Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (60)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1131
Act 959
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1131 Pilkington TO AUTHORIZE AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NUR…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE TO DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS TO MEDICAL ASSISTANTS AND … | Pilkington | Notification that HB1131 is now Act 959 |
|
HB1167
Act 431
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AIN TASKS TO MEDICAL ASSISTANTS AND OTHER UNLICENSED STAFF. HB1167 L. Johnson TO MODIFY THE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCED P…”
|
TO MODIFY THE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS; AND TO … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1167 is now Act 431 |
|
HB1169
Act 383
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MANNER IN WHICH WAGE AND HOUR COMPLAINTS ARE INVESTIGATED. HB1169 L. Johnson TO CLARIFY THE ADMISSION CRITERIA FOR AN INVOLUN…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE ADMISSION CRITERIA FOR AN INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT TO INCLUDE A PERSON WHO IS … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1169 is now Act 383 |
|
HB1245
Act 432
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMERGENCY. RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1245 Clowney TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS BEHAVIOR ANALYST REGISTRATIO…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS BEHAVIOR ANALYST REGISTRATION ACT. | Clowney | Notification that HB1245 is now Act 432 |
|
HB1251
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERVICES PERSONNEL LICENSURE INTERSTATE COMPACT IN ARKANSAS. HB1251 L. Johnson TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSIS…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANT ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS. | L. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1253
Act 384
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1253 L. Johnson TO ADOPT THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PERSONNE…”
|
TO ADOPT THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PERSONNEL LICENSURE INTERSTATE COMPACT IN ARKANSAS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1253 is now Act 384 |
|
HB1254
Act 433
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENT INCLUDES DIABETIC SHOES AND SHOE INSERTS. Page 2 of 5 HB1254 L. Johnson TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTITION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTITIONER TO PRACTICE INDEPENDENTLY IN THIS STATE; AND TO REMOVE … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1254 is now Act 433 |
|
HB1257
Act 434
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ISH A STATEWIDE CERTIFICATION FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS. HB1257 L. Johnson TO REMOVE THE LIMITATION OF THE PRACTICE OF NEUR…”
|
TO REMOVE THE LIMITATION OF THE PRACTICE OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGY FROM TECHNICIANS EMPLOYED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS; AND … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1257 is now Act 434 |
|
HB1258
Act 435
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DEPENDENT PRACTICE PRIVILEGES FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS. HB1258 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKER ACT; AND T…”
|
TO CREATE THE COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKER ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE CERTIFICATION FOR COMMUNITY … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1258 is now Act 435 |
|
HB1523
Act 951
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S IN A MENTAL CONDITION AS A RESULT OF A MEDICAL CONDITION. HB1523 Vaught CONCERNING MISSING PERSONS ALERTS; TO CODIFY THE ARK…”
|
CONCERNING MISSING PERSONS ALERTS; TO CODIFY THE ARKANSAS AMBER ALERT SYSTEM; TO CODIFY THE ARKANSAS … | Vaught | Notification that HB1523 is now Act 951 |
|
HB1586
Act 386
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1586 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE MEDICAID WAIVER FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEDICAID WAIVER FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER TO CLARIFY THE NUMBER AND TYPE … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1586 is now Act 386 |
|
HB1610
Act 387
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1610 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT A…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND THE ARKANSAS UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1610 is now Act 387 |
|
SB120
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB120 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE LICENSURE FOR ALL PRIVATE CARE AGENCIES…”
|
TO REQUIRE LICENSURE FOR ALL PRIVATE CARE AGENCIES IN THIS STATE; AND TO ENSURE CONSUMER … | C. Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB222
Act 301
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/11/25 @ 5:44PM) Added SB222 to Concur in Senate Amendment Senate Committee on Public He…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT; TO CLARIFY MARKETING BY PROVIDERS UNDER THE … | B. Davis | Notification that SB222 is now Act 301 |
|
SB255
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB255 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "DRUG" WITHIN THE FOOD,…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "DRUG" WITHIN THE FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT; AND TO … | C. Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB262
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB262 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE DOCTRI…”
|
TO AMEND THE CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE DOCTRINE; AND TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL … | C. Penzo | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB264
Act 483
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FOODS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. SB264 Irvin TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS PRIMARY CARE PAYMENT IMPROV…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS PRIMARY CARE PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT WORKING GROUP. | Irvin | Notification that SB264 is now Act 483 |
|
SB278
Act 438
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO ENSURE CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR VULNERABLE AGING ADULTS. 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 |
|
SB285
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION ACT. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB285 J. Payton TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE…”
|
TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT … | J. Payton | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB286
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB286 J. Payton TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL WAGE LOSS BENEFITS IN ADDITIO…”
|
TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL WAGE LOSS BENEFITS IN ADDITION TO SCHEDULED INJURY PAYMENTS UNDER THE WORKERS' … | J. Payton | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB287
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB287 J. Payton TO MODIFY CERTAIN ATTORNEY FEES FOR CONTROVERTED…”
|
TO MODIFY CERTAIN ATTORNEY FEES FOR CONTROVERTED MEDICAL EXPENSES, APPEALS, AND CHANGES OF PHYSICIANS UNDER … | J. Payton | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB288
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB288 J. Payton TO MODIFY A PHYSICIAN CHANGE UNDER THE WORKERS' C…”
|
TO MODIFY A PHYSICIAN CHANGE UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED MEASURE … | J. Payton | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB306
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB306 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO APP…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO APPLY FOR A HOME- AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB311
Act 772
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WAIVER FOR THE AGING AND ELDERLY POPULATION IN THIS STATE. SB311 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE END ORGAN AND GENOMIC HARVESTING ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE END ORGAN AND GENOMIC HARVESTING ACT; TO PROHIBIT COVERAGE OF CERTAIN HUMAN … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB311 is now Act 772 |
|
SB348
Act 567
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RTAIN GENETIC SEQUENCERS AND GENETIC ANALYSIS TECHNOLOGIES. SB348 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ANNUAL CAP FOR DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY…”
|
TO AMEND THE ANNUAL CAP FOR DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES WITHIN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB348 is now Act 567 |
|
HB1171
Act 625
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…L BEDS WITHIN PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES. HB1171 K. Moore TO MODIFY THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE…”
|
TO MODIFY THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE AN ABBREVIATED INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1171 is now Act 625 |
|
HB1185
Act 799
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EQUIRE PAIN RELIEF PARITY IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM. HB1185 L. Johnson TO ADOPT THE DIETITIAN LICENSURE COMPACT IN ARKA…”
|
TO ADOPT THE DIETITIAN LICENSURE COMPACT IN ARKANSAS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1185 is now Act 799 |
|
HB1186
Act 960
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ING LOCATIONS FOR AND GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF A HOSPICE AGENCY. HB1186 Vaught TO CREATE THE PAIN RELIEF PARITY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE…”
|
TO CREATE THE PAIN RELIEF PARITY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE PAIN RELIEF PARITY IN THE … | Vaught | Notification that HB1186 is now Act 960 |
|
HB1291
Act 385
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NEFICIARIES ENROLLED IN A RISK-BASED PROVIDER ORGANIZATION. HB1291 Wing TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS FROM…”
|
TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS FROM THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYEE" UNDER THE MINIMUM … | Wing | Notification that HB1291 is now Act 385 |
|
HB1382
Act 481
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…VIDE A CATEGORY FOR BENEFICIARIES WITH SICKLE CELL DISEASE. HB1382 Ladyman TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REPORTING BY THE DESIGNATED PROT…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN REPORTING BY THE DESIGNATED PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY AGENCY FOR THE STATE AND … | Ladyman | Notification that HB1382 is now Act 481 |
|
HB1403
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S IMPACTING THE LAW RESULTING FROM INITIATED ACT 5 OF 2018. HB1403 Pilkington TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ME ACT OF 2021 TO ALLOW NONHOSPITAL … | Pilkington | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1428
Act 855
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SET AN ANNUAL REIMBURSEMENT CAP FOR ADULT DENTAL SERVICES. HB1428 Steimel TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING PUBLIC LODGING; AND TO P…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING PUBLIC LODGING; AND TO PROVIDE A BED HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR … | Steimel | Notification that HB1428 is now Act 855 |
|
HB1429
Act 854
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E PERCENT OF PREMIUMS ON HEALTHCARE CLAIMS AND WAGE CLAIMS. HB1429 M. Shepherd TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY WHILE ENSURING QUALIT…”
|
TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY WHILE ENSURING QUALITY FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES PERFORMING MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES; AND TO AMEND … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1429 is now Act 854 |
|
HB1439
Act 853
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NONHOSPITAL ENTITIES TO BE COMMUNITY BRIDGE ORGANIZATIONS. HB1439 Ladyman TO REMOVE THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS OF THE DEPARTME…”
|
TO REMOVE THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES FROM LICENSURE AS A … | Ladyman | Notification that HB1439 is now Act 853 |
|
HB1440
Act 629
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OF HUMAN SERVICES FROM LICENSURE AS A PRIVATE CARE AGENCY. HB1440 Bentley TO AMEND THE MASSAGE THERAPY ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH…”
|
TO AMEND THE MASSAGE THERAPY ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH REGISTRATION FOR MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENTS. | Bentley | Notification that HB1440 is now Act 629 |
|
HB1454
Act 674
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ESTABLISH REGISTRATION FOR MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENTS. HB1454 Bentley TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING CRIMINAL HISTORY RECOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECKS FOR EMPLOYEES OF SERVICE PROVIDERS; TO … | Bentley | Notification that HB1454 is now Act 674 |
|
HB1458
Act 851
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SION TO BE AN ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. HB1458 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "CREDENTIALING INFORM…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "CREDENTIALING INFORMATION" WHEN THE ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL BOARD IS PROVIDING … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1458 is now Act 851 |
|
HB1471
Act 966
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO ESTABLISH PHARMACEUTICAL PATIENT FREEDOM OF CHOICE. HB1471 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF ALL LICENSES OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF ALL LICENSES OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN SPEECH-LANGUAGE … | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1471 is now Act 966 |
|
HB1537
Act 850
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RD IS PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONS. HB1537 Ladyman TO REPEAL THE LOCATION ACT FOR COMMUNITY HOMES FOR…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LOCATION ACT FOR COMMUNITY HOMES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. | Ladyman | Notification that HB1537 is now Act 850 |
|
HB1559
Act 632
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…T THE DIETITIAN LICENSURE COMPACT IN ARKANSAS. Page 4 of 5 HB1559 McGrew TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO SEEK…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO SEEK A WAIVER TO THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID … | McGrew | Notification that HB1559 is now Act 632 |
|
HB1575
Act 376
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R INPATIENT TREATMENT SERVICES FOR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS. HB1575 Lundstrum TO PROHIBIT A PERSON THAT IS EMPLOYED OR HAS A DI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A PERSON THAT IS EMPLOYED OR HAS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST IN … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1575 is now Act 376 |
|
HB1643
Act 369
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION OF FACILITIES FOR MAMMOGRAPHY. HB1643 Dalby TO ALLOW A CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYER TO DISCLOSE SUB…”
|
TO ALLOW A CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYER TO DISCLOSE SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE OR … | Dalby | Notification that HB1643 is now Act 369 |
|
HB1673
Act 436
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ER EMPLOYEE TO A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER UPON WRITTEN CONSENT. HB1673 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BARBERS. Page 5 of 5”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING BARBERS. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1673 is now Act 436 |
|
SB117
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL CARE AND DUTIES. SB117 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACT; TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIANS IN … | C. Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB121
Act 968
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF NATURAL MEDICINE. SB121 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB121 is now Act 968 |
|
SB122
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…URE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT TO PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS. SB122 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL … | C. Penzo | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB2
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IOLOGIST ASSISTANTS. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB2 C. Penzo TO REPEAL THE STATEWIDE FLUORIDATION PROGRAM; AND…”
|
TO REPEAL THE STATEWIDE FLUORIDATION PROGRAM; AND TO REMOVE THE MANDATE FOR WATER SYSTEMS TO … | C. Penzo | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB217
Act 969
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REPEAL THE ARKANSAS PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY ACT OF 1975. SB217 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQ…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUEST A WAIVER TO EXCLUDE CANDY AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB217 is now Act 969 |
|
SB221
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT TO PHYSICIANS. SB221 B. Davis TO PROHIBIT RISK-BASED PROVIDER ORGANIZATIONS FROM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT RISK-BASED PROVIDER ORGANIZATIONS FROM USING CERTAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTING PRACTICES WHEN CONTRACTING WITH … | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB225
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB225 J. Scott TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO PROVID…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO PROVIDE A CATEGORY FOR BENEFICIARIES WITH SICKLE CELL … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB235
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND THE DESIGNATED CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE STATE. SB235 J. Boyd TO CREATE THE VOLUNTARY PORTABLE BENEFIT ACCOUNT AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE VOLUNTARY PORTABLE BENEFIT ACCOUNT ACT. | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB269
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CRITERIA FOR ACTIVATION OF THE ARKANSAS AMBER ALERT SYSTEM. SB269 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING LOCATIONS FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING LOCATIONS FOR AND GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF A HOSPICE AGENCY. | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB312
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IS CENTERS TO HAVE A BACKUP GENERATOR ON SITE. Page 3 of 5 SB312 Stone TO REMOVE THE MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OR ADDIT…”
|
TO REMOVE THE MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OR ADDITION OF ANY ADDITIONAL BEDS WITHIN PSYCHIATRIC … | Stone | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB347
Act 1025
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. SB347 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO INCREA…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO INCREASE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR CERTAIN DENTAL SERVICES AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB347 is now Act 1025 |
|
SB367
Act 735
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RD OF EXAMINERS IN SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY. SB367 Irvin TO REPEAL THE SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN FUND FOR…”
|
TO REPEAL THE SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN FUND FOR POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION TECHNOLOGIES ACT; … | Irvin | Notification that SB367 is now Act 735 |
|
SB371
Act 653
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ACT; AND TO REPEAL THE SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN FUND. SB371 J. Scott TO ESTABLISH A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM TO AID IN THE S…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM TO AID IN THE SEARCH OF MISSING CHILDREN WHO DO … | J. Scott | Notification that SB371 is now Act 653 |
|
SB418
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CENSE OR PERMIT FROM SERVING AS A MEMBER ON CERTAIN BOARDS. SB418 J. Payton TO AMEND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESUL…”
|
TO AMEND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 4 OF 1948; AND … | J. Payton | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB9
Act 622
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…E MANDATE FOR WATER SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIN A FLUORIDE CONTENT. SB9 B. Davis TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE MAKE ARKANSAS HEALTHY AGAIN ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT MANUFACTURING, SELLING, DELIVERING, DISTRIBUTING, … | B. Davis | Notification that SB9 is now Act 622 |
|
SB95
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…G FOR SALE A FOOD PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS CERTAIN SUBSTANCES. SB95 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS ATHLETIC TRAINERS ACT; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS ATHLETIC TRAINERS ACT; AND TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "ATHLETE" WITHIN … | C. Penzo | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
committee meeting in the Senate. We do have a long agenda. We'll try to do this as best we can, um, because of some rescheduling, we're gonna uh have some folks that are here to go first, um, on their, on their, uh, information. So I'm going to call Senator Hickey up front uh first, um, he's got a a bill that's a
House bill that I think will be an import, uh, a good bill to for to start off with. Senator Hickey, this is House
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
0:39
Bill 1610. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jimmy Hickey, Arkansas Senate is House bill. 1610. Uh, I think all of you in public health probably already know about this, but uh so I'll be quick what this does is modifies the definition of a medical emergency as it relates to uh Pregnant women, what the bill does is it clarifies that doctors acting in good faith will not be prosecuted for working to save the life of the pregnant. Woman. Anyone has any questions about the specifics of the bill, I'll be happy to answer it.
Thank you. Are there questions, Senator Hill, you recognized,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:14
Senator Hickey, where did this bill come from? What's going on with this? There's actually 2, there's
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:20
2. Two acts that we have on the books, and there's some confusion whenever we passed them about, you know, whether or not uh Uh Whether or not the You know, that a doctor could when they might have to perform some procedure on the, on a pregnant woman and if the baby were to die, uh, so, you know, what, what they would do. So
Actually, if you look on page 2, what this is what this is going to do is Change that to medical emergency means a condition in which In reasonable reasonable medical judgment complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman to the extent that termination of a pregnancy. It is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman. It used to say abortion right there, so we're going to take that out and just do the termination. And then again, if you'll look on page 3 lines 12. That's gonna be very important.
Reasonable medical judgment means a medical judgment that would be made. Our medical action that would be undertaken by a reasonably prudent qualified physician knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved, very important statement right there. Thank you, Senator Hill. Thank you. Are there any
additional um questions from members of the committee. I appreciate the due diligence
and the work on this to seek clarification in several
different code sections, and I think that's what's reflected here. Uh, is there anyone here to speak for or against this bill? See now you're recognized
clothes for your bill. I'm closed. Thank you, ma'am. All right, what's the motion to pass 2. All those in favor say aye and opposed as habit. Congratulations,
you've passed your bill. Thank you so much. Senator Davis here, we have a No, OK, um, we've got an amendment, if you'll take the chair before we get to um I can
do my amendment later, actually, uh, Representative Johnson. Thank you, uh, we want to go to your first bill. We have with us in the committee room today we have a lot of folks
here from, I'll, I'll let you introduce them. Yeah, no, thank you, members of Representative Lee Johnson, District
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:31
47. If I may, I would like to have Dr. Brandon Morchetti come to the table with me. He's here behind me just to briefly introduce himself to the committee. We're we're here today to say Stars of Life. This is House
Bill 1253. This is the EMS Compact bill. You'll see around the Capitol Bay, many of our he tic s and EMTs in the Capitol in uniform. These are our frontline healthcare providers. These are the people that are out there every day responding to 911 calls and treating emergencies. This compact is is a Lanier compact like many that you see, uh, but there's some unique things about this from a paramedics standpoint that created to make it even more important that we get this passed and I'd like to have Dr. Morchetti just say a few words about the compact briefly. I know you have a full agenda
today, and then we'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. If you'll just recognize yourself for the record, and we're really grateful
Speaker 23
4:25
that the stars of life are all here today with us in the Capitol. Yes, ma'am. Thank you and thank you, Representative Johnson. I'm Dr. Brendan Morchetti, emergency medicine and EMS physician had the honor of serving as a medical director for about 2000 licensed EMS professionals in our state. A lot of them are on the perimeter of our state, and then hundreds just across our state borders. This EMS compact has been around for about 12 years and acted by 24 states in
total, notably all 6 states that surround and contact Arkansas. It has unfortunately isolated us as a nonparticipant, and frankly has been a threat to our public safety emergency preparedness, and emergency response enacting this compact will immediately offer innumerable benefits to our state as well as allowing us to be a good neighbor to the six border states for us and since you guys do have a packed agenda, um, I'll just let you know that this is supported by the Arkansas Ambulance
Association. Arkansas EMT Association, Arkansas State Firefighters Association as well as the Arkansas Department of Health section of EMS, and then I can answer any direct questions that you guys have about it. Thank you. And I think I see in the in the
bill that you do have language in here that gives the Arkansas presence in case there is a report of any kind of we have
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
5:38
the same language that we've been adding it to all the compacts that delegating authority to ALC and the General Assembly around any rules, OK?
And then also for compliance issues, we have a local presence for that.
OK. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Senator
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
5:56
Hill, you're recognized. to look for the membership here as far as I'm gonna call it a board, but what is
Arkansas's role in that. I'm I'm sorry, could you repeat the women ruled by the uh by a committee or anything as far as the compact
Speaker 23
6:11
itself with all the different states that we are we represented on that? Yes, sir, by participating as a
member state, we are given a spot on the commission, so it's likely going to be our EMS section chief. It's a governor appointed position as a commission. to the compact. Each state has equal representation as far as being a voting member of the board to change any laws or rules. Thank you, sir. OK, thank you. Any other questions from members
of the committee? See none. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this bill? See none, you recognize the clothes for your for my bill, Madam Chair. Thank you. Motion
to pass 2nd. Is there a second? Second, all those in favor say aye and opposed, I have it congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you so much. Um, we're gonna, I'm gonna do a quick amendment to HP 1245, and then we'll
go to Senator Payton's bills. If you'll take the check.
Senator, you're recognized. Thank you, members of the committee.
You've heard this bill. We've passed this bill out. However,
there were some questions on the floor, so I worked with those members on the Senate floor and the result is this amendment, says Senator Sullivan and Senator Bryant helped with this language. Um, I think it's actually very good language. It makes it more defined about what the feet defines are um for which is the first is, if you misrepresent yourself, um, that's what that find is. And then the second would be like,
For an egregious behavior, like if somebody reports you for not doing your job well and the board can find you up to 5000. Um,
for bad behavior or whatever, and then we defined the application fee, which is really just to pay for the criminal background check, um, and then we also added
these sections here on the back page of the amendment that basically says there's no requirement of any additional training or continuing education with any state or national association. and I think that spoke to some
of the concerns that the other members. So,
uh, it's an agreed to amendment, um, for the, for
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
8:38
the members of the Senate floor. Members, are there any questions? See none.
Do I have a motion? Adopt adopt the amendments
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
8:48
to adopt the motion to have a second all in favor say aye, aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. And then
I need to make a motion to
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
9:00
do pass as amended I have a second. Members all in favor say aye, and he opposed? Thank
you. Congratulations. Thank you. Really good language. We should actually put
this in every board. She put that language in every board. OK. All right, if you will state your
name for the record, do you have anybody you want to bring up with you at this time?
Senator John Payton
Unverified
9:30
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Peyton, District
22, uh, not on the, I mean, I hope we could start with 288, which is a companion build a 284 that we already passed out and then when we get into the
meat of the unknown stuff that hadn't been presented, I'll have some people to bring up,
OK. So members, if you would look at 288, we've already passed out 284. These are the two
bills that deal with Doctor Choice in workers' comp cases, the current
law only allows one change of position for the life of the Of the uh case and I think you'll probably remember that from our discussion the other day. I don't think I showed you this. But these are states that have choice versus a hybrid model versus directed care and the lowest percentage of medical spend as a percentage of overall spend is in the states that have choice. We are currently in this
side, which is the highest spend where we direct care. This bill would take us to the middle, which would be a hybrid model where we, we don't have total choice, obviously the doctor has to be within the network of workers' comp doctors they have
to follow the fee schedule of the workers' comp fee schedule and uh but this would allow an
injured worker to have no more than 1 doctor change per year as it relates to
specialists. The bill we already sent out related to Their primary care physician, um, so anyway, that's what the bill does, and I'll be happy to
take any questions. OK, so this one is, this one is specialist. Is
Senator John Payton
Unverified
11:18
that correct? 288 would deal with the specialists. OK, I have
a quick question. I, on this bill, um, with, with the specialists, is there any, is
there any time restriction on a case. Um, and, and let me just tell you, you know, I Having, having been My husband was an orthopedic surgeon and a lot of these workman comp cases, I mean, not my husband, my father, and so workman comp cases he would see a lot, um, but my, my question to you is, like, is there any time cap or limit on a workman's comp case, because what I don't
want to see happen is like doctor shopping just to keep the workman's comp case continuing for years
Senator John Payton
Unverified
12:12
and years and years. So I don't guess there is a legislative time limit
or by code. Uh, the injured workers are pushed fairly hard to make a settlement
and the workers' comp carriers are very motivated to reach a settlement because at whatever point they reach a settlement, then any medical
costs get shifted to Medicare, Medicaid, you know, if there's a disability going on and during the time That the injured worker case is open, you know, they're only, they're only being paid 2/3. Uh, and that's kept at $900 a week on wages. So I mean, there's a lot to motivate. The injured worker to get back to work, um, but, but no, the doctor shopping. Can hardly happen anymore since
we have the network of care that has workers' comp doctors that have to be in the network. The only of these two bills, the only way they can get a doctor outside of the network is if they have a bona fide pre-existing doctor-patient relationship that they can demonstrate, which will be their primary care physician. That was part, part of 284 that we
already passed. Any other changes have to stay in workers' comp, doctors. In that work on the fee scale
that, that the workers' comp network
uses. Well, of course, the attorneys for both sides,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
13:44
and the injured worker and and the carrier or if it's a self-insured fund, it would be the self-insured fund. OK, thank you. Are there any other
questions from members of the committee? All
right. See, no, no more questions. Uh, we have somebody
signed up to speak for the bill. Is that correct? specific to this bill
Speaker 79
14:22
is Dr. Jason Lofton. Thank you. Hey my name's Jason Lochner I'm a family physician in southwest Arkansas, and there's times where I see patients, uh, go to a specialist that I might recommend a changer. I have a specialist that I um that I have a good relationship with and who has good outcomes and we're
unable to make those changes so there's, there's, I would encourage the ability for patients to make a change that may be a primary care doctor has a good relationship or sees the
best outcomes with certain specialists. OK, OK. Are there any questions? Members of the committee are seeing none. Thank you for your time being here in your testimony. OK, now we'll go to against. Carol Wardley. And members of the committee, if
I mean of the public, if you've signed up to testify on numerous bills, I will call you up for each one of those bills that
you've written down on your sheet. OK. If you'll identify
Carol Worley
Unverified
15:22
yourself for the record, you're recognized. Uh, yes, my name is Carol Worley and I am the chair of the legislative
Chair
Unverified
15:27
committee of the Arkansas Self-insured Association, speaking on their behalf today and on behalf of the state chamber of handled workers' comp for employers for the last 36 years. I can tell you of the 5 bills that are
right now 6 bills that have been introduced. This to me is So, but there was that new one that just came out Tuesday, right? Anyway, I know, right? Of all the bills that have been introduced, this to me is one of the most detrimental. Senator Irvin, you hit the nail on the head when you said, is there going to be a limit for ending a workers' comp claim there won't. I have tried and settled claims for the last 36 years, we can settle them with a one-time change of position. We know what the value of this,
this, that, that is with something like this, it essentially allows a lifetime medicals for the claimant. They can go every year to a different doctor and quite honestly, the doctors in, in Arkansas, it's slim pickings when it comes to workers. Trump because they don't want to accept the fee schedule. So we have very few doctors anyway who will actually handle workers' comp claims, but now I evaluating a claim for settlement purposes, you have to evaluate the potential of a change of position for the next. For the lifetime of the medical.
I mean, there's no, nothing in this bill that would allow for a statute of limitations or reasonable and necessary. They have an automatic right to it. And they have the automatic right once now, um, um, and Senator Payton, I think you had indicated earlier that um That um for settlement purposes, the attorneys and And are the ones that usually that usually is the, the carrier and the claimant and then they come to us unless it's litigation.
And then Doctor Lofton made a comment that they should be able to refer to specialists that they know if they refer to a specialist that they know and have a relationship with who is in the MCO that's approved by the Workers' comp commission. They're gonna get to go there. We can direct medical care. As long as it's not a valid referral. I mean, they, if they say, I want you to go to Doctor Smith, and we say, yeah, we would prefer Doctor Jones, if they've made a valid referral to Doctor Smith, we don't have an alternative. We have to approve Dr. Smith.
So, um, as long as that specialist is within the MCO, then they're allowed to do that. Um, the bills, like I said, to me, they're gonna have a very detrimental impact on, on employers in Arkansas, um, The, I think you all have the NCCI report indicating what those what those bills would do, um, I mean, I'm sorry, I didn't.
I need to. We'll pass that out because I don't do we have the one on 288.
Chair
Unverified
18:19
Only on 85, 86, and 87. OK, so there may not be one on 288, yes, but that to me, like I said, is the most detrimental. I mean, common sense right now employers are already on edge because of concerns with the economy and common sense would dictate that we don't impose additional costs on them, um, during this, I guess this uncertainty that we have, um, The purpose of the act is to provide medical care, and we do that. But this bill specifically to me is going to be quite detrimental to the employers in Arkansas,
and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Senator Wallace. You recognize for
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
18:58
question. Thank you for being here, ma'am. um. 2003 I had a person that came to work for my company, work 30 minutes, fell down clutching his knee. claimed that he had a severe knee injury, uh, as we dug into it, he was a serial. Um, claim it predator for lack of a better word. That work
claim. It lasted To my knowledge, at least 5 years. What's the lowest longest. Claim you've seen. So I actually have so the new act went into
Carol Worley
Unverified
19:36
effect in 1993. I have actually had claims dating back to before that where I have to dig out the old
Chair
Unverified
19:42
lawn and blow the dust off my, my code section. So there's not a, the, we have a statute of limitations, but with the change of position, I mean, it's, it's
an automatic right in Arkansas. So if they have a compensable injury, they're entitled to the change to their
Carol Worley
Unverified
20:00
own doctor, whoever they want. 99% of the claims run smoothly. They run fine. Everything is handled and everything's good. Every once
Chair
Unverified
20:08
in a while there's a bad apple, and that's gonna happen with the law across
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
20:12
the board and the whole time that those those run that long, the, uh, Money keeps coming in, it keeps being poured out as far as covering the costs, right? Well,
Carol Worley
Unverified
20:25
in the modifiers, I mean, they have to hold it. I'm, I'm in the process right now of
Chair
Unverified
20:29
reviewing a bunch of files, older files for the Association of Arkansas Counties that they're having to hold because the statute of limitations never running on them. They have one guy who's going to the doctor every year to keep the statute open. So, you know, and then those are used to set their premiums and what they have to set aside for the next
Speaker 106
20:49
year. So, um. and what we're going through
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
20:56
this, and I know it's just one case, but there's
Dan Parker
Unverified
20:59
multiple cases. All that affects our our state work comp rate. Am
Speaker 107
21:04
I right? Absolutely. Absolutely. Anytime they're opening claims, I mean, the purpose of the workers' comp is, it
Chair
Unverified
21:10
was a grand bargain that we had back in the 40s is to timely pay benefits to provide reasonable and necessary medical care and to get these folks back to work. I mean, those are the three primary purposes of it. It's not to keep a claim open forever and always, and there's
Carol Worley
Unverified
21:26
going to be those. I mean, I recognize that. But bad facts make bad law. You can't make law on
Speaker 106
21:35
bad things. So Go ahead. Thank you for your testimony. I
appreciate it. Sure. Thank you. Are there other questions? Yes, Senator. Letting and Senator love. Thank
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
21:42
you, Madam Chair. Just a real quick question. If a worker is involved in an accident where they suffer injuries to multiple parts of their body. Maybe they something explodes, they, they damage an eye, a hand, and a leg. Do they? How do they go about addressing those medical needs that they
have to focus on one specialist just to like treat the eye or the leg or
Chair
Unverified
22:01
are they able to go to multiple? Yeah, they could go to multiple. I mean they go to multiple specialists if they request a change of position, then that change of
Carol Worley
Unverified
22:09
position becomes the only authorized treating physician. So if they treat for their eye on their back and their knee and the knee in the back heal themselves with eye continues to be treated, then they would, and they don't
Chair
Unverified
22:18
like their doctor. They could request a change of position to another doctor. I'm not saying that workers' comp Act is perfect. I mean, there are cases, there are some
things need to be tweaked, and on behalf of Asia, I have offered to have all the parties
Carol Worley
Unverified
22:35
sit down at the table. That would be labor management and AA or whoever else is involved, the bar association, and come
Speaker 88
22:41
up with changes that we need to make, because there are some. We've got things I, I recognize that. But this
Speaker 119
22:51
isn't it. These are not it regarding the the
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
22:53
switching specialists, what if like the injuries require like concurrent care. It's not like, OK, the
back is going to be fine right now. I need to focus on the eye,
Chair
Unverified
23:03
but like there are immediate needs whatever doctors they need to resolve because well there's some traumatic injuries where they do, you know, they have a broken arm, a broken hip, a head injury, eye injury, whatever. They get it, they, we don't limit, workers' comp doesn't limit what treatment they get. Throughout the entire claim and they get that treatment until they reach what's called maximum medical improvement. And then we request a permanent impairment where they would get permanent disability benefits for each body part that they
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
23:29
have. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Love. You're recognized. No, I, I think Senator Lenny was,
Speaker 128
23:40
was, wasn't answering my questions, asking my questions in regards to just kind of you so thank
you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? All right, see none. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll call you back up on the other bills. Uh,
now we'll go to a 4, which is Jason Hatfield. This
Jason Hatfield
Unverified
24:10
I was here last week Good morning. My name is Jason Hatfield. I was here last week, um, I live in Fayetteville and
Speaker 137
24:18
I practice in Springdale. Um, I've represented injured workers my entire career and in regard to the change of position. Um This is a form in. This is a notice of injury form that workers are asked to fill out immediately when they get injured. And on the back,
It spells out the change of position, and it'll tell you that the insurance company picks all of the doctors and the injured worker can change one time. So back to Senator Leding's question, if they change to the back doctor, that's it. They don't get to change to the elbow doctor or the eye doctor, the insurance company picks all the doctors they just get one change.
Um There's a question about doctor shopping. The insurance industry absolutely doctor shops. I see certain doctors all the time they get paid $3000. They just review records and make an opinion that the Claim it is healed, even though we've got treating physicians that they chose that the insurance company chose that are recommending surgeries, so that
forces us into litigation because and and we've got people to testify about this today, where we've got treating doctors that are recommending surgery, but then they go higher and get a report for $3000 that disagrees with the treating doctors and then we're in a fight and that causes to take forever because we're fighting for a year to get a surgery that the first doctors recommended from the get-go. Um.
Jason Hatfield
Unverified
26:11
This, uh, This bill Goes with
Speaker 137
26:18
284 in that if we don't change both, we're going to have a contradiction in law, um, the 284 passed through and, and that's the other change is right now. You only get to use your primary care physician if you change, if you use your change of position. So if you've got these 3
specialists and you're like, I really want to get to the doctor that I trust the most, the doctor that's been doing my wellness checkups for the last 10 years. If you use your change of position for him, you've wiped out your ability to change for all the specialists and uh there was some testimony that if your primary care physician recommends a specialist. They'll, they'll do it. That is just not true. I have had to litigate over and over when the
primary care physician said, you, you need to go see this specialist, and they'll say, nope, they're not, nobody's authorized. We're not. going to do it. Um, and so these two bills. go hand in hand. What what we're fighting for injured workers is doctor shopping on the other side. This levels the playing field. It, I, I've described it to my clients as I'm, I love sports and if you go into a basketball game or a football
game, the insurance company has 6 time outs. They can use all of them, they can use more. We get one time out. We get one doctor changed, that's it. Um, it's not going to make cases last longer, um, cases last long because people are severely injured and They're trying to transfer this to the taxpayer, to the Medicaid and Medicare. But workers' comp is supposed to
cover your medical care as long as you need it. Um, and, and if,
Jason Hatfield
Unverified
28:21
if it's done, then we try to settle the cases,
but any Able to answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony. I'm sorry, you said again, are you here just on your own behalf or with
Speaker 137
28:34
an organization. I miss that. Um, I've worked my whole life. I'm here on my own own behalf. I'm an attorney, and I've represented workers. I've worked in poultry industry
and construction and uh fast food and I dedicated my career to helping injured workers. OK,
no, I appreciate that. I just wanted
to make sure we had that. There. Is there any other questions from members of the committee, righting Nunn, thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you for being here. OK. Again, we have um Randy So. And again, we're being specific to this bill is Randy Zukin here.
If you'll come forward and identify yourself for the record,
Speaker 148
29:24
please. You're recognized. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Randy Zook, president of Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce. I'm here on behalf of our members. Who are most of the significant or major headcount employers across the state and therefore deeply involved with and concerned about any potential changes in the cost of one of the
Primary benefits that's offered to employees workers' comp in Arkansas is a very competitive function highly functioning effective system as uh Ms. Worley testified just a minute ago. Almost all the time the cases are worked out to the benefit of the employee, um, we're here to talk about sort of the, the um Relatively small percentage of
cases that are difficult and prolonged and expensive and all those things. The NCC information will demonstrates that the potential for major increases in the cost of the system are embedded in all of these bills. I'm trying to speak generally for all 5 or 6 of them at once because Uh, it, it, the, the impact on employers, and that includes state government, counties,
cities, everybody, uh, will be significant, and this is a major cost driver in any businesses or nonprofits or whatever you want to whatever sector of the economy you want to address. Um, we urge you to be really careful with this. The system may need some minor tweaks, but not a whole s al overhaul. That's all that's that's, that's clear in the fact that it's so cost competitive and so effective. It's one of
the, we're one of the 5 least expensive uh workers' comp benefit, uh, Programs in the country, and that's a major consideration when people are talking about the economic development and capital investment decisions that were all focused on and throughout this session and nearly every committee one way or another, we're all talking about economic development and job growth and economic growth, and this is a major cost increase that will impact those considerations and the
opportunities to win those investments. So, generally speaking, the state chamber executive Committee was unanimous. It nearly every employer I've heard from has said this is too far, too much, uh, we can't, we can't sit still on this, so we're trying our best to make sure that we slow this process down and um get a broader audience as Carol said earlier, Asia is
attempted to convene all of the parties that makes sense to us. We would urge it to find a way to get to that instead of throwing these major costs as roadblocks to Arkansas employers. Would that happy to take any questions, you probably know the answer when you ask me any question on this issue, but happy to take any that you might have. Thank you. Are there any
questions from members of the committee, Senator Hill, you recognize for question.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
32:55
Mr. Zuck, you mentioned that the system does need some minor
Speaker 148
32:59
tweaks to it. What are some of those minor tweaks? Well, look, We, we start with the data and we've got a map that shows where Arkansas
stands on the maximum benefit, the 120,000 proposed
Speaker 148
33:14
there if you'll go ahead and pass out these handouts right in the middle of the states that we normally compete with. The maximum benefit on that sheet will shows about $47,000. The, the proposal to take it to 120,000 is is
Enormous and, and it's, and it's change, and we would be the 2nd, probably the #1 most expensive uh state in the country if we went to that 120,000 number. That's the kind of thing that stands out when you're an outlier in these, these conversations about economic development and capital investment projects. If you're way out of whack with the other states in your area, that's, that's a red light, that's a warning signal. We should be careful there. Uh, just like with unemployment
insurance, we're right in the middle of all the surrounding states where we're competitive. We're not necessarily the lowest we're not necessarily the highest. Uh, but any cost or potential cost for an employer that is way out of whack with other states in the area is a red flag and a warning signal, and we urge you to be careful. No, you
Speaker 158
34:28
will, because it's gonna affect all of your employers in your, in your districts.
Follow up, Madam Chair. Yes, please. You don't have to ask for
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
34:40
a follow up. Y'all just ask questions. With this so being able to change doctors to a, or being able to change a specialist is going to throw us out. To be competitive with the rates just by allowing the patient. Are they working can't claim it to possibly change, change doctors,
I think they're just gonna throw us out that much on this particular bill, not all of them together,
Speaker 148
35:05
this particular bill. You know, I, I, I'm really Hesitant to make a statement about something like that. I look, I could see two changes, you know, 1 or 2 is 2 is twice as many as 1, maybe 2 or 3, I don't know. There's, there's, there's got to be a sensible number in there that's not unlimited and maybe not as restrictive as one is currently but I would not want to be the
person who said, who, who slices the The pie there. I, I would, I would rather somebody with more expertise like Ms. Worley or, or any of the lawyers that that practice in this area, they could give you much better guidance, but just from a common sense former employer current
Speaker 148
35:59
But you know, running on forever and year after year after year and whatever.
That, that activity is described, however, it's described, doesn't make sense to me either. OK, thank you,
sir. OK, let's see, I have, um, Senator Wallace and Senator Leding. So
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
36:17
if we went to the 120,000. what I'm hearing is that would put
us above almost all the blue states and probably the number
Speaker 158
36:27
one most expensive state in the country to include California, New York, the two
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
36:33
highest are Iowa and Washington state for some reason. What would that do
Speaker 158
36:37
to our business climate as far as attracting new it's a red flag. People say, look, we're doing, you guys are doing it, the
Speaker 148
36:47
legislature for years, the governors for years, have done a marvelous job of positioning. business as an attractive place to invest and grow a business and employ people. We are making leaps and bounds of progress and lots of measures, and this is the sort of thing that would undermine that, you know, we're cutting taxes, we're, we're,
we're investing in technical education. We're investing in K-12. We're investing in the workforce. We're helping people prepare themselves to have choices and opportunities in their lives and supporting their families. And people are moving here because of those attractive elements. This to us is clearly um uh a step backwards. I don't know any other way to call it. If we
Speaker 158
37:31
go this far out of line, it's a step backwards compared to where we are today.
Thank you, sir. Senator Leving and Senator Love, I think.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
37:43
Did you thank you, Madam Chair. I know we just heard from an attorney who was speaking on behalf of the workers. I don't believe you're an attorney, but does the chamber on the chamber employ attorneys who do lobby on behalf of
Speaker 119
37:54
companies and employers. OK, thank you. Uh, Senator Love. Thank you, man. So I,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
38:03
I want to get back on because I think we went to. Another bill, I think that was
Bill 285 in regards to the 120,000 jumped out, I want to get back to 288 in regards to the the physicians and the specialists. So in in really the the overall theme
is. When you begin to talk about the tweaks and in convening everybody, so I'm thinking we only have maybe about 3 or 4 weeks left in session. Is that something
Speaker 179
38:35
we're thinking that we could do before session
Speaker 158
38:41
is out as far as it'd be happy to host or convene a meeting in our office this afternoon if, you know, if you, if
Speaker 179
38:46
you direct us to or want us to, we'd be happy to do that to, to come up with the tweets, I mean, do you if you are aware of the tweaks that need to be
Speaker 148
38:59
made, I mean, that's, that's what I'm, let me be clear, I'm not a I'm, I'm not the expert here. I'm I don't, I don't know the The the details of the code cause
Speaker 182
39:08
it look, workers' comp is very you're trying to out politician to politician now,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
39:14
uh, well, one can try, you know I'm, I'm just
saying I'll try, you know. I'm, I'm saying though, you know, because, because we're, we're really, I mean, I think Senator Payton in in in good faith about bills that wanted to address his constituents concern, and I'm gonna take it as, is that it's
Speaker 185
39:33
not that you are disregarding constituents. Because, but you're looking at the overall economic picture for the
Speaker 158
39:39
state of Senator Payton and his motivations and his efforts. I
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
39:44
respect all that. I'm just saying I'm, I'm asking though, this is what I'm asking is that with the, the tweaks that you said that need to be made. Is this something that could be that
is possible in this session so that we can actually get moving on this. Look, these
Speaker 158
40:00
are very contentious issues and I would make no prediction about the ability to get it if we get everybody in the room and lock the doors and you couldn't get out until we come to some kind of agreement that might work, but that doesn't, we don't get to do
that. Maybe the governor could, but we certainly couldn't, um, and by the way, the, the chairman
Speaker 148
40:22
of the commissions in the room. You, you. you know, there's the expert. He's the one that probably could, could see where opportunities are
for refinement. OK, we do have the workers' comp chair and CFO are here to answer the questions if needed. So, um, at this time, uh, and here's the issue. We've had these bills on
this agenda now for 3 meetings. I'm not, and that's pushing back every other members from not being able to run their bills. So I feel like y'all have had time to be able to do that already, in my opinion. That's just me, but that's where we are in the session. Y'all had that opportunity to meet and do all that, and that, that hasn't happened. And so we've had these bills on special order now 3 times, and so, you know, I've got members backed up that
need to run their bills too, so um, but we, if we do have questions for the workers' comp chair and the CFO, they're here to answer those questions if Senator Love, did you want questions answered? OK.
OK. Are there any other questions from members of the committee on Senate Bill 288 for Mr. Zook. See none. OK,
Speaker 196
41:40
thank you so much. We will now go. OK, you're,
you're welcome. Uh, for last one for the bill, Eddie
Walker, if you'll come and identify yourself for the record, and then we, we'll probably
have the Workman's comp chair. I don't
Speaker 197
41:56
want them to leave. OK, OK, thank you. I adequately discussed way and opportunity to speak. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Walker. Right. If the chairman of the
Speaker 198
42:07
workmen's comp, yes, if you can come down.
Dale Do
Unverified
42:19
OK, if you'll just identify yourself for the records, Madam Chair, committee members, thank you for having me here today. My name is Dale Do and. I'm the chairman of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. I was brought to the commission in 2004 by Governor Huckabee as an administrative law judge and since 2015, I've served as chairman of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. Um I've been over here many times over the years, um, and seen
several bills presented from both sides of the aisle and it at workers' comp, we have a delicate balance between labor and management. That's why we have a labor commissioner. We have a management commissioner, and we had myself who gets to kind of see both sides tug at the at the rope, um. Over the years I've been very consistent with both sides that I feel the system works best at both sides can get together and come up with a joint bill, some
joint legislation, um, It helps in a number of ways, uh, it would allow the workers' compensation commission to be involved in those discussions if uh, if asked, it would allow us to also get within CCI, which is by law the agency that sits the uh premium rates for workers' comp in Arkansas. They can look at specific bills and they can determine based on their data, what their projection would be,
uh, for business and for premiums, uh, if these bills are passed, and they can advise you better on what those costs will be. Uh, in fact, as recently as late last year, Secretary Bassett, um, received a call from the AFL-CIO about some proposals they would have for labor-related bills. Uh, the secretary at that time asked uh my management commissioner and my labor commissioner to gather.
Interested parties from both sides, and he set up a forum at the Department of Labor and Licensing for both sides to meet and Has left that door open and encourage both sides to come together to try to come up with some joint legislation that they both could live with. Those doors are always open. Uh, that meeting, um, uh, I'm sure spawned some conversations between both sides and Secretary
Bassett has always said, if you um if you want to have a place, I'll give you a place to meet. If you want, uh, someone from workers' comp to be there, we will provide that. That's the way I believe the system works the best, um. And so I've been over here in the past when you have more management leaning bills, and I've said the same thing, uh, either way you go, rates are going to be affected. Um. I know you guys are looking at
several different bills. I'm speaking in general terms here as far as uh all the bills, all these bills are labor leaning and they're going to have an effect on workers' compensation rates in Arkansas, uh, NCCI has provided, uh, the best analysis that they have at this point as to what it will do to those rates, uh, but again, Workers' comp was not aware of these bills prior to the day
they were filed. And so the minute I saw him, I immediately requested NCCI to do financial impact study on this, on these bills. I asked that that study be expedited. They have to date got you uh some of those analysis, but they haven't received, we haven't got all of them. So all I can tell you today is These bills will increase cost to employers. These bills will
most likely increase litigation in workers' comp. Uh, they will most likely cause the workers' comp commission to hire more staff. Uh, anytime you incentivize uh with attorneys' fees, you're probably going to get more attorneys and um I don't, I don't know what, what. But those bills are actually going to
Speaker 201
46:43
do, but I can tell you what we believe they will do. Um,
Dale Do
Unverified
46:56
You're not taking a position on these bills today, but we are advising as best we can, the effects that they, that they will have. And again, we have encouraged both sides to get together and come up with some joint legislation, uh, since I've been chairman of
the commission. OK, thank you so much. So did you say that
they're what the NCCI. Uh, preliminary cost impact analysis. We have those for 285, 286, and 287. They are, they
have, they are doing them also for 284 and 288, and I, if there's a new bill that's been filed, uh, that would
also fall into that category as well, so those are, they, they, we should be expecting this, is that what you're saying? OK. Will
you be able to get those to us
Speaker 207
47:45
as soon as I get them, I will provide them to
the committee, and I'm not sure what. Is there another bill that you filed, Senator Payton, along these lines
Senator John Payton
Unverified
47:53
these bills pass the, the other bill will not be necessary, OK. Right.
OK. Well, I, I, I think it costs, cost analysis is important information, because
I think that's why we delayed this meeting for you for today was because you indicated that you wanted true cost analysis on every bill. So I think to be, to be fair, that's what we need to have. We need true cost analysis.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
48:21
Yeah, I don't think they can reach one on 84 and 88 because it's a total unknown, but when you give the injured worker. Uh Physician choice. These are the
states. The blue states have a choice, the red states have directed care in the ye are hybrid. This is the graph I showed you. The directed care are
the highest percentage. Medical versus overall claims. And the Dr. Choi states are the lowest, OK, so NCCI
on the phone with me. had told me that they didn't
think they could come up with a score on, on 84
and 988, but OK. Well, will you follow up on that for us if you're our chair of
Speaker 214
49:12
our workman's comp, you follow up with I have requested it and
I'm waiting. OK, if you'll get us that word as soon as possible, I would then disperse that to my
Senator John Payton
Unverified
49:22
members and and to follow up on your question, we would become a hybrid, not a choice state because we're not allowing
full choice. OK. Do you want copies
of those to give to members
Speaker 216
49:35
that you just, your grass. We can make that, but yeah, you can definitely
Senator John Payton
Unverified
49:42
cos if you want. I think it specifically uh pertains to 84 and 88, not the other bills.
OK, well, we'll get copies for the members. I think that's helpful. Are
there any other questions for our Senator Love. You have a question for our chair our workers' comp chair and CFO.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
50:06
Good good. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, uh, I understand you to say that that uh Secretary Bassett actually tried to convene meetings. He, he
Dale Do
Unverified
50:21
did convene a meeting last year with the members of labor and management and uh my understanding those meetings are ongoing, um. I can't, I can't tell you if there's been any results from those meetings, but I can't tell
Speaker 207
50:38
you that Secretary Bassett provided that forum
Speaker 181
50:40
for both both sides. OK, and, and, and these are the meat and to kind of talk about is is Mr.
Speaker 222
50:48
Zook said the tweaks to workers' comp. Yes sir, and that's, that's really what I mean by
Dale Do
Unverified
50:54
joint negotiations is both sides are probably going to have a list of the top 3 things they want and the other side will, there'll be some give. take in the, the, the hope is it would result in a cost neutral
bill because one side's going to give up something, one side's going to get something and uh it, it, it's really the only way I think you can prevent multiple bills coming from labor, multiple bills coming from management. I've seen in years past certain uh bodies in the legislature say, don't come with us with the workers' comp bill unless it's been jointly negotiated by both sides. I, I have advocated for that since I've been chairman since 2015 for both sides to get
together. Over the years I've had forums at the workers' comp commission where I've invited both sides in. Now, there's been times sides don't necessarily want to negotiate, but from what I've heard here today, uh, they're willing to come to the table and I, I would love to see it. OK. All right, thank you. Senator Wallace, you recognize. You know,
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
52:03
if, if we really don't know the cost, then We're, we're walking down the alley.
Speaker 204
52:12
Blind could this end up being devastating for our businesses in Arkansas. Well, I hate to
Dale Do
Unverified
52:19
use the term devastating, but it will definitely have an impact and without knowing that impact, I would be hesitant to go
down that road. Yes, sir. OK, other questions from
members of the committee. All right, thank you so so much for being here and for your testimony on this bill. Please stick around for the other bills.
OK. Uh, I don't see anybody else. Is that correct?
Signed up to speak for or against, uh, no more
questions, you're recognized to close or
Senator John Payton
Unverified
52:46
Senate Bill 288. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm sorry, I, I had
hoped to address these bill individually and uh you know, so anyway, I'll try to stick to 288 on the clothes here. You heard from the first, uh, testimony against it, MCOs, OK, that means managed care organization. We, this bill allows one change a year. But they have to be in network.
She testified that there's very few doctors willing to do workers' comp because the pay scale, the, the Fee scale is low and the red tape is high. It's, it's not wide open, go choose any doctor you want. You've got to have a doctor that's in network that's following the fee scale that's willing to do all the red tape. There are bad actors. I'm sure that are milking the system. I'm trying to take care of, of
injured employees that want to return to work, OK? I've got a constituent who had a surgery replacing a knee and has to have it redone. He doesn't trust the same surgeon to do it a second time. He wants a new surgeon, but when his case was very young, the first doctor they went to. didn't want to handle multiple injuries and all the red tape and told them they needed to ask for a change of doctor and they didn't know they only got one change, but that way,
284 we've already passed out this committee 288 is the other half of the puzzle that deals
with specialists. There's a lot of other things to discuss on other bills,
but This is not a bill that's going to bankrupt. The workers' comp system in Arkansas. I'm an employer. I've not been invited to any of those meetings because I'm not on either side as far as labor management. I, I, I pay these workers' comp premiums at 4 businesses.
And when I pay those premiums, I expect to get some coverage. And the workers' comp carriers are making over 50% margin on this book of business. So don't tell me that they've got to raise the rates because somebody needs to change positions or change specialists. I'd appreciate a good vote and
I move to pass. So Thank you. Motion to pass 2nd. All those in favor say aye, and a post.
have it. Congratulations, you passed Senate Bill 288. Which bill
Senator John Payton
Unverified
55:27
do you want to go to next? 25, I think it's the one. That I've
been very open about if there's one of these bills that can legitimate legitimately be blamed for raising costs, it's 285. So let's talk about it. OK. So just, I've
the committee as well, Senator, I think you have another hand irrelevant to the rest of the
bills. You also have this one, is that correct? That's the
Senator John Payton
Unverified
55:59
list of all the different buildings and yes, that's a talking points for the bills we passed out at the last meeting. I didn't know if anybody you can pass it
out again, yes, that's been handed out as well. All right,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
56:12
285. OK, so you've heard a lot about economic development in Arkansas. This is gonna be interesting. This is going to
be the most interesting one that we present here, OK?
We have advertised to the world that we're
open for business in Arkansas. We want higher paying jobs in Arkansas. This bill does not raise anybody's wages from where they
currently are. Arkansas's workers' comp. Currently pays 66.6% of an injured worker's wage. It will raise it to 70%. Other than that,
it doesn't, it doesn't change.
What we're doing is allowing workers that make more than $71,000 a year to be covered. Now guess what? I'm the employer that when I found out about this, I got upset because I'm paying the premiums. If I've got an employee making $90,000 a year, and I pay a premium on that $90,000 but I'm only covered for $71,000 of it. If I've got 2 employees making $45,000 apiece. It's the same 90. It's the same premium.
But, but their wages are covered. But when I have a higher pay, skilled worker that's making 90,000. He's only gonna get 2/3 of 71. Which is a cap of $908 a week. So you've got a we're we're economic development, I think y'all heard new core yesterday on the Senate floor that their average starting wage is $85,000
a year. Well, guess what? They're paying a premium on every dollar of that. But their employees are only covered up to 71,000, 2/3 of 71,000. This bill would change it to 70%, and I'll tell you why. As I mentioned before, I have 4 businesses of my own. I always assumed that the 2/3 was because of take-home pay, uh, when they, when they get workers' comp, they're not having to withhold taxes. They're not gonna have to, you know, pay income tax on that and
probably back 20 years ago, 2/3 was was about what take home pay was, but we've cut income taxes here in Arkansas. I ran the numbers last Saturday on 3 of my businesses, the, the average take home pay for one of them is 74.93%. The next one is 76.47%. And
the third one, which is Fill a lower income employees is 79.7%.
So we currently give them 2/3 of their average weekly wage when what they're taking home is 75%. I'm just trying to raise it to 70%. I'm not even trying to go all the way. To where they're made whole. I mean they're still going to be under a lot of pressure to get off of workers'
comp, when they're taking home 30 $40.50 dollars a week, less than what they were working.
And it's really hard when you're, when your lifestyle and your budget is set on a 9000 or $100,000
salary and you get injured. And you're gonna get $900 a
week. You're gonna get the same, you're gonna get 2/3 of the same
as if you were making 71,000. Yes, this bill arguably Could raise
expenses. In workers' comp. But if we're gonna track higher paying jobs to Arkansas. If we're all about economic development in Arkansas. Then I'd like to know how you
attract the workforce. If we don't protect their wages. I mean, if I'm paying somebody 900 or $100,000 a year in skilled positions are probably not high risk. Or as high risk as some of the other physicians. But I'm already as an employer paying the premium. If, if you're not gonna give me the coverage. Then, then let's stop charging the premium, OK? And that's
what, that's what motivated this bill. That's why I brought it. It does raise that 66.6% to 70%. I would argue they're already collecting the premium. On the rest of it when I raise The average weekly wage from a scale of 71,000 to 120. Those premiums are already being paid. I'll take any questions you got. Thank you. Are there questions from members of the committee.
OK. No questions from members of the committee. We are here. We have people to speak for and against the bill on 285. Stephen
Keeling. He'll come forward State your name for the record and if you're just by yourself or if you're associated with any group or organization, if you'll identify that as well. Thank
Steven Keeling
Unverified
1:01:22
you so much for being here this morning. Yes, ma'am. Thank you everyone for your time here today and and listening to me, um. I come on behalf of the injured workers I know we've heard a lot of people talk about the work
cops out and the litigation side, um, I'm a proud union arm worker from right here in Little Rock, Arkansas have been for 14 years I'm sorry, for the record, my name is Steven Keeling. Um. I'm from Solon Springs, Arkansas. I lived there for approximately 3 years. Um, a father had 2 daughters and a husband to a wife who I love deeply. Um, On August 23, 2023. I was in a scissor lift connecting steel beams when my scisor lift was turned over, sending me the
concrete nearly 20 ft down. I was rushed to Mercy Northwest where I was diagnosed with a broken back and severe leg pain. Now emergency room doctor ordered both X-ray and CT. He didn't order an epidural steroid injection tell with the neuropathy I was experiencing in my right leg. The insurance company denied the injection. A second request was made after I was released from the hospital and the insurance company again denied. It was at this point that I realized I was going to need an attorney to get any medical treatment.
Finally, I did receive the epidural injection and was referred to another neurosurgeon, Workers' comp chose all these doctors, by the way, I had no choice in choosing any of these doctors. After reviewing the films and the results of the injection, the neurosurgeon. Advised that surgery was my best option to alleviate the pain and get back to work. Instead of authorizing the surgery, the insurance carrier paid a doctor that I'd never seen $3000 to write an opinion that he said he didn't recommend surgery.
The doctor was not a neurosurgeon. Instead of following the recommendations of all the doctors that I've been physically examined by the, the insurance provider did not provide the surgery that they had requested. They instead relied on their $3000 review. My attorney then asked for a hearing and I was required to give a deposition while waiting for the hearing, the insurance company hired a private investigator to sit outside my home and film me and video record me with drones.
I testified at my hearing. We introduced my medical records into evidence. The judge issued an opinion after a few months, in a word, the surgery. My attorney was not allowed a fee for winning the surgery or the post postoperative medical care because there's no law that that gives him that. Under the current law, insurance companies have no incentive to provide recommended medical care to injured workers. Instead, they'll deny deny and delay. I finally received awarded multi-levels lumbar fusion
surgery on January 8th, 2025. Nearly 17 months after my incident. My wife tried to pick up my post-operative uh pain medicine only be met with one of the biggest denials over the course of this incident. The insurance company failed to authorize my post-surgery pain medication. The time it took to get my pain under control seemed like an eternity. For the next 2 days, sleep was minimal, only being able to sleep for a few hours at a time because of the intensity of my pain. This could have all been prevented had the insurance company done what they were ordered to do so.
Delays in medical treatment are only the one of the hardships that come with this with workers' comp. There's also financial hardship. When you bring on pay is much higher than the work comp maximum wage. Wordcom does not pay your family's health insurance or contribute to your pension. I had to pay our health insurance out of pocket or health insurance out of my work comp check. I typically bring home about 1600 per week and none of the work comp, I was only allotted $835. Additionally, work comp is
almost always late with payments. I consistently have to ask my attorney to contact them because my checks have not been sent. I've incurred late charges on my house rent, paid hundreds of dollars in interest on credit card debt, all because there's no consequences for timely payments. Again, these are only a few examples of the hardships that me and my family have had to endure. I never wanted to get injured or be on workers' comp. I want to work and provide for my family. So I ask that you vote yes for this bill to Senate Bill 285 for
increasing the max maximum rate that workers' comp pays out. I want you to put yourself in my shoes or any other injured worker's shoes and ask yourself where you would make your cuts. And how you would provide for your family.
That's all. Thank you. Do you have any other questions for members of the committee? Are you, are you open to questions. Are there any um Is your case resolved? No, ma'am.
Steven Keeling
Unverified
1:06:15
I'm currently in physical therapy. OK, and how long has this been? This
the injury happened August 23rd, 2023. OK, so you're at 2025 with physical therapy, OK.
Steven Keeling
Unverified
1:06:31
And I'm, I'm assuming medications? Yes, ma'am. I've actually had to get um to go through the injured workers' pharmacy to get my medical medicine approved. OK, all right.
Speaker 11
1:06:42
Any questions? I have a question. OK, go ahead. You're
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:06:46
recognized. Did I hear you right that your surgery was
just January of this year. That's correct, yes sir. So you went from what, what, what month in 23 August August of 23 until January of 25 before you could get a broken back fixed. Thank you.
Speaker 213
1:07:03
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Love, did you
have a question? No. Any other members' questions from members of the committee.
Thank you for being here and for
your testimony. OK, we're going to go to against, uh, Carol
Carol Worley
Unverified
1:07:31
Wardley. I have already introduced myself, so I won't do that again. um, on behalf of Asia and the Chamber of Commerce, the state Chamber of Commerce, were objecting to
Chair
Unverified
1:07:39
this bill also. I ran a couple of numbers while we were sitting over there. under the current workers' comp
provisions the current Workers' Comp Act for a permanent disability benefit of uh 10% to the body as a whole, which is a back injury, for instance, and injured employee would get $30,465 in permanent disability benefits. The average weekly wage that's proposed in this, they would get $54,000. That's a $24,000 swing up. Um, you add into that the cost of wage loss, disability, everything, the expenses on that are going to be substantial for
an employer. This bill doesn't just increase TTD. This bill, which is a temporary disability amount. This bill also increases permanent disability. Permanent disability in Arkansas on every state that I know of is a percentage of the temporary disability. In this, what what is being proposed here is that it would be the same, which means you could have 10% impairment to your arm for a carpal tunnel. 10%
Carol Worley
Unverified
1:08:43
impairment to the arm under the current act with the maximum
Chair
Unverified
1:08:50
rate would be $12,389. With this new rate, it would be $210,960. You tack onto that what, what is being proposed wage loss disability for um scheduled injuries, which are the hand injuries and anything other than the trunk. Then you know the costs for employers is not just going to increase a little bit. It's going to increase dramatically when they're having to pay these fees. So for those reasons and for other reasons and, and just a couple of things to note, um, when Mr. Keeley was testifying,
he said there were no consequences for not timely paying benefits, that's absolutely not the case. There's an 18% late payment penalty if they're not paid in a timely manner. So I'm not, I don't know anything about his case, but there is a provision in the Act. that allows for that. So again, when, when Senator Payton said that arguably this could raise expenses absolutely this will
Speaker 93
1:09:43
raise the cost substantially for employers. OK, and
so just to the, the analysis that we have that I
think Senator Payton actually did ask for himself as well from NCCI. Is there a specific amount, right, the
Speaker 263
1:10:00
NCCI, as I understand it, said they're their analysis was that
Chair
Unverified
1:10:04
they talked about 4.4% and 5.8%, but then they said the direct impact was going to be 9.9%. And as Kenny, um, or no, I guess Randy testified a few minutes ago, this would make us the highest in the country. OK
Alright. Are there questions from members of the committee,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:10:28
Senator Payton, do you have a question?
So when you say that it's gonna raise. It only It only benefits more if they make more money, correct? You're not saying that we're gonna raise somebody that was on a $50,000 pay scale, they still get the same that they
Speaker 266
1:10:45
get before. They, it's the maximum rate at 66 and 2/3 of whatever their average weekly wage is, and the permanent disability
Chair
Unverified
1:10:55
benefits is 75% of that, not equal across the board. That to me is where the rub is
Carol Worley
Unverified
1:11:02
on this one, that's 75, 1 70%, 70%. And currently it's 75. It's 75 of the TTD rate. And what you're making it
Chair
Unverified
1:11:11
or what you're wanting it to be is 70% of the average weekly wage across the board, but
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:11:17
you understand that it's only going to be if if a worker is making the higher wages. It's not going to raise a low income worker to
Carol Worley
Unverified
1:11:27
a new level. It will. What you've got in your will. Yeah, and the maximum is explain that I'd appreciate it. Yeah, so if your average weekly
Chair
Unverified
1:11:38
wage is $60,000 then you're saying that the, the TTD and PPD rates and permanent total rates and death rates and every other rate will be 70% of the average weekly wage, which will increase not only the 3.6% additional 3.4%, but on PPD benefits, which is the permanent disability benefit
is only 7 now is only 75% of the TTD rate. And this Subsection B raises it up. To 70% of the average weekly wage
Speaker 93
1:12:11
for permanent disability benefits also. Which is
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:12:16
a I'm a committee member, so I was just asking a question, but
so when it says the employees average weekly wage. It's based on 70% of the
employees average weekly wage, not to exceed the 120,000. OK, thank you. Thank you.
Are there other questions from members of the committee?
See none. Thank you so much for your testimony. Um, back to 4, I have Eddie Walker.
Speaker 276
1:13:02
Thank you Madam Chair. Members of the committee. I'm
Speaker 277
1:13:07
Eddie Walker. I'm an attorney in Fort Smith, Arkansas after after being a worker's compensation judge for several years. I went into private practice representing injured workers. I've been doing that for about 40 years. I'm here in support of the bill and I want to explain to you why I think that this bill is important. Basically we have got a
situation now where a lot of people think that injured workers get 2/3 of their average weekly wage. But that's not necessarily true if you're a low, if you're a low wage earner, you get 2/3, but if you're a high wage earner, you don't get 2/3 because they're caps that apply that prevents you from being able to actually get 2/3 of your wages. The first cap is the state average weekly wage is set by the division of Workforce Services.
The state average weekly wage in Arkansas right now is $1,61.97. If you multiply that times 52, that means that the state average weekly wage is $55,222.44. The maximum compensation rate is not based on that. It's based on 85% of that amount. So that's the first cap. The state average weekly wage. The second cap is
this 85% of the state average weekly wage that sets the maximum compensation rate for injured employees in Arkansas at $903 a week. If you multiply that $903 a week times 52, that's 40. $6,956. So if that's the absolute maximum that an injured worker can receive at this point. You can understand what a dramatic impact.
Being injured has on somebody who's making 8090 $100,000 a year. They can't ever get more than $46,0956 under the current the current process. The proposed amendment basically indicates that there will still be a cap, but that cap will not be the state average weekly wage, it will not be 85% of the state average weekly wage, it'll be 120,000
Is. So what it does is it allows people who make $120,000 or less to truly get a percentage of their wages without having to deal with these multiple caps. It protects Management Against Huge workers' compensation weekly rates because the $120,000 cap. Prevents, say, for example, somebody who's making $150,000
or $200,000 from getting an astronomical average weekly wage. So essentially what, what, what this proposed act does is it allows people to get a more realistic portion of their wages while they're off work. It's easy to see that police officers, firefighters, school teachers, nurses, just to name a few, are all very negatively
impacted by this current $903 a week cap if, if, if the cap is raised so that you can consider up to $120,000 a year earnings, then it would allow those people to actually get a realistic Uh, amount of money to live on as opposed to getting some substantially reduced amount. Of course, One of the arguments is going to be You don't want to disincentivize
people from returning to work, but certainly if you're receiving Substantially less than you were earning when you got hurt. That's not going to disincentivize you to return to work. It's going to incentivize you to return to work. So that's, that's the why it needs to be done. Why we can afford to do it is explained by the fact that back in 1993 when Act 796 was passed, there was an outcry by
management that the workers' compensation system was failing because it was too easy for injured workers to get approved for workers' compensation benefits that premiums that skyrocketed and that something needs to be done to save the system. Well, the thing, the thing that was done to save the system was Act 796 was passed. Act 796 dramatically changed how workers' compensation law works
in Arkansas and it greatly reduced benefits that injured workers had access to before the passage of Acts 796. The explanation by management for the need for that great overhaul was that we were in the top 10%, maybe even top 5% of the highest premiums in the whole nation. Well, things got changed and certainly a number of those changes were legitimate, and a
number of those changes needed to be made because for example, before Acts 7:96, a lot of times there were situations where there were really no objective findings upon which you can conclude that somebody actually sustained a legitimate injury or if the evidence was kinda, kinda even. I mean, it wasn't really. Didn't really show that the injured employee clearly had an injury, the benefit of the doubt
kind of went to the injured workers. So there were some things that needed to be changed, so there were legitimate changes, but the scale got tilted too far because what happened was Arkansas went from one of the highest premium states to now one of the lowest premium states as Mr. Zuck from the state chamber indicated Arkansas is now one of the 5 lowest premium states in the in the country. So if it has gone
from one of the highest premium states to one of the lower premium states, then obviously there is room to now make some adjustments so that injured workers can be treated a bit better than they have been under Act 796. So It, it may cost more money. To provide these benefits, but I would suggest to you that that would simply mean that insurance companies are making less profit
than they're making now. And at some point the interest of the employee and the employer are more consistent than the interests of insurance companies, and that's what the real issue I think is, is that there, the, the premium dollars are what we need to look at. We need to look at What kind of premiums insurance companies are receiving and what kind of benefits they're paying.
And if those two numbers are really out of whack, then that means that injured workers are coming up short.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, but you're an
attorney, correct? OK, so, but isn't it fair to say a lot of this is also though designed to reach settlements quicker, maybe. Oh, certainly,
Speaker 277
1:21:14
uh, I mean, I just want to be fair about cases is good for the system, quite frankly, because
uh as the discussion earlier, uh, indicated. A lot of these cases go on and on and on and on and, and there's really under the current law, there is really no No way. Really c close the case without settling it because under the current law an injured worker has got a right to keep their case open for an indefinite period of time as long as they don't go one full year without
receiving authorized medical treatment. So, so even if they're seeing If they don't have a right to change doctors and they're just seeing the same doctor as long as they don't go a full year without receiving authorized medical treatment, they can keep the case open indefinitely, so settling and resolving cases is a positive thing in my opinion. OK. Are there any other questions
from members of the committee. Thank you for your testimony. All right, see Nunn, thank you for your testimony. Um, again,
thank you, sir. 285 Mr. Zook, Randy Zook.
Speaker 283
1:22:28
I'm sure I can't add anything to this part of the conversation is where. OK, um, and then
for Jason Hatfield. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I don't
Speaker 132
1:22:39
have anything else to add. OK, all right.
Seeing nothing more, no further questions. You're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:22:54
Please focus on this bill because this is, this is, in my opinion, the most important bill.
Of all of the whole package. Uh, I've already stated how as an employer, I'm paying these premiums for this coverage.
When I, when I opened a business and I've opened several of them, I call an insurance carrier and I say I need some workers' comp, and they say, what's your payroll gonna be? And they want it classified by secretarial versus salespeople or mechanics or whatever,
because those are different risk groups. And they charged me a premium based on my total. Payroll in each risk group. OK, that's what the premium is. At the end of the year, they come audit. and see if my projected payroll is what the reality was, and if I paid more than what I told them. I have to pay the premium on those dollars too. If I have a salesperson making $90,000 a year.
Verses 2 salespeople making 45, it cost me the same premium. But on the two making 45. That payroll is covered under workers' comp. On the one making 90. Only 71,000 of its covered. Why am I paying that premium? I'll tell you why. There are over 500 workers' comp carriers over 500 worker comp carriers in our licensed to do business in Arkansas.
The total premiums last year was $274274 million. The total claim cost was 134 million. That's a that's a margin of 140 million. That's a 51% gross profit margin or if you were in retail, that's 104% markup in 2022. They collected $254 million in claims in premiums, and they
paid 107 in claims. That's a 58% margin. OK, out of 500 carriers in the state of Arkansas. Which one's gonna be first to raise their rate and give up market share. I'm already paying the premiums for this as an employer. Which one of those 500 carriers is gonna be first when they're making a 50% profit margin. Which
one is gonna be first to raise rates and give up market share.
I've got businessmen sitting around this table, you understand what I'm saying. But we are the health committee. We deal with doctors and nurses and medical profession on every bill, OK? Doctors have to be licensed in Arkansas to practice medicine. Before they work on a worker's comp case, they have to accept all the perimeters and be part of that group. Folks, there may be a few bad actors, but I trust the doctors to make wise decisions in prescribing the medical care.
Trust your business sense here right now. And think about this. The employers are paying twice, more than double. What the insurers are paying out in claims. How can they justify a rate
increase. Now rates are very low in Arkansas. We are the 2nd lowest state out of 50 states in
the District of Columbia. Arkansas has the 2nd lowest workers' comp.
Right. Why is that? Because we have some self-insured
in the state. And those self-insured, I love them to death. I, I participated in self-insured plan with my two new car stores through the Arkansas Auto Dealers Association. It, it's great. It forces reality on the insurance carriers. But because Arkansas has such Draconian Limits on how injured workers are taken care of.
Even though we have the 2nd lowest workers' comp rates in the nation. They're still making a 54% margin. Now just let that soak in. And I understand the chamber being nervous about this. As an employer, I don't want to do anything that raises my rates. But I think with 500 carriers, I can shop my rates. And I'll shop and find out who's got the cheapest one, but let me
leave you with one last little tidbit. I told you, Arkansas is in 2nd place as nationwide as having the lowest
workers' comp rates. Do you know how much our rates would have to go up for us to lose one
position. And being 3rd. 20% We are in 2nd place with a half a lap lead on the field. I do agree that 285 could raise
rates. I shouldn't say race. It could raise cost
to the carriers. But it shouldn't raise rates. I asked for a good
vote. I'll move for Du pass. OK, there's discussion that Senator Willis requested at this time,
just before we do that, Senator Payton, uh, this has been a, uh, if you'll move to your seat, if you want to participate in discussion as a member of the committee, you're allowed to do so, but just so that the the public understand
he is participating in discussion, not to relitigate the bill, but in discussion on the motion of Du Pas as a member of the
committee, he has that authority. If you're not a member of The committee, you cannot participate in discussion. That was just A question
that I had with some previous testimony. So Senator Wallace, you're recognized. Having to work
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:29:08
copyright. That's a 2nd loss in the country. It's not a crime. It's nothing
to be ashamed of. It's something to be very proud of. I was managing a payroll. From the early 90s on after I retired from the army. I remember the dark days when I work comperrates were high. I remember businesses going to other states. I remember
over the last 30 years as we drove our work comp rates down, that along with
other factors drew businesses into the state of Arkansas. If we go down this road. Businesses are going to have to Could cost Could cost means if you've got 5 people working for you on Friday you're gonna have 4 working for you on Monday. We might as well take a blue
paintbrush and the mark across our state signs and say close for business.
Thank you. Other discussion from members of the committee. Senator Peyton, do you
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:30:29
recognize? Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I understand the hesitancy and the worry because there's been a lot of people running around with their hair on fire and saying this is going to shut down the state. And I love economic development. We need jobs. We need good paying jobs, but it doesn't do you any good to have the jobs without the labor. If you have empty jobs, it's not
going to help you at all. The young man that came to the end of the table with a broken back and two daughters. And he was
taking home $1600 a week. And workers' comp gives him 900. Actually it was 800 and something according to this testimony. worker's comp is paying him 800 and something plus his family is left without health insurance because that was part of his pay plan, and he had
to pay for his own health insurance out of that
$800 and something dollars. While the workers' comp carrier drags their feet and takes 18 months. To get the
surgery. And, and post-op can't even get the pain medicine. And I appreciate My profession being business owners and entrepreneurs and economic development. That's where, that's where my heart is. But we heard new Corps stand on the Senate floor yesterday and
talked about how all their employees are team members. I think of my employees as family. You can't expect to have the workforce. If we treat them like that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Are there is
there any other discussion from members of the committee before we take a vote, OK? There's been a motion in a second. All those in favor say aye and opposed. I have it.
Senate Bill 286. Before we do that, Senator Hill, do you mind just handling the concurrence of Senate Bill
222, please. He's gonna handle this for Senator Davis. I think it's a concurrent 7 amendment that
was placed on the house, Senate Bill 222. Uh, Senator Hill, thank you for doing this for Senator Davis, I believe.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
1:32:57
Ricky Hill District 11. This is an amendment for Senator Davis, simply deleting 15 and substituting the following. Direct service providers shall comply with provisions applicable to providers and federal managed care rule or marketing activities as existing on January 1st, 2025, and the department shall revise the marketing rule to comply. Correct. So I think what this amendment does is just add it
adds that reference to the federal guidelines and DHS is in the room if you have any questions from members of the
committee on the amendment. OK, so motion to concur. Second, all those in favor say aye. And opposed I habit. Just to concur. OK, thank you. All
right need to adopt it now. No, it's just motion to concur. We thank you. OK, Senator Payton, 286. Thank you,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:33:55
Madam Chair, members, I know I've wore out my welcome.
I'll be really quick. 280 Senate Bill 286. When a worker has A permanent Disability because of an injury. There is a, a scale of of what that Disability is worth, they lose a hand, lose a finger, lose an eye, something like that. Currently that scale is the final say that the
judge or the commission doesn't get to. alter or vary from that at all,
but some, but the injury could have more of an effect on one person than it does the other based on their career. So you may be in a career where losing an eye doesn't affect your ability to return back to
that career once you heal, or you may be in a career where you absolutely can't perform the task without both eyes. So 286 does one simple thing. In considering the claim for the permanent disability. Uh, the, the workers'
compensation commission may Take into account the in addition, additional percentage. It's a May, it's not a show and it's just putting a little bit of flexibility, a little bit of latitude to the workers' comp commission or the judge, and being able to say, This injury to this worker is such a career.
Destroyer that they've got start all over again and and there should be extra compensation.
That that's all it does and uh. I think for members of the committee. See none. Is there
anyone here to speak for or against this bill. We have the Jason Hatfield for 286 Nikki, Nikki Beeler. You've come to the table and identify yourself for the record, please. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, there you go.
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
1:36:12
is number 2. I'm sorry, she's 4, sorry. Sorry. My name is Nikki Beeler and I'm honored to be here today. I live in Bella Vista, Arkansas. I'm married and I have two wonderful children. As a single mom of two, I dedicated my life to becoming a police officer for Bentonville, Arkansas. In earning a degree in criminal justice and completing a rigorous 13 week program academy program and 14 weeks of field training.
Before I could become a patrol officer. Throughout this journey, I sacrificed countless hours with my family and during long hours, no holidays
Speaker 314
1:36:44
off and missing special events with my children. All in pursuit of the dream job and I
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
1:36:51
loved every minute of it. My commitment to obtaining the necessary skills and training to serve as a police officer was unwavering. Until on February 26, 2020 on duty teaching a class at Bittenville Police Department. I sustained an injury to my left leg.
That altered my career path indefinitely. While training, my co-instructor's knee struck the inside of my left leg, causing significant bruising. It
Speaker 314
1:37:17
was later discovered, discovered that this impact ruptured an artery supplying blood flow to the lower part of my leg. A worker's
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
1:37:25
compensation claim was opened, and 2 days
Speaker 314
1:37:27
later I was examined by a workers' comp physician's assistant, not a doctor. That diagnosed it as a deep tissue bruise
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
1:37:35
and sent me home and told me to walk it off.
Speaker 314
1:37:42
And use crutches as needed, he scheduled a 1 to 3 week follow-up. I lasted 4 days. I couldn't put my foot on the ground. After 4 days, I returned to this doctor. This physician's assistant for him to look at me and tell me, Man, that looks bad. And tell me that I had compartment syndrome. I didn't know what compartment syndrome was. He had me in a surgeon's office in 45 minutes. The surgeon confirmed that I needed immediate surgery.
And told the workers' compensation system that I needed
this surgery. It took 2 weeks for them. I'm sorry, it seems like you're giving testimony on Senate Bill 288, which we've already heard. So do
you mind just limiting your testimony to this particular bill as it is written so that we hear testimony as to why you're supportive of this particular bill of 286. Which is the, um, Madam Chair.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:38:43
I've not met this lady before, but if this injury ended up in a
total or partial disability rating. than what she's telling is very pertinent to 286. I understand.
I'm just trying to make sure that we're directed towards the bills that were listening that we're hearing and not bill that we've already heard. Thank you. Please proceed. It
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
1:39:07
to approve my surgery. During this time, I was in the ER twice, um, and I almost lost
my lower left leg. While waiting for the surgery, I was in constant pain with no answers. Despite the constant communication with the surgeon attempting to expedite the approval process. My
Speaker 314
1:39:24
surgery did not, was it didn't make a difference. Following the surgery that took place on March 15th, 17 days after the initial injury, they removed a massive blood clot that prevented blood flow to my lower part of my leg, which I, to this day, I still have no feeling all the way to my toe. After I, after I had the
surgery, um, they told me that I needed physical therapy. They diagnosed me with CRPS, which is chronic regional pain syndrome. I went through everything that they told me to do. And my orthopedic surgeon told me that I needed a spinal cord stimulator. The doctor, the workers' comp denied it. So me and my husband paid for this out of pocket, back and forth to the Mayo Clinic in order to get what I needed to perform, not just as a police officer but as a mother.
This ultimately ended my career, um, I chose to get the surgery so that I could function in an everyday life. I had pain for 14 to 17 months. Every single day I
Speaker 318
1:40:31
would wake up and my leg would be bruised. It would be swollen. And
Speaker 314
1:40:37
I just had to deal with it. The workers' comp doctor that they made me go to, told me to take a handful of gabapentin and oxycodone for the rest of my life and I could return to
active duty. There was not the answer to this. So I consulted with my doctor, which referred me to Mayo Clinic, the day they implanted this device in my back is the day that it ended my career. So it didn't only take my career away, but it permanently disabled me from doing the things that I could have done before. Had workers' comp approved the surgery. Before 2 weeks, I'd still be a police officer. I would still be doing the job that I trained for and that I loved dearly.
I had 2 orthopedic surgeons saying that I needed a spinal cord stimulator. I exhausted all therapies, all medications, anything I could do to save my career and ultimately it didn't work. Having the spinal cord stimulator implanted is the first time in 12 months that I did not have any pain. After successfully
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
1:41:45
getting my spinal stimulator, then I had to undergo a complete ACL replacement. Fighting with workers' comp all the way.
Now I walk with a permanent limp and I have a device that requires a a surgery every 5 to 7
Speaker 314
1:42:05
years to replace it. I still am currently under a doctor's care, still trying to
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
1:42:13
get my leg functional. Unfortunately, The municipal League determined that I was no longer able to serve as a police officer with a spinal stimulator in my back, the lack of care, urgency, and
Speaker 314
1:42:23
competence demonstrated by workers' comp process ended the career. I
worked so hard to achieve because I was treated as a cost savings and not as a priority. My injury may have been a freak accident, but workers' comp. If workers' comp had not denied me the choice of my own doctor from the day of my initial injury, the arterial bleed. May have been, may have not been missed or overlooked. They could have stopped the bleeding the day it happened. The workers' compensation system must change to help future injured workers like me get back
to doing what they love and what they've dedicated their life to do. My life is forever changed because of the actions and the inactions of the workers' compensation system. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any
questions from members of the committee. Thank you for your testimony. Against Carol Worley.
Carol Worley
Unverified
1:43:31
I would say same. Song Second Dance hadn't got me too far so far, but I'm gonna go ahead
Speaker 101
1:43:40
and give you all my reasons for objecting to
Carol Worley
Unverified
1:43:42
this. Um, again, I represent Asia and the state chamber here,
Chair
Unverified
1:43:46
um, with regard to this bill, um, I think I've said before kind of generically and so did uh Mr. Zuck that the price increase, the effect this is going to have on employers is pretty substantial. Um, Senator Peyton had mentioned analogy with
Carol Worley
Unverified
1:44:01
someone who had two eyes out and could return to work and two eyes out
Speaker 266
1:44:05
and can't. The workers uh one out and can return in 2 hours and can't can return in 2 hours and can't. Oh no, no,
Speaker 341
1:44:12
I mean two eyes and 1 eye. Both of them have
Chair
Unverified
1:44:19
both eyes out. Both of them have one eye. OK. OK. The worker's compact does provide for that. If you cannot return to work, period. There is a permanent and total disability. Um, um, entitlement under the Act, so you can't pursue wage loss disability with scheduled injuries, but you can pursue
permanent total if you can't return to work. Um, That and and the information that I had provided previously regarding the economic impact on employers in
Speaker 93
1:44:40
Arkansas while we object to this one also. Thank you. Are
there any questions from members of the committee? All right, see you then. Thank you for your testimony. Senator Wallace. Madam chair.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:44:56
I like to call for immediate consideration. I, I can kind of read the
table like you all are and uh. and not debatable motion for
immediate consideration, not debatable. Second, I say I for the motion and opposed I have it. Uh Is there, what is the pass. Is there a second? are 2 on 286. 2nd, all those in favor say aye and opposed.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:45:33
I have it. 286 is passed, 287. Thank you, members. Obviously I'm
a fish out of water down here working on workers' comp, uh. Now I'm also going to talk to you about attorneys' fees. So I'm a fish out of water and uh probably in the desert, but uh. As I've heard
these workers' comp cases at the end of the table. It's obvious that our employees need representation. I mean, it should be crystal
clear how important it is that they have representation and currently an attorney that goes to a hearing and represents the injured worker and gets them the benefits that have been denied that the judge or the commission or the hearing officer determined should have been paid. The attorney doesn't get paid for that. I propose that we
pay them 12.5% with a cap of $1500
in the disability cases, it would be a cap of $2500. I don't think any attorneys are going to get rich on this,
but if we don't allow them to get paid, how do the workers get any representation and believe me, the carriers are well represented. With attorneys. With that said, I'd appreciate a
good vote. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator Lav, you're recognized for
Speaker 351
1:47:01
a question. OK, now this, this one kind of caught my eye,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:47:08
uh, John, so are, are you saying that these attorneys are representing
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:47:13
these people for free. So the way I understand it,
Speaker 356
1:47:17
and I've got to admit I don't have the way you understand it I don't have a perfect are you saying that these attorneys are representing these people for free. OK, so in an overall sense, no.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:47:29
OK. So then, Are we now setting a precedent in this bill that we are, we are guaranteeing attorneys' fees for workers' comp. No
So So they, how are the attorneys getting paid and if not, then just bring somebody to the table so they can explain the and I
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:47:50
think we probably need that better than my explanation, but let me tell you my experience.
I had a, a constituent. Who had a situation very similar to the 3 you've heard here today. Fighting to
get the coverage that we currently allow.
In the law, but they were being denied. I
went to asking how come they can't get it before a judge and and it was because her
attorney was not motivated to get it before a judge. So I want to asking some lobbyists that we all know to help me with this case. And, and I find out that The attorneys get a percentage of the settlement and they get paid that way. But if they're
going and fighting for coverage and procedures that are being denied. And the, and the workers' comp commissioner, the judge says yes. You, you, the carrier has to pay these, then it's not part of the settlement and our law doesn't allow the attorney to be paid on that because they're not getting them anything outside of what they deserved. It's, it sounded crazy to me. Maybe I don't have the right understanding, but there are some very intelligent lawyers in the room that can probably
Speaker 351
1:49:09
answer this. OK, this is my understanding they
Speaker 185
1:49:12
get paid off the settlement. And, and, and so that's that's a contract between attorneys and the people that they represent.
Speaker 179
1:49:26
If I'm not mistaken. Actually, I'm not sure about that,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:49:29
so I, let's get, let's get, let's get some, OK. The deck is stacked against the injured worker in the fact that the attorneys are incentivized. To Reach a settlement instead of
Going to hearings and getting them the coverage that's being denied. That's why it takes 18 months to get a, a broken back fixed. Anyway, we probably have people in the room
that can answer these questions better than I can. Madam,
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:49:56
can we, can we bring somebody up to answer. Senator Wallet, I'm gonna.
Ask for questions from other members of the committee. OK. Remember again, I would like
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:50:06
to ask for immediate consideration of this bill. Motion for immediate consideration. Is there a second?
second. I'll those in favor say aye. Opposed. Let
Speaker 363
1:50:33
us have it. Other questions. Members of the
committee see none see then we go to. For and against. Jason, I'm sorry, Jason Hatville.
Jason Hatfield
Unverified
1:50:50
you. Uh, um, Jason Hatfield again, um, I think I can clear this up really quickly. Um If we take a hearing a case to a hearing and ask for additional medical treatment, for instance, a recommended surgery. So you've got what we heard earlier is 2 neurosurgeons that recommend a surgery, but you've got this doctor report that's never seen the person that says there's no surgery. We go to the hearing
Speaker 137
1:51:23
and we win for the claimant of $50,000 surgery. The current law does not allow an attorney fee for the claimant's attorney.
Jason Hatfield
Unverified
1:51:34
Now, of course, the insurance defense, they're they're getting paid, but
Speaker 137
1:51:39
Claim its attorneys can get no fee on medical benefits they win for the claimant, which makes it hard for claimants to find an
attorney to represent them and going to a hearing is not some simple thing. You have to answer discovery. Defend a deposition. Collect medical records, introduce medical records, introduce evidence, put witnesses on the stand. Sometimes you have to take a doctor deposition and you have to pay expert fee and the court reporter and so claimants attorneys. have to spend all this money and time to win medical benefits that the current law
Say attorneys' fees shall not be awarded on medical benefits or service except as provided by a 4 and what A4 says is that you somehow negotiate with the hospital or the doctor for him to pay you, which Has never occurred that I know of, um, and so what this bill Cals is a 12.5% attorney fee. On medical that was denied that was one.
And that gives a little bit of incentive for the insurance company. To pay for the procedure instead of fighting it because right now they're really not punished at all for denying medical treatment. So, but If you win money, you would get an attorney fee on it. But right now, the law says you cannot get an attorney fee on awarded medical benefits. This would give 12.5%.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:53:35
And if I could ask a question. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question
Jason Hatfield
Unverified
1:53:44
that would that 12.5% would be subject to a cap, would
Speaker 137
1:53:50
it not? The cap is on appeals. OK, so if you, if you were to win, let's just go to the $50,000 surgery. You win the $50,000 surgery for the client. The judge awards a 12.5% fee on that 50,000 and the insurance
company appeals. to the workers' compensation commission. Then there is a cap on the win. If you win on the appeal, that's where the cap comes in of. So, I'm
sorry, clarifying for that. So there is no cap on the initial no cap
Speaker 137
1:54:31
on the initial. It's 12.5% fee on the medical
awarded. On the medical awarded. So if it if the insurance company then appeals to the commission and you prevail as the claimant when you
Speaker 118
1:54:47
go when they appeal to the commission. There's briefs in the commission if
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:54:51
you'd like to pull this down for the purpose of amendment. OK. All right.
Senator English. Senator English here, she had asked to run her bill this morning. OK. Senator Penzo
217. This is a bill. We do that
Speaker 365
1:55:25
after lunch. I'd like to just go ahead, I
mean. Are you, uh, well, there is, I'm sorry. If
we're going to pass on that, let me go down to the list
because there is somebody I think that has
flown in for testimony, is that correct? Is there,
correct. OK, well, I mean, we have the time. It's 10:55. We
still have an hour. So. OK, Senator Penzo, then I'll bypass my bill and let you go ahead and go 255.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:56:16
No, he wants to bypass 217, I think. Oh, OK OK so if I could do 120, I
could do that one. Wait, let me just go down this list. So 217, you have
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:56:31
amendments that you want to discussing my lunch or after. session. OK.
Speaker 372
1:56:37
Um, I can do 264. Is that OK? Let me
just do, we'll just go
down the list real quick and then 255,
do you want to do 255? Let me go ahead and do 264 while
Speaker 375
1:57:08
you're looking at your list, Senator Penzo. Is that OK? Uh.
I OK, I'll just, let me, OK, that'll work. So, yeah, just let me know,
we'll just go down that. If you're not ready to run, obviously we won't run. OK, Senator Wallace, do you mind taking the
chair? Ma. Ma'am, you're recognized. Thank you, Senator Missy Urban District 24, and this is a bill, I know that David Mans with Blue
Cross Blue Shield is actually, uh, supposed to come and test stuff for the bill, uh, which
is I tend to be kind of always working on the other side of them, but, um, what this does is it just establishes an Arkansas primary care payment improvement working group, um, if you'll see you've got a lot of stakeholders involved in this, um, really this is just to get to uh a good uh working effort with a lot of the different stakeholders that are listed in the bill, um, to focus on
primary care. I think it's gonna be beneficial, particularly for rural Arkansas, um, which is why, you know, I'm very supportive of the bill, um, but I think it's a well thought out, uh, piece of legislation that covers all the different types of things that we need to really think through and discuss, um, and it's, it's an industry all players of the this industry are going to be participating, which I think is a good thing. So, you've got your payors and then you've also got a providers, um, and to
focus on primary care. And I have some folks that can answer any questions with me as well, but
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:59:00
it's a very simple straightforward bill. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. Is there anybody that would like to speak for or against this bill. Seeing none. Uh What is the wish of the motion to have a motion to pass. Have a second with myself.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you.
Speaker 383
1:59:55
Yeah. It's just I can't answer any questions. OK, let's do you now, OK. All right,
Senator, Senator Leding is going to run Senator
English's bill real fast, 278. Good morning, Senator Greg Letting, uh, District 30 in Fayetteville. Yeah, just
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
2:00:11
hopped across the hall and Senator English asked if I would present this legislation. Honestly, this is the first time I've looked at it, but it seems it's very clear, all it is doing, it is repealing the statutes concerning the occupational
authorization and licensure of private employment agencies. I know this session, the executive branch has looked at a lot of um unused or or very rarely used sections of code and and lawmakers are repealing those sections in some cases we're repealing reports that haven't are very seldom issued and according to Senator English, that is all we
are doing here. OK. Thank you for taking this up. I appreciate it trying to move our bills off this committee's agenda is great. Media. Uh,
nobody's here to speak for or against the bill.
Speaker 387
2:01:00
You've closed motion to pass. Just got about another 90 minutes' worth of comments.
No, yes, no pass. Is there a 2nd, 2nd, all those in favor say ay and opposed as habits in a bill 278 is passed. Thank you, Senator Leding for taking that up. Senator Penzo, which, which one did you want to,
OK, we're gonna go oh, we're not gonna do 217, which one are you gonna do? 255. And 120. OK.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:01:31
255. Let's do that one first. Thank you, Madam Chair. um, Senate Bill 255 Mends the definition of drug within the food, drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Um The, uh We'll look at the emergency clause. It gives some, some good uh context of the reason for the bill,
um, there are several, uh, Universities and industries are studying the possibility of turning edible plants into mRNA vaccines to be sold to consumers, um, this, uh, this bill just would make sure that it's identified as a drug if it contains vaccine components. That's pretty much what this bill does, um, if it's in foods, I just want people to have the same informed consent that they would have um
If it was a drug. OK, um, just question on how you derived your definition for vaccine or vaccine material. Did that, did you get that from any? Source or On page 2. I'm just curious. Um It's not like a consistent
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:03:05
definition that's used somewhere else. I don't remember exactly where the definition was derived
from though. OK. OK, Senator Payton, you have
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:03:20
a question. Thank you, Sandra Pennzo. um. So how does this differ from the naturalturopathy medicine, I mean. We're talking
about. So a substance intended for use or other animals to stimulate the production of antibodies and
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:03:37
provide immunity. I mean, that's when the naturopathic medicine, I mean, doesn't, I mean, you
can, you, you might be thinking of homeopathic, which would be, uh, taking a substance that gives you the same reaction like if you take a, uh, forget what it's called oxiccillum or something, gives you like a flu-like or cold-like, uh. So up in the Senate chamber we have these little
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:04:00
snack packs of nuts and stuff that says for immunity. On the label,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:04:03
those are, those are just, you know, vitamins and
minerals. This is actually like MRNA vaccine material. So I mean, it's, it's differently different. OK. Is the health department is
anybody from the health department that can maybe answer that question about the definition of vaccine or vaccine material. Do we
have that in like state code somewhere. It's just like consistent. Anyone here with the Department of Health.
Sorry. I just want to make sure we're using a consistent definition that maybe either found in state
code already or? That, I mean, because that we, that sometimes happens. Matt Gilmore
Matt Gilmore
Unverified
2:04:53
Department of Health, there is some FDA language that's in the bill, uh I think this is something to be preventative for the future, as Senator Penzo said, so. Um It's the will this body we're
we're neutral on it and we haven't really engage that much on
so but as far as like vaccine or vaccine material, that definition. Do we, do we have that definition anywhere else in the code? Not that I'm aware
of. Not that you're aware of? OK. Any other questions from members of the committee? I, I just, if you could get
that information or like, you know, the answer, I'm not going to hold up your bill because of it, but I'm just interested to know where you got the definition,
that's all, um, all right, any other questions from members of the committee?
Speaker 399
2:05:45
Right, seeing none. Is there anyone here
to speak for? I don't have anybody signed
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:05:52
up. You recognize the clothes for your bill. OK Well, I would just say this, this is something that's, that's coming. You know, and I just want it to be Yes, yes. Messenger RNA is going to be in our food. I mean, the whole, the whole purpose of Of the mRNA vaccine. The ability to
produce an immune reaction, uh, any, any biological. Organism even a plan to be genetically modified to produce these, these bars. And I just want the public to be aware of this, this comes up. They are being exposed to. Vaccine Material if, if. forward just in the uh
development stages now, but Good do So I just want people to have a fully informed consent. OK. Thank you. What Motion to
pass. Is there a second? Second, all those in favor say aye and opposed. Uh,
Can we recall that cause I need to know where people are on
this and I only heard a few, so that's real. Sorry, I just wanted to make
Speaker 408
2:07:45
sure loud eyes and nose. See her flipper Napkins though.
Speaker 410
2:07:51
OK, sorry sorry that was a good one, good
Speaker 405
2:07:59
time. Senator Flippo. Senator Hill, Senator Hill, no. And a letting. Senator letting, yes. Senator Penzo, Senator Penzo, yes. Senator Payton, Senator Payton, yes.
So I love. Sin or love.
Speaker 414
2:08:32
Senator Wallace. Alright. Senator Wallace, yes. OK,
we've got 4 votes. So, uh, bill does not pass. Yeah, but you
can run it again at a later date if you get your Senator Flippo, who you voted
for to come and vote for your bill, OK.
OK. Um, let's go to your next bill. Uh, 262. You're gonna pass that one
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:09:05
over there's Uh, 262. You're gonna pass that one over there, like I said, there's a couple of these that people have requested amendments. We're looking at them to see if we're going to make the amendments. I'll have the amendment after session if, if we're going to, but, uh, um, I'm ready to do uh Senate Bill 120 if uh we'll go to Senate
Bill 120. And I've got someone here to present the bill
with me. OK. If you'll just state your name for the record, you're both
Speaker 416
2:09:49
recognized. I'm David Cook, the director of government affairs for the Alzheimer's Association. OK
David Cook
Unverified
2:09:56
Please proceed. All right, thank you, members and thank you um committee chair for the opportunity to speak and help present on uh Cinabel 120. Um, we thank Senator Penzo and Senator Johnson for their leadership in bringing this legislation. Um, this legislation was brought to me by several advocates, um, and I, one of their stories was going to be presented today, but she's testifying in Texas on a similar bill. Um, her name was Jack Ryan, um, Jackie Ryan has been around this Capitol talking to several
members and sharing her stories over the last few years. Her father, Jack, um, was, um, uh fell and broke his hip where they began depending on home care and personal care services, um, their caregiver that came into the home, um, over the course of 2 or 3 years, was able to um you know, um, financially exploit her father. And the amount of close to $100,000. I'm sorry.
Do you want me to we have amendments too, don't we? No, no, no, I, I just, we had
asked for fiscal impacts if any of these, any of the bills listed on our and I failed to say this and I apologize, but I, uh, members have asked for fiscal impacts if any of the bills that are listed on our agenda, uh, would have an impact to state general revenue or to Medicaid. This bill is one of those bills. So do you, uh, we don't have that fiscal impact statement information back from
DHS on Medicaid spend or state. are. So before we spend a lot of time going forward, do you wanna, uh, do you want to proceed with testimony, uh, and then just us not take action, because we need that information back on these bills. So
I'll just defer to the chair, uh, to the sponsor
of the bill. It's Senate Bill 120, Senate Bill 306, Senate Bill 348, Senate bill that are on our
regular agenda today, uh, our pending fiscal impact
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:12:02
information, um, we'll, we'll wait, what other bills do I have that you, the list I have
is Senate Bill 12306348 and 347. I'm not sure if those are all yours, um, House Bill 1403, House Bill 1186, and House Bill. 55. So for members of the committee, that's kind of the list. So, Do you
want to just wait and run that later, OK,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:12:31
yeah, I'll, I'll wait and run all of them later because that was pretty much the list of the ones I
was going to run today. Thank you. OK, um, is Representative Johnson here, uh, to run. For Senator Hammer. That I need a I need a sponsor. Who
Represent a 12 1523. As Senate sponsor
for Representative Vot's bill, anybody? OK. Representative Pilkington, 1131. Anybody's Senate sponsor for Representative Pilkington, 11:31. And then Representative Johnson, um, are there any Senate sponsors for any of Representative Johnson's bills. Um OK.
Speaker 349
2:13:38
Good DHS just said. I literally got a
moved on, y'all can have that conversation in a little bit. Representative Johnson,
thought, OK, well, then we'll just
Senator Penza, do you have 311? Do you want to do 311? I've got you listed for 262. OK, we're not doing 2608 minute at 3:11. And then, OK, 311's being amended. OK, I'll do 279 then. And then, um, if I, I know that we have somebody that's flown in for
testimony, but we need a sponsor of a bill before we can hear that testimony, not on my bill,
but I think on Representative Johnson's bill. Uh, 1250 and Senator Hammer, so somebody want to text Senator Hammer, maybe we can get him here.
Speaker 383
2:14:56
All right, 279, I could do 279. Johnson that's the goodness in Senator Hammers 1251.
OK, Representative Johnson just walked in It's OK. Uh, I think
Speaker 373
2:15:24
you have somebody that's flown in for this morning testimony. So, Yeah.
It's Dan Parker here. I can do, OK, let me go ahead and do, while we're waiting for that to be figured out. Um, 279 is an agency bill, uh, that
I'll present with Mr. Parker. 279.
Senator Wallace, if he'll take the chair. Senator,
Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. Ma'am, you're recognized.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:16:06
Uh, Dan Parker, I'm the chief
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:16:11
legal counsel for the Department of Labor and Licensing. Thank you, sir. OK. SB 279 is supported by the governor's office and the Department of Labor and Licensing, it's a bill, um, I work closely in my capacity at the department with our wage and hour section of our division of labor. This is a bill that will help both workers and business, so I think it's a very good bill for that reason. Um, one of the things we do is collect uh wages for workers
that weren't proper. properly paid minimum wage, and this will help us do that and, and it is predominantly minimum wage workers, so these are people that really need to uh get the wages that they've earned in order to support themselves and their families, from a business perspective, it's a good bill. Um, and it was supported by the state Chamber of Commerce, I think for this reason, um, it, it's not fair for our, our good law-abiding businesses who are paying the
proper wages to have to. compete against the businesses that aren't. And this will help us make sure that we don't have that situation going on in the state. So those are kind of the policy reasons behind the bill. I'll be happy to answer any questions, and one of the thank Senator Ervin for her support and I'd
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:17:30
like the rest of the committee to support the bill as well. Central law you recognized. Yeah. Yeah.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
2:17:50
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, so Dan, tell me now what are we doing now? What, what this, what does this bill change? Like what, what's, what's gonna
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:18:01
be the procedure of moving forward versus what we are doing now. OK, thank you. That's a, a very good question. Under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, there's a two-year statute of limits of limitations to to collect unpaid wages, you know, that's a lot shorter period than most statutes of limitations. Now, for a private cause of
action, that's not a problem because as long as you've talked to your client and you have a good faith basis for believing there's a valid claim there, you can file your suit anytime within 2 years. uh, and then do your discovery afterwards, get all the employment records and prove up your case after the fact, for our office, when we get a complaint, the first thing we do is meet with the employer. We go over the allegations. We get there time cards, payment
records, and we fully investigate the claim to see if there actually is a wage violation. If there is, then we share all our findings with the employer. We try and work with them and come to an understanding of what wasn't paid and what should have been paid, and then see if we can agree on the amount and a way to get the employees paid that's not going to disrupt the business, you know, we take a lot of pride in working with our businesses and working with our employers, but part of that is making sure the
employees are getting paid, you know, and, and for your uh business that has a lot of minimum wage workers, you know, that's the lifeblood of the profitability of the business. So what we found is a lot of times it's a good chance for the employer to reexamine their policies and their relationships with their employees and better improve their business, and we've had several examples of that recently. So, This will help. This will give us the time to do that. What it'll do is toll, we'll still
have the same two-year recovery period for back wages, but told the statute of limitations for us to have to actually file suit on that and give us time to work with the employers and see if we can't come to an understanding of what should be paid and how they need to conduct their business going forward. OK. All right,
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:20:12
thank you. You're welcome. Members are there, OK, Senator Payton, you'll recognize her. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I see in the new language
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:20:19
where it sets the two years, but it
sounds, if I'm hearing you right, sounds like you already have the two-year. Uh, statute
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:20:29
of limitation, is that right? Um, there is a two-year statute of limitations that's the last subsection of this statute. How that applies to our office and the investigations we do is not crystal clear under the statute, but there is a two-year statute of limitations. So
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:20:46
this establishes a 2 year or you're saying that is already established.
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:20:52
What this will do, will establish a 2-year assessment period from the time we get a complaint in, so it's going to honor, it's going to preserve that same two year statute of limitations, basically, but it's gonna toll that to give us an opportunity to work with the employer and see if we can't resolve the case without going to litigation and not running up against a deadline to where we have to file suit to where It's kind of premature and it's going to cost people time and money that it shouldn't have to
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:21:24
cost if we had the opportunity to work with the employer, so I guess my question is, You have a complaint. You have to investigate the complaint to see if it's legit. And then if you find that it's legit, you can go back 2 years or can you just go back two years in
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:21:44
proving whether or not it's legit or not. The two-year period is established from the time the complaint is filed, so that's kind of locked in and that's the assessment period that we're looking at. In other words,
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:21:54
that's an audit of the right, so that,
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:21:58
that's not going to change and you can never go back more than the 2 years. We wouldn't go back further than the 2 years. There is a provision in the bill if the employer's not cooperating. And uh it's preventing us from conducting the investigation, we could extend that period up to the time we file what's called a notice of assessment, an actual notice
of assessment and that that'll get fouled if for whatever reason.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:22:20
So in a hypothetical, you've got a calculation error being made.
That may affect every employee by 34 cents a week. And going back and tracking that back is going to take more labor. And you just offer every employee a settlement of You know, 100 bucks and instead of going back and doing the calculation, is that, is that what you mean by you want time to negotiate with the employer rather than taking litigation. Oh, no, no,
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:22:51
we will take, I mean, we do a full and thorough investigation, and we come up
with an actual number that we believe is the correct number. Now, there's a lot of time records and a lot of employees in some of these cases, so we share our information once we have all our findings and what we think. the employer may, oh, we share that with the employer and let their accountants go over those records and see whether or not they dispute whether, like you're saying, whether there's a calculation error that we made somewhere. We, uh, we take a lot of time to make sure we've got
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:23:28
the number correct. Well we all depend on software really don't know what's written
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:23:33
in the code, but anyway, thank you, uh, but yeah, we, we will do that, but um um you know, it it we're we're trying to see if the employer. He said, hey, and a lot of times what we find is there's they switch payroll systems and there's been a glitch in their system or sometimes it's a situation where they didn't really understand how the minimum wage law applied to their specific employees and we help them, you know, part of what we do is outreach and
education so that they get it right going forward. And then we worked with them on making restitution to the employees so they get The money that they've
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:24:08
earned. So I have one more question if I could go again. Senator Irvin, do you have a copy of
the bill down there with you? Can you look on page 2 line 8. It says notwithstanding subsection G. But I can't find subsection G.
I can answer that. He can answer that. That's in current statute that refers
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:24:35
to that statute of limitations. But usually when we refer to it in the bill, it's in the bill we included in the draft. And it's not included in
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:24:46
the draft, and so I can't see it. OK, well, that, that particular drafting convention may have changed since I was drafting
bills for the bureau, but the senators are absolutely right. Subsection G is just a one liner that says the statute of
limitations under that section is 2 years. OK. So the reference to G is notwithstanding the two-year statute of limitation for private causes of action, these are going to be the rules
for investigations conducted by our office. OK. Well, it makes things a lot easier if we
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:25:19
refer to a section that it be included in the draft. I appreciate that. Thanks. Members, are there any other questions?
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:25:32
Seeing none. Well, first of all, is there anybody, uh, from the island that we'll speak for or against this bill. See none what is a wish of the
committee. Yeah do pass. Got a second all in favor say aye, and he opposed?
Congratulations. Thank you. Appreciate all the work that they do and we've got some great people over there. Thank you. Thank
Dan Parker
Unverified
2:26:00
you, Senator, and thank all of you.
Appreciate your support. Representative Johnson, is he in the
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:26:21
room now? OK, sorry. Yes, Madam
Chair and committee, my apologies for not being here. Representative Johnson, we do have you for several bills. So we have you for 1169, 1586,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:26:38
1161 67, 1254, 1258, 1257, and 1251. I'm happy to present any and all of those if, if, if it's OK with the committee, I would, I would like to start with 1251. We don't have to come back this afternoon. OK, so uh which one are you going to start with? I'd like to start with 1251. We have someone who we brought in to testify for that bill, and I'd like to add of respect for their time, have them come to the table
if that's OK with the committee, OK. This Representative Lee Johnson, uh, District 47. All right, if you'll just state
your name for the record, you'll, my
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:27:10
name is Jennifer Steer. I'm a certified I'm a certified anesthesiologist's assistant, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself and the American Academy of Anesthesiologist's
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:27:18
assistants. Members, we y'all were gracious enough to let me have some testimony about a week ago with a lady that came in, the young woman that's from what school here in Arkansas that works in Texas, we didn't get to hear full testimony at that time, didn't have a chance to ask questions, so I wanted uh our our young lady here to give some testimony
and give you the opportunity to ask some questions about uh anesthesia assistants, what they do, how they're trained, any questions you might have. She's more than adequately qualified to answer those questions, so I'm gonna get out of her way, let her tell a little bit about herself, and
Speaker 452
2:27:52
let you all ask her some questions. Thank you, Representative Johnson. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members
Speaker 221
2:27:57
of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity. OK.
Speaker 453
2:28:01
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:28:04
you for the opportunity to join you today, and I'm happy to speak on behalf of HB 1251, the
Arkansas anesthesiologist Assistant Act. As I said, my name is Jennifer Steer, and I'm a certified anesthesiologist assistant. I completed my undergraduate training at Louisiana State University and the University of Southern Mississippi with degrees in biochemistry and microbiology. Upon completion of my undergraduate training, I spent some time working in a research lab at Emory University, which is how it became familiar with the anesthesiologist. Assistant program. I was in the middle of applying to medical school, deciding between medical school and PA school when the chief resident of anesthesia at
the time at Emory introduced me to this profession. In 2006, I completed my training at Emory University and was awarded a Master of Medical Science and anesthesiology. I remained on staff with the School of Medicine where I currently practice as a certified anesthesiologist assistant. My current specialty is in cardiothoracic anesthesia. I'm also a member of the ERA program faculty, and I'm a Past president of our national organization, the Academy of the American Academy of Anesthesiologist Assistants. The anesthesiologist's assistant profession has grown tremendously over the past 2020
years. Um, this year our class was so competitive that we actually accepted 7% of our applicants. We had over 500 applicants for only
Speaker 453
2:29:20
40 spots. at Emory. Over the years, we've had numerous students who have family ties or are from Arkansas. Unfortunately, these qualified professionals can't yet
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:29:30
practice here in their home state, and this bill would allow these well educated, well-trained professionals to come home. Data shows Arkansas is facing an urgent shortage of anesthesia providers. The need
is especially great and rapidly growing areas like Northwest Arkansas, but it's serious in all areas of the state, providing a path to licensed sheriff for CAAs would enhance. facilities capacities to deliver high quality, safe care. A little bit about our training and practice as anesthesiologist assistants prior to admission perspective student, excuse me, prospective students must complete the prerequisite requirements necessary for entrants into medical school and other physician assistant training programs. A students undergo graduate level training
encompassing the anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, pharmacology, and airway management necessary to become safe anesthesia providers and my institution, the pharmacology lectures are the exact same pharmacology. lectures, the medical students get the exact same lectures that the physician assistant students get. Training involves comprehensive study in general and regional anesthesia through didactic courses, high fidelity simulation, and hands-on patient care. AA programs are accredited rigorously by the Commission on
Accreditation for Allied Health Education programs are KHEP, ensuring a high quality education for all students. The standards and guidelines for anesthesiologist assistant programs detail the profession's scope and the depth of training required. The standards also require that all AA programs are affiliated with a medical school. Similar to
Speaker 453
2:31:03
other anesthesia training programs, the CAAs are required to complete a requisite
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:31:08
number of supervised clinical experiences and more than 2000
anesthesia specific clinical hours. These clinical hours encompass a broad range of procedures, including but not limited the placement of arterial and central venous lines, spinal and epidural anesthesia and peripheral nerve blocks. According to the Review Committee for accreditation, all the currently accredited training programs meet or exceed the recommendations for clinical experiences and procedures. CAAs along with nurse anesthetist and anesthesiologist are trained in the national standards for emergency care, including basic advanced cardiac
and pediatric advanced life support. This training ensures that all anesthetic plans involve highly trained providers capable of effectively responding to and and managing acute emergency situations in a coordinated team environment. As noted in the educational standards, CAAs are equipped to evaluate and treat life threatening situations based on established protocols. Upon completion of training, candidates graduating from an accredited program or subject to a certifying examination administered by an independent
certification organization. Documentation of clinical experiences is required by the certification body. CAAs must complete 50 hours of continued medical education every 2 years along with a continuing certification exam administered 4 years post-graduation and then every 10 years thereafter. CAA training and continuing certification underlies our profession's commitment to provide high quality care and the collaborative nature of the anesthesia care team. The inclusion of CAAs in the perioperative setting enhances the capacity to provide
specialized anesthesia services. Differences do exist between CAA and CRNA training with regard to prerequisites, instruction, and requirements, but there's no evidence that any of these differences result in a disparity of knowledge, technical skills, or quality of care. Both medical professionals are adept at delivering and maintaining quality anesthesia care and advanced patient monitoring techniques. Currently, there are 4000 CAs practicing across 22 jurisdictions with practice regulated by the state Board of
Medicine. CAAs are recognized by CMS, Medicaid, Tricare, and commercial payers. There are currently 23 accredited a training programs, including 3 next door in Texas and 2 in Missouri. It is projected that 1000 students will enter the CAA training programs in 2027, far outpacing retiring practitioners, thus creating a positive impact on the current anesthesia shortage. CAAs and CRNAs receive equivalent recognition as non-physician anesthetist by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare
Services, CAAs and CRNAs work interchangeably in facilities across the country, and I'm proud to work alongside my CRNA colleagues in the anesthesia care team. We worked the same shifts. We have the same responsibilities. We have the same compensation, and in my facility it's hard to tell who's who without looking at a badge to see what the initials are behind it, see what the credentials are behind our names. Licensure of CAAs will provide another highly trained clinician to meet the healthcare shortage. Over the years, I've taught numerous AA students, including many from the state of Arkansas
who would welcome the opportunity to return home and provide care to people, the people of Arkansas. The licensure of CAAs in Arkansas will increase access to save cost-effective anesthesia care. I urge you to support HB 1251, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I have a quick question
and I'll go to Senator Wallace, but, um, I think
in your comments you described a, uh, anesthesiologist assistant as an equivalent to a physician assistant. Is that correct? I think you can make the analogy.
Speaker 453
2:34:54
I think you can make the analogy of anesthesiologist assistants to physician's assistants just
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:35:09
as you can. nurse anesthetists to nurse practitioners. OK. Senator Willis. Thank you for your testimony. AA's trend in
Speaker 453
2:35:15
all aspects of. Yes sir, and it's part of our standards and guidelines as
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:35:20
well. We train in all specialties from pediatrics to obstetrics to eye practicing cardiac anesthesia with open
heart surgery, um, and the complete gamut of anesthesia care. Thank you.
Speaker 351
2:35:34
Are there other questions for the witness? Yes, Senator Love. I heard you mention CR CRNAs and you all were beside our
Speaker 185
2:35:42
CRNAs now tell me, what is the difference drill down on what's the difference in the training is. It's just a difference in our
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:35:52
background of training. CRAs have a Bachelor of Science in nursing, and they spend a year,
a minimum of one year in the ICU prior to admission to CRNA school, whereas the anesthesiologist's assistants complete a pre-medical background before entering into their anesthesia training. So, so it's
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
2:36:09
your testimony that the the training basically is the same training the postgraduate anesthesia training, yes, if I could I
Speaker 461
2:36:16
could address that question as well. So, uh,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:36:19
much in the way of physician assistants get a bachelor's degree and then go to a school specific to be a physician assistant, an anesthesia assistant will go get
a bachelor's degree with a pre pre-medical prerequisites and then attend the anesthesia assistant school. The part they're not doing is the nursing part, right? So there is no doubt that CRNAs are trained differently and additional training from AA's. That's OK. That's why we provide in the state the option for CRNA practice autonomously and independently, right? They are trained different. No one's asking for anesthesia assistance to train independently. They're trained to train under a physician just the way physician assistants are trained to work under a physician in Arkansas
and APRNs are allowed the opportunity to practice autonomously and independently, different training tracks, but from the standpoint of the anesthesia training, yes, that training is similar and they're to do many of
the same things. Questions from other members of the committee. I have a question as to the
the need for the bill as the shortage that you, uh, testified to either one of you can.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:37:27
So I mean to me this bill comes
down to, you know, are these, are these individuals trained appropriately to practice safely in Arkansas, no doubt, no doubt these individuals get extensive training just like our physician assistants get in Arkansas. Is there a workforce shortage? Absolutely. There's over 25 jobs available right now for CRNAs on Indeed.com. Not that Indeed's the most reliable thing, but there are plenty of jobs available for CRNNs that CRNA, there is a demand, so these people are both trained and there's a demand. So why would we not as a state welcome these people in to
address the ongoing workforce issue that we
see around anesthesia care. OK, thank you. Are there any other questions from
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:38:11
members of the committee, Senator Payton, you're recognized. So my questions have have always basically circled around supervision,
direct supervision, indirect, how direct I mean can you somehow elaborate on exactly. How closely this is supervised. And in the event that they need
Speaker 464
2:38:33
Help, who's gonna be there to help? In that situation. So anesthesiologist assistants
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:38:38
practice under medical directions, which is a 1 to 4 ratio, so there's one anesthesiologist who supervising for operating rooms that could be CAAs, that could be CRNAs. There are certain settings where that can involve residents or fellows in their anesthesia training as well. Uh, the, the physician is always immediately available to those 4 rooms and let's say there was a situation where a physician was called away from the operating room for
whatever reason. There's another physic. that's covering, that's covering those rooms. Uh, as a matter of fact, last week I was on call and uh we had a patient, it was an unfortunate story. The man was actually flying. He had a layover in Atlanta on his way to vacation, um, and had acute belly pain, came to my hospital where he was diagnosed with a tear in his esophagus. I was caring for the patient, my anesthesiologist was also there, and I was transitioning care to the CRNA who was on call. Um, the patient developed an acute life threatening
emergency. It's known as tension pneumothorax, um, and it took not 12, it took all three of us to stabilize that patient at that time, um, in such a in in a coordinated care environment, so I think as we debrief when the situation was over, I think all three of us were glad that the other two were there to stabilize
Senator John Payton
Unverified
2:39:53
the patient. So pardon the ignorance. I mean, you're, you're talking about a situation where it was an operating room, somebody's being operated
on. Obviously you're in a A hospital and you have a lot of
staff there and and probably surgeons and doctors that are not anesthesiologist, but obviously know how to deal with the emergency situation. Are there any situations where these dayAs would practice outside of that type of setting where it'd be a clinic or something where you didn't have
Speaker 460
2:40:23
as much help in the background. Ambulatory surgery centers, but they're still an anesthesiologist available
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:40:29
at that 1 to 4 ratio, um, the obstetric suite radiology place. like that, they're still an anesthesiologist immediately
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:40:38
available. And to clarify in our bill, it definitely states immediately available, so that supervision is a requirement of the bill that we have, so there would never be a
situation where an NC assistant was not practicing with the physician and specifically in our bill in
anesthesiologist immediately available. OK, thank you. OK, just to follow up, which means on-site. Yes, ma'am. Yes, yeah. So primarily the usage is within a surgery suite or surgery center sort of peri-operative environment. Yes, ma'am. So
you've got an anesthesiologist, but there's multiple cases going on with anesthesiologists' assistants or CRNAs correct, yeah, and that's the current situation with CRNAs, but they expanded their scope of practice to allow for independent practice, which has caused a lot of the workforce
shortage issues. I'll say, I'll say it
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:41:27
this way, I think There's a thing called an anesthesia team approach, and there's some facilities, busier facilities in urban areas that like
that approach. That approach uses a collaborative team of providers that can
include anesthesiologists, anesthesia assistants, CRNAs all working together collaboratively. This bill is about giving our hospitals that option if that's the path they want to choose, and I do think like part of the reason we passed autonomy for CRNAs was so that they could fill a gap in rural areas and thankfully they're doing that, right? But as they go to practice independently whether it's in a rural area or in an outpatient surgery center, there are, uh, you know, now some job opportunities at urban hospitals
that that are clearly there and open waiting to be filled, and this would be another piece of the puzzle to give hospitals that choice if they wanted to use
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:42:22
that particular provider time, OK. Senator Pino question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, what is the undergraduate requirement, does it have to be pre-med or can it be any,
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
2:42:31
any degree pathway like medical school and other physician assistant programs, the, the degree does not have to be a science degree, it can be, you know, I've had, I've had
students who have been who've changed careers, but they've gone back and completed those prerequisites, the biologies, the chemistries, the physics, organic chemistry, all of those things. necessary for entrance into the program. They have a bachelor's degree with all of the prerequisite requirements. OK, so it could be a business degree and
Speaker 470
2:42:56
then transition over. It could be anything as long as they have the prerequisites, they have to have the exact same
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:43:02
prerequisites as a medical student, so it's the same thing for medical school. I have colleagues who went to college and majored in music in a physicians. I have colleagues that went to college and majored
in physics. My brother, who's a dermatologist, majored in physics, but he did all the prerequisites for pre-medical school, which is the same that the ASD. OK, thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? Great.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Um, OK. Uh, we have one to speak
Speaker 473
2:43:30
against Brad Pitts. With Mr. Brad Pitts is here. Only one, is that correct? OK.
If you'll just come forward and identify yourself for the
record. Um, I'm sorry, um, before you, yeah, you have to bring those here and then I'll approve, sorry, just the way we do and you're with. are you in? I'm uh with Brad. Oh, OK.
Speaker 421
2:44:06
I'm also one to speak against. You want to sign your name? Thank you.
Speaker 480
2:44:33
I'm sorry OK. OK, thank you. All right, sorry, yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee.
Speaker 481
2:44:46
I really appreciate the time to be here today, um. I respect you guys and all the time you've put into this and listening to us and listening to the CRNAs in the state who have inevitably contacted you numerous times because this is an important topic. So I try to explain it in a succinct manner but very clearly
today and just let you know how this is really a net negative for anyone involved in anesthesia care in Arkansas, and you know this could be yourself, your, your family members, your parents, your friends, your loved ones, whoever it may be, you know, this increased cost to patients, increased costs to facilities. It's cumbersome. It's redundant. It's all things we don't want. It increased risks for everyone involved as well, especially from a business standpoint. Um, we'll address some of the workforce things you spoke to, um, and I do want to address
that 1st. 25 jobs on Indeed we have over 50 graduates this year in Arkansas. Doctoral prepared graduates that will come out this year. So 25 jobs is not that much. Just keep that in mind. So I will get into my testimony, um. Uh, and current president of the Arkansas Association of Nurse Anesthetists. I'm also an anesthesia business owner for over 10 years. I've actually worked in healthcare for about 22 years and so I understand where this bill is
coming from. I understand the pros and cons and really the pros for it really don't apply to Arkansas. Maybe in other states, maybe in large, large cities or big facilities, but it's not here. Um, and if you're OK, if you'll humor me, I would like to present kind of an illustration if you will. OK, so let's do this, um, Senator Love, Senator Payton, Senator Pinzone, and Senator Wallace will be my anesthesia assistants. Senator Irving, if you'll be the person in charge, be our medical doctor. Doing the directing, and then the remaining 3 and myself will
be the patients. Patients 123, and 4, OK? So this is a typical start to any anesthesia day, OK? Just, uh, uh, I'll paint a broad picture, but this is just kind of what happens, all right. 7 a.m. everyone's ready for surgery. You guys go to the room. All right, you take your patient to the room. As soon as we roll into the room, the clock starts. We're getting built for anesthesia time. You're getting billed for operating room time. The medical directing and physiologist has to go to room 123, and 4. So in a, in a
scenario where everything goes perfectly fine, right? Nothing out of the ordinary. We're talking maybe 15 or 20 minutes before she even gets to me, right? That's That's a hidden cost for the patient that I don't know of, right, and that's just to start the day. This has nothing to do with Um, excuse me, my mouth is a little dry. This has nothing to do with Things that happened throughout the day. You know, Doctor Irving in this.
Example is very busy. She's got 4 other patients to see for the next set of patients that are going to go to the OR. So in room one calls to wake up, she may be seeing a patient in pre-op. More delayed till she gets to that room. Well, I call her and say, hey, or, or Senator Love calls and says, hey, Broomor's crashing. I need your help. She comes to room 4. Senator uh patient in room one is still waiting, OK? More delays. This is common. This is not out of the ordinary. This is normal. This is the first case of the day.
that I'm talking about, you know, just imagine other sites. There's sites all around the hospital where these 4 medically directed people work, they're not always in the operating room. They're in the cath lab, they're down the hall in GI, they're upstairs in OB. So to say that a medical directing anesthesiologist can physically be there is sometimes not always possible, and this is just the real world. I'm not trying to paint a bad picture. This is just reality. So why is that a problem? So let's go to, let's go to room 4. I
been in room 4 situation as an anesthesia provider where you're sitting there waiting on the surgeon to say he's in the room, ready, tapping his foot. We're sitting here 1520 minutes waiting to go on this procedure. OK, I've been there. I say, OK, let's go. I'll put the patient to sleep, uh, Doctor Irvin wasn't able to come in at that moment. That's fine. Everything went OK, but what What's the recourse? Well, in the medical direction model as an AA, that case can no longer be billed for. That's $0 worth of income for that case.
But is it marked in the pile to not bill. That's a good question. Most likely not. There's going to be signatures all over the chart. No one's going to mark it as out of compliance, so it gets sent to billing. Billing pays for it, but where all the measures met for Medicare. I don't think so. The medical doctor didn't come in and do any direction at that moment, so Again, this is not data I made up. The ASA, the American Society of Anesthesiology, did their own study on this, and in a 1 to 2 ratio, 1 to 2, they found that 35% of days they were
out of compliance. We're talking about a 1 to 4 ratio here. So the study also showed in a 1 to 3 ratio, we're out of compliance, 99% of days, OK? More risk. Again, 1 to 4, what does that mean? We're out of compliance. was more than 99% multiple times every day that you're working, you're out of compliance. So as a business owner, you guys are business owners, some of you, I know. What are you looking for? Do you want to mitigate risk, mitigate
cost. This does neither of those things. It actually, you see the risk factor already. Now look at, I want to show you one thing right here, top page in your binder. This page right here. Easy, easy graphic to check out. Just on the right column, top right, top left, and no, bottom right, I'm sorry. This is comparing 12 CRNAs to 12 AAE in this model. Just look at the staffing costs it's going to take to run the AA model. We're
talking about a $1.2 million dollar difference, and this is only 12 providers. Many facilities have more than 12 providers. This is uh this is something that uh uh 40% of hospitals in the state are running out of deficit. Becker just came out with an article this past week that said we have 10 hospitals in the state at risk for immediate closure. So why even present something and have something available in our state that an unknowing CEO, CFO brings to the table that closes the door to a hospital potentially. If it doesn't close
the door, maybe it increases the cost for a taxpayer funded facility. Which will happen easily. This is, this is a legitimate true numbers right here. So I
And sure, you have a question. If you don't mind. Sure, of course. I'm
sorry. No, I, I just good testimony to speak directly to the
bill. I know, like, you've you've talked about hospital finances. I, I'm not sure if hospital finances are directly tied to the level of
practicing. Healthcare providers that they employee, and that that would be a complete detriment to them closing a hospital over. I, I just, I just wanna say, I
just want to say like. You know, I, I would just keep it. To your, to the, to the bill.
Speaker 481
2:52:05
So anesthesia in and of itself does not collect enough from insurance companies to pay for anesthesia practices. The burden relies on the hospital to pay for subsidies. That's why it's
directly affecting hospitals. You, I run an anesthesia business. I understand the money completely. The we cannot build enough to Medicare, Medicaid, Blue Cross, etc. to cover anesthesia costs. It just does not work. And so, and that's across the board all facilities across the nation who eats the cost. It's the facility. So this is why, this is why it directly affects the in some facilities, um, are in complete control of the anesthesia cost. There's not a separate anesthesia group, so it is directly affecting the
hospital cost, um. Thank you for that question because I didn't make that clear, uh. And we do realize that, you know, cost analysis is very important, uh, when looking at any of these bills. So we already found out it's costly for the patient. It's costly for the facility. The risk of fraud is through the roof. And, and this is again, not my information. This information is out there. The uh in November.
Of last year her data came out and said that CRNA workforce is going to be 103% by the year 2027, OK? Arkansas's way ahead of the curve because we're producing 50 plus students every year from two in-state schools and 3 out of state schools. Our state is currently attractive to anesthesia providers because we run models that let them practice independently. And so Access to care has increased greatly, and the need for anesthesia providers have decreased actually in the past couple of years. Jobs have
changed dramatically. There's not as many jobs in Citron, Arkansas as there have been, I mean, since I've been in business for 10 years. There's a few facilities that have had management problems that need help right now, and that's the main focus of some of these jobs. Outside of that our workforce is looking very good. With 1000 CRNAs in the state and only 4000 AA's nationwide. You bring AAs here. You're not gonna have enough to fill any gap. Just think about that. 1000 in our little state, and there's only 4000 entire nation. We, every state that has
an AH practicing, they still have job openings. It doesn't affect that at all. They're not going to work in rural Arkansas. They're only going to work in one or two facilities. Not only that, they have to work in a medical direction model, so a medical direction model is only in 4% of all anesthetics in Arkansas. So again, if you're bringing a provider in that can only help a tiny bit of the population that is costly, redundant, and I just don't see how it's a good thing for anyone involved, um, I'd be happy to answer any questions, um.
Thank you. Where I'm sorry, where did you say that you, you
have your, your practice or your business. We work
all throughout the state, all throughout the state, but where are you personally located, Benton. Benton, Arkansas? OK, um, and
Speaker 489
2:55:10
then do you also operate pain management clinics independently. No,
Speaker 481
2:55:12
CRAs don't usually do that. That's not a thing. I mean it was thought to be a thing after the supervision removal, but
that was nothing that was pushed for. Well, no, I, I, there are CRNA
independent pain management clinics in the state of Arkansas. There's a as a result. I mean, I just want to make sure there's money for the supervision removal again, there are those that are operating in the state. OK,
questions from members, yeah, Senator Hill. OK, I want
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:55:39
to go back in time. I think it was 2 years ago, may have been 4 years ago, the CRNAs came in here and they want to do the anesthesiologist's job. Now 24 years later, whatever it is,
they don't want the other side doing their job. So
do, do they want to get rid of the anesthesiologist and the AAs and just be the only practice in the state of Arkansas. So tell me your position. How do you justify fighting to have a higher job and now I need to keep the ones out
that want to do your job. That makes no sense to me, you know, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm sorry. Well,
Speaker 488
2:56:13
I understand what you're saying, but it's not. It's a little more nuanced than that, if you will. It sounds pretty simple to me. So go back
Speaker 481
2:56:25
to my example, OK? You put a CRNA or a physician, anesthesiologist in his AA role. We just go to the room and do the case. There's no delay. There's no issue. We're not saying we're replacing anyone's job. That was never the case. The the reason we changed supervision from our bill was serenades were already practicing independently all throughout the state. Supervision had this perception of liability to people in the state. And so that decreased their want to. work with with CRNAs independently. We just took that out and put in consultation with
and it just relaxed their idea that there's perceived liability. It didn't change anything we were doing. We've been practicing independently since the beginning. That that has not changed. We still work, I work with physician and anesthesiologists every day. That's no problem. That's no problem for any of us. It was just helping reach rural Arkansas on the on the few that had this perception of liability. Now the problem is AAs and CRNAs are not interchangeable for all the reasons we've just discussed, you know, if I'm in this room and I put the patient to sleep in a medical direction model as a CRNA.
I can, we can still build that case as a CRNA-led anesthesia, no problem, but an AA cannot. That's money loss or it's risk of fraud if you bill it. So that's the main
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:57:35
difference. OK, well, since you touched, I'm gonna bring it up then. Sure, uh, you know, you you mentioned reaching rural areas. Uh,
have y'all done that? Have you reached the rural areas? Have you, have you filled that void in Byville, Arkansas, or are we looking at the AA to do that now since y'all didn't go do it. We have done it and we have lots of CRNAs in Byville, Arkansas.
Um, but to his point that his own testimony that he just gave, there were already CRNAs practicing in rural Arkansas. My, my dad was an orthopedic surgeon in Heber Springs, Arkansas, Cleveland County, working with CRNA 40 years ago. The supervision issue to expand their scope was clearly not about rural Arkansas or access to care. It was not, because you
had CRNAs working in Cleveland County Hospital with Doctor
Speaker 480
2:58:34
Thomas, 40+ years ago, that there was no, no, no liability that we just
cleared it up. No, I would disagree with that,
but supervision was Also the the supervising physician doing the surgery, also consisted of supervision. So the supervision elimination was for full practice authority to develop an open independent
practices and that's what happened. So, any other questions
from members of the committee? OK, thank you for your testimony. We do have
Mr. Mark, and I'm sorry, is it Donovan? OK. Um,
Mark Donovan
Unverified
2:59:33
OK, he wrote con, so I guess that would be against. OK. You have to forgive me. I have a bit of a sore throat today. I sound like Barry White up here to you. Madam Chair, Senator Irving, and members of the committee. My name is Mark Donovan. I am a certified registered nurse anestitus and a past president of the Arkansas Association of Nursing Es. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and
present testimony to the committee and share my concerns and our concerns and opposition to HB 1251. For over 100 years, anesthesia has been provided safely in Arkansas by either CRA or a physician, anesthesiologist that we worked well with together. If the proved HB 1251 would recognize a new type of anesthesia provider called an anesthesiologist assistant or an AA. A little background on myself and some qualifications to be here today to speak against this
House Bill 1251. I was born and raised here in the Arkansas Delta. I've been an Arkansas resident all my life, with the exception of during my time on active duty and deployments and combat and while in nurse anesthesia school. I've been a practice in CRNA for over 26 years. Received my BSN from here at UMS, um, and currently I have a doctor of nursing practice and anesthesia from Union University. I've worked as a CRNA in a wide variety of clinical settings, both urban, rural under medical direction, medical supervision,
and also as an independent provider. I'm also a retired colonel from the United States Army, having served more than 36 years. To include 4 combat tours as a CRNA and one as a commander of a Ford surgical team. It should be noted that during these deployments, um, there were no physician anesthesiologists serving alongside me, and there were also no AAs. The Department of Defense and the VA, neither one recognize AAs, but they do
recognize CRNAs as independent providers in both austere deployed environment settings and in military hospital stateside. I've also been involved in education of CRNAs for over 17 years, at 3 different universities in 2 states. I helped train nursingestdus here in the Mid-South. And in my current role in clinical practice, I do work alongside physicians and other CRNAs. We practice in a busy environment. That
If it was under strict medical direction. A lot of the cases would either be delayed or take longer to finish. I'm not here to speak on behalf of any university or college or the Department of Defense. As the past president of the Arkansas Association of Nursing Neoists and as a clinician and an educator, I'm here to speak to the growing body of CRAs in our state. And also here to speak on behalf of citizens of Arkansas who don't always have a choice in their anesthesia provider. And to highlight the education
and experiential differences between CRNAs and AACE. Currently, there are two well-developed doctoral level nurse anesthesia programs in Arkansas. We have 137 total matriculates each year. Or or so far in the programs and we have a gradation rate of approximately 50 new CRNAs annually. Here in the state approximately 23 students from other programs outside the state also have students that come here, roughly 71% of all of these graduates
stay in the state of Arkansas. And over the last few years we've seen most all of the vacancies go down in town. House Bill 1251 has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the quality of anesthesia care in our state and to increase the risk of negative healthcare outcomes for the citizens of Arkansas. There are a few reasons why I oppose this bill, of which my colleague has spoke on, um,
already, but also, uh, myself, I went to speak to the less experienced and limited education and scope of practice, uh, with AA's, um, and that's what I'll address. And I will try to do this as quickly as possible because I know everybody's time is precious. CRAs have been providing anesthesia for over 150 years nationally and more than 80 years here in the state. There are about 1000 CRNAs here in the state, as we've already stated. Both MDs, anesthesiologists, and
CRNAs continue to meet the needs here in the university large settings, small hospitals, small community hospitals, as well as ambulatory centers, office-based practices around the state, and CRNAs are highly educated and experienced advanced practice registered nurses, which enable them to be more flexible provider. Available to work in all healthcare settings. AAs are trained as their title suggests to assist the anesthesiologists and thus increasing health care costs. AAs do not have the same level of education or training, um, a
CRNA, um, if you compare, they, they do have a BSN or a bachelor of Science in nursing, um, but also to go to a nurse anesthesia school, they also require hard sciences. Most have to go back to acquire the hard sciences, just like the medical school requires. Um, I myself had to go back and take organic chemistry and biochemistry and some statistics to go, uh, because it's not covered in the BSN traditional program. Uh, most it is required that they have one year of critical care experience, uh, before they can apply for a CRNA
program. Most applicants have 3 or more years of ICU experience. Um, and then they received a doctor of nursing practice and anesthesia after 36 months on completion of training. Then they also have to pass a regular certification exam. Uh, AA's obtained a a master's degree with about 24 to 26 months, um, and they usually do not have power clinical patient experience, although they can, it's not required. Um, most of them, uh, don't take any type of the nursing or healthcare background, uh, it's usually
hard sciences. Um, Also across all 50 states are over 73,000 CRNAs practicing. Well, there are approximately 4000 AA's practicing across the country. Um, I'm not going to read all this, but I do have a brief comparison here, uh, of the prerequisites. So the prerequisite for the AA program, um, I looked up one, Purdue University, and they stated that the applicant could complete a bachelor's degree in any major that excites their curiosity, and that is a quote right off of
their website. Now, they do have some requirements for chemistry and physics just like nurse anesthesia school does. Nurse anesthesia school requires a BSN. Um, in addition to taking hard science courses that are required. Um, most of the um applicants to our programs have about 3 years ICU in which they do learn all about IV drips, medications, ventilators, ECMO, um, LVADs, balloon pumps, a lot of these medical terms I'm
throwing out, sorry, but they, uh, and they learn about medication administration every day throughout that experience. So they usually have 4 years as a BSN. And about 3.5 years in ICU before they go to anesthesia school. And then when they go to anesthesia schools, 3 more years, so by the time they can provide anesthetics, they've had roughly 10 to 11 years. There is a bridge program. It's been repeated and repeated that, you know, people move, they go out of state and they want to
come back and work. So if I want to be a ski instructor. I don't move to Florida. I moved to Colorado, right? If I want to learn how to snow ski or teach it. Well, we have a bridge, there our bridge programs for AAs that are interested in being CRNAs, um, and they can apply and go to those schools, um, Texas Christian University is one of them here in the local area. They have a bridge program that allows them to complete, um, the program and, and get a doctorate of nursing practice
and become a CRNA, um, they, they give them credit for 30. 00 cases because they have to complete 900 total. Uh, as far as autonomy, um, CRNAs are And prior to 2000, there was stagnant growth in the AAs because they started around 1971, um, but there's a group, um, they, they, they were
stagnant as a healthcare provider, um, there's a lack of support from the American Society of Anesthesiologists at the time, um, but then interest in the AA programs grew after many CRAs in different states began to acquire independent practice and opt outs from the governors that have signed. So as Representative Johnson has stated there, they are well trained anesthesia providers. Which, and I know that they, I'm not
taking anything away from them that they are, you know, well respected in some of the states they're in, but I've also talked to anesthesia groups around the country that are in states where they have AAS, um, and most of them have begun to eliminate those positions because it's not a practice model that they can sustain. Because, you know, in the military and the VA healthcare systems, they defer the use of AAS instead using CRNAs, um, including on the front lines and
on board ships in the Navy. Simply because CRNAs and AAs are not the same. And are not the most cost effective. CMS even agrees that they're not interchangeable because they can only bill in one category, whereas the CRAs can build in up to 3 categories. Um, I'm just about done. No peer review studies and scientific journals have been published regarding the quality of care of AA practice and AA anesthesia outcomes.
In contrast, CRAs, there's many high quality and excellent, uh, journals, articles out there that have been well documented. The peer-reviewed studies that have large retrospective studies that have talked about, uh, there's no difference in the anesthetics between the MDA and the CRNA. Other states that have AAs have struggled with this model and some of them, they actually are delegated and not licensed. Texas is a delegated state, for example.
They have, uh, some states have tried to introduce AAs and rely heavily on them and temporary uh shortages, but to find out they've got to hire more locum anesthesia providers because for each of you have to hire a physician, anesthesiologist, every time you hire the AA as well. Thank you. Do you mind if
we just go to questions? I, I don't want to repeat what summary paragraph. OK,
Mark Donovan
Unverified
3:10:53
that'd be great. So who do you like caring for your loved ones, the doctoral level graduate with 7 years of
formal education, and an average of 3.5 years in clinical care experience. Or the Master of Science prepared graduate with no healthcare, possibly no health care background or experience. HB 1251 only stands to expand government and increase costs for taxpayers and for our healthcare system. AEs would only be able to be used in a few practice settings throughout the state. The fiscal note of introducing a new provider which includes licenser regulation, oversight, and scope of practice is not physically responsible when the state of
Arkansas has nurse an exodus and anesthesiologists already providing high quality and excellent anesthesia care to the citizens. Thank you for your time and are due to vote against HB 12251. Thank you. I'm sorry if I'm hard to
understand. My throat is. Do we have any questions for this witness. All right, seeing none. Appreciate that. Uh, I don't have anybody
else that signed up for or against Senator Wallace. Well, I was going
Speaker 41
3:11:52
to move for a consideration, but I think we're headed that way. Oh, Senator Wallace, I wanted to thank you for your
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
3:11:57
service. Thank you for your service. Thank you.
Uh, seeing no more, is that correct? OK, uh, Representative Johnson, you're recognized the clothes for your bill. Thank you for
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
3:12:09
being here for your testimony. Members, I appreciate y'all's patience. I know it's been a long day already and I'll try to be brief. Um, you know, I support our CRAs. We heard a lot today about the training of CRNAs. They're excellently trained. They're excellent providers, our anesthesia assistants are excellently trained, excellent providers. Nobody's trying to equate these two things. Um, the gentleman that was up here before, a couple of both of them, a couple of things, I mean
One thing is regarding costs. No one's going to put, no one's making our hospitals hire these folks, right? This is just saying as a state, do we want to allow these well-trained individuals to have an opportunity to practice in our state for folks that want to move to Arkansas and practice we wouldn't allow that. It's up to the market to decide if there's a place for them, if there's a cost for them, but I will tell you that our hospitals are struggling, you know that, and providing them every tool possible, I think is important and I trust our administrations of our hospitals to make a cost efficient decision about whether it's a good idea or not a good idea to hire aides, um. You were asked to sit through a
scenario. I'm going to ask you to sit through a scenario for me. Let's imagine for a second that this testimony is happening today and let's imagine there's a group of healthcare providers out there that go to college and get a 4-year degree and then go to 2 to 3 years of professional school to get a license to practice under the supervision of a physician. Let's imagine those guys are sitting here testifying today trying to come to our state, trying to practice, but you have physicians and nurse practitioners coming here testifying saying, don't let those people in the state. They don't belong here. They are going to increase costs. They're going to not help the workforce
and then imagine that this isn't about anesthesia assistance. Imagine it's about physician assistants because this is the rod analogy. Can
you imagine if we were as a state holding out physician assistants for coming and practicing in our state for the reasons stated today. These are well individuals, we've passed the legislation out of this committee to expand practice for physician assistants, and I'm supportive of that, right? To, to not allow a group of individuals that are trained to the extent that these individuals are
trained to come and practice to our state. It
just seems wrong. And so with that I'm closed for the bill. Appreciate a good
vote. Thank you for your time. Thank you. What is the will
of the committee? What's the will of the committee? Motion to pass 2nd, is there a second? Second, all those in favor say aye. And opposed. Uh, broke call please.
Speaker 405
3:14:45
Sooner Flippo. Senator Flippo. Senator Hill, Senator Hill, no. Sooner or later. Sooner or later, no. Senator Penza, Senator Penzo no. Senator Payton, Senator Payton, no.
Sa or love. Center love.
Speaker 414
3:15:24
Cinerais Senator Rois, yes. OK, Bill fails. Thank you,
members. We are adjourned. But This afternoon, we will try
to come back and just go through our other agenda items.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
SB222 B. Davis TO AMEND THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT; TO CLARIFY MARKETING BY PROVIDERS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROVIDER-LED ORGANIZED CARE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
HB1245 Clowney TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS BEHAVIOR ANALYST REGISTRATION ACT.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
SB285 J. Payton TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 4 OF 1948.
SB286 J. Payton TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL WAGE LOSS BENEFITS IN ADDITION TO SCHEDULED INJURY PAYMENTS UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED MEASURE 1948, NO. 4.
SB287 J. Payton TO MODIFY CERTAIN ATTORNEY FEES FOR CONTROVERTED MEDICAL EXPENSES, APPEALS, AND CHANGES OF PHYSICIANS UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED MEASURE 1948, NO. 4.
SB288 J. Payton TO MODIFY A PHYSICIAN CHANGE UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT RESULTED FROM INITIATED MEASURE 1948, NO. 4.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1610 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUMAN LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND THE
ARKANSAS UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT.
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.
TO EXCLUDE CANDY AND SOFT DRINKS FROM ELIGIBLE FOODS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
SB264 Irvin TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS PRIMARY CARE PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT WORKING GROUP.
SB255 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "DRUG" WITHIN THE FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB262 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE DOCTRINE; AND TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WHO OWNS A MEDICAL CORPORATION TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP UPON AN INACTIVE LICENSE OR RETIREMENT.
SB306 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO APPLY FOR A HOME-
AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES WAIVER FOR THE AGING AND ELDERLY POPULATION IN THIS STATE.
SB311 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE END ORGAN AND GENOMIC HARVESTING ACT; TO PROHIBIT COVERAGE OF CERTAIN HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT OR POST-TRANSPLANT CARE; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN GENETIC SEQUENCERS AND GENETIC ANALYSIS TECHNOLOGIES.
SB348 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ANNUAL CAP FOR DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES WITHIN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB120 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE LICENSURE FOR ALL PRIVATE CARE AGENCIES IN THIS STATE; AND TO ENSURE CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR VULNERABLE AGING ADULTS.
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.
HB1169 L. Johnson TO CLARIFY THE ADMISSION CRITERIA FOR AN INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT TO INCLUDE A PERSON WHO IS IN A MENTAL CONDITION AS A RESULT OF A MEDICAL CONDITION.
HB1523 Vaught CONCERNING MISSING PERSONS ALERTS; TO CODIFY THE ARKANSAS AMBER ALERT SYSTEM; TO CODIFY THE ARKANSAS SILVER ALERT SYSTEM; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PURPLE ALERT SYSTEM.
HB1586 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE MEDICAID WAIVER FOR AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER TO CLARIFY THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS TO DIAGNOSE AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER.
SCOPE OF PRACTICE BILLS
HB1131 Pilkington TO AUTHORIZE AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE TO DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS TO MEDICAL ASSISTANTS AND OTHER UNLICENSED STAFF.
HB1167 L. Johnson TO MODIFY THE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCED PRACTICE
REGISTERED NURSES AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS; AND TO CLARIFY THAT DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT INCLUDES DIABETIC SHOES AND SHOE INSERTS.
HB1254 L. Johnson TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTITIONER TO PRACTICE INDEPENDENTLY IN THIS STATE; AND TO REMOVE THE INDEPENDENT PRACTICE PRIVILEGES FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS.
HB1258 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKER ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE CERTIFICATION FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS.
HB1257 L. Johnson TO REMOVE THE LIMITATION OF THE PRACTICE OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGY FROM TECHNICIANS EMPLOYED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS; AND TO ALLOW PSYCHOLOGY TECHNICIANS TO BE EMPLOYED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS.
HB1253 L. Johnson TO ADOPT THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PERSONNEL LICENSURE INTERSTATE COMPACT IN ARKANSAS.
HB1251 L. Johnson TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANT ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE OF ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS.
ADJOURNED
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — PUBLIC HEALTH WELFARE AND LABOR COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 12, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Missy Irvin Chair
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 23
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 79
Carol Worley
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 106
Dan Parker
Unverified
Speaker 107
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 119
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 128
Speaker 132
Jason Hatfield
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 148
Speaker 158
Speaker 150
Speaker 179
Speaker 182
Speaker 185
Speaker 196
Speaker 197
Speaker 198
Dale Do
Unverified
Speaker 201
Speaker 207
Speaker 214
Speaker 216
Speaker 181
Speaker 222
Speaker 204
Speaker 191
Steven Keeling
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 213
Speaker 93
Speaker 263
Speaker 266
Speaker 276
Speaker 277
Speaker 283
Speaker 310
Nikki Beeler
Unverified
Speaker 314
Speaker 318
Speaker 101
Speaker 341
Speaker 351
Speaker 356
Speaker 363
Speaker 118
Speaker 365
Speaker 369
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 372
Speaker 375
Speaker 383
Speaker 387
Matt Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 399
Speaker 408
Speaker 410
Speaker 405
Speaker 414
Speaker 416
David Cook
Unverified
Speaker 349
Speaker 423
Speaker 373
Jennifer Steer
Unverified
Speaker 452
Speaker 221
Speaker 453
Speaker 461
Speaker 464
Speaker 460
Speaker 470
Speaker 473
Speaker 421
Speaker 480
Speaker 481
Speaker 489
Speaker 488
Mark Donovan
Unverified
Speaker 41