules midstream on various businesses.
Speaker 1
2:02:13
All right. Thank you, ma'am. We're going to adjourn until 20 minutes after session. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
SB83 J. Bryant TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES; TO REQUIRE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES; AND TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES.
SB420 Hester TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT STATE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND THE WATER AUTHORITY ACT; AND TO AMEND THE USES OF THE CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
SB437 Hester TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
HB1275 Cavenaugh TO PROHIBIT PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED FOR TREATMENT OF A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS.
HB1271 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MECHANICS' AND MATERIALMEN'S LIENS; AND TO CLARIFY THE PRIORITY OF LIENS IN MORTGAGE CONSTRUCTION LOANS.
HB1288 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A HEALTHCARE INSURER TO MAKE CERTAIN RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS TO A PROVIDER UPON CREDENTIALING OF A PROVIDER.
HB1316 F. Allen TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR LUNG CANCER SCREENINGS.
HB1652 Tosh T0 AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES; TO ENFORCE AN UNSIGNED SELF-SERVICE FACILITY STORAGE RENTAL AGREEMENT; AND TO CREATE A TERMINATION PROCEDURE FOR A SELF-SERVICE FACILITY STORAGE RENTAL AGREEMENT.
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.
HB1721 M. Brown TO AMEND SECTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE TO PROHIBIT GREYHOUND RACING AND SIMULCASTING OF GREYHOUND RACING.
PENDING FISCAL IMPACT
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.
DEFERRED BILLS
SB331 G. Leding CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR GENETIC TESTING FOR INHERITED CANCER
MUTATIONS; AND TO CREATE THE GENETIC TESTING ACT.
ADJOURN
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE, Mar 18, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 9
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 27
Speaker 20
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 39
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 46
Speaker 51
Speaker 28
Speaker 68
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 74
Speaker 77
Speaker 82
Dana Brown
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 99
Speaker 100
Shannon Ellis
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 105
Speaker 103
Speaker 107
Sandy Carpenter
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 116
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 117
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 132
Speaker 44
Speaker 137
Speaker 134
Speaker 11
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 166
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 162
Speaker 193
Speaker 208
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Michael Hall
Unverified
Speaker 226
Speaker 225
Speaker 250
Julie Morton
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 278
Speaker 282
Speaker 290
Speaker 212
Speaker 264