Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (51)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1530
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1530 Achor TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "SPECIALTY HOSPITAL" RELAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "SPECIALTY HOSPITAL" RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT FEE ON HOSPITALS UNDER … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1782
Act 642
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…nded. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, today I bring to you House Bill 1782, um, what this bill does is it prohibits the sale of diet p…”
|
TO PROHIBIT OVER-THE-COUNTER DIET PILLS FROM BEING SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR OTHERWISE FURNISHED TO A PERSON … | Hudson | Notification that HB1782 is now Act 642 |
|
HB1784
Act 864
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1784 Wardlaw TO MODIFY THE INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS F…”
|
TO MODIFY THE INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES. | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1784 is now Act 864 |
|
HB1004
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND ANESTHESIA COSTS FOR HIGH COMPLEXITY ORAL HEALTH CARE. HB1004 Pilkington TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTH…”
|
TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH. | Pilkington | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1142
Act 859
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…llen Rep. Wayne Long REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1142 A. Brown TO CREATE THE REPRODUCTIVE EMPOWERMENT AND SUPPORT…”
|
TO CREATE THE REPRODUCTIVE EMPOWERMENT AND SUPPORT THROUGH OPTIMAL RESTORATION (RESTORE) ACT. | A. Brown | Notification that HB1142 is now Act 859 |
|
HB1164
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REPORTING OF PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATIONS. HB1164 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW A PHYSICIAN OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER TO…”
|
TO ALLOW A PHYSICIAN OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER TO OFFER COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS; AND … | J. Mayberry | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1241
Act 568
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1241 J. Mayberry TO ENSURE THAT THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM RE…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM REIMBURSES FOR DENTAL AND ANESTHESIA COSTS FOR HIGH … | J. Mayberry | Notification that HB1241 is now Act 568 |
|
HB1332
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ADMINISTER A GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS. HB1332 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EVALUATE CLAIMS FOR DIAGNOSES FREQUENCY OF OBESITY-RELATED CONDITIONS … | Pilkington | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1468
Act 558
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…, committee, uh, Representative Kozark, you're ready to run House Bill 1468. Thank you, Chairman Wardlaw. Uh, if”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS. | Cozart | Notification that HB1468 is now Act 558 |
|
HB1543
Act 631
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1543 Underwood TO ESTABLISH THE WORKFORCE EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE WORKFORCE EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 2025. | Underwood | Notification that HB1543 is now Act 631 |
|
HB1592
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1592 J. Mayberry TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. | J. Mayberry | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1619
Act 634
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ER ASSESSMENTS FOR COGNITIVE FUNCTION FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS. HB1619 Gramlich TO SET ADMINISTRATION FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS MEDI…”
|
TO SET ADMINISTRATION FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR IMMUNIZATIONS AND MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES FOR … | Gramlich | Notification that HB1619 is now Act 634 |
|
HB1653
Act 636
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AUTHORIZE A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT TO DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS. HB1653 Cavenaugh TO SET STANDARDS FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION…”
|
TO SET STANDARDS FOR LICENSING AND REGULATION OF PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES; AND TO DECLARE … | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1653 is now Act 636 |
|
HB1677
Act 637
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH. HB1677 Bentley TO AUTHORIZE ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT PROGR…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS TO MAINTAIN EMERGENCY MEDICATION KITS. | Bentley | Notification that HB1677 is now Act 637 |
|
HB1679
Act 861
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REGULATION OF PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES. HB1679 M. Brown TO AMEND THE REVISED ARKANSAS ANATOMICAL GIFT ACT;…”
|
TO AMEND THE REVISED ARKANSAS ANATOMICAL GIFT ACT; TO ALLOW CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS TO … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1679 is now Act 861 |
|
HB1718
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E TREATMENT PROGRAMS TO MAINTAIN EMERGENCY MEDICATION KITS. HB1718 Gramlich TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SURGICAL SMOKE EVACUATI…”
|
TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SURGICAL SMOKE EVACUATION IN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES LICENSED IN THIS STATE. | Gramlich | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1723
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVACUATION IN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES LICENSED IN THIS STATE. HB1723 Pilkington TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS…”
|
TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS ACT; … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1751
Act 640
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1751 Underwood TO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM BENEFITS TO ENGAGE IN … | Underwood | Notification that HB1751 is now Act 640 |
|
HB1758
Act 641
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1758 Gramlich TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEARING INSTRUMENT DIS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEARING INSTRUMENT DISPENSERS; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "PRACTICE … | Gramlich | Notification that HB1758 is now Act 641 |
|
HB1762
Act 1009
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DEFINITION OF "PRACTICE OF DISPENSING HEARING INSTRUMENTS". HB1762 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF…”
|
TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL … | Hall | Notification that HB1762 is now Act 1009 |
|
HB1767
Act 863
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR PASTORAL APPLICATION FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. HB1767 L. Johnson TO ABOLISH THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISO…”
|
TO ABOLISH THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL; AND TO CREATE THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1767 is now Act 863 |
|
HB1768
Act 815
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1768 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL CONTRACT RELATI…”
|
TO REQUIRE A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL CONTRACT RELATING TO A HOST FEE TO BE VOTED … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1768 is now Act 815 |
|
HB1776
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ETING OF A HOST COMMUNITY IN WHICH THE LANDFILL IS LOCATED. HB1776 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTA…”
|
TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER … | Lundstrum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1781
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSION OF A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT. HB1781 Crawford TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENT…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENTERS, OR OTHER FACILITIES IN WHICH A PREGNANCY … | Crawford | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1791
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1791 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND…”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION … | C. Cooper | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB278
Act 438
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB278 J. English TO REPEAL THE STATUTES CONCERNING THE OCCUPATION…”
|
TO REPEAL THE STATUTES CONCERNING THE OCCUPATIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND LICENSURE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT OFFICES AND … | J. English | Notification that SB278 is now Act 438 |
|
SB279
Act 397
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB279 Irvin TO ASSIST THE DIVISION OF LABOR WITH ENFORCING THE FA…”
|
TO ASSIST THE DIVISION OF LABOR WITH ENFORCING THE FAIR AND PROMPT PAYMENT OF WAGES … | Irvin | Notification that SB279 is now Act 397 |
|
SB99
Act 437
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB99 C. Penzo TO AUTHORIZE A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT TO DELEGATE CER…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT TO DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS. | C. Penzo | Notification that SB99 is now Act 437 |
|
HB1008
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OLOGY REPORTING ACT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1008 A. Collins TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTH…”
|
TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1010
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH. HB1010 A. Collins TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS ME…”
|
TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1011
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES. HB1011 A. Collins TO CREATE THE RESTORE ROE ACT; AND TO RESTORE A…”
|
TO CREATE THE RESTORE ROE ACT; AND TO RESTORE A WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1012
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ACT; AND TO RESTORE A WOMAN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES. HB1012 A. Collins TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EXTE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO EXTEND ELIGIBILITY TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FAMILY PLANNING … | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1013
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…BILITY TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES. HB1013 Hudson TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE.…”
|
TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE. | Hudson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1029
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Hudson TO PROTECT FERTILITY TREATMENT RIGHTS IN THIS STATE. HB1029 D. Garner TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MED…”
|
TO SET THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND … | D. Garner | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1032
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SERVICES RELATED TO ADDICTION. HB1032 A. Collins TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY. HB1132 Pilkington TO…”
|
TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY. | A. Collins | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1132
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TO ADDICTION. HB1032 A. Collins TO BAN CONVERSION THERAPY. HB1132 Pilkington TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVID…”
|
TO INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES; AND TO AMEND … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1140
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/18/25 @ 7:55 AM) Removed HB1140 House Committee on Public Health, Welfare, and Labor Tuesda…”
|
TO DEFINE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER REGARDING STUDENT ATHLETE CONCUSSION EDUCATION. | Gramlich | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1224
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIPTIVE AUTHORITY OF AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE. HB1224 Nazarenko TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; AND TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC … | Nazarenko | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1244
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT TO MASSAGE THERAPISTS. HB1244 K. Brown TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF FULL INDEPENDENT PRACTICE AUTHORITY BY A … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1270
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CERTIFIED NURSE PRACTITIONER OR CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST. HB1270 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH LICENSURE FOR PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC EXTENDED CARE PILOT PROGRAM THROUGH A SECTION 1115 MEDICAID DEMONSTRATION … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1277
Act 706
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AM TO REIMBURSE PRESCRIBED PEDIATRIC EXTENDED CARE CENTERS. HB1277 Gramlich TO AMEND PAYMENTS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION REGARDING…”
|
TO AMEND PAYMENTS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION REGARDING PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS. | J. Boyd | Notification that HB1277 is now Act 706 |
|
HB1302
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CENSURE OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1302 L. Johnson TO ADD DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TO THE UNIVER…”
|
TO ADD DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY TO THE UNIVERSAL NEWBORN SCREENING ACT. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1506
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST MATERIALS OR TEST DATA. HB1506 Andrews TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMP…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; AND TO PROHIBIT A PUBLIC EMPLOYER … | Andrews | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1532
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEMBERSHIP DUES FROM THE COMPENSATION OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. HB1532 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COU…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COUNCIL. | L. Johnson | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1554
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…INVESTIGATED. PENDING FISCAL IMPACT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1554 A. Brown TO CREATE THE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY REP…”
|
TO CREATE THE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY REPORTING ACT. | A. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1566
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TE THE ARKANSAS RARE DISEASE ADVISORY COUNCIL. Page 3 of 4 HB1566 McClure TO REQUIRE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE PRACTICAL NURSIN…”
|
TO REQUIRE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE PRACTICAL NURSING PROGRAM CORE CURRICULUM TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY IN … | McClure | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1588
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…LUM TO INCREASE CONSISTENCY IN PRACTICAL NURSING EDUCATION. HB1588 McAlindon TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFOR…”
|
TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SEEKS OR … | McAlindon | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1731
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RECOGNIZE A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT AS A PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER. HB1731 Vaught TO STRENGTHEN CHILD LABOR LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATE…”
|
TO STRENGTHEN CHILD LABOR LAWS THROUGH THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES. | Vaught | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
SB168
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…G UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD TO INCLUDE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. SB168 Rice TO ESTABLISH A STATE EXAMINATION FOR LICENSURE OF MASS…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A STATE EXAMINATION FOR LICENSURE OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS. | Rice | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB187
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EASES COSTS TO THE STATE FOR THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM. SB187 Irvin TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID DRU…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID DRUG UTILIZATION REVIEW BOARD TO INCLUDE PHYSICIAN … | Irvin | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB257
Act 515
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB257 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE MEDICAID FAIRNESS ACT; TO EXTEND THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEDICAID FAIRNESS ACT; TO EXTEND THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR PROVIDERS IN THE … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB257 is now Act 515 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
To another room, so I let her go first. Uh, what number is that, Representative Hudson? 1782, members. And you have an amendment, correct? That's correct. If you'll give us just a second, we'll pass out the amendment.
Thanks. right I take a picture. Thank you. Now whenever. All right, Representative Hudson,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:31
if you would explain your amendment first, please. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you committee Ashley Hudson, District 75, uh, colleagues, this amendment
simply strikes some language that um I think was a little bit confusing as to the intent of the bill so that it ends the sentence on page 2, with pills are subject to the requirement of this section without the examples that I had in the original version of the bill. Happy to answer any questions. Community, what's pleasure committee? I
have a motion to pass. All those in favor, say hi. posed, I have it. You're recognized to present your bill
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
2:08
as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, today I bring to you House Bill 1782, um, what this bill does is it prohibits the sale of diet pills to children under the age of 18. Uh, this only applies to over the counter sales, so it wouldn't apply to any sort of prescription restrictions, um, and it only applies to products that are actually marketed as diet pills, so it wouldn't apply to say, Um, protein shakes or or supplements related to, you
know, workout muscle building, things like that, um. Part of the impetus of this came from when Representative Vau and Representative Gardner and I spoke after we, uh, acknowledged eating disorder Awareness Week a couple of weeks ago. We wanted to try to take that uh recognition and acknowledgement of the problem and put it into something that is actually tangible and useful for kids in our state. According to the NIH eating disorders actually account for over 10,000 deaths a year. That's
nationwide, 33,000 hospital admissions and 64 billion with a B in costs annually in the US, Arkansas is number 13 in the country for incidence of eating disorders. Most of those eating disorders in Arkansas begin before a child hits the age of 18, so girls and boys who are going to suffer from eating disorders often have that um that diagnosis and that issue began before they reach adulthood.
Access to these diet pills and retail stores can help exacerbate the problem. Um, certainly in a situation where a teenager can go into a store and grab a bottle of diet pills without their parents knowing an inest a substance that may or may not be regulated or um that they really understand, um, is, is a problem and it's something that can help sort of bring that eating disorder to fruition. Um, there was actually a recent
study in January of this year about whether or not diet pills can increase the incidence of eating disorders in youth, and that study concluded that that using diet pills actually does help, uh, teenagers and children, um, further their eating disorder. And as a, on a personal note, I can speak to the fact that when I started my eating disorder as a teenager, one of the tools that I used was access to diet pills in uh in the pharmacy and
in the grocery store, uh, that we're able to help me suppress my appetite and, and ultimately further the eating disorder that resulted in my hospitalization With that, happy to answer any questions about the bill. Any questions? 9.
Oh, Representative Henley, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
5:14
about that. Representative Hudson, what on the penalties and how, how were
these businesses be caught to, uh, when, when they're selling to uh The youth
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
5:27
Sure, thank you, um, you know, this would be uh enforcement would be very similar to if a business was selling cigarettes to someone who is underage. Obviously it requires somebody being caught in the act or or report following. We're not going to have diet pill police, so some of this is going to require the businesses to police themselves, but it would be the same as any other situation
where an underage person was buying cigarettes or alcohol or some other prohibited substance. Seeing no further
questions, anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill? I take it your clothes for your
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
6:06
bill? Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm close for my bill and would request a due pass.
I have a motion to pass as amended correct as amended a lady. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor,
say ah. I opposed, I have it. Congratulations, your bill has passed as amended. All right, committee, uh, Representative Kozark, you're ready to run House Bill 1468. Thank you, Chairman Wardlaw. Uh, if
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
6:42
you don't mind, I have uh a friend and I, I truly say he is a friend of mine. We've known each other for probably about 25 years.
Aaron Crowe, and he is the president of the Arkansas State Home Builders Association, and he's here to speak if we need him to and he'll probably make a
short statement, but answer questions if if needed. Ready?
OK. All right. Representative Bruce Cozart, District 91, Aaron, go ahead and rice say who you are, uh, Aaron Crow, I'm
Speaker 36
7:17
the like, like Bruce said, current president of the State Homebuilder Association. It's an
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
7:23
honor to be here. All right, I won't say this simple bill, nothing simple anymore, especially in public health, um. But this just the title of this bill, it's to men the law concerning home improvement contractors, residential building contractors and suppliers, uh, construction defects and other purposes. What this bill just does, I'll get down to plain tax and just tell you instead of describing this whole bill, what this does, if you build a new home, you're remodeling a home, building a duplex, or building a forplex,
that's all residential. So when you're doing that, once you're finished with that project and something happens. To go wrong within the first year of that, that some type of defect, it could be anything from a piece of crown coming down, paint's not correct, foundation sagging, um, refrigerator goes out, dishwasher goes out, any kind of defect that could happen in that home are, are duplex in that first year. This, this bill would allow that contractor.
To have a right to fix that or make an offer to fix that within the 1st 28 days. So that homeowner. should notify the contractor that there is a problem and, and then the contractor would have up to 14 days to respond to that and if they do not respond within 14 days. then they could actually go on to be a lawsuit after that, but this is what we're trying to do is hold out from people having lawsuits right off the bat, you know, just come in and say, you got a defect, we're gonna sue. Well, this is what we're trying
to do, so that that contractor would have an offer to go in, uh, make an appointment with the homeowners to look at the defect to address the defect and and what they think it would take to fix it and, and either go in and fix it. Tell them, uh, make a decision not to fix it, make a decision to let them sue. I mean, there's 3 options there they could do. Most of the time a contractor's going to go in and fix. I, I am a contractor. I think most of y'all know that and I know we have some others around here that are. So, I
mean, I want to fix something every time and I don't really, I could tell you I've been lucky. I don't have very many opportunities to have to go back and fix anything because I just don't have those problems and I'm not bragging, but I think all good builders should not. have problems, but there are a lot of things that we have to deal with right now that are defective. Material is defective. We have a lot of materialists not anywhere close to what it was 2030 years ago when we were building appliances are not anywhere close to what they used to be. So there's going to be some problems. All we're asking for is a 28 deer,
28 day opportunity to fix this problem before a lawsuit happens. That's pretty well the gist of it. I'd like to for Aaron to make a have to have something to say about
Speaker 36
10:16
that too. He deals with it on the state level. Yes, I, you know, we're, we're talking about and, and it's an honor to represent all the builders and remodelers of the state today. Uh, we're talking about primarily these are small business owners, you know, uh, just the backbone of the building industry and we're, we're really just asking for a moderate, uh, level of protection here, um, to, to
avoid any further damage or legal fees and, and so, uh, we, we feel this bill is, um, Uh, just a, just a nice layer of protection, right? So, uh, to hopefully avoid a lot of the legal issues that you might run into, um, and, um. Yeah, I think that's about all I've got to say. We'll, uh, we'll stop there and sort of labor and all the
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
10:58
things that's pretty well the gist of it and, and if you have questions, then we can try to explain what you have, so.
Any questions from members, Representative Barnes, you
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
11:10
recognize? Question, uh, you said 28 days, when would that start up on verbal communication or written communication. It's one actually
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
11:18
any type of communication that is, uh, comes from the homeowner if they call you and say
I have a problem, that's the start of it, and I would have 14 days to respond to them or I could respond any time after that, but with yes, that as soon as the homeowner uh
notifies you, uh, and, and you first have that first contact, that's 28 days. Now, I'm not
gonna say that you could fix everything in 28 days, but that gives you a 28 days to respond and. Do what you can to do that. Thank
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
11:54
you. Representative Allen, you reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hey, uh, represent Cozar, I appreciate what you're doing, as you know, you and I
both are contractors. So I just want to know how did you arrive at 28 days what's the magic number?
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
12:09
Well, that's what the fight's been for the last month and a half is with trial lawyers, so uh that was what they came up with was a 28 days. We had this bill was 15 pages long when we started. We've shortened it down to 4 or 5. I can't remember if it's 4 or 5, but um, but that was their, their uh recommendation that we would do 28 days, uh, a cure. OK.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
12:35
If, if the follow. If there's the uh dispute is not
resolved. I don't see anything in here that talks about mediation or arbitration. The very
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
12:45
last of it talks about if you do not resolve the problems they they can go into a full lawsuit against you and so you just, the court would decide. So that's
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
12:57
no nothing in the bill that talks about mediation because most of the time when you file a lawsuit,
they're gonna suggest that you mediate or try to go to some type of arbitration, so you don't that's
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
13:10
what the 28 day is you have that 28 days to try to mediate all the
problems and cure the problems, or at least get on to the working part of it, of starting it, it might not. Be able to be done in 28 days, so you have to meet with the people, you have to come to an agreement on what's got to be done, how long it should take to do that and come up with an agreement. If they don't agree with that, then they can automatically sue you then too. So you try to work it out in the front. If you don't get it worked out in the front, then it might, it might take a court fee, so we'll see. Thank you.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
13:42
Representative Richardson, you recognize. Oh You just don't learn. Representative Barry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Cozart, I'm, I'm trying to figure
out. So 28 days. You reply within 14, but there's not a time period of what you have allowed to fix the problem, correct? No, sir, that
Speaker 54
14:05
has to be negotiated between you and the homeowners. OK. Because that could vary
Speaker 37
14:12
depending on what, what the issue is, right, right, but I
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
14:15
mean if you say if you had a foundation that was settling, it's gonna take a little longer, 28 days. So that's, that's just, that's just the time period to get in there and figure out what you got to do and how to do it.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
14:25
I'm just, I'm just looking at it. It's an open, I mean, it could be 2 years later and
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
14:30
it's still going on. Well, there's one year, there's a one year time frame on, on any kind of residential home. That's just kind of natural for, for home buildings. You got a one year guarantee on that home. So after one year. This doesn't fall in place. They still could come back and sue
you on structural items and you might have to use that on anything structural sometimes that goes a little past a year. That's totally up to the courts. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions for members?
Seeing no, uh, anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill? I take it
your clothes for your bill. Yes sir, I'm close to my bill. Appreciate a good vote Du pass. All those in favor, say ah. I'll posed. I have it.
Members, I'm gonna do something a little different because we do have some highly contested bills that uh have a lot of people signed up. So I'm gonna kind of skip through the agenda. If anybody has a non-controversial bill they want to run, I need to know
it in the next few minutes, uh, but without objection, I'm gonna recognize Representative Woolridge to run a department bill. try to get all the non-controversial stuff run before we get into the. The other meals. You have
Representative, what would you recognize if you would introduce yourself and your witness. Thank
Dan Parker
Unverified
16:50
you, Mr. Chair. Jeremy Wooldridge, State Representative District one. I'm Dan Parker. I'm the chief legal
counsel for the Department of Labor and Licensing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, uh, 279 is a department bill's supported by the governor, um, this, this bill Department of Division of Labor better perform. This will help the division of labor, labor better performance duties under the Arkansas minimum wage Act. It's a good bill for both
minimum wage workers, uh, who need the wages earned to support themselves and their families and the businesses that pay them with that, I'll let Mr. Parker give you some additional details of
Dan Parker
Unverified
17:22
the bill. All righty. Thank you, Representative Wooldridge and for your support. I want to thank the chair as well for all he does for the General Assembly and for his support. I've emailed several of you about this bill. It is a good bill for workers and for business from the business standpoint, um, we don't want our good businesses that are following the law and
paying their workers properly to have to compete against people that are not and have lower over overhead in an unfair competitive advantage at the expense. of minimum wage workers, uh, and these are the most vulnerable, uh, people in our labor force that really need to be paid their wages in order to support themselves and their family. This bill will help our process when we investigate these complaints and we don't take a heavy handed approach on these. It is our goal to try and work
with our businesses. A lot of times what we find is that there's been a glitch in their payroll system, and that's caused a payment mistake or they just didn't understand how the minimum wage law applied to their workers. So we want to gather all the records, take our time to do a thorough investigation, levy a good assessment, then we share that with the business and let them go over all the figures, make sure there are no mistakes with the goal of trying to come to an
understanding of if there is any restitution owed to any of the employees, then uh we make arrangements that won't affect the business operations to get restitution paid to the employees, and then, uh, you know, part of what we do is education and outreach and just so we know going forward that these are the rules and these how the work, uh, how your workers need to be paid. Uh, so with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Seeing no questions from the members or anyone speak for or
against the bill. See none. Are you close for Bill, Mr. Chairman, we're closed, and
I'd make a motion to pass motion. Any discussion, seeing none, all those in favor. Say ah. I posed. I have it. Congratulations your bill passed. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, you want to run an amendment on
1004. He would give it just a second to get the amendment passed out. Thank you.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
19:47
And just so the committee knows, I'm not running 1004 today. I'm just doing the amendment today so I can get it engrossed, so.
You recognize to explain your amendment. Thank you, committee. Representative Aaron Pilkington, District 45, uh, like I said, I'm not running the bill, just the amendment, my bill, my amendment, uh, but if anyone needs any more clarification, it's exactly what it says requests for Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to use children's health insurance program funding to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage for mothers as described in subdivision A1 of this section through the Health Service initiative project, but once again, not run the bill. It's just my amendment, my bill. I make a motion to adopt the amendment. Proper motion
All those favors, say ah. All opposed, I have it. Congratulations, your amendment passed. Members, I'm gonna run a small little
bill real quick and turn this over to Representative Wo.
Chairman Wardlaw, if you will, identify yourself for the record and you're recognized to run House Bill 1784.
Uh, Representative Jeff War Law District 94. So a full disclosure, I used to work in
long term care industry. I do not anymore. My wife still does, so I want to say that first off before we get going. My wife doesn't even know I'm running this bill for the record. Uh, skilled nursing home facilities
in Arkansas are surveyed by the Office of Long Term Care. Team of surveyors.
Believe that the facility is not in compliance with state federal regulations. They issue written findings. Here's the interesting part. In 2024, 150 survey deficiencies were heard in the IDR process 108 of those were removed. That
means 108 of those were found not to be. Uh, valid. One of the things that's wrong with the process today is you're not allowed to submit certain evidence in the uh repeal process, the IDR. This
bill just allows that evidence to be submitted. It also brings in a seven-day period. Uh, after the informal dispute resolution hearing for a written statement to be issued. And it just kind of cleans up that process and holds the office of long term care at um at a higher standard. With that, I'd be happy to
answer any questions, any questions by the committee? So no, is there
anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill,
See none, you reckon that's close for your bill. I close and make a motion pass. That's proper motioning discussion on the motion. All those in favor say aye. Abod. Congratulations, sir,
Representative Acer, you recognize us. Run House Bill 1530. Thank
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
24:11
you, Mr. Chairman, committee, I would like to request Brian Fowler, CEO of the Arkansas Surgical Hospital, joined me at the table. And in my introduction of this bill, I do want to make sure that I uh acknowledge a lot of the great work done by Medicaid Director Janet Mann and our DHS
secretary Putnam on working towards a resolution towards a problem that is closing in on a little over a decade that it's been trying to be resolved here.
I'm going to have Brian Fowler here introduce himself and give some context to the bill we're hearing today and then answer some
Speaker 96
24:49
questions. Good morning. I'm Brian Fowler. I'm the CEO of Arkansas Surgical Hospital. It's an honor to be able to be here in front of you all and represent my hospital. Uh, House Bill 1530 amends the definition of a specialty hospital within the hospital provider tax program. Um, this would grant Arkansas
surgical Hospital, uh, an exemption from the program and would put us within the definitions besides children's and heart hospital. Uh, this was actually offered to us at the inception of the program, um, the hospital was newly formed within the last few years prior to, um, still trying to find identity and strategy and uh not to mention that there were um program within the program that there was a 1% cap on the tax. And language as far as how hospitals can move in and out of
the program. So we declined the exemption at that time, uh, over the last 15 years, there have been changes to the program, uh, that have increased the max tax rate in the program as well as even recalculate the UPL uh as a whole. Um, that's all compounded and caused additional uh financial detriment to our hospital, um, this year, that amount is just under $1.3 million. Um, and when you take a look at um the losers within that program. Uh, we're
the only acute care hospital that loses anything net within that program. Um, this supplemental payment program is very important to the state of Arkansas and to hospitals, and so that's why we've worked with DHS over the course of the last two weeks. I applaud Secretary Putnam and her team. They've been very timely in their communication and they have assured us last week that our exemption does not require any amendments to the Medicaid state plan, and it's still puts us within the criteria of an
auto approval of our waiver on file with CMS. Um, Arkansas surgical Hospital takes care of patients in every single county in the state. We are not a community hospital. We provide value to every county in the state. And so, um, and as a for-profit hospital, we paid almost $2 million last year in sales tax, property tax, pass through state income tax, so we just can't continue to pay in a tax into a supplemental program that we clearly don't fit and do not receive any value from like the
other hospitals within the state. Thank
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
27:13
you. And I'd like to echo some of the words he said here.
While the surgical hospital does um receive a little less than $1.3 million I guess less than what they put into the program, um, there are hospitals that do recoup, obviously a greater return than what they put in. Uh, but I do want to acknowledge that even in those circumstances, they, the payment that they're allocated is based on the number
of Medicaid discharges. It's not based on the type of claim that was filed and so while you do see some hospitals who are participating in this program and do have a return. I do think it's important to know that this is a supplemental program that still doesn't even reach the full return for those claims that were filed and so for a hospital to be legitimately underwater, I think that's compounded when the ones that are above water still technically don't get the return on that full claim because again, it's based on the number
of Medicaid lives that walked the hospital, not on the type of care that they received, so there's obviously a larger gap in the niche specialty services that are offered at the surgical hospital, uh, then larger hospitals who have a wider sweep of services for which Medicaid patients can be seen. And again, I, I, I do want to commend again DHS's work here to give us the confidence and assurance, the assurances that I'm sure this committee values that there will be no disruption to the integrity of that program, and it will continue forward. And
with that we welcome. questions. Any questions by the
committee? Representative Pilkington, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Chair.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
28:50
Uh, so I, I guess I'm Curious, um. There's no, you're saying there's no disruption to the program, but the program is losing some funds with the change of this bill. So I mean, Obviously, if we're taking money. out There's an effect on other people in the program, so I
guess walk me through this one more time because I'm just not totally understanding how if we're You know, we're taking money out of a program, how it's not detrimental to
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
29:22
that program, right? So the primary concern is whether or not there would have to be a new waiver issued and for the whole program to I guess be re-reviewed for credentialing that would put the whole program on the table to be, I guess, found. Invalid. So while there will be the 1.2, I think is the. difference in the million
dollars will have to be spread pro rata over the 100 plus hospitals that participate in the program. However, I would think that this committee as a whole would see that that's, if that's currently being shouldered by one private business, um, that's participating in the program for well over 15 years now that this program does have the sustainability to distribute that loss pro rata just as much as this individual and their company has been shouldering it solely. So you have one company shouldering. A $1.3 million dollar loss for a
program that is not built for their niche services, um, that they've Agreed to participate in um honestly, out of Out of good faith that they value the program as a whole that they lose on um and now that they have the exit strategy that doesn't disrupt it. I think it's in the purview of this committee to allow them to do so. So Any additional questions by the committee? Representative Perry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
30:45
I know you mentioned uh. CMS, what is CMS does not approve it. So I'm gonna defer to
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
30:54
um Uh, Doctor or Mr. Fowler here. So again, there are some automatic approvals built into the program currently, and that program has not been amended since 2009 and so for them to backtrack on that would be taking the assumption that any risk of any kind ever on any program is just as likely here as it is anywhere else. So when
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
31:15
the hospital started what, 2009? 2005. 2005. Why warrant? Why didn't y'all enroll in the
Speaker 103
31:20
program then. We were enrolled in the program
Speaker 104
31:23
then you still are. We didn't claim the exemption just again, newly, we'd been in existence for just over 3 years and, and decided to to stay out that it didn't appear as detrimental and again, we were still trying to determine our, our organization, our growth strategy, and, and who we were as an organization. And I, I would echo that they were making that decision based
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
31:46
off 3 years of claims data and based off of a program that is not the same as it is now, so the tax rate is increased. A few of the contingencies. have increased, so the decision they made with 3 years of claims data, um, you know, was in the best interests at that time. Now that they have 15 years' worth of claims data, they can see why they were offered that to begin with. Hindsight's 202. Uh, Representative Gram recognize. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So
Speaker 143
32:17
basically you are paying a tax and you're not receiving any benefit from the
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
32:22
tax. We receive minimal benefit. They, they paid in $1.5 million into the program, and they received $270,000 in distributions for a net loss of 1.3 million. Thank you. And next year that will again continue to grow year after year. So no further questions.
We do have uh Jodi Anne Tritt signed up to speak against the bill.
You guys would vacate one of those seats and let her. yeah. Ms. Tritt, if you would introduce yourself for the record and you're reckon
Speaker 111
33:03
to speak against the bill. Good morning, everybody. I'm Jodi Ann Trett.
Speaker 112
33:06
I'm the executive vice president of the Arkansas Hospital Association, um, let's start back in 2009. So, um, the hospital association had diligently worked with the state of Arkansas to try to get some
increases in both inpatient and outpatient fee scale. So let me remind you, the last time outpatient fee schedules were changed for hospitals was in 1992. And it was a decrease decrease. The last time the per diem rate regardless of code, we don't get paid by codes in the Medicaid program, we get paid a per diem rate of about $850 a day for a regular hospital and about $550 a day for a free standing inpatient psychiatric hospital. So the last time those things
were changed was in 2007, recognizing everything that was going on in 2008, y'all will remember the housing crisis and all the other uh. bailouts that were going on around that time, the hospital association and its members recognize that the state didn't have general revenue to help us give ourselves a raise that we so desperately needed, so in 2009, that's when the provider assessment was created, uh, the provider assessment to their point, and I sincerely appreciate all the time and effort that Representative Acer
has spent with me, not only on this bill, but a whole bunch of others. God love him for the amount of time he spent with me, um, but he's absolutely telling the whole truth when he's saying that the hospitals that participate in this program, even with the supplemental payments that come in, do not make themselves whole, um, where we get closer to about 80 cents for every dollar of cost we suffer, um, but the truth be told, hospitals lose money on every Medicaid patient served, um, he's also
correct that there are many hospitals that um reap the benefit, if you will, of having many Much more dollars that they received back and they put in, and the reason for that is their Medicaid load, so the way the program works, it's, it's a complete incentive for providers to take care of Medicaid patients, that's why the government allowed it. These provider assessments and taxes started in the mid 80s and in 1991, public law 123/234, um,
actually put some limitations on provider taxes, not just hospital provider taxes, but also the quality assurance. one that the nursing homes participate in. Um, Arkansas also has an ambulance provider tax, an intermediate care facility tax. Many providers in Arkansas have done their very, very best to come up with the non-federal share so that state general revenue does not have to cover those expenses and still give ourselves a raise. The fear here and I, I sincerely hope that Mr. Fowler and
Representative Acre are correct that this is automatic in some way and that CMS just carp watch says it's OK. The problem is we're hearing from the current Federal administration, um, that many of the things that states have done to try to cobble together appropriateness to reimburse their providers are under the microscope, especially as $880 billion worth of Medicare and Medicaid cuts are being considered at the federal level. The fear for us is that CMS gets to take this opportunity, even if
historically this has been some sort of triggered event to where we will lose 400. billion dollars in this program, so that one hospital cannot pay 1.3 million. And that is our sincere concern. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions or give you more details about how the taxes are created, how they're formed, the amount of money that's been brought in over time, um, this program is vitally important to our hospitals, I will remind you that we now have 50 of 75 counties that no longer deliver
babies in another 2 that are very, very close to not being able to do that. Um, we've cut services in almost every arena to try to make ends meet, so the more we talk about hurting hospitals or even the opportunity for CMS to take advantage of or to, to eliminate or decrease a program that hospitals in Arkansas have relied on, the scarier it becomes for access to care and patient access.
So walk me through, I heard children's was exempt a while ago. Doesn't children see the benefits of the tax. So who pays their tax?
Speaker 112
37:35
Children's might be better to answer that or DHS, but, but let me tell you how I understand it. Children's has an ad valorum tax um that folks pay around the state and that amount of adviorum tax actually goes, instead of paying their tax based on net patient revenues, that would be a percentage of their net patient revenues overall. The ad valorum tax and some other line items actually
go to pay children's match in their ability to reap the benefits from this program too. Uh, Children's gets dollars off the top. It's not the same formula because they are in fact exempt from paying the tax based on the net patient revenue
percentage. Any other questions from committee members? Representative Perry, you're recognized.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
38:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mrs. Tre does. So does this specialty hospital. And are they enrolled in
the Medicaid program? Do they take Medicaid? I believe they are
Speaker 112
38:28
enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and if they wanted to mitigate the damages that they pay in this tax, they could see more Medicaid patients. OK. All right, thank you. Representative Pilkington, you're. ribs in a perry asked my question.
Thank you. Any other questions for committee members? Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the audience speak for or against this bill?
Representative Baker, you're recognized clothes for your
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
39:03
bill. Uh thank you committee. I appreciate the perspective and a lot of the hard work that received from the hospital association, I, I do think that um we do have some assurances here that the integrity of the program with we're concerned that it will be removed. This doesn't increase or decrease that likelihood
if the program is up for the chopping block, it's up for the chopping block as a whole with this, this automatic waiver that or automatic um approval um doesn't jeopardize, I guess, the
identity of this program. Um again, To the point of seeing more Medicaid patients, that's
subjective in the service that's offered. I believe you, uh, earlier I mentioned that this doesn't true up to the cost of the service. It's just how many Medicaid patients walked out the door, and so if you're niche specialty is extremely expensive, complex, um, hip surgeries or specialty surgeries at the hospital's offers, those are not the same types of Medicare gaps between what Medicaid pays and what Medicare
pays, as you see with uh regular primary care services offered in hospitals, whether emergency care, um, ear infections, those sorts of things. So I think that while they could see more Medicaid patients, they would continue to grow their gap even further because of the specific type of service they offered, um, with that, I'm closed, and I appreciate your promotion and a good vote. What's the will of the committee?
Motion to passed by Representative Graham. Any
discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed. No. See. Members have
2 more non-controversial bills before we dive off into 5 pages of people that signed up. Uh, Representative Gramlich,
will you join us at the end of the table for your two bills?
If anybody else has one, I need to know it before we take this dive. It's I'm going off of his work. Char, would
Speaker 126
41:26
you like me to run 1758 1st or 1619? Uh, if you want to run, uh, 1619
1st. That's the first one on the agenda. Thank
Speaker 130
41:38
you very much committee. Thank you, Chair. Um. 16019
Speaker 143
41:43
aims to, well, surely the goal is just to get more access to monoclonal antibody shots for infants under the age of 1. I had an issue when I was trying to get one for my daughter, Cynthia, um, I found about about this drug, me and my wife are very concerned about RSV just like many individuals in this
room are, they've seen children who have gone to the hospital over RSV or they have seen or no children have passed away from RSV Long NICU stays, it's scary thing for infants and their families, so I wanted to get this shot for my daughter. I went to my pediatrician and we had a lot of issues getting the shot, whether, uh well, they don't cover that. Well, they do cover it. Well, there's supply and chain issues. No, there's not supply chain issues, and so I've spent the last 6 months trying to make sure that families don't have to watch
their child get RSV and the fear of watching them stop breathing and turning blue. I know there was, there's a members on this. committee who have had to take children to to to children's hospital because infants have CA RSV and, and, uh, you know, that's just not something I want to happen and so what this bill does is it's trying to increase the number of these RSV monoclonal antibody shots so that we can begin to save some lives for our children, um. The and and to just saving
costs. I mean, if we could if we save, um, thousands and thousands of dollars for every kid we keep out of the hospital or keep out of our NICUs. Um, it's a moderate increase of only $6.40 but that's if we can keep one out of 128 kids out of the hospital. It's a 610% return on the investment. Um, so, Uh, for me, it's a no brainer. It's something we need to do, um, it's just a and for the increased cost to ministers will be 44,000, but hospitals can
avoid $263,000. Um, so it's just, it's cost savings, it's life savings, and it's the right thing to do. Um Any questions
for committee? Seeing no, anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill? I see none. 01. You speak for the bill? OK. If you would introduce
yourself for the record and you're reckon I speak for the bill. Hi, um, I'm sorry. Good morning.
Speaker 135
44:05
My name is Doctor Jeffries, uh, Kirsten Jeffries. I'm a pediatrician here on behalf of Arkansas AAP.
Speaker 137
44:11
And pediatricians are in the business of keeping kids safe and healthy, and this includes checkups and doctor visits and sometimes it means caring for really sick kids and one of the scariest things we see all too often, um, like baby Cynthia is an infant struggling to breathe due to RSV and RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization in children under the age of one. But there's good news, a couple of years ago, a preventative medicine called a called a monoclonal antibody became available for newborns during their first winter, um, and this
is similar to an immunization, but it gives babies premade antibodies that protects them from severe cases of RSV that might put them in the hospital on oxygen. And this drug is called nevimab and in fact in near 7nA is proven to be 90% effective at preventing RSV associated hospitalization and infants. And so we're really, really excited about that in pediatrics. And so for every 128 vaccinations, one hospitalization can be prevented
along with many illnesses. However, this medication isn't yet offered everywhere in Arkansas, and so we're grateful to Representative Grahamlich for his commitment to making sure babies across Arkansas have access to RSV prevention. This bill would increase the rate that doctors' offices get paid to administer the medication by about 50% from $13.14 to $19.54. This will encourage more places to offer the vaccine and take time to talk with families about how important it is. Now I know rate
increase puts dollar signs in your hand, in your head, but remember what I said about avoiding hospitalization. In addition to being great for babies' health, nurse nsimumab is projected to save money for the state. So Arkansas's share of $6.40 as previously mentioned and it increases less than $2 so even a very conservative estimate of $5000 per hospitalization provides a 610% return on investment. So to reach 90% of infants in Medicaid, the
increased costs to administer a $44,000 is offset by the hospital costs avoided of $263,000. So in short, increasing access to erivumab for infants is a no brainer, and ped ia tri c ian s and parents across Arkansas. Thank you. See no questions. Thank you for your
testimony. Anyone else in the audience speak for or against the bill? Seeing non-representative
Grahamlet to recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you very
Speaker 133
46:46
much committee. Thank you for your time I appreciate this and you know, like I said, I want to save some babies, save some
Speaker 143
46:51
lives and save a little money. So with that, um, I, I'd like to motion to pass. I was wondering.
It's proper motion. Any discussion on the motion? CNN all us a favor. Say ah. I posed. I have it. Congratulations Bill passed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you committee. You
Speaker 126
47:12
want to try the 2nd bill? Uh, yes sir, 1758. You're recognized. OK. Uh, House Bill
Speaker 143
47:18
1758, um, is a bill that's from um or excuse me, its goal is to make technical changes to clarify that hearing aid dispensers have the authority to order the use of prescription hearing aids for patient consistent with federal regulatory changes in 2022. This change does not expand the scope of practice for hearing aid dispensers and is consistent with the long standing practice of this profession, so we're just trying to meet federal regulations that have changed, um. media
Is anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill? Immediate consideration is not a
proper motion without a motion on the floor. I can get the book out if you need it. Trust
Speaker 149
48:02
his word. So I take it you're close for your
bill. I'm close for my bill, and I would appreciate
Speaker 133
48:10
it. Well, I motioned to pass. That's proper motion. You did that better. Thank you.
Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none all those in favor, say ah.
I opposed. I have it. Congratulations Bill it's passed. From looking at the sign-up sheets if anyone else is here
to speak on a bill for or against, please get to the sign-up sheet outside the door so we can have your uh name on
the list. And you're gonna try another one if you, I have
Speaker 154
48:39
SB 99, um, if you want to do that later now, it's up to you. Go for it, OK. Um I'm
Speaker 143
48:45
gonna ask someone to the PA will come to the table.
Speaker 133
48:53
Actually. Actually, sir, can I withdraw that? I apologize. We're not, I shouldn't, I'm not ready for that. Kind of bring it up when I have a few more individuals here. Yeah, I apologize. It's all
your call. All right, thank you. Represent uh Mayberry, you recognize. What's the bill number? 41 1241 committee. And I think there's an amendment. Representative Johnson, you're
Speaker 160
49:25
going to aid in this one from last week. I'm gonna need a member
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
49:33
of the committee to make a motion we expunge a vote on the member, the amendment to House Bill 1241 that we voted on last week. That's a proper
motion. I any discussion, seeing none all those in favor say aye, all opposed. I
just have it. Ami sponge, and there's a new amendment, correct? Yes. OK, we're gonna get that passed out, so you guys hold on one second.
And members it also has a physical impact, which will be passed out as well. that should be on that old bill, yeah.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
51:32
you would go ahead and explain your amendment. Thank you. State Representative Julie Mayberry, um, been to this table, this is now my 3rd time on this bill, um, but I think that we have finally gotten it to where I think everyone is OK with it moving forward at this point, I'd be happy to take any questions, and I also appreciate um Representative Lee Johnson's help in working to find a solution to this.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
52:03
Members Representative Lee Johnson, District 47, the amendment changes quite a bit from what we had before. I think the fiscal impact you see is probably based on the old bill and not the new amendment. What this new amendment does is it creates a per episode cap of 3750 and then an annual cap for each individual at 5, 5000 with an ability for folks to apply for an extension of benefits if they go above that. This is language we've worked on with a lot of different interested groups and again to Representative Mayberry's point, um, I think it At this point, everybody's
comfortable passing out of this committee. We may need to make a few changes on the Senate side, but we're,
we're appointing a session where if we could get this out now, I think everybody would appreciate that and I don't think anybody's opposed to this at
this point. So you apply this amendment across this physical impact, what do you think the total So, so right here it's showing 1.9 to 9.4. Yeah, I don't think that's gonna be it. So if you, if you,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
52:57
if you look at the number of cases historically that were done when this was up and running at Children's Hospital. They were doing around
600 cases a year, even, even if you hit the max, uh, at 3750 per episode at 600 cases. Uh, that's going to end up setting the state share at about $670,000 based on the state match, and that's if it's up and running, right. This is mainly something we're looking at doing through the dental school and Practically speaking, the dental school is not going to open until the summer, realistically, they're not going to be able to do their first case until the spring, and so I really think the fiscal impact and fiscal 2526 will be even less than the
stated amount, um, just based on the number of cases we think they can do, we do open it up to allow the the other medical schools to take to look at this option, um, but I'm not sure how much interest there's been. Most of the interest has been in the dental schools, but even when the program was up and running at full speed, the max, it looks like they were doing 600. Any
questions from members? CN 9 Anyone in the audience speak for
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
54:06
or against the bill, did we, do we, do we need adopt the we need to adopt the amendment. Make a motion to adopt the
amendment. That's proper motion all those favor say aye. I opposed. I have it, you recognize, present your bill. The bill basically is the
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
54:22
amendment. Yeah. We, we have discussed this so many times and I know you all have a lot on your agenda, um, I'd be happy to answer any more questions we do have a dentists here who are willing to answer questions, but um I think we've
Speaker 182
54:36
Extensively talked about this and would like to see it passed.
Any questions from committee? Anyone in the audience speak for or against the bill? You close for your bill? Yes. I
make a motion to pass as amended as amended proper motioning discussion on motion? Representative Rose, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you guys for bringing
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
55:07
this. I know we've been through several iterations of it. I think you guys have done great work providing for families and individuals who are um in, in need of special care when it comes to dental work and uh with the work you've put in, I'll be supporting it this, this, uh, this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other discussion? Seeing
none all those in favor, say ah. I post. I have it. Congratulations Bill passed as amended. Thank you. So
members, we'll go back to the agenda now. We'll go to House Bill 1679 by Representative Brown. Thank you for patiently waiting. OK. The Yeah So you have an amendment as well? I do. All right, if you
give us just a second, we'll get it passed out. Hey. It was excellent timing.
So I'm understanding this correctly. There's 2 amendments. to share, I don't
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
57:11
know if they got ran off as two amendments. It was actually supposed to be one amendment. We caught an error in the amendment, um. If you have two amendments, we
Speaker 191
57:17
might need to do one than the other because I know that can cause a problem with engrossing. This one amendment, we're good. OK, thank you, good. You
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
57:30
recognize to explain your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55 members, we have an amendment that is uh Uh
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
57:37
Rewriting the bill, it doesn't actually change the intent or what the bill is doing, but it is rewriting to make it clear. The original bill had 3 sections, one dealing with driver's license, one dealing with consent,
Speaker 191
57:45
one dealing with reporting. This amendment gets rid of that first section on driver's license no longer an issue. It rewrites the section on consent to make it clear, and then we made a few tweaks to the section on uh I'm sorry, my phone just went off and I lost my train of thought to a the issue on reporting, be glad to answer any questions on the amendment. Any questions on the amendment from the committee.
It's a pleasure committee. I got a motion to pass on amendment all those
favor. Say ah. He knows. I have it. You're recognized to present your bill as amended. Members, before we get started on this bill, I wanna make bring everybody's attention. We have over 25 people assigned to speak on this bill. So one thing I want the audience to listen to me very clearly on is we will not hear repeat testimony as we go through this.
I will stop you and you will be excused from the table at that point. So please bring new information with every testimony
as you come to the table. Representative Brown, you are recognized. Oh you represent Rose, you're
recognized for a question. parliamentary inquiry. Yes, sir. Would you enter a motion of a time limit on that testimony. Let's see how the first couple go and the answer to that
is absolutely yes, probably. Thank you. Representative Brown, you'll recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And with the chair's
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
59:05
permission, I'd like Representative Gassway, my co-sponsor, joined me at the table. Uh,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
59:11
colleagues, as many of you know, um, last year I lost my father. It was the most terrible experience in my entire life. Uh, the man who had raised me got sick, had to go in the
Speaker 191
59:18
hospital. He deteriorated, had to be put on a vent. And it got to the point where he wasn't going to get better. And I was the one dealing with the doctors. My mother was a mess. My sisters couldn't handle it, so I had to be the point person for the family, talking to the doctors, figure out what's going on. And it got to the point where he wasn't going to get better and so we had to make the decision to take him off the vent. It is the absolute most horrible decision I've ever had to make in my life because not only did
I have to make that call to essentially show the man that I loved, how much I loved him by killing him. I had to be the one to tell my family. Mama, daddy's not getting better, and we got to do this. So we made the decision and we talked to our nurse and the hospital staff who I would like to say were absolute rock stars and were our rock in this whole process. Couldn't have asked for better folks. And they told us what to expect. told us, OK, once you give us the go, then we'll do it. We'll get ready. It's gonna take some
time. It'll be about this much time and then we'll be ready to do it. We walked us through the whole thing. So we made the decision, we said our goodbyes, and then the time came. And we were waiting. And I know it sounds kind of crazy, but once you steel yourself to make this decision and to go through with this, when the time comes and it doesn't happen. It was absolute torture. The only way I can compare it to is the difference between ripping a Band-Aid off and peeling it off. Hair by hair because that's what it felt like. It was agony. And I went out and spoke to the
staff and I said, Hey, what's going on? You know, so we'd be ready to go. What's, what, what's the delay? And they said, well, Matt, have the organ donor people called you? might know why. I mean, it didn't make any sense to me because this man was not fit to donate organs. He was an end stage heart failure. His lungs have been scarred by being on the ventilator. His kidneys were shutting down. His liver had shut down or was in the process of shutting down. I may not be a doctor, but I'm also not an idiot. You're not gonna be able to use. This isn't a young 20 year old person that got in an accident. This is a man of very poor health, and they're going to be anything they can use the stuff they can get postmortem like corneas or ligaments or things like that.
And she said, Well, they have to talk to you before you remove the vent. I said, well, sounds silly but OK. So we got delayed again. And finally we got a phone call. My mother answered the phone. And she's talking to somebody or actually she's listening, and this person said something I don't know what, probably a good thing I don't know what. The next thing I know my mother is sobbing and throws the phone at me and says, Matt, I can't do this, do this, I can't do it. So I pick up the phone, identify myself. I'm talking to some person. She said, Who are you? I said,
Well, I'm the son and the power of attorney. What, what is, what's going on? And she says, well, we're going to need you to hold off on removing your father from the ventilator because we want to send our team up from Little Rock to take a look, I guess, and see what is it they want to get. And I said, ma'am, no, we're not, we're not waiting. I said this is, this is torture. We've already waited too long and now y'all are doing this, and besides that, again, I may not be a doctor, but there's not anything here y'all can use. And well, she started again. I said, ma'am, we're not waiting.
Well, have you ever tried to cancel, as I've told people, have you ever tried to cancel Comcast or satellite Radio? And you know how you go to the retention script? Well, we got sent to the retention script. She starts in on that. It's like, ma'am, we're not waiting, we and I said I'm the power of attorney, I revoke consent to organ donation. We're done. I would have thought they'd been the end of it. I would have thought that I would have gotten. Some sort of compassion. Hey, we're so sorry for your loss, you know, we understand, you know. But instead,
This woman on the phone, and I wish, I wish I could convey the tone because I think it was the tone. She says, among other things, and I quote, Don't you think you ought to honor your father's wishes to be an organ donor. As I'm sitting by my dying daddy's bedside with my mother sobbing and my sister's sobbing. I told this lady, lady. You have called me on the absolute worst day of my life after I've had to make the worst
decision of my life. And you talk to me like this, how dare you? And I hung up the phone. So I went out to the nurses' station. I said, all right, I've talked to them, we're ready to go. The nurse says Matt, we can't do anything until they give us permission. I said, why? She said it's the way it is. So we wait. And we wait. In the phone and the ICU rings. They pick up the phone. Talk to someone hanging up. I said, all right, we're ready to
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:03:49
go. They said, Matt That was them. They said they have to have corporate call and give us permission. And I asked the nurse, what in the heck does corporate have to do with any of this? and she said, I don't
Speaker 191
1:04:06
know. Finally, corporate deigned to call and finally gave us permission to roo my father from life support. And he passed away in about 2 minutes. And so it
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:04:15
was already a horrific experience was made that much
more horrific, by the way, we were treated. By the procurement organization. So
Speaker 191
1:04:25
following, I never knew this was an issue. I had organ donor on my driver's license. I signed up for it when I was 18. You know, when I got my, when I got my first hardship to my learner's permit or my first hard license. So I did some digging and I learned
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:04:42
that unfortunately my story was not. Unique I learned that over the past few years, organ procurement within this state has become aggressively increasingly, for
lack of a better word, aggressive. We're dealing with families and particularly we're dealing with things like soft tissue harvesting, which I didn't even know was a thing. Families are being treated poorly at bedside, about organ procurement organizations in the state. Hospitals are being bullied with hospitals being threatened, we will sue you if you take Grandma off the vent before we give you the permission, and I've yet to find the law where they actually have that authority. I've heard stories from funeral directors, which I think there
are a few here to speak today on the bill. Where they've described how against family's wishes, bodies are showing at funeral homes with all the soft tissues harvested or with the long bones harvested where they're having to put people back together PVC pipes to have their viewings. I also learned That like in my situation. Corporate Is overriding family's wishes to remove loved ones with life support. I've actually heard stories.
That in some cases when a family makes a decision. To remove their loved one from life support on a Tuesday. Organ procurement organizations will come in and say no, hold off till Thursday till we get our teams in. Then they finally take him off life support. Guess who's getting the bill for those two days of ICU. It ain't the organ procurement organization. Essentially, when digging into this bill, I learned that instead of Families being treated with kindness, with compassion.
With basic human decency. Corporate was instead treating donor families as if they were inconvenience. A speed bump to what they want. They were an inconvenience to be not only disregarded but disrespected. So then I started digging, why is this going
Speaker 191
1:06:42
on? How can you be against giving the gift of life. And I discovered that organ procurement is actually
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:06:49
a very big business in this country. It's up to a billion dollars of
2017 is at a billion dollars a year. A profits to organ procurement agencies are 2.4 million a year. And a lot of this is coming from soft tissue. I also learned that in my situation, myself as the power of attorney of my father had zero rights at bedside. In every other area of the law, your power of attorney or in this case a health care power of attorney more specifically. can do anything you can do. Your power of attorney, if it's a financial power of attorney, they can sell your house out from under you.
They can cash out all your bank accounts. Healthcare power of attorney, they can decide to withdraw care. They can decide to give you all kinds of care. They can decide where you go. But the one thing they can do is say, I don't want you to take. Dad's soft tissues or hey, I don't want to prolong this anymore. I want to pull the plug. That's the one thing powers of attorney cannot do I also dug into our atomical gift act. One thing I did not realize when
I put organ donor on my license years and years ago, is that when you sign up as an organ donor, I thought that meant if my heart can go to save someone, more power to them. My kidneys can go to save someone more power to them. In fact, when you put organ donor on your license under the Anatomical Gift Act, that is authorizing donation of not only your organs but your tissues and in fact up to and including your entire body. And your family has no say. That donation can be for transplant. It can be for research. It can be for therapy, or it could be for education.
So House Bill 1616 1679 as amended tries to fix this by doing two things. Number one, while I was digging into this issue, I learned that Organ procurement agencies are not regulated at the state level whatsoever and in my opinion have very minimal regulations at the federal level. There is no complaint department where you can make a complaint with regarding how you were treated and have some sort of review that I could ever find. So the second part of the bill as amended brings in a reporting requirement where once a year we just want a report filed with ALC talking about this is how many transplants we had. This is where the organs kind of and
they aggregate, nothing identifiable. This is how much kind of success rate we had on transplants is how much went for research and this is how much money was made because we don't have any data on what's going on, and I think that we need data to make sure that this program is doing as well as it can do. The second thing, and I would like to admit, uh, to mention that in meeting with the representative of Aurora, they agreed that A reporting requirement is reasonable and I think that we're in agreement on that. Where the disagreement is a
section 1 of the bill regarding the consent piece. This bill is amended would follow the essentially the hierarchy that's set out in the final disposition of Remains Act, which has already been the law and it is on the books and has been litigated and most people out there are pretty comfortable with because they understand it. And it simply says that in the case of an incapacitated donor like my father, the power of attorney does have the ability to modify, revoke or amend a previous consent given. It provides that if there is not a power of attorney or if the
person is deceased because the power of attorney expires upon death, then that falls to spouse and then children, so on and so forth, the next of kin, just like in the disposition of Human Remains Act. The bill as amended also provides some situations where if we have a situation where a spouse is in a divorce, then they are cut out. They no longer have any rights. If there's estrangement, a strange kid can't come in and override a strange spouse can't come in and override. And it also provides that it clarifies that in cases of spouses, it would take both spouses agreeing if they want to
change something. If it's children, it would take the majority of the children and so on and so forth. I think that by doing so we can give control back to the families when they are at bedside. Because right now the families have no control over the process and they're just being run over and this is the only way I can see to fix it because for number one, Under the organ or the anatomical Gift Act. The family has the ability to consent all day long if you're not an organ donor, family can consent at bedside. If you're not an organ donor,
not only can your family consent, your power of attorney can. And it even goes through a list where it gets down to, and I quote, an adult with special care of the person can consent. Literally your next door neighbor can consent for organ donation on your behalf, that your family has no right to say, hey, we're OK with donating for transplant, but we don't want to donate for research or hey, we don't mind if you take these organs, but we'd like you to leave their skin alone so we can have a funeral or we'd like you to leave the hair alone because it
Speaker 191
1:11:29
was a woman very proud of her hair and we don't want that cut off, which has, which has happened.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:11:36
That's the only way I know to fix the problem. Uh, this is one area of the law where families have no control to give control back. And I know that y'all are gonna hear a lot of people speak against the bill because they are adamantly against the idea of families having some control in the situation. I would suggest to you that putting families in control will actually help organ donation because I don't know how many people in y'all's districts, but I know in my district, so many people are afraid to put organ donor on their license because they're afraid of situations like this, and I think that if we actually make it to where the family still have a backstop. If something goes awry.
They need to change the consent, have that ability. I think a lot more people will be willing to put it on their driver's license. I'll be willing to put it back on mine. I took it off after this after this whole incident because on the way the law is written as is, my little girls, if it's on my license, they have no control over the situation. If I'm not on my license, then at least my little girls have some
Speaker 191
1:12:24
control and have some consent, have some say so in the process and can consent on my behalf. So, um, That is my opening presentation, uh, representing Gazaway, I think one also open as well, if you may, Mr. Chair.
If you would just introduce yourself for the record and you
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:12:42
recognized speed representing guys with. Thank you, Mr. Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway District 31. I think that Representative Brown explained the bill well and so there's not a lot that I can add. Other than, I, I will say we already have the final disposition Act. As part of our law and this bill very much lines up with the final disposition Act in terms of giving family members. Uh, and setting forth a
framework for how these decisions are made and by whom, and that is important and that is already set forth in the final disposition Act as to And I'm, can you hear me? As to a lot of different decisions. So for example, under the final disposition Act, your family can decide whether you're cremated or whether you're buried. You can make your final wishes known to your family. Many people do in advance. They say, I want to be buried. They say, I want to be cremated. But under the final disposition Act. It's your family who will make
that decision and whether whether your wishes were made known ahead of time or not. You can let your family know I would like to be buried under the final disposition Act, your family ultimately gets to make that decision. And so this brings the law with regard to organ donation in alignment with how we treat burial and cremation, for instance. It also brings our law into alignment with where to bury. I actually litigated a case over this and and talking with the funeral
home, I think, uh, they told me this was the first one in 30 some odd years that they'd ever seen actually have to go to court, but there was a dispute between family members as to whether to bury the child in a private. Uh, family, little cemetery or whether to be buried in a perpetual care cemetery, and I represented the father who wanted to bury their child in the perpetual care cemetery. Ultimately we prevailed in that litigation and uh But the final disposition Act set forth how that decision is
made, so the final disposition Act says the family decides whether you're buried or whether you're cremated. The family decides whether, where you're buried, whether that's private cemetery or a perpetual ke cemetery, uh, where there's not Where there's ambiguity in the law. We should let the family decide, and these are difficult instances. Sometimes people, when they make a decision, they
make their wishes known as people do with regard to burial or cremation, uh, they changed their mind. And you may have put something on your license 20 years ago, and 20 years later, when you're in the hospital and you see that death is near, you decide. I don't want to give my organs to research. I would like to be buried intact. Well, Under the current law, the box controls, even if you've let
your family members know that I no longer agree with the box. I would like to be buried whole. And so this once again puts the family in a position to ensure that their family members' final wishes are carried out. And in many cases where the box is checked, the family members are going to say. Well, he wanted to donate his organs. She wanted to donate her organs. We know that. And as the family we're gonna honor that just like they, many of them do with cremation and the other
decisions where the person wants to be buried, etc. And so once again, I think this, that this just uh brings our law into alignment with how these decisions are already made in a host of other contexts. Um No one knows better than the family. We ought to empower families in these situations. And I think Representative Brown has done a good thing in regard to this legislation. And I, I'm very supportive. Happy to answer any questions.
Any questions by the committee, Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:16:54
Chair and thank you, Representative Brown and Gazaway for bringing this, uh. First, I, I know you're feeling and
I know the pain that you had to go through, so I sympathize and empathize with you, uh. How many do you know how many organizations participate in this, I'm going to say harvesting for lack of a better term, uh. Or operate, do you know how many are in the state that operate
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:17:18
that way. So in terms of in the state, there's
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:17:22
about, well, me back up. There's somewhere 55, 58 somewhere there nationally. Uh, in the state, there's, I believe, 3 that actually operate. One covers kind of central Arkansas and about, I would say probably about 3/4 of the state and then two others kind of cover some of the, the very eastern counties. I assume those are
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:17:37
probably out of Memphis or Jackson or something like that. Got you. And which do you, what's the name
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:17:42
of the company that you dealt with? Aurora. And they're located Little Rock. OK. Um
So as you were working through this in your experience with Aurora, did you, did you meet with them about the bill and discuss this
Speaker 191
1:18:03
at all. Um, I attempted to reach out to them following the incident. Um, I was pretty much told to buzz off. Um,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:18:09
this legislative session, I did meet with them to talk about the bill. Um, unfortunately, the sticking point on the bill is, I think that they're willing to give in on power of attorney should be able to revoke, um, I wanted the next of kin to have the same right, and that's kind of the sticking point on where the disagreement is on the bill.
Um, the issue with giving power of attorney only, the right to revoke, which would be a very good step, but the problem is, is that so few people out there have power of
Speaker 191
1:18:35
attorney and so we're trying to figure out how can we solve the problem where someone Again comes in and um is incapacitated
Speaker 198
1:18:41
and they never had legal paperwork drawn up. And so that's kind of the rub right now. That's the disagreement. Thank you. Representative Allen, you recognize. Uh, thank
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:18:54
you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, as I look at your bill, I've certainly I appreciate what
you're doing, and I can feel
your pain because uh I travel that road, but it wasn't as difficult as uh experience that that you that you experienced. But I do have a question. Uh, whenever there's the end of life. It seems like Uh, this be a might or may not cause some confusion because when, when family
members decide that they want to donate their
organs, and then you have other family members at the end of life, we don't want this to happen. So now they said, well, This is his wish, and then somebody said, that's not his wish. So How can we settle a dispute because I know people that have passed away and it took them 2 years to bury him. So I just want to know how can this bill settle disputes or will they create disputes?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:01
But thank you, Representative Allen. That's an excellent question, and I think that this bill will help prevent disputes. It may not help prevent disputes because that may not be possible, but it'll help resolve disputes just like it does in the instances of cremation, so when whether or not the person is to be cremated or buried. This sets forth how that decision is made and who gets to make that decision sets forth the hierarchy and a framework, if you will, if the person has a spouse, then the spouse. Makes the decision. If the
person doesn't have a spouse but has children, then it's a majority of the children. If the person doesn't have children but they have parents, then it's the parents. And so it goes through, it provides a framework for how those decisions are made so that it's not just the wild wild west in, in trying to resolve those disputes, which, which are inevitably going to occur. OK. Um Follow. I, I
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:20:55
had a situation where one of my best friends, mother. was in the hospital. In the life.
Now When, when you're at your end of life, your hearing is the last thing to go. So she was hearing everything they were saying. So they had given her like 2 days to live. Once you start getting better. And she got better. And so within 2 weeks. They said, well, she's at a stage in her life now where
She can get out of the hospital and she was still talking. So she said to her son, she said, I want to do one thing. And she said, I want to change my doggone wheel. Because I heard some of the things that they were saying. So in situations like that. Uh, that person was coherent and was able to change their will. But what about situations where people are not Able to change their will and they want their wishes to be
carried out. And when, when other family members make decisions, it's supersedes. The wish of that person. And certainly, I appreciate what you're doing, but I don't know if. What you're doing is gonna be the total answer to to the problems out there, but it may be a step in the right direction it's all I'm saying. So Tell me Uh Convinced me that this is the
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:22:40
make sure I understand your question, um, under law currently, If you are in the hospital bed and you have not put organ donor in your license, so you're not, you've not consented, essentially. And you're incapacitated, so you're not able to make decisions for yourself, um, under the anatomical Gift Act, then your power of attorney may consent on your behalf if you don't have a power of attorney,
it's kind of similar to the disposition of Remains Act which what we're kind of modeling. I
Speaker 191
1:23:09
don't think this is as clear as the disposition remains Act, which is why we used it as our model instead, but then it goes through the hierarchy of Representative Gazaway said, you know, spouse, children, parents, and it kind of works the way through until ultimately, like I said, towards the end. Um, your adult who exhibited special care for the decedent, whatever that means. I don't know what that means, but all those people can consent on your behalf. If, however, you had
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:23:33
previously put on your driver's license again when you're 16.
And let's say you had changed your mind later in life, but you never went and updated your driver's license or let's say you're laying in the hospital bed before you lose capacity and you say, I don't want them to take X, you know, I don't want them to take anything or you want to change that consent you previously given. Under the law, no one has the right to carry out your wishes. You would have to either get yourself out of bed and go to the revenue office and get a new license, or I think you'd have to like sign a letter and maybe have it notarized and have it mailed in to revoke your consent.
Speaker 191
1:24:07
But when you're laying in the hospital bed, you actually, unless you're able to do that. The way the law is written, it's a very clever way the law was written back in the day. It's a funnel, but it's a one-way funnel. If you can consent all day long, but if a family member says, whoa, wait
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:24:22
a second, hold the train, we don't want to do this, then you can't. But as to your issue about fights, uh, kind of like representative Gazaway said the the law itself has a very, it's actually a step process. First, this person, second, this person. Another issue that I discovered when I started digging into this.
And started talking to people to find out what was going on out there. Is that in the terms of consent, so let's say someone did not put on their license and they're in the hospital and they're now in an event and they're, they're knocked out. In practice, the levels of family are being leapfrogged in order to get consent. So the statute says you must go to spouse first. If spouse is not reasonably available or you can't locate them, then you may go to the next step, so on and so forth and so forth. And we have heard stories where
Spouse somehow is not getting contacted because they can't be reasonably located even though they're there. And so now we're going 2 or 3 steps down the road and we're picking a sister or a cousin or somebody who they're getting consent from and now it's what they've consented. Let's go. Um, that is in the Anton Gift Act. This bill does not change those pieces. This bill is simply on who may revoke, but if that situation were to come
Speaker 191
1:25:30
and there's a higher level and they say no, we're not gonna do this, the higher level would prevail and that's all hard coded in the code. Uh, hopefully prevent fights.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:25:42
Thank you. I'll get back in Virgin Valley. And may I respond, Mr. Chair, also. Thank you. And Representative Allen, I guess what I would say in response and Representative Brown gave an excellent, uh, made some excellent points there. What I would say in response is. There's, there's so much that we can do to convey our wishes before we pass. And as you've noted, people try to do that in a will. And I have prepared wills and I've probated wills and I've seen how that process goes, and sometimes those wishes are carried out and sometimes
they're not. And the fact of the matter is so much of what happens once we're gone. relies on our family members. Because no one knows us better and no one knows better what we would want that our family members and there's, and as much as we may try to control what happens before we pass. Ultimately, many of those decisions once we're gone are left to our family members. And so I would, you know, just say just like it is in the case of a
will, we do what we can there, um, just like it is in the case of cremation and burial and etc. those decisions we leave with our family members, and this is one of those decisions where we can make our wishes known by checking a box, but ultimately, just like everything else, once we're gone, we're gone. And those decisions that remain are left to the ones that knew us and loved us the most, which is our family members and which is what we should do in this instance just as we do in many others. If I, Mr. Chair, if I could kind
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:27:14
of jump on that as well. I think The issue we're trying to fix with this
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:27:19
is, is the argument's gonna be the person consented to organ donation when they got their driver's license, and they put organ donor on their license. The issue is, is was that truly an informed consent? Because it was never on our radar that when my dad got sick that he had to go down and get his license changed. In order to make sure that if it came time, he could be allowed to pass peacefully instead, instead of being hooked up to machines and continue to suffer. It never crossed her mind we thought we had done everything
right because again, we had already set up his powers of attorney and all that, and we're good to go. And when they found a bedside that we weren't, so to the extent that it's a consent, is it a knowing consent when a 16 year old is asked, Do you want to be an organ donor? Yes, no. They don't know what they're signing up for and they don't know that their families can't
Speaker 191
1:28:01
step in if need be to fix the problem if unseen circumstances come up on these things. finally kick in, hopefully when they're 80, 90 years old.
Any further questions for committee, uh, Representative in it, you'll recognize.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:28:16
Are you Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I yield my questions to Aurora when they come up. Thank you, Representative Richardson.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:28:29
You'll recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, I stepped away for a second, so I don't know if you guys
addressed this or not, but, uh, in the bill, you're also now because right now companies aren't they don't have any guard rails, right? They don't. They're not monitored or Or anything, correct?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:28:47
At the state level, 100% correct, and I would argue that the what little is at the federal level is not enough. OK. So your bill does that now put some guardrails for them to kind of. There to be some level of regulation for what they do, correct? it doesn't regulate, but it does require that reporting so that we can just find out
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:29:03
what's going on, because right now we don't know what's going on. They do have to report some data to the feds. This essentially is kind of taking the data they're reporting to the feds and reporting it to the state in a format that we can use, you know, aggregate numbers so we can see what's going on, but it does not really actually do any regulations. We got to find out what's going on.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:29:20
And what is that? So when they're reporting, any idea what they're reporting federally? Yes, it gets very confusing
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:29:24
because you have to look it up by Oregon, but like for example, how many organs were harvested, what kind of organ, uh, did they go out of state? Did
Speaker 198
1:29:30
they stay in state, you know, kind of data like that, um, that is reported at the federal level. OK, thank you. Representative Long,
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:29:42
you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. in doing your research, uh, did you find out, you know, how other states are doing this as far as, you know, surrounding states or
just the current way we're doing it is it's sort of typical or are we kind of anomaly. So
the Anatomical gift act that was adopted back in the 80s, well, back up, that was actually originally adopted, I think back in the late 60s, I guess probably when kidney transplantation first became a thing. It was amended in the 80s, the, so it's the revised Anomical Gift Act. Many, many states have adopted that. I think maybe New York's law is different. Honestly, I did not follow that up because I was focused on Arkansas. Uh, if your question is regulation, I'm not
aware of any states at the state level. I didn't look into that to see if any other states were regulating at
Speaker 238
1:30:26
the state level. Or requiring, I should say requiring reporting, so we're not regulating, we're just requiring reporting.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:30:36
Representative Johnson, you're working. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to the sponsors of the bill. Just to clarify, because I know we're going to
hear testimony in the amendment, something you brought to the table, and sometimes it's hard to read amendments when they're not engrossed, and I could have asked this question, I guess, on the amendment, but I felt like saving it here. It looks to me
like you're deleting several pages of the original bill, and now it looks to me like what the bill's doing is simply clarifying, as you stated so eloquently, who in what order does have the ability and authority to change what I put on my donor card, uh, and then requiring some. supporting mechanisms for the organ donators that seems like the two things the bill's doing broadly. Is that correct? That's absolutely right. And in a situation where, you know, I have my donor card marked as donor, and I'm happy to have it marked as donor. If there was a situation to arise where I was
to die suddenly and my wife and I died in a car crash, um, and my eldest son was put in the position of, hey, Dad's got a donor deal, and let's say that my, his brother, his wife had some sort of religious objection for whatever. to organ donation, and so there was a dispute that arose. My wife and I are dead. It's a dispute arises, and it's causing some angst and some difficulty within the families of my two sons, right? This would empowered them to settle that dispute in a way that I might approve of, in which case, like
I'm all for organ donation, but also after I'm dead, don't want my family fighting about that issue. This would just clarify that, take the, take the burden off their shoulders of having to make that decision by creating a clear track of who can can't
make that decision. Is that a fair assessment of what that would do that and in the case of like if
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:32:09
it's two sons, in that case, they'd have to both to agree um if they couldn't both agree then the organ donor on the driver's license would stand, but if they both agreed, hey, dad wouldn't want this, then they go, it would give my family the outlet if needed to have
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:32:25
that latitude and then also give them clarity about how that decision
Speaker 143
1:32:40
would be made. That's right. OK, thank you. Representative Graham should recognize. Uh thank you, uh, chair. Um, you know, Obviously one
of the big things we're concerned about is, you know, this is going could potentially, you know, drop the number of organ donations and the state, but, but that's only if the family would revoke consent. What's some legitimate
reasons a family might choose to revoke consent. I think if they were treated like our family was at bedside. So to be quite honest. So yeah, I mean, I, and I think I agree with you. I don't understand why a family would choose to revoke consent unless,
unless they had a situation like yourself, I mean, you know, if, if families are treated appropriately and with empathy going through this horrible experience, you know, I don't understand why a family would revoke consent to give organs. Would you agree? I would agree. And if there had been, if
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:33:26
we've been treated with empathy and respect and kindness if uh for
Speaker 191
1:33:29
example, if this person had said, you know, well, OK, I, I hear what you're saying, but we might be able to use X even though he's in poor health, we might be able to use X and there's actually someone that could use that. I would have said, heck yeah. You know, absolutely. But that's not the way it went down. The way it went down was is I was overridden because I had no rights in the situation, even though by law, my family controlled the plug. That's where we ended up.
Any other questions for committee? See, if you two gentlemen would step aside, we'll start going through
these, um, we're gonna start off with against. Uh, Kim Mosley from Mid-America Transplant.
And just for Purpose of repeat, um, as we go through this, please do not
repeat any testimony of previous folks and this is not for you, Ms. Kim,
because you were first, so you get a lot of latitude. If you would introduce yourself for the record and you're
Speaker 247
1:34:39
recognized. I conceive my time to mark tutor at Aurora. Yes. OK. Thank you. Uh, touch, touch that button for
me. Good afternoon. Yes, sir. If you would introduce yourself for the
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:35:05
record and you'll recognize. My name is Mark Tudor. I'm the CEO of AAA here in Arkansas. Uh, Chairman Wardlaw and members of the Arkansas Public Health and Welfare and Labor Committee. I really appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today to express our concerns regarding a proposed bill House 1679. While we do respect the intent behind this legislation, we believe it carries unintended consequences that could negatively impact the health and well-being of Arkansans.
I urge this committee to look closer, engage with us with meaningful dialogue, and let's seek solutions to better serve our communities. I come to you as a CEO of Aurar. But more importantly, I come to you as a donor father. I lost my 22 year old daughter following an elective surgery. She had a tonsillectomy at the age of 22. Um, I spent over I, my family and I spent over 25 days in an ICU before having to make that decision to withdraw support. We
endured multiple head and neck surgeries. Uh, I watched my daughter daughter be coated 5 times and also roster receive over 100 blood products and go into DIC. So to say that I was angry at the healthcare system, I lost complete trust in the hospital, the physicians, the surgeons, and everything that happened um during my stay. My, my entire family, which is quite large, was extremely upset over our duration of what happened. My mindset, my mindset should
not affected what my daughter's decision was to become an organ donor. Uh, as a young girl, she signed up as an organ donor. I was lucky to have known her strong desires. My daughter lived with me. Her mother did not and this bill will allow her mother to come in when I knew what she wanted, when she signed up to be what she wanted would allow her mother to have that distension for my daughter not to have become an organ donor. My daughter did become an organ donor. Um, it was very uncomfortable for some people in my family.
They didn't understand the process. I did, so I was OK with it, but I'm rare because I'm in the industry. Her mother was very upset that it took a couple more days, um, and people did have religious beliefs within my family, um, that we had to deal with, but I knew what my daughter's desires were, and I needed to make those things happen. Um This bill causes a lot of confusion. There are 4 OPOs in the state of Arkansas. Um, and this bill just addresses patients in Arkansas. So if a
patient has this or if this law passes and the patient leaves the state of Arkansas and goes to another state, now it's going to put an onus on every state out there to check to make sure with the Arkansas law is and then track down and this law would pertain to those people, but it doesn't pertain to people who are from outside or outside Arkansas who come in and die in the service area, that law does not not happen to those people because they have signed up in different states, so this is going to cause mass confusion with 4 POs on this day. This will be the only state in the entire country that has any
legislation that opposes the registry, and that includes Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Um, our registry is 1.5 million people in the state of Arkansas. That's over 54% of eligible residents in the state of Arkansas. This bill to me is especially concerning given the existing racial disparities and transplantation. Currently 61% of those waiting for life saving transplants are people of color. We get only 28.6% of deceased
organ donors come from non-white communities. Any policy that deters people for signing up on the registry. Well, only whiten this gap and further exacerbate inequalities in the health care system. Our government commissioned the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine to write a report on OPO reform. An OPO reform has been continually over the last 5 years within our industry. Two of the key components that came out of the Nansom report was education within our community and support of the
donor registry, along with several other things that the government laid out that all OPOs should do to be more effective in what we do as an organization. I'm very proud that over the last 4 years, our donation rate has increased over 200% our transplant rate has increased over 100%. We say 488 people in the state of Arkansas last year, 5 years ago, we were doing 200 transplants, so we are saving people. A bill of this magnitude? Why
yes, there will be a few people less than 10% who object to their loved one's wishes because of various situations in which my family was in. Um, but how many lives is OK? 10%, so 10% of our organ donations, that's 20 donors, 20 donors could yield anywhere between 3 and 8 organs transplanted per donor. So you're talking an impact of well over 100 people could die because of this, this bill. I'm here to protect Arkansans, but we do share on a national
level because the government says we help the sickest people first. So 70% of our organs leave the state of Arkansas and help people in surrounding areas who are extremely sick. If an Arkansan is extremely sick, they get, they get the first organs from the outside organizations, um, to come into here. So this law. Well, we'll eliminate what we are able to contribute to the pool, but yet we'll still take from the pool. So it's a complete contraindication to what the uniform and Tomical Gift A says,
because we're all supposed to be together. The Health Care Act and the UAG both support autonomy. Um, and, and the patient's right not to be overruled. We have worked with Senator Brown for several weeks trying to amend this bill, find ways in which we can improve customer service as recently sent him an email yesterday was talked about 3 key initiatives in which we're doing customer service. We've surveyed over 1000 of our uh
partners, donor families, hospitals, funeral homes, physicians, nurses, um, trying to get feedback to help increase our customer service, um, and we've done this all in good faith. We developed a donor dignity. Policy and training that we just developed after meeting with Senator, our Representative Brown. I shared it with him. We're gonna, uh, institute that within our entire organization as well. So yes, we heard him and yes, I understand that he had a bad experience, um, process generally works with the hospitals call us when the
patient is nearing death and according to what the government has said that hospital should have referred 5 days earlier. We would have went to this hospital, evaluated, said he's not a candidate for donation walked away. Then when he wanted to withdraw support, it would have happened, and he never would have seen us, never would have talked to us, never had an interaction, and he would have had his plans go the way he wanted his plans to go. If we we decided he was uh eligible for the nation at that point, when it's appropriate, we would talk to him that way he's not at the bedside ready to
withdraw support. That's not the way the system's supposed to work. We tried to work with um You know, another bill that holds hospitals more accountable to make sure that they do timely referrals to us so we don't put patients in this situation. And, and this is such a rarity. This is not something that happens all the time, you know, our goal is to be out there, be on time, and approach families appropriately at the bedside when you withdraw support. That's not the way. The government reform has made a lot of changes to OPOs. We are now, um, we are now.
evaluated based upon our donation and transplant rates. 5 years ago, Arkansas was 56 out of 56 organ procurement organizations of the country and in 2024, if we were in the bottom 25% of the OPOs, you're automatically going to be decertified, and then another OPO who is doing successful will come in and take this program over. So when I was brought here, my goal was to increase donations and help save more people in Arkansas and keep Aurora around. Uh, and we've done that. We've
gotten from position 56, now we're in position of 21. So we've made tremendous strides. We're not in jeopardy of losing our service area and being overtaken by another patient or another organization. But a rule like this 10 donors a year, 20 some transplants or 100 transplants that will affect what we do. That will affect our outcomes. What we have to report to the government, and we could be at risk of decertification and then another organization will come in here. And, and institute what they
think is correct, and the institutions that are around us, Dallas, Saint Louis, um, Memphis. We have Saint Louis here today and I have letters of support from also Memphis and Dallas, um, those, those organ procurement organizations, they think this is a detriment to this entire system, and it's going to cause mass confusion. I'm, I'm more than willing to take questions. Representative Bennet, do you recognize us. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, Mr. Tudor, is the,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:44:18
um, can you tell us how somebody can remove their name off of the donor's role. Absolutely. So
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:44:25
if they call our office, currently we don't have the power to remove somebody from the registry because it's, it's housed at the the DMV. So we'll send them a sheet of paper saying you need to go to the DMV and this is how you do it. So real system in that manner. Uh, so you can go to the DMV. You can go online and remove yourself, or you can limit your gifts. So you could go online and say I only want to donate my left kidney only, and then that,
that's now your gift or if you're at the hospital, the law says if you have two witnesses that heard some, heard the patient say that they no longer wanted to be an organ donor and one of them was disinterested. You can be removed from donation, and we will back away. So there are 3 current ways to come off the registry. We recently, um, signed a new company. We're not going to have the DMV housed the registry because we want to make it more efficient. We are going to house the registry, the ability to house the registry internally, that way if somebody does call our office, we're going to be
able to remove them from the registry. So now we're giving them a 4th option of how to take themselves off the register. Working with Representative Brown, we are more than willing to help provide a pamphlet with anybody who signs up to be an organ donor at the registry to give them complete information about what they want. I can mail that to them. I can give them a little card. We're more than willing to show people how to get on, limit gifts, and remove themselves. I have a
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:45:46
second question. Um, if you already addressed this, I apologize if I missed it. So,
um, talking to the sponsor earlier today and listening to his story, um, what What does your business have like a, a complaints. Department if somebody is obsessively rude to the family, how does this person report. this to your company. Yeah, I mean, you call our organization and we, we filled it with the
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:46:17
most appropriate people, generally family complaints go to our family services director, who's here today, and then she
addresses those concerns with her staff. We have all those recordings, um, at our office. So we've listened to the approach. We've listened to his phone call when he called the next morning and a previous and a phone call after that. So we have all those, so we listen to the recordings and then we looked for opportunities for improvement. And then after meeting with Representative Brown, like I said, we instituted 3 new customer service training programs to help build our staff and also to show the representative that we're we're really trying. Like this law will hurt and kill people in
Arkansas, but we're willing to work on our customer service. We're not perfect, but we do a really good job and if I needed to fill this whole room with 200 people and under 24 hours because that's what I had to come here today, I could do that. Ribs and rows you recognize. Thank
Chair
Unverified
1:47:13
you, Mr. Chair. I've got a couple of questions, but that
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:47:18
The sentiment of that last statement just Didn't sit well with me.
Um I'll come back around when I have a chance to process that, um, on that. You
Speaker 265
1:47:40
mentioned customer service several times. Who's a customer? Who's our customers, who is the customer? Yes sir, donor families and
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:47:48
transplant recipients. We have two primary customers. So Why are you afraid? Of families making the decision
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:47:58
that they deem is best for their family. Because it's a patient's right to choose what they want to do to their own body, and my own daughter's situation, my uncomfortable ex-wife has the same power I have and could have stopped this process under this law, able to stop 5 people's lives from being saved, 336 tissues were recovered and transplanted two corneas and hair, and under this law, all of that would have been lost and one occurrence. So you
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:48:25
explained earlier, there's a couple of ways that an individual could
change. Their status of being willing to be a donor. They could go to the DMV, they could do it online and a couple other things. And They're in a poor state of health. They're in the hospital, maybe they're terminal. They make their wishes known to the family. They don't necessarily have the capacity to hop online and fill out an application or stop by the neighborhood DMV. Um, is organ donation so unpopular that giving families the legal right to amend this, going to shut it down.
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:48:59
Well, well, that shut it down? Absolutely not. We're saying less than 10% have the impact that it could have. But out of 209 donors, 10% is 20 patients, and 20 patients is 100 transplants. So you might think it's a minimal impact, minimal
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:49:17
change, it's 100 deaths. It's, it's not about a minimal impact. These are individuals' rights and family's rights to their own bodies, to the rights of their family and their wishes. Um, I
understand this is very contentious and very sensitive, and especially for folks and who I have sat with people who have been on transplant lists, um, and it's dire and it's, it's life and death, um, but it almost felt like there was a little bit of tongue in cheek there with, hey, this is gonna hurt and kill people, but I can bring, I can bring 200 people to this meeting. hold on, hold on, I'm I'm, I'm getting to a question, uh, because I've spoken at length with the bill sponsor and the
nature of some of the negotiations that have been had or or lack thereof. have seemed to have been, um, not necessarily in, in good faith or have not necessarily been, um, and what we would like to say a cordial or compassionate manner, and I think that's where a lot of this is coming from is that People are a little scared that Maybe they might want to change their mind and there's a corporate interest at stake. And
how can you, how can you help this committee and how can you help Arkansas families feel like this is uh about life and death and not about
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:50:41
dollars and cents. Well, we're a nonprofit organization. I mean, we file a 990 just like everybody. If you want to investigate our finances, please do it. The Senate Finance Committee thought there was rampant fraud. They audited several OPOs for several years, even though they audited our books yearly. They audited 3 additional years, um, 21, 2, and
3 again just to see if they could find anything, and we were cleared. So, you know, the government comes in, they audit all of our stuff. We produce a 990 that's posted I can't produce the 2024 990 because it's not audited and rude, right CMSs yet, but as soon as it is, we'll post it like we always do online. Our finances are completely open when Representative Brown had that question. I, everything that he asked for, we gave him and then we gave him more. We gave him family survey results. We shared our customer service
video. We shared our customer service training and all the data that he requested we gave him. I'm more than willing, like he said, and he's absolutely true about to the committee and giving a report, I would love to. I would love to tell you how many transplants and how many donors are doing, how the recipients are doing some of this stuff I requested this HIPAA. I can give you generalities of our number of transplants and how the recipients are doing. I would love to. I'm gonna hop out for now, Mr. Chairman, I may come back.
Speaker 143
1:52:02
Representative Gramlich, you recognize us? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I mean, first off, just to be clear, if, if, if I think a law will help,
will protect the people of Arkansas, you know, then I hope other states would follow the laws of Arkansas just like we follow the laws of other states when we go into their state and deal with their people, um, but to start, I mean, why do you think this will discourage people from signing up for the registry. You mentioned that. I feel like giving families more, more control of the matter would encourage people to sign up.
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:52:32
Um, I think that you're, I, I think there's a lot of families out there that are, um, not as unified as we're we're discussing here. And if you want to sign up to be an organ donor, that's your, that's your personal right, that's your decision, and no one should be able to change that. And there are several laws and several. places around here that protect and do that as well. I have a letter from hospice, who's absolutely supporting this CEO of Baptist Health absolutely supporting the stuff that we'll turn in to this committee, all the tissue banks, I mean, there
are so many people that are opposed to this bill because every little change that this has will affect everything down the line. Why are some of the
Speaker 130
1:53:10
other organizations that deal with the deceased of like supportive of this bill and excited for this bill. Who are excited for this bill. Can
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:53:21
you think of anybody? Representative Brown, I, I mean, I can't think of people who would say that going against an individual's right on their decision is a good move. We don't do that in any other place in healthcare. If I were to write a will and my children are
unhappy with it, they can't overturn my will and my decision and say we're going to split the money this way. Dad was crazy, you know, that just doesn't happen. And now this becomes a slippery slope of, OK, patients are losing their rights because we're giving them to families. When my right to sign
Speaker 278
1:53:53
up is there. What practices did you implement to increase donations by
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:53:57
200%. The government actually set a lot of guidelines and they provided us 10 ICD 10 codes that say that if anybody meets these
10 codes, there are a rule out for organ donation. Everybody else, we should be on site at the hospitals, evaluating for donation, seeing if there's something medically suitable, and it's not for us as an organ procurement Organization to say that something is medically suitable. So in, in this instance, when we say we had to check with our administrator on call, we have to make sure. Call our local transplant center run things by them. Is there an organ viable for transplant that I can offer this family. Generally, it's done days before
and we interact or not interact with the family, but this was a last minute thing. We still have to check. It's not for us to say that a liver is not transplantable if my surgeon says, you know what, we have all these new technologies where we can rescue a liver outside of the body on a machine pump, recondition it for liver, kidneys, hearts now, and lungs to say that Yeah, you might be a multisystem organ failure here, but if I take that liver out and I recondition it, I take the kidneys out and I rescue them. I
can make them. We, we have tendencies to make them better and transplantable organs. So for us, I have to check with the transplant centers and my medical director to say, is there an option? And my medical director is a transplant surgeon at UAS. So we're not called administration. We're calling to look at viability to see if there's a gift to offer. Were those codes given to other organizations that
Speaker 276
1:55:24
do the same thing you do. Oh, absolutely. Then how did you increase 30 places from 50 something to
Speaker 143
1:55:29
20 something if everyone else is doing the same thing. When I got here, there were serial organ donors over
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:55:37
the age of 55. We've done 283 year old organ donors that transplanted livers, and multiple donors now in their 70s, uh, donation after cardiac death, so when someone withdraws support and the patient expires, um, they, they didn't do that here in Arkansas prior to my arrival, um, so now we do that and that has provided us 40% increase in donations. So there were several factors. We doubled our staff in the last 3 years. We went from 56 to 113 employees. I've got two more questions. Um, first off, so you
Speaker 143
1:56:08
talked about, you know, now trying to put the customer, which is again a weird word to put for it, but I kind of understand why you use it. Um, now,
why hasn't that been a priority in the past? Why did it take this for you to implement these
Speaker 265
1:56:22
practices to put customer service first. We have a lot of practices
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:56:26
and we send people to authorization training. The government sponsors donate life and Gift to Life Philadelphia for their training program to teach OPOs how to approach families. We send all of our coordinators, all of our family approach people, to this
institution to be trained on how to approach people, so they do learn that sensitivity training, but the customer service training also goes throughout our office, so it's just a good reminder to do that. We do some things in our orientation. We talk about what our core values are, what our strategic anchors are on our thematic goal is to try to inspire people to have That, but we just felt after talking to Representative Brown with, like, let's step it up. Like he wants us to do a better job. We're trying, and these are the steps we're trying to do and I'm glad
Speaker 143
1:57:05
I took this awful experience to make that happen.
Um, last question, so, you know, we talked about DMV and going there. How does a person at the DMV educate everyone on how the donor process works. Do they do any, or is it just like you want to be an organ donor? OK, here
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:57:19
you go. Well, I would love a bill that says when you sign up for the registry of the DMV educates you or gives you something, but that is um very hard to get the Secretary of State to do more than just asked the question. So that's what they're doing. They're asking the question, we have a pamphlet at every, every station that you, you can pick up and that patient will direct you to the website, which shows you how to limit your gifts,
remove yourself from the gift or sign up and say you want everything or just reconfirm
Speaker 265
1:57:48
your gifts. So to be clear, they don't really educate at all. They have a pamphlet that they give. And if we educated at the DMV, if they educated, imagine the time you'd wait at the DMV to get that education. Sure, but people should know what they're signing up for. And
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:58:01
Gift Act and informed consent are not the same things, and foreign consent is when you weigh risks and benefits to the patient, gift act is an act of altruism where you say it, upon my death, I want to give my
organs to somebody who somebody else and save a life. There's not informed, it's a gift. It's completely different than informed consent. If you give a dollar to the Red Cross or the guy at the Salvation Army, you dropped $20 in there. You don't know where that $20 goes. But you know you did a good
Chair
Unverified
1:58:29
thing, and you know, sir, Representative Richardson, you're recognized for your question. Yeah, thanks. Thank
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:58:36
you, Mr. Chair. So, um, As, as you were discussing, you
said that this is gonna, we're going to cause people to
die and this is going to be a reduction in Oregon. Because we're not wanting to give families the opportunity to make these decisions, but the way that I read the bill as amended. The, the, the person still has, they can still donate their organs and if there is a, if me being a husband and my wife, and we disagree, it goes back to what the donor requested the way I read it. So if that's the case, how, how
do you feel like that's going to decrease? Giving That's not a fair question. There, there may be a level, maybe some families that agree that they don't want to do it, but it's still, it goes back to the original decision that the person made. the last bill that I saw is if the
Mark Tudor
Unverified
1:59:32
Individuals on the registry and my spouse doesn't want to do it. We don't do it because she said no, correct? Is that? I,
Speaker 289
1:59:43
yeah, if there's a dispute between this and the rod, the donors may not be modified. So if there's a dispute between husband
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:59:54
and wife. OK. OK So, so since you and I'm sorry, I thought you had, you, you had the amendment, but, but with that being done, now that that that verbiage is in there and that wording is in there, are you? Is that something you can support at this point? I'm still if it's your spouse, um, and she says no, who's disagreeing with her?
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:00:14
Wouldn't it still be no the way this reads. Chairman. I mean, there's no one disagreeing with her,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:00:21
so she says no, it's no. No. Well, I guess that would depend on the relationship that you're in if you're willing to
Speaker 264
2:00:29
disagree with your wife, but what I'm saying, if there's 2 children and they and they disagree, then it goes back, it reverts back. Yes. OK, but
Speaker 279
2:00:35
if it's your spouse, there's no one to disagree. There's only one spouse, so she disagrees. She says no, the whole process stops.
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:00:48
Represented Barnes, you reckon? Thank you, Chair. My, my question is, uh, do you have any data on how many situations you have that um synonymous with this particular situation. How much, I mean, how often is this happening? We haven't
Speaker 295
2:01:08
tracked this because it hasn't been um hasn't been on our radar to track. Now we, we
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:01:14
will track this and if that's something that the committee wants me to
report on next time I come back, you know, um, or I'll voluntarily come back and give me 6 months to look to see what that is, um, just anecdotically, this probably happens. You know, it's and it's interesting, this probably happens about 10 to 15 times a year, but the thing is, if you give us 24 hours, we have skilled social workers who work with these families who are all trained in grief counseling to work with the families, 99% of them turn around and either become volunteers, they're happy with the process, you know, it
is very, very rare, maybe once or twice in the entire year that a family's like, I'm just not happy with this process, and we know that, but we still work with them on the back end. We have a two-year bereavement program where we try to involve all of our donor families, all of our, we even call it a donor family and spirit, if you were not a donor family, you tried, but you just nothing became a transplantable or we, the case was turned off. We actually involve people and try to get them the aftercare that they need following their loved one's death. We do that for 2 years and if they want more, we give them more.
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:02:22
follow Oh, OK, if you haven't had a lot of this happen. Then why you pushing so much data that's saying it's gonna affect so many people, you don't, you're not proving that by what you just said. I yeah, I don't have the absolute doubt, but I'm telling you, it's less than 10%, and
Speaker 283
2:02:38
I think we all agree that it's going to happen and if it happens one time, You
Speaker 255
2:02:43
know, there are not, there is a death number that I'm comfortable with. If it happened once a year, that could be 8 people transplanted. All I'm saying is the data you just
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:02:52
gave. You concrete in that data that you just shot off based on what you just said that you're not having this happen that often. It can't be what you just told us. That's all, no, no.
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:03:08
The, the problem is the families that we turn around in 24 hours of working with them, this bill doesn't even allow me to work with them. This bill says an angry family like I was angry, the minute I say no, I'm done with drawing support. We don't get to work with them. I'm
saying that we have the ability. And we have the skill set to turn a majority of these families into people who are very, very supportive of donation, given time, because a lot of times they're mad, but they're not mad at us. They're not mad at the donation process. They're mad at what happened at the hospital, what got them there. Sometimes their treatment's amazing, but still, you're upset about the situation. And if they say no, we, then we don't get to work with them in this bill, and it automatically stops and it stops what we're able to do. So yes, I do believe it's still 10%.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:03:56
Representative Johnson, you're. Yeah, and apologies for the process, right, because you said there are many people opposed to the bill, and the way I read this amendment, it changes the bill quite a lot like there were some parts at the beginning of this bill that I was disagreeing with that not the, not the amendment, but some parts of the original bill that's been deleted, and there's some wording that's been changed. I mean, to me this is a very different bill than the bill that you started with, and in fairness to that, I think to say that there are people opposed to this bill, I think the more accurate statement is they're
opposed to the bill as it was filed, wouldn't you agree? They're opposed to the bill that's filed and yes, not, not the amendment. So the people that you said were opposed to the bill, haven't had a chance yet to read this amendment to make a decision one
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:04:40
way or the other about their opposition. Well, anything that changes the uniform anatomical gift Act that the federal government has enacted for all 50 states we're concerned with. Well, but I don't think you can speak
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:04:49
for the people you listen to back to CEO, a bunch of people. It's hard
for you to speak to their opinions about this bill as it stands right now, I would think
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:04:57
because this is a very different bill. Is that true? They will stand behind this bill because it's against the registry, and
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:05:04
it's against patients' rights. OK, so you're testifying that you can speak to how other people will speak to this bill
Speaker 265
2:05:10
that they haven't seen. I can testify that people are very strong about patients' ability to make their own decision with
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:05:15
their body. OK, I understand. So I did hear you say that it was less than 10%. I heard you say that you didn't track the data and then I heard you say you would stand by the 10%. So is your testimony that 10% of the people will revoke if this is passed, is that
Speaker 283
2:05:30
I believe it's probably around 10%, absolutely. And if you want me to start keeping that data because of
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:05:35
these scenarios. Well, I'm just, I'm just trying to understand the testimony because it seems conflicting, and I want to understand that like you said you didn't track
Speaker 279
2:05:42
the data. Would you not, we have not tracked the data, absolutely not.
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:05:48
Yeah, so Because we've been able to work with these families and turn about 98% of the those people around to be supportive of donations. So when, let me ask
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:06:00
it this way, if a card's not marked. And do you work to try
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:06:06
to talk to families to convince them to do donations. We, we approach if
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:06:09
they say no, then we're out. And do you get a percentage of the time? Do you
convince them to do donations once they say no, I mean that's I mean is there a percentage of time where someone hasn't marked a card and you talk to families and in that case they they make a donation. You're successful in, yeah, so again, the way I read this bill, It doesn't say right of kin right of next of kin to revoke.
It says to modify Miner revoke. That's a two-way street. The way I read that, they could amend it to say they are a donor. It, it's not just revoke. I mean, it revokes part of that, so there's a lot to this amendment, I think. That makes the bill different. uh, so wouldn't you say that if it says They could modify. Or amend that could also mean they could say they're a donor. I mean, technically they could
Speaker 279
2:06:58
say that they're a donor, absolutely. OK, that's my last
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:07:03
question. Thank you. Represent Rose, you reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The anatomical Gift Act allows next of kin to be bypassed if they're not easily accessible or readily available. This
Speaker 302
2:07:21
bill tightens this up. Why is that a bad thing? I think
Speaker 265
2:07:27
it's important for the committee to know that we have to prove due diligence on every level that we don't do. If a
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:07:34
neighbor pops into the ICU, we're not talking to the neighbor because he exhibited care for the donor. We need to find the legal next of kin. Is he married? Does he have children? Does he have parents? And then we have to prove that we go down that route, and then we have to document all of these things. We work with a hospital social workers. We fingerprint patients to make sure the police can help us identify the patient, the relative. We do reverse phone call engineering and try to find people. We go to Facebook, we've been extremely successful in
finding legal next of kin to approach. Our job is to make sure that we find the highest person on that hierarchy, and there's nobody above them that disagrees, and what I find a daughter or somebody, I'm asking, what about this person? What about this level? We were extensive to make sure that we find the highest person on the hierarchy of consent to authorize. So I'll reiterate my question. and
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:08:25
I'll also throw a little caveat in there. So let's make the assumption you guys are really, really, really, really good at what you do. What if
Somebody like you. Or What if you guys all of a sudden aren't good at what you do or somebody else isn't good at what they do. Why is it a bad thing to tighten this up
and specifically have an order for next of kin to make that
Speaker 265
2:08:52
decision. Well, I don't, I don't think that's tightening up. I think that's
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:08:55
loosen it up. I think now you're allowing multiple people to have uh let's say over an individual's body to choose donation or anything else that they want following their death.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:09:07
You're making this bill makes it more complicated. Yeah, I. I would disagree, but what I'm, what I'm specifically referencing is the inability to go around the next of kin. Why is that bad? Why, why is it bad to say the next of kin gets to have the say instead of just lumping all of the kin into one category. Well, if if an individual does not sign
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:09:30
up, it is the next of kin, and they have that right, about 40, about 50% of our donors are on the registry and about 50%
are not on the registry and we approach
Speaker 283
2:09:39
and the families have that right at that point to make those decisions.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:09:43
Um I had an individual non-elected, somebody who's watching this committee with interest, and they sent me a text message. And they said, and I'd like for you to respond. They said I was
gonna wait until my driver's license renewal to take my name off the organ donor list, but after watching this testimony and hearing what he's had to say, I'm going to go to the DMV this week and take my name off. What would you have to say to people who are hearing
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:10:10
this, seeing this, and being genuinely concerned. I would say talk to your legal next of kin. Let them know what your wishes are, cause nothing's more painful than being in that end of life decision and people not knowing what their loved one wants. So if he wants to take his name off the registry, I'm OK with that. Tell your loved one what you want to do. Tell them, and if they want to donate at that point and they know what
Speaker 279
2:10:28
your wishes are, that's OK. I, I can't force you to be on the registry. If they sign up, great. If not, make sure your legal next of kin knows what you want.
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:10:41
I mean, we don't strong arm people. If they say no, we're OK,
Speaker 285
2:10:47
but we're trying to follow the law if following patients' rights, and if the family is authorizing they have complete control over the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:10:52
entire process, and I appreciate you taking all these questions. I know I've sat at the end of the table, it's tough, and I'm gonna hop
out after this. So my understanding is You are supportive of the next of kin making the decision to opt somebody in, but not opt somebody out. Yeah, that's the whole point of
Speaker 272
2:11:11
the family knows best to opt in but not to not, not to opt out. Patients know best of what they
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:11:16
want to know, what they want to have their body happen and if they have not expressed those wishes, absolutely the family and legal next of kin know best. And hopefully they have conversations about that. So
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:11:28
if the patient didn't say they wanted to donate your position is that it's OK. The family
has to if they did, it's not up to the family anymore. The the next of kin should have no say. They, they have, they don't have
Speaker 295
2:11:42
say in the donation currently, right, but they have say in the process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Ladyman, you are now up. Thank you,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:11:51
Mr. Chairman. Uh, well, let me, I, I want to tell you my situation first because I think it
affects my question, OK? 5 months ago, I had to make the decision to disconnect my wife. If I had to wait Half a day or 2 days, I don't know what I would have done. On the other hand, my, my youngest son got a kidney
transplant when he was 23, saved his life, and he's doing well now, so, you know, I, I, I've been affected by this. So when I hear you, uh, when I hear Representative Brown talk. This was, uh, and then you said, Because the hospital didn't contact your organization 5 days earlier. Or this would not have happened. So there was a breakdown in the system. There was a failure in the system. So when
Representative Brown called your person, your uh customer service person. Did they ask about that? I mean, if, if, uh, if you have a procedure and it breaks down, you ought to have a remedy. And in this case, there should have been a remedy. So if the process doesn't work. You know, I, I think family is, is most important and there are good families and there are bad families. But you're talking about what ifs. When Representative Brown is talking about an actual so why was that
not remedied? Why don't you have a process to remedy that, and I think that's what he's trying to do with this bill is to
remedy these situations. Not talking about what ifs.
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:13:25
Yeah, the federal government said a lot of um regulations called the conditions of participation of when a hospital is supposed to report potential organ donor. to our facility and this hospital was way outside the guidelines which caused Representative Brown to have his situation. Like I said, it, it was a hospital issue. We go back to the hospital, we report it
through their quality compliance department, and then the quality team, so
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:13:49
you're not answering my question. I'm talking about a situation right then. Why can't you respond to
a situation where a failure occurred, you're talking about federal government, your organization, to me, family should be first, not the federal government. not your company. The family ought to have the right if the system failed, they ought to have some kind of right, and I think that's what
this bill's trying to do. Yeah, and we tried to
Speaker 265
2:14:12
go out to the hospital to deal with this real-time, um, and it ended up
Mark Tudor
Unverified
2:14:17
being, you know, less than an hour phone call that we were on the phone to to roll this out because they didn't because it was last minute, we had to travel to the hospital. It was a 1.5 hour travel and they didn't want to wait for us to get to the hospital, absolutely appropriate. I wouldn't want to wait either, and that's kind of why we backed away because this was a last minute type of thing, so we educated the hospitals immediately. We educated the nurses that were on for the past 4 days. to make sure that they know that, hey, you're supposed to make these. The government now
has a federal bill that's that is in session to have what's called I-referral, which is an automatic referral, but hospitals don't are not relied upon the nurse to call us to make the referral. They automatically come to our organization. We have instituted that in one of the great big reasons why we've improved is we instituted that at Children's Hospital, all of Baptist and UASs that we have automated referrals so we don't have any of those missteps moving forward, and our goal is to have every hospital do this that way
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:15:19
trying to fix the systematic problem you're not answering the question. The process is
not what I'm talking about. You know, couldn't your person have asked, well, why wasn't that turned in and respond to that right then. And I think that's what this bill's trying to do. I mean, you've got to worry about the family and their feelings, not I'm going to follow up later on and investigate. That's great. We got this great process. That's great. But What happens when it fails, and that's what I think this bill's trying to address. When there's a failure in the system, you should
Have a means to let that family have their will be. I recognized. Anyway, I'm, I'm done. Seeing no further questions, Miss
witness, you are excused. We have You know what this is? Arkansas funerals Directors Association.
Yes, sir. Uh. We wanted to get you a typewriter next time you write your name, I think. Pardon?
We, we have no way of reading your name from this end of the table. So if you
Speaker 319
2:16:42
would introduce yourself for the record. Good afternoon now. Uh, my name is Charles, Charles Fuller. I'm a resident of Jefferson County. I've worked in funeral service since 1979 and had been a
licensed funeral director and embalmer in Arkansas and Texas for nearly 40 years. I'm the president of the Arkansas Funeral Directors Association, the vast majority of complaints received by our association each year are regarding our subject today. Our association fully backs HB 1679, and we asked for your positive support for family rights and corporate transparency.
This bill has many benefits relating to a recently bereaved family's decision to donate and the final condition of their loved one's appearance. I'm not here to debate the pros and cons of donation. A beloved cousin of mine received a heart 10 years ago and has had great quality of life because of a family's unselfish gift. That's a very personal decision of the family, and I am merely pointing out some facts and
observations regarding how some current procedures affect families. Currently, Aurora has unlimited authority to place a hold on a deceased individual before they can be released to a funeral home. This has no time limit. Virtually everyone I talked to in our profession has a negative view of Aurora's actions regarding these holes. Uh, as a gentleman from Aurora stated, uh, just a bit ago that
there was a dispute and uh social worker was brought in after 24 hours. Uh, if a family devis desires a viewing 24 hours is way too long to make a decision for them to be able to do that. Um, the Arkansas final Disposition Act of 2009 has been mentioned here and is a major part of House Bill 1679. This order of kinship
is clearly delineated. And our business, we are required to obtain authorization from the next of kin regarding final disposition of the body. The next of kin should have the same rights regarding donation. An indication on the back of a driver's license from years ago and that decision never revisited should be questioned. House Bill 1679 will ensure protection for families who
disagree with an uninformed decision made in the past or changes in circumstances. Families are frustrated with receiving a phone call, sometimes in the middle of the night from an unknown number requesting donation of their loved ones organs or tissues. This call, which is often not made in a timely manner can come after a sudden and catastrophic death, and they are numb, confused, and often angry. Families have told me that they
sometimes also feel pressured, almost like a sales pitch to make a donation. Pressure and sales taxes should never enter this picture. A trusted nurse or healthcare professional should be able to preface the phone call from Aurora. Not for a decision or to influence the family, but merely that they will be approached for donations and asking them to answer that call. The term tissues, which includes long bones, skin, connective
tissue, and anything else usable from the human body. Um, families are sometimes misled and have no inkling that these tissues and vital transplantable organs are likely to be sold to different agencies for profit, which goes into Aurora's coffers. According to IRS for 9990 for 2023 Aurora posted revenues of $23.1 million with a net profit
of $843,000. The organization also has a net worth of approximately $16.8 million. Make no mistake, this is big business going on here from what a family sees as a benevolent donation of part of their loved one. This bill will also ensure public and legislative accountability. As the gentleman from Aurora stated earlier, Aurora is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. According to the to an
associated Press article on on October 18, 2024, only 1% of donors that are even eligible for organ donations, that is heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, and other vital organs. There are very specific guidelines and criteria for the use and recovery of these organs. The families deserve the truth. Transparency is necessary in all facets of life these days, an organ and tissue donation should be no exception.
The advancement and passage of this bill will provide assurance that things will be done in a proper Legal and ethical manner. Uh, on a personal note, I had a, a dental procedure in 2024. Uh, I had a thin gum and and uh received cadaver bone to generate bone growth. However, the bone material was purchased by my dentist from some brokering agency and then in turn sold to me for my procedure as the result of
someone's generous donation. I believe that there should be written disclosures to a donor's family which explains in very concise language, what constitute tissues and the distribution of the harvest. I believe that light needs to shine on what is now and largely unregulated industry. Basically, Aurora has a monopoly in Arkansas with unlimited latitude regarding the release of a deceased human's remains. Families do not deserve to have
an untimely and unwanted hold put on their loved one's body. I would ask for your support of House Bill 1679 to help the next of kin of deceased loved ones to have knowledge and also the say so of what happens with their remains. Thank you very much for your time. Any questions from the committee? Representative Johnson,
Chair
Unverified
2:23:29
you recognize, Mr. Chairman, I understand we have multiple
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:23:33
people still signed up to speak for and against. Is that correct? And we've had one for
and one against with unlimited time. I make a motion we limit testimony to 2 minutes per. That's probably
demotion. Non-debatable. All those in favor, say ah. I'll opposed. I have it. We will limit testimony to 2 minutes. staff will keep the timer. These 2 minutes will only be, uh, Acquired through the testimony, questions will be outside of the 2 minutes. Are any questions for this witness? See you. Thank you for your
testimony. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Kevin Lee to speak against the bill, Mid-American
Kevin Lee
Unverified
2:24:21
transplant. Good afternoon committee, Mr. Chairman and Committee. My name is Kevin Lee. Since 1986 Mid-Americ transplant has served 5 counties in northeast Arkansas, primarily the hospitals and um. In Jonesboro and Perigold and it's been our privilege to work with countless donor families
and heroes during that time. I have not seen the amendment, so I cannot speak to that, but um would only add in testimony that to the representative's earlier question, we do believe in support additional education outside of the DMVs. We have seen high school education work in other states and believe that there is an opportunity to visit a program here in Arkansas that would provide that ongoing education to really get to a higher level of informed consent moving forward. know their testimony, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, Representative
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:25:09
Johnson. You're going to ask a question. I'm curious because your stance on, you know, is, could you see a time where it would be appropriate for someone to have marked a donor card and then there'd be a situation where that would be revoked in an appropriate way. I mean, is there
Kevin Lee
Unverified
2:25:27
a place for re? We're certainly in conversation with families on an ongoing basis and certainly current events um do impact how people feel about organ donation. I, I dare say, and this is not
meant to be flippant, um, sir, but Grey's Anatomy has the biggest influence on how people feel about organ donation in this country today. And it's not always medically accurate or correct moving forward. Our concern coming into this meeting is we've talked about in in the representative brought up earlier that there are different family dynamics. What we're really concerned about is we have one child that goes to live in California who's out of touch with the family,
not in conversation. We've talked a lot about family dynamics and informed conversations amongst families which we believe should be the ideal. But that child then comes back into the picture when mom or dad is passing away and then exerts undue control on the situation without having really been in conversation moving forward. So again, uh, I can't speak to the amendment. I've not had an opportunity, but those are the situations or the dynamics that we're concerned about, sir. Yeah, and so that would be a conflict between
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:26:38
between two siblings. Well, the encouraging thing is since you haven't read
the amendment, is it does the way I read it, it would say that there have to be unanimity among the classes, which would mean all the siblings would have to agree. To revoke or or amend in the positive, right, like the way I read it again, he could be an endowner and the opposite could be true and this still would apply, so they could say, hey, we want to donate and everybody's got to be on the same page. So yeah, I
Kevin Lee
Unverified
2:27:01
look forward to reading the amendment in further detail and talk with our team. Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. Any other questions? CNN, thank you for your testimony.
We will, we'll go to Robert. Calan Caylin. You are, if you would introduce yourself and you're recognized for your testimony, and he is speaking
Robert Kalin
Unverified
2:27:29
for the bill. Yes, my name is Robert Kalin. I've been a funeral director for 30 years, over 30 years, and thank you'll allow me in just a couple minutes to speak to you. First of all, in regards to HB 1679, I want to be clear in the
fact that organ donation is so important for giving people another opportunity for better quality of life. But with that being said, We as funeral directors face some challenges with the process of how Aurora conducts businesses and other organ donation. I'm gonna give you just a quick testimony. I, I'm a funeral director. I had a lady that had her daughter passed away unexpectedly, had her on life support. Her daughter had put organ donation on her driver's license
and the mother did not know, so the mother was the next of kin. She was at the hospital and basically she had no rights and basically she was taken away and she said I wasn't ready to say goodbye to her yet or let her go. And basically he was told that she had no rights that since that was on the driver's license that She basically, they were going to go ahead and go on with the process of organ donation. When she came in, she goes, Robert, I have been an ER nurse and I'm retired now. She goes, I
was so angry of how the process works, and again, I know that organ donation is, is important. But it's the process of how we get there. We have to correct this. All we're asking is film directors is that the next of kin has the authority that they should have in their deceased family members and not to use the loopholes to get around that's going on now. As funeral directors, we have to follow the order of the legal next of kin. Uh, in their direction.
If you ask funeral directors overall. The ones that I in in the state of Arkansas. Most opposed the process of how organ donation is done. We've tried to address this but have had no results. In closing, I support HB 1679, and again, I agree that's the end of your time. Thank you, sir. Did anyone have any questions for this witness? See no questions.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 123
2:29:49
We will, we'll go to Amelia Navajos to speak against the bill.
You are recognized to introduce yourself for the record and give
Speaker 333
2:30:07
your testimony. OK, my name is Amelia Nabholtz. I'm the director of hospital development at Aurora. Um, I have been asked to share a brief statement from Mark Pierce, who is the president and CEO of the
American Association of Tissue Banks and his statement on their behalf is that they strongly oppose the House Bill 1679 as it undermines the integrity of the Arkansas Anatomical Gift Act, ma'am, are you reading? testimony is not your own. Can I
do that. You can only give your own testimony. The person you're reading has to
be here to answer questions and they're not present. So if you would, you can give your testimony. I will give
Speaker 333
2:30:45
my testimony then. Like I said, I'm the director of hospital development and um I
know the question was asked, what are we doing to assist the hospitals with their education to prevent the situation that happened to Representative Brown. Um, we have a team that goes all over the state, provides real-time education when we do have. have um failures in that. We do follow up with them um to avoid those in the future. I will say, obviously I can't speak for any of them, but it has been communicated that in these types of situations when the patient has already made their decision, um, then it
Makes the end of life care a little bit easier on the families because it's one less decision that they have to make when they're already having to make the awful decision
of withdrawing support. Any questions for the witness? Nunn, thank you
for your testimony. Uh, Scott. Barrel burner, if you would introduce yourself and your recognized test file against the bill, correct? Yes.
Speaker 338
2:31:54
Thank for the opportunity to speak today. My name's Scott Berna and I'm a 40-year licensed funeral director in state of Arkansas, along with my wife, I operate 3 funeral homes that serve approximately 700 families a year. I'm going to cut out most of my comments so that I can give you a real life situation that occurred in my funeral home that I was directly associated with. I had a gentleman pass away the hospital called us. We went to the hospital to remove The individual, the individual was, was married.
When we made contact with the wife, she made it clear to us that she was at odds with the gentleman's parents and that we were to follow her instructions. According to the Arkansas final Disposition Acts, that's exactly what we have to do. We get a call from Aurora putting a hold on the body. We in attempt to contact the family, the wife, we tell her what exactly is going on with the whole from Aurora.
She says, I have not received a call from Aurora. But I am not interested in donating my husband's organs. We get a call shortly thereafter from Aurora saying they're coming to pick up the body. And I said, You can't do that because the wife has informed us she does not want donation. And they said, Well, we spoke to the par the father, the father signed off on it, and we're gonna come and pick up the body. I said
You're not going to come into my building and take this individual unless the wife signs off on it, or you give me a court order. Because we are governed by the Arkansas final Disposition Act. This is a perfect example of when we have families that are in dispute, the Arkansas final Disposition Act gives us exact guidance. It's one of the best laws that the funeral directors have ever seen, because it gives us guidance. Thank you, sir. Sorry your
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:34:02
time's run out. Representative Johnson, you're for, for clarity, so you're talking about the Arkansas Final Disposition Act, which you think is a well written law and my understanding is the amendment we have now reflects that it mirrors that. So what you're saying is, had this law been in effect, there would have been clarity in the law
Speaker 338
2:34:22
around how to resolve that disposition. The way it sits right now, the funeral homes are governed by one standard, the, the, the, uh, procurement organizations are
governed by another. So if that individual comes into our funeral home, if we make removal from the hospital. And we have that person in a refrigerated facility. They're in our care. So the Archi, I mean the Aurora wanted to come into my facility and take that individual. Which was against the wife, the next of kin's wishes because of the father who the wife was in dispute with, signed off on it.
Now that's real life occurred. I had to navigate through that. That's wrong. And
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:35:10
so this in your opinion, this would resolve that conflict in
Speaker 338
2:35:12
the law. Yes, because they would fall it, that is one of the best laws that this state's ever had, because funeral directors for years were, were put in family disputes, and it clearly states exactly what we're supposed to do, and it's been trial by fire through the courts. It is, it is a great Great, Bill. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it.
Seeing no other questions. Thank you for your testimony. So we
have Jenny. UNESCO, if you would, you introduce yourself and you're recognized to testify against the bill. Hi, my name
Jenny Janesco
Unverified
2:35:59
is Doctor Jenny Janesco, and I'm the director of organ recovery at Aurora. Um, I have a, I'm a doctor of nursing practice and I've been a registered nurse in the state of
Arkansas for 24 years. I spent 20 years working at Arkansas Children's Hospitals, 8 of those as the director of critical care nursing there. I was responsible for the pediatric intensive care unit where the majority of the pediatric donors come from in the state of Arkansas as well as intimately involved in departments um that pediatric transplant recipients are cared for in. Um, you know, these conversations, everyone has a personal conversation and everyone has got a touchstone to death and dying, and they are
the hardest situations that all of us will ever go through. Um, but conversations around death and dying and transplantation may be hard, but they are deeply important, and they need to be understood on a deeper level than I think even we're talking about in this committee today. Um, and I know that both on a professional and a personal level, my little brother was a tissue donor. I was one of those families that got called in the middle of the night to ask for a tissue donation by Aurora. Um, I spent years working closely with Aurora regarding
organ donation. I mean, we all know that it takes collaboration to develop conversations and practices so that we can make them the best they absolutely can be. Um, I worked so closely with them that when an opportunity presented about 2 years ago, I left Arkansas Children's Hospital, which I love deeply to this day and every day for the rest of my life to be able to um Further Aurora's mission in transplantation and donation. Um, I really believe that HR
bill 1679 creates more questions than it answers. It takes away autonomy from the individual when they have made a decision. Um, I think that it would undoubtedly harm the registry in the state, negatively impact donation in this state and with my years of pediatric intensive care experience. I can say that without a doubt it will negatively impact the ability to pediatric patients or any
Chair
Unverified
2:38:05
questions for the current witness? Representative Peton, you recognize us. Thank you. Um.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:38:16
I am curious too with the. When there is a donation of a child's body, does any of that go towards research purposes or is it only for donation of tissue and organs for. Other, other humans. It
Jenny Janesco
Unverified
2:38:29
can, it can go for research, yes, for
research. I can. OK, thank you. What, what determines the fact whether it goes to research
Jenny Janesco
Unverified
2:38:40
or for donation. Are we speaking of pediatric patients? Any patients well with pediatric patients, it's specifically the family's
consent. I do know in speaking as a director of organ donation that even in cases with registered donors, the precipice is a pond organ donation, which is life saving transplants. So when families have conversations with us that are opposed to research and tissue donation, we speak with them, we talk with them, we understand that, and We do not mandate that that occurs. Thank you. See you no further questions.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. We have a Kelly.
Speaker 9
2:39:20
Jones. She's not here. Kathy Jones. So we have a Tas of flowers.
If you would introduce yourself for the record and
Speaker 351
2:39:40
you're recognized to speak. Yes, uh, good afternoon, Committee of Public Health Welfare and Labor. My name is Tasha Flowers. I
Speaker 352
2:39:46
am a CPA and I am the current chief finance
operating officer for Aurora and former treasurer for the National Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. I'm here today to speak to the statement in regards to the $16.8 million of revenue that um Aurora is stated to have. In regards to our coffers. It is our responsibility as a federal 501c3 nonprofit organization to report our
finances annually to the federal government but also to CMS. We, we do file an annual CMS cost report 2 1694 that indicates what we have collected as far as revenue per organ per tissue and also all the expenses associated with that process as of the CMS uh law, we are not allowed to have any extra income in regards to the recovery of
kidneys, the only income we earned would be related to the recovery of all other organs and tissues not related to kidneys. Any monies that we do have remaining within our coffers are used to improve allocation and um. Education of how transplant transplantation works within our comp our country and also is utilized to help our families after care.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:41:28
Represented Rose, you recognize for a question. OK Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Flowers, thank you for your testimony.
Um, I apologize to put you in this situation if it's uncomfortable. Mr. Tudor referenced the 990s that you guys file and I would have asked him this question if I had this in front of me. um, but I see that the top 7 paid employees in your company received $189,000 in
incentive-based bonuses. Could you speak to what determines the bonus structure or incentive pay for
Speaker 352
2:42:08
Aurora? Yes, we are governed by a board of directors at the end of each year, they analyze our financial statements and look at our current financial position and the board of directors determine what percentage of incentive is awarded to all employees of Aurora. What determines your financial position?
Uh, what we review is, uh, the amount of revenue we received minus the uh current year expenditures and any capital projects that we have, um, planned, uh, for any of our future years. And what
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:42:43
is the biggest driver of revenue. The biggest
Speaker 352
2:42:46
driver of revenue is the monies we receive from the transplant centers who um transplant the organs to the recipients. So in um
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:43:01
2023. I'm still looking for your filing from November here, but the Net loss, it looked like was around $900,000. That is correct, and there
were still You know, 100,000 plus bonuses distributed based on incentives. So your financial position, that particular year was a loss of about a million dollars. That is
Speaker 352
2:43:24
correct. However, we did have uh the remaining funds we did have,
um, in cash, um, so we were in a position in which to award the incentive that year because that was one of our, uh, that was our greatest year in of improvement in organ procurement and our employees had worked extremely hard, um, being understaffed. that year, and the board wanted to recognize them for the hard work that they had done. Thank you for answering each of
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:43:56
those questions so precisely. Can you tell me, did you guys have a net profit for the last,
Speaker 352
2:44:04
uh, for your last 990 filing 2023 is our last 990 filing.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:44:12
And was that a net profit or not? No, it was not. OK, so, um, just to summarize, Make sure I have this correctly. Um Roughly $189,000 in just your top seven employees. I don't know, across the board how many that would be or how much that would be for everybody,
but those incentives are driven by revenue, and that revenue is driven by organ procurement,
Speaker 352
2:44:34
correct? That revenue is driven by the monies we receive from the transplant centers for the organs they procure for their recipients. So there
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:44:41
is a financial incentive specifically for more organ procurement. I'm just making sure I understand this correctly that the gentleman who spoke from your organization earlier just kind of touted, hey, we're a nonprofit. And so I'm just
making sure I understand this correctly since he pointed me to the 990 that I'm understanding that. Is
Speaker 352
2:44:59
that correct? We are federally mandated organization and uh for
that reason we are a nonprofit now I would be clear to state and just because you are considered federally nonprofit doesn't mean you do not
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:45:15
have profit. Completely understand that. Yes, yes, ma'am, but also the incentive-based bonuses are based on revenue,
which is based on organ. procurement, correct? Yes, that
Speaker 352
2:45:24
is correct, but I want to be clear to state that we do not get paid for the organs that we procure. Transplant centers, um, acquire
those organs and they pay us for the services we render and helping them to procure those organs for their recipients. I'll I'll hop out of the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:45:43
queue, uh, Mr. Chair, just off the top of your head, um, and I looked at it and I've forgotten the number, but what was the
What was the total number uh for revenue for organ procurement for last year. Um I'm about 19 million. OK, all right. Thank you.
Speaker 354
2:45:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony, seeing no further questions.
We move to Greg Crane from Baptist. show up All right. We'll go to Samantha Johnson. Again, everybody's against
from now on. We got 2 pages. If you want to. Let's do it after this one. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Samantha Johnson.
Speaker 369
2:46:41
I'm an Arkansan from Pulaski County, and in a heart transplant recipient. Um, I received my transplant at 6 weeks old at Arkansas Children's Hospital. And in June, I'll be celebrating 30 years with my new heart. Um, Pardon me while I read some notes here. Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the gift of life that I've received through organ donation. It's amazing that my donor family was able to look beyond their grief to give hope and
life to not only myself but for other recipients. I would not have been able to experience really life at all without a transplant. I wouldn't know my parents, my sisters, um, build a meaningful relationships have memories from childhood, my teenage years, and even into adulthood. God is graciously allowed me to have this gift for almost 30 years, and I'm on staff with the
campus ministry and get a mentor college students and um young women who are new to staff. Um, and so my donor is a part of those people's stories he has left a legacy um through donating life, um. And has brought hope through tragic loss. And so, Um Yeah, my daughter continues to leave a legacy as I get to carry on and live life.
This bill um impacts all who are waiting for a transplant. It impacts me directly because I will likely need um another transplant both in heart and potentially kidney. Right now there are 400 Arkansans waiting on the gift of life overriding someone's choice to donate not only dishonors the wishes of the one who's passed, but we'll also make the waiting list longer for those in need who ultimately leading to more
Arkansans lives lost as they wait for a transplant. With this in mind, I strongly and humbly ask that you vote no on this bill in order to advocate for our Kansans in need of a transplant.
Tom Representative Rose, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. So glad you're here with
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:49:01
us today to testify. Um, and thank you for your testimony. I, I happened to
see your shirt and I was just curious how you volunteer. Um Through volunteering at
Speaker 369
2:49:18
different events with um there's I'm actually a newer volunteer, so I haven't gotten to do that much yet. Um, but there's several events we do to honor donor families. There's one in April, um, that I'll be volunteering at. There's also getting to do booths at events to just raise awareness for organ donation and help, um, people sign
Speaker 374
2:49:35
up to be organ donors. Well, thank you for your work with
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:49:41
donor families, and I'm sure the committee appreciates your service, and we're all grateful for the transplant you received. Thank you. Thank you.
Seeing no further, you had a question for the witness? No. OK, seeing no further questions
for the witness, thank you for your testimony. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for a uh I'd like to call.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:50:02
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to call for questions the vote and ask for a motion to pass.
OK, it's motion for call the question correct? Motion call the question. OK, that's a proper motion, um. All in favor say aye. Aye, all
opposed. I have it. So with that, what's your question? I'd ask for a motion to pass. Is that as amended as amended. That's a proper motion. Uh, any discussion on the motion. discussion Uh, Representative Woolver, do
you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate Representative Layman, and I understand we've been here for a while. We do have a lot of folks signed up to speak. Some of those folks are volunteers like a gentleman standing behind me who is a parent of a of a child that would very much like to be able to tell his testimony, so I guess, can I make a substitute
motion that we continue debate? OK, well, I'm voting no, just so we can try to hear some additional testimony. Representative
Pilkerton. Oh, Representative Rose, I'm sorry, I saw your hand in there. parliamentary inquiry. You
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:51:10
reckon that um, Per what Representative Wooldridge just just stated, uh, we're not voting no. On Being able to vote on the
motion. You're voting motion has already been made as a as a due pass motion, correct? You're voting now on the bill. So should, should that motion fail, that would end anything for the bill today, correct? But the bill will go back on the agenda
for Thursday, but there would be no
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
2:51:40
other discussion or testimony or anything today. Today, no. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any further discussion on
the motion of do pass as amended. See anon, all those in favor of
the bill, say ah. All those opposed? I just have it. The bill has passed as amendment. Congratulations sponsors. All right, members, we got about 30 minutes, um. Are there any other bills that we need to run? I am going to adjourn. With The understanding that we will be coming back 15 minutes upon adjournment of session.
So we do still have a couple of bills that people drove a long ways to testify, so we're going to come back so that they can testify. So I know there's 2. If there's more than that, please get with me during
sessions so that I understand that. So seeing enough other business this time we stand adjourned until adjournment.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1142 A. Brown TO CREATE THE REPRODUCTIVE EMPOWERMENT AND SUPPORT THROUGH OPTIMAL RESTORATION (RESTORE) ACT.
HB1468 Cozart TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS.
HB1530 Achor TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "SPECIALTY HOSPITAL" RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT FEE ON HOSPITALS UNDER THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM.
HB1543 Underwood TO ESTABLISH THE WORKFORCE EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 2025.
HB1592 J. Mayberry TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.
SB257 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE MEDICAID FAIRNESS ACT; TO EXTEND THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR PROVIDERS IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND TO REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION IN NOTICES OF ADVERSE DECISIONS.
SB99 C. Penzo TO AUTHORIZE A PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT TO DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS.
HB1653 Cavenaugh TO SET STANDARDS FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES.
HB1679 M. Brown TO AMEND THE REVISED ARKANSAS ANATOMICAL GIFT ACT; TO ALLOW CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS TO REVOKE OR AMEND AN ANATOMICAL GIFT UPON THE DEATH OF THE DONOR; AND TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REPORTING OF PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATIONS.
HB1164 J. Mayberry TO ALLOW A PHYSICIAN OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER TO OFFER COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS; AND TO MANDATE THAT INSURANCE POLICIES COVER ASSESSMENTS FOR COGNITIVE FUNCTION FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS.
HB1619 Gramlich TO SET ADMINISTRATION FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM FOR IMMUNIZATIONS AND MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES FOR RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS DISEASE; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY.
HB1241 J. Mayberry TO ENSURE THAT THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM REIMBURSES FOR DENTAL AND ANESTHESIA COSTS FOR HIGH COMPLEXITY ORAL HEALTH CARE.
HB1004 Pilkington TO REQUIRE MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR POSTPARTUM MOTHERS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER GIVING BIRTH.
HB1677 Bentley TO AUTHORIZE ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS TO MAINTAIN EMERGENCY MEDICATION KITS.
HB1718 Gramlich TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SURGICAL SMOKE EVACUATION IN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES LICENSED IN THIS STATE.
HB1723 Pilkington TO AMEND INITIATED ACT 1 OF 2000, ALSO KNOWN AS THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS ACT; AND TO DIRECT THE ARKANSAS MINORITY HEALTH COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER A GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS.
HB1332 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO COVER GLUCAGON- LIKE PEPTIDE-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS, ALSO KNOWN AS GLP-1 AGONISTS, WHEN PRESCRIBED FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
HB1751 Underwood TO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM BENEFITS TO ENGAGE IN JOB SEARCH ACTIVITIES WHILE THE APPLICATION IS BEING PROCESSED.
HB1758 Gramlich TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEARING INSTRUMENT DISPENSERS; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "PRACTICE OF DISPENSING HEARING INSTRUMENTS".
HB1762 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL OR PASTORAL APPLICATION FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS.
HB1767 L. Johnson TO ABOLISH THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL; AND TO CREATE THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
HB1768 Lundstrum TO REQUIRE A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL CONTRACT RELATING TO A HOST FEE TO BE VOTED ON AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF A HOST COMMUNITY IN WHICH THE LANDFILL IS LOCATED.
HB1776 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT OR AN EXPANSION OF A SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION PERMIT.
HB1781 Crawford TO AUTHORIZE THE LICENSURE OF CLINICS, HEALTH CENTERS, OR OTHER FACILITIES IN WHICH A PREGNANCY IS TERMINATED OR ABORTED IF CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MET.
HB1782 Hudson TO PROHIBIT OVER-THE-COUNTER DIET PILLS FROM BEING SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR OTHERWISE FURNISHED TO A PERSON WHO IS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
HB1784 Wardlaw TO MODIFY THE INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES.
HB1791 C. Cooper TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER IN THIS STATE AND DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE OR IMPLEMENT ACTIONS IN THIS STATE.
SB278 J. English TO REPEAL THE STATUTES CONCERNING THE OCCUPATIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND LICENSURE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT OFFICES AND AGENCIES; AND TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY ACT OF 1975.
SB279 Irvin TO ASSIST THE DIVISION OF LABOR WITH ENFORCING THE FAIR AND PROMPT PAYMENT OF WAGES TO ARKANSAS CITIZENS; AND TO CLARIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH WAGE AND HOUR COMPLAINTS ARE INVESTIGATED.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND LABOR COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Mar 18, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jeff Wardlaw Chair
Unverified
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 37
Dan Parker
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Chair
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 103
Speaker 104
Speaker 143
Speaker 111
Speaker 112
Speaker 126
Speaker 130
Speaker 135
Speaker 137
Speaker 133
Speaker 149
Speaker 154
Speaker 160
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 182
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 191
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 198
Speaker 224
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 238
Speaker 247
Mark Tudor
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 265
Speaker 278
Speaker 276
Speaker 289
Speaker 264
Speaker 279
Speaker 295
Speaker 283
Speaker 255
Speaker 302
Speaker 285
Speaker 272
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 319
Kevin Lee
Unverified
Robert Kalin
Unverified
Speaker 123
Speaker 333
Speaker 338
Jenny Janesco
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 351
Speaker 352
Speaker 354
Speaker 369
Speaker 374