Insurance & Commerce - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (19)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB276
Act 345
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AN INSURANCE POLICY. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB276 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SURPLUS LINES INSURA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE; AND TO CLARIFY THAT SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB276 is now Act 345 |
|
SB309
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…THE USE OF A PROCURER BY A LICENSED CHIROPRACTIC PHYSICIAN. SB309 D. Sullivan TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT;…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT; TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PSYCHIATRIC COLLABORATIVE … | D. Sullivan | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1193
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1193 Cavenaugh TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO INCLUDE A LIENHOLDER ON…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO INCLUDE A LIENHOLDER ON PAYMENTS MADE UNDER AN INSURANCE POLICY. | Cavenaugh | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1238
Act 306
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IFORM PRUDENT MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS ACT (2006). HB1238 Cavenaugh TO AUTHORIZE A MORTGAGOR TO RECOVER FEES IN CERTA…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE A MORTGAGOR TO RECOVER FEES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE STATUTORY FORECLOSURE LAW. | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1238 is now Act 306 |
|
HB1307
Act 308
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TECT A CONSUMER'S PRIVACY IN CERTAIN MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS. HB1307 McAlindon TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE FUND MANAGEMENT; AND TO AME…”
|
TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE FUND MANAGEMENT; AND TO AMEND THE UNIFORM PRUDENT MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS … | McAlindon | Notification that HB1307 is now Act 308 |
|
HB1309
Act 268
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1309 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE OF EXAMINATIONS F…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE OF EXAMINATIONS FOR BREAST CANCER; AND TO CLARIFY THE … | Rose | Notification that HB1309 is now Act 268 |
|
HB1405
Act 309
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1405 J. Richardson TO AMEND THE STATUTES CONCERNING PROCURERS; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE STATUTES CONCERNING PROCURERS; AND TO ADD ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF … | J. Richardson | Notification that HB1405 is now Act 309 |
|
HB1466
Act 262
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE STATUTORY FORECLOSURE LAW. HB1466 Achor TO AMEND THE FAIR MORTGAGE LENDING ACT. Notice: Silen…”
|
TO AMEND THE FAIR MORTGAGE LENDING ACT. | Achor | Notification that HB1466 is now Act 262 |
|
HB1184
Act 263
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1184 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE FAIR MORTGAGE LENDING ACT; AND TO P…”
|
TO AMEND THE FAIR MORTGAGE LENDING ACT; AND TO PROTECT A CONSUMER'S PRIVACY IN CERTAIN … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1184 is now Act 263 |
|
HB1558
Act 392
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1558 McGrew TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO CREATE A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT … | McGrew | Notification that HB1558 is now Act 392 |
|
SB103
Act 425
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MUM REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES. SB103 C. Penzo TO CREATE THE PHARMACY NONDISCRIMINATION ACT; TO R…”
|
TO CREATE THE PHARMACY NONDISCRIMINATION ACT; TO REQUIRE PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS TO ACCEPT ANY PHARMACY … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB103 is now Act 425 |
|
SB104
Act 514
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ONABLE TERMS OF PARTICIPATION; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB104 C. Penzo TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LI…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT; TO PROTECT PATIENTS' RIGHTS AND ACCESS … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB104 is now Act 514 |
|
SB123
Act 553
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HTS AND ACCESS TO MEDICATIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB123 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST ULTRASOUNDS. | G. Leding | Notification that SB123 is now Act 553 |
|
SB140
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CONCERNING COVERAGE FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST ULTRASOUNDS. SB140 J. Boyd TO MANDATE THE USE OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES UNDER HE…”
|
TO MANDATE THE USE OF BIOSIMILAR MEDICINES UNDER HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS; TO REQUIRE A HEALTHCARE … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB179
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/5/2025 @ 8:00 AM) Removed SB179 from Deferred Bills Senate Committee on Insurance and Comme…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE STRENGTHEN ARKANSAS HOMES ACT; AND TO CREATE THE STRENGTHEN ARKANSAS HOMES PROGRAM … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB319
Act 461
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ACIST SERVICES IN THE PSYCHIATRIC COLLABORATIVE CARE MODEL. SB319 J. Boyd TO AMEND THE UNIFORM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT;…”
|
TO AMEND THE UNIFORM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT; AND TO CLARIFY CHARGING ORDERS UNDER THE … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB319 is now Act 461 |
|
SB329
Act 426
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB329 J. Boyd TO CREATE THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE GUARANTEES ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE GUARANTEES ACT. | J. Boyd | Notification that SB329 is now Act 426 |
|
SB366
Act 427
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMINATIONS FOR BREAST CANCER. SB366 J. Boyd TO CREATE THE STRENGTHEN ARKANSAS HOMES ACT; AND TO…”
|
TO CREATE THE STRENGTHEN ARKANSAS HOMES ACT; AND TO CREATE THE STRENGTHEN ARKANSAS HOMES PROGRAM … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB366 is now Act 427 |
|
SB83
Act 424
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…PROGRAM FUND. PENDING FISCAL IMPACT Number Sponsor Subtitle SB83 J. Bryant TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SUR…”
|
TO MANDATE COVERAGE FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES; TO REQUIRE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES; … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB83 is now Act 424 |
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
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
0:16
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Frank Cavanaugh, state rep District 30. Um, 1193, we presented the amendment the other day in committee, the amendment just makes it clear that when a lien holder's name has to be on there and a lienholder's name does not need to be on the payment if the lien holder doesn't have a physical presence in the state of Arkansas, if the claim is less than $2500 or a payment is made directly to a prepare
Speaker 10
0:50
facility for the amount of repairs. questions Motion to pass as amended, seconded by Senator McKee. All in favor say aye. All opposed, like son.
Speaker 11
1:04
Thank you, Representative. You passed it. Thank you. Do you You don't have, have the amendment on
Speaker 13
1:14
the other one yet, do you? All right. Uh, we'll go to uh
Speaker 15
1:22
Senate Bill 276. Uh, if you would take the chair.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:56
All right, Senator, when you're ready, just introduce yourself and your guests and uh we'll get
Speaker 23
2:04
Blake Johnson District 71, uh, this is a, go ahead. Alan Kerr, former insurance commissioner and president of Alan Kerr
Speaker 15
2:12
advisors. This is an additional this is for automobile. Surplus lines to clarify the code in, in uh state
Speaker 25
2:20
law as it is now. Alan, you got anything else?
Speaker 27
2:27
Uh, yes, sir. This is doesn't change anything that's in operation today and in policy today. We're just adding a verbiage that clarifies that surplus lines meets the financial responsibility for auto insurance as needed to insure your car. OK, um, questions. Thank you. I need, I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:51
need some clarification about what a surplus line is.
Speaker 27
2:58
Well, surplus lines is the higher risk lines of insurance. In other words, you've got admitted companies like State Farm and Allstate when they do not accept a risk and you can't get any admitted or preferred companies to accept a risk, then surplus, you know, the agent is allowed to invoke surplus lines industry to ensure those those vehicles or that property. OK, but, uh, OK, but
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
3:30
This bill doesn't reflect high risk.
This bill, as it's written, would allow you to enter into that market regardless of whether it was high risk or not. Is that
Speaker 25
3:41
correct? You you have to have 33 the preferred lines that are will not take,
Speaker 27
3:51
the rule that you have to be rejected by at least 3 companies before. You're able to to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
4:02
put it in circles lines. That's somewhere else in the statute, OK, all right, thank
Speaker 30
4:07
you for the clarification. OK, and I've got a, oh, Senator Murdoch, you've got a question and then I've
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
4:14
got a question after you. Um, throughout the bill I see the, the word that you've added. Prominently is eligible or eligible. Tell me why that's it was authorized. Previously, but you've added or eligible that says to me, so this is what I want you to
address that there is some others added some other. Less or greater qualifications for an authorized something says, go ahead. Correct, sir. authorized is a
Speaker 27
4:47
different type of lines of insurance, be the preferred insurance lines are authorized by the insurance commissioner. In other words, they file their rates and, and have a license to do business or a certificate operation to do
business in Arkansas. Those companies are authorized. Surplus. these companies operate on a different set of rules. Therefore, we had to, they could not be authorized, but they are eligible to do business in Arkansas. What's
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
5:18
that make me why there's something there. There's a distinguishable difference and I don't know what it is. That's what I want to hear. The distinguish as well. and
Speaker 55
5:36
just and and if if to be authorized would
Speaker 27
5:40
be to operate under the same set of rules that the preferred insurance industry does. Eligible surplus lines companies are not authorized because they, they do not follow the same licensing rules and and restrictions that preferred companies do. So my understanding
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
5:57
of the surplus lines is that it is what predicates to the. Necessity for that is the consumer
career level of uh eligibility if you will. Or qualifications as a for this product, so you go to the surplus, but if you but if you're telling me that the Um, Provider is less than authorized, maybe. Why is it so, so what's the? I
just need to know what's the difference in the requirements of of authorized versus eligibility. What's the difference? If I'm understanding
Speaker 49
6:39
you legalese, to be honest with you, um, it's authorized
Speaker 27
6:45
is the term that the insurance department uses for give me an example, OK. State Farm is authorized to do business in the state of Arkansas. They have filed rates. They have certificates. Submitted all their information to get that license. Surplus lines because they are high risk and on a different level and and
have different requirements for um surplus and money in the bank then preferred companies, they are licensed differently. OK, so this other word eligible means that the authorized would be if you're a preferred company eligible would mean that you, you're eligible to do business in Arkansas, but you don't. Pardon me, you're less than
Speaker 63
7:40
preferred. That's correct. I don't know if you call it less
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
7:45
than it's other than preferred. So for them to be other than preferred, what dangers, that's my word. Do the consumer incurred by engaging with a surplus line uh entity. I know what State Farm is, but now
you, I got to deal with this other. My work less than less
than authorized. entity, what kind of position
Speaker 23
8:11
are we putting our consumer in? Well, the consumer would not be able
Speaker 21
8:16
to get automobile insurance through a preferred line, so he could not meet the state laws of having insurance to drive on the highways. Well, that,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
8:25
well, well that, that's because State Farm won't won't do it, but, but still, if I'm in bad shape and and I've had some mishaps in my life. I don't want to be taking it advantage of I'm a little more high risk. I get that and that's what the song,
but I still want that entity to be able to care for and not be a predatory to the consumer protections and all of that is, let me ask you this question. I know you, you AID previous AID now. Uh, who's here? Alan, you'll come up. Mr. Insurance commissioner,
can you come to the table to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
9:06
try to answer this question, please join the discussion so just sit
down, turn your microphone on, introduce yourself and start answering if
that's a and Mr. Harris, please introduce yourself as well.
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
9:22
Do you understand what I'm asking about the difference
Speaker 78
9:24
here and, and I want to know from, from like a consumer introduce yourself first, Alan McLean, insurance
Speaker 79
9:29
commissioner, and Jimmy Harris, deputy insurance commissioner, and Jimmy deals more in the surplus lines approval than I do, so I'm going to
Speaker 81
9:35
let him go ahead and address your question. Do
Speaker 82
9:38
you understand my question? Yes, sir. Thank you. OK, the,
Speaker 83
9:44
the main consumer protection that does not exist in surplus lines is they're not part of the property and casualty guarantee Fund. Uh, any surplus ons carrier they're they're not protected by the guarantee fund. Now tell me what that means. That means if a if an insurer goes solvent. Insolvent. We hope they all remain solvent, but if, if, if they end up insolvent, OK, they go through a receivership and then they're deemed to be
liquidated. OK, then they're transferred to the property and casualty guarantee fund. To pay that company or that that insurers uh outstanding claims to basically run off that business. That's what it's for. It protects the consumer when they purchase a policy. I think I'll also
Speaker 84
10:36
add, I think you understand this, that they only seek coverage in the surplus lines market if they can't get coverage in the standard market with standard
insurance policies, so it may be that whether it's State Farm, shelter, any anybody that they and their agent is exhausted all opportunities to get them an insurance policy in the standard market, so the only way they're going to get insurance is to go to this. surplus lines market that's being discussed here, so that's, it's really fortunate that those lines of business are there to take these typically higher risk insured, so I think you may understand that I just want to make sure that was out there.
Speaker 55
11:21
Keep in mind also that surplus lines companies have a higher requirement
Speaker 27
11:25
of risk-based capital do they not? And there because they're not part of the guaranteed fund. They are required to carry a In layman's terms, a lot more money in their in their checking accounts than a preferred company would be. And also if you're in the If you're in the surplus lines, if
Speaker 84
11:44
you've had to get something in the surplus lines, you're there for basically a year and then you're You have to be shopped back in
the standard market again. You don't get stuck in there, so you've had some good, good year of of of claims and track record, then it's to everybody's benefit that you go back into that standard market. So this is sort of the, you know, you're kind of market of last resort for you, and, and,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
12:09
and, uh. I think I'm OK. Well, I, I hear what you're saying, let me say that, but my concern was not on, I
understand that the consumers in a situation. And they can't get preferred,
uh, insurance, but still want to make sure as they go to an indemnity situation that there are protections. Necessary so they still get cared for properly so that hopefully they can get back up and get to prefer but, but if we put him in a bad situation with, you know, they can get worse and worse and worse, a predatory type situation. So well, the whole purpose of
Speaker 27
12:43
the surplus lines market is to take that in the other direction so that they can get better. A lot of times preferred companies won't take you if you haven't had insurance for the last 12 months, OK, if
you've had a You've been in the hospital or whatever the case may be, you've got a break in your insurance. Well, you go to the surplus lines market for a year. You get your, yeah, you get your, your, uh, uh, your time there, and then you go back into the
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
13:11
preferred market, so Thank you, thank you, chair. Uh, thank you. So I, I do have a question
too, um. Uh, Mr. Carr or Senator Johnson, just we've got the automobile insurance plan in the state of
Arkansas, and so I'm trying to understand how this fits in with the automobile insurance plan and why we need this versus the automobile insurance plan and how the how the two are connected, so. I mean, I'll defer to the commissioner. I, I, I don't blame you. I would too, but I do want to, I do think we need to have that discussion before we say yes on this bill. Thank you, uh, uh,
Speaker 83
13:52
Char, that's a good question. The assigned risk plan in
Arkansas has had about one auto in it, one commercial policy in it for the last 2 to 3 years. We keep using the term preferred, and I'm not sure that that that that that's Really 100% correct in this situation. Um Preferred auto indicates someone clean driving record, no claims, OK? There's high risk auto, which is you've got a DUI, you have high climbs. In my opinion, there's plenty of
capacity in the admitted market or authorized market for personal lines auto for drivers that are that are deemed high risk, OK? They're going to, there's high risk admitted carriers riding those policies. What I believe this bill. could do is, is, is provide a bright line that says yes, if a, if there's a commercial risk out there or or some unique uh personal lines
risk out there that that can't get coverage in the admitted market. And we, we aren't blocking them. From from seeking that coverage in the surplus lines market before. You know, we stick them in the assigned risk plan. Um, I think that's what
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
15:21
this language does. So, so this actually works in conjunction with
the automobile insurance plan and that it might have another layer before we have to go there.
Speaker 83
15:34
It's, it's, um, this does not touch the insurance code. I want to make that clear too. This is all transportation, so all the protections already present in the surplus lines industry are none of those are changing. OK, um, when the question was asked, uh, can we write primary auto responsibility insurance and the surplus funds market to satisfy the requirements of the motor vehicle responsibility Act that
was a question that that I couldn't come to a clear answer. Yeah, uh, so we proceeded to, to survey the market, see what what's going on in the market. Uh, Texas has a very, very bright line. No, you cannot place primary auto responsibility or primary auto liability. In the surplus funds market. Excess is fine, but they have a very, very robust assigned risk plan. Uh, I don't think it's, it's the will of
The Insurance commissioner to grow our signed risk plan if there's capacity that can
Speaker 93
16:39
be found elsewhere. OK, um, committee, any other questions? Anybody
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
16:44
signed to speak up, speak for or against, OK, just double checking there's a lot of people out here, anybody who needs to speak for or against this bill, saying none, uh, Senator Johnson, would you like to close for your bill? I'm close to the bill and make
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
17:06
second by Senator McKee, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? The eyes have it. Congratulations, Senator, you passed your bill.
Speaker 23
17:54
All right, Senator Sullivan. The Senate Bill 309. Please don't
Speaker 105
18:00
go all the way down there. Just introduce chair,
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
18:20
we have a guest here to help present, if you don't mind. Just introduce
both of you and you're working. Senator Dan Sullivan, Senate District 20 around
Speaker 111
18:32
Jonesboro. I'm Dr. Tavita Perretseri. I'm a pharmacist at the Arkansas State
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
18:41
Hospital. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm going to let my guest kind
Speaker 114
18:45
of explain the bill, so we just want to add the Arkansas, the psychiatric
Speaker 116
18:48
pharmacist to the collaborative care model so that we can provide services for
Patients outside of the inside the
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
18:59
state. And right now there's no opposition. The pharmacy Association psychology Association, I think are all good with this bill. I did have one question from insurance group that says what type of training have you had in psychiatric collaborative care model
and what role would a pharmacist provide in the PCCM model. Can you address that, please? Yes, so before I was
Speaker 116
19:26
working on the treatment team, I was trained only in the Central pharmacy and we would call the physicians to change any contraindications. Now we're on the treatment team and allowed to help with um different CMCs and treatment therapies. So basically this group
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
19:45
was left off of the original list of people that could participate in the
care team, and I had a local practitioner asked me to work
with them to add them to that team and the language says may be added, so they don't have to add them to the team. We did have a psychiatric hospital reach out to us with concerns that they had to be on the team, but the language says may, so that gives anyone the opportunity to have them or not to have them. With that, I won't answer any questions. Is there any questions from the committee? Let me see, check, check my sheet here.
Speaker 10
20:36
I don't see anyone to speak for or against the bill. Is there
Speaker 125
20:39
anybody in the audience that I'm missing seeing none, uh, you know, close for your bill. I'm
Speaker 127
20:45
closed for the bill and would appreciate a
Speaker 125
20:48
good vote. Motion by Senator Boyd. I'll second that. All
Speaker 11
20:54
in favor say aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator. You passed your bill. Thank you. Well.
Speaker 9
21:54
We're gonna go on to 1405. There's an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your permission, we'll get started.
William Buckley
Unverified
22:27
You recognize this introduced both of you. So Senator Justin Boyd and then My name is William Buckley. I'm an attorney from Fort Smouth, Arkansas.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
22:39
So the first thing I'd like to do is adopt an amendment that adds Senator Jay Boyd to the bill as
Speaker 23
22:47
the Senate sponsor. All right, motion by Senator McKee, second by Senator Murdoch. All in favor say aye. All opposed like sign. All right, thank you for your
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
22:58
members adopted. Thank you. So proceeding as amended this bill simply cops harassing and misleading and sometimes outright false statements to individuals who have been involved in a car accident, uh, by, um, who worked for on the behalf of a chiropractor, Mr. Buckley will provide more detail on the current impacts Arkansans and how this bill will help. Good
Speaker 142
23:21
morning. My wife and I, we are small business owners in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and primarily what we
do is represent injured individuals who have been injured through the negligence of other people. And one of the things that we've had up come up time and time again in our practice is within an hour, 2 hours sometimes half a day of our clients being involved in these wrecks. There will be a chiropractic runner who either makes it to their doorstep, gives them a call on the phone, sends them a text message or otherwise
directly reaches out to them. Now the nature of these conversations, it varies depending on which one it is, but we know of clients who have been contacted by someone saying that if you treat with us, you will not be charged anything. We've had clients who have been told that the They can help them practice law, essentially and that they can
help them negotiate their case with the insurance company. They can talk to the adjuster. They can try to go about it and resolve the disputes. They've had contacts where they've said if you don't treat with our provider, then the insurance company is not going to pay for it. You'll be left on your own and you won't be able to receive any compensation. So what this bill does Essentially, is it prohibits direct contact by chiropractors
or chiropractic runners during the 14 days immediately following a collision or other type of catastrophe. It's very similar to the same rule that applies to lawyers where lawyers cannot immediately reach out to someone who's been injured. The big difference though, is that for lawyers it's 30 days, and for chiropractors, This proposed bill would make it only 14 days. Further, lawyers can never directly contact, even
after the 30 days expires, all they can do is send a letter. This bill would make it so that after the 14 days, there can be any type of contact whatsoever. It's just a 14 day cooling period essentially. And what that does is it protects people who have been in wrecks or other types of catastrophes when they're at their most vulnerable. It gives them a few days to reflect, to talk. People they trust and to do what's best for them. So we would ask that you pass this bill and I will open it up for any questions.
Speaker 125
26:09
Is there any questions from the committee?
Speaker 21
26:15
Seeing none, uh, we will go to testimony, uh,
Speaker 23
26:21
We have 4 signed up. To speak against. Uh, we're gonna begin with Chris
Chris Cathy
Unverified
26:40
Cathy. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. To introduce yourself and you, you can, yeah.
Speaker 148
26:55
My name is Chris Cathy. I've been practicing a
Speaker 23
26:58
practicing chiropractor in Arkansas for 28 years. Just pull your mic out to you and OK, against,
Speaker 149
27:05
against, yes, and in To save some time there were
probably 20 odd signed up against to speak against this. We're just going to have 4 speak if that's OK. All right, so to start with, I'd like to start with a little bit of history. About this issue in 1999, a similar law was passed. It was almost identical, and ultimately overturned by the state's Supreme Court because it only singled chiropractors out. Nobody else, and 2013, the chiropractors took
a proactive stance and passed Act 503. That put into place laws and rules about how we could contact patient prospective patients. or clients and at that point, Solicitation complaints dropped at our board to average of 5 of 5 a year where before Act 503 we were averaging 50 complaints a year about this. In 2019, Representative Perry
tightened up the rules a little more, making it a felony. To lie prospective patients or to tried to strong arm them into going to see a chiropractor. Since 2019 there have been 15 solicitation complaints filed at the Board of Examiners. There were 8 of those, over half against one group who is no longer in business. The laws and rules in this. instance did what they were supposed to. They're taking the bad actors out of play. OK.
Since 20019, only 2 consumer complaints have been filed with the board of examiners. You know, that that's a big drop down from 50 a year to only 2 over a 6-year period. So again, the rules and laws in place are working. OK. Now, People perceive this as a problem with only 2 consumer complaints over 6 years. Is that a problem? The other thing I want to talk
about is chiropractors being singled out here. We're not the only medical profession who does this. Medical doctors, DOs, PTs, and APRNs are our competition. They're not mentioned anywhere in here, giving us a 14 day ban puts us 2 weeks behind marketing. That they can go straight out and do right off the bat. We, we, that, that just, that seems very discriminatory and not fair to our profession, especially when we've taken
steps to clean this up and have cleaned it up. We're the only health care profession governed by these marketing rules. I want to point out. The rules and laws are in place. They work. I ask that if this bill goes through, it gets amended to include all other health care providers. And another myth on the House side when this bill came up. Was that all chiropractors in
the state were for this. We are certainly not. That's why we have a large contingency here today, and I've brought One of the trade groups, chairman of the board here to discuss that as well, and I've also brought an attorney to discuss the legalese of this bill. So with that
Chris Cathy
Unverified
30:39
said, if there are no questions, I'll pass down to the next witness. The questions from the committee
Speaker 21
30:45
seeing none, we will go to Doctor Michael Courtney.
Speaker 152
30:54
just introduce yourself and tell who you are Doctor Courtney, I'm the chairman of the Arkansas Chiropractic Society. Um, I sent all of the board members on this committee a letter which hopefully all of you have seen and read, but if you haven't, then I'll go ahead and just read a short letter. Um, I'm writing to oppose HB 1405 in its current language. The Arkansas Chiropractic Society appreciates the goal of Representative Richardson is trying to accomplish with this bill.
The bill in its present form will not solve the problem it hopes to correct. The bill should apply to all medical providers, not just a chiropractic physicians. The previous act that Dr. Cathy mentioned outlawed much of the activity described in the current bill, uh, I think it's Act 515 went far to eliminate the deceptive trade practices that were once a part of healthcare marketing. However, HB 12 HB 1405. Attempts and the society's
opinion to unconstitutionally regulate otherwise legal commercial speech activities in the hope of catching bad actors. The US Supreme Court deemed restrictions like those in this bill on constitutional. Um The Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners way back, I think, in either 1999 or 2000. Established what was known as Rule Q to solve this particular problem.
the board of examiners was sued. I was, I was sued as a member of the board at that time. And the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed it and said that our rule was unconstitutional in the letter that I submitted to you all, I list the both the Arkansas Supreme Court citation in the US Supreme Court citation as well. So we feel that It is discriminatory because the bill only applies to chiropractic physicians and does
not apply to any other provider, so we're seeing instances now where you have clinics that are established doing these forms of marketing. That are that are run by nurse practitioners or MDs and so and they're under no such rule. And I don't know. I don't think the Board of Medical examiners has established a registry in order to register procurers like the Chiropractic Board has.
So in my opinion is that this bill is discriminatory against chiropractic physicians, which is unfair and should apply to all all medical providers.
Speaker 21
33:39
Thank you. Any questions? See no, we will go on to Kevin is
Speaker 23
33:45
it door or drawer Dwyer against. Thank you. I am, uh,
Speaker 156
33:52
my name's Kevin O'Dwyer. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock represent chiropractic group
with clinics all over the state of Arkansas that do utilize procurers uh that uh that are affected by this bill. Uh, I will say though, um, in comment to something that was said earlier about
Speaker 158
34:11
attorneys advertising or sending letters of the 30 day requirement is only related to death cases. You'll get attorney letters almost immediately when you get in a car. wreck. Um You know, what I have seen in my practice of representing the, uh, clinics, the number of
complaints has dramatically decreased over the years. Dr. Cathy mentioned since 2019 it's been a remarkable reduction which goes to show and prove that the rules that are in place with the Board of Chiropractic Examiners works. And one thing that has not mentioned procurers do go through training. They're not just sent out to to to talk to the public. They go through an extensive training process, and they learn what
they can say and not say, and to me this bill is trying to throw a huge net over uh a population that actually does the right thing and operates correctly and according to the law, and you might have some bad actors. I think Mr. Buckley said that they've they've had experience, you know, no. bill, no regulation's going to stop bad actors, but overall the statistics and the numbers, the actual data bears out that the rules in place right now are
working and have worked, um, you know, it's been touched on the, you know, you're starting to when you anytime you target a specific group, uh, it brings into question the constitutionality of what you're trying to do. This particular bill only targets chiropractors, uh, could be argued that restricts freedom of speech. Freedom of commerce. And other medical providers have no such restriction, um, and that, that would be uh I believe
an important question for for a court. Uh, so I, here to speak against this, just The board, the, the chiropractic board, I will say in my experience is pretty aggressive. At investigating and punishing a bad actors when they receive complaints dealing with procurers, and that's why you don't see the problems that perhaps one time existed. So it's all I have. I take any questions. Senator McKee.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
36:39
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I know Arkansas has 2 chiropractic associations. So why is, why is the other one for it and yours is against it. Can you speak to that? As to why they're
Speaker 153
36:55
for it, I think this is just an assumption. The society feels that that the law should apply to all medical providers. I can't answer what the Arkansas
Speaker 152
37:05
Chiropractic Association, what their logic is outside of the fact that they feel
That anyone who is a bad actor, you know, should be properly prosecuted and the board of examiners, I know would gladly receive anyone who would file a complaint against someone who has done something wrong, and they will aggressively prosecute that individual, so but the society feels that the current language should reflect all medical providers, not just chiropractors, because there are other medical providers doing this. Thank you for your question, Senator McKee.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
37:48
You done? Is there somebody that can the two complaints in the last 6 years. Is that, I mean, is that the number that we
Speaker 168
38:02
can confirm? Yes, that was good. I'm sorry. Yes, that was from a Freedom of information request from our from
Speaker 149
38:08
the board of examiners. OK. Thank you. Senator Boyden and Senator McKee, let me clarify, there have been more complaints, but only 2 consumer-driven complaints.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
38:22
So how exactly do consumers know to complain? I mean, like when someone barely speaks English, if they, I mean, This is about the most unscientific method. There are only 2 complaints, so help me understand why we should put so much emphasis on consumer complaints, especially when a lot of people
preyed on don't even speak English. Well, if you look back to 2010 when we were averaging
Speaker 149
38:45
50 complaints a year about this. They sure knew how to get a hold of the board at that point.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
38:55
OK, well, maybe, or maybe they just figured out that it's not working, that people continue to do it. I mean, you know, so maybe that's the case.
Uh, you, one of you specifically testified that there are other medical type or health care professions who are doing this. Can you, can you give me with a definitive answer, I mean, are dentists doing this? Are surgeons doing this, are nurses doing this? I mean, give me another example of someone besides, I mean, a pharmacists doing this. He, help me understand what other health care profession is Out there looking at accident
Speaker 15
39:27
reports and saying, hey, come see us, Mr. Cathy, I ask
Speaker 23
39:32
you to disengage the presenter is the Kevin O'Doo unless Senator, unless Senator addresses. Who, who do you want to ask the question to whoever just said, I mean, I think
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
39:42
it was the 3rd person down there, the attorney, that said other other medical type professions are doing this, and I just find that hard to believe I'd like some up that that really is the case.
Speaker 156
39:57
That is the case. I've had clients that were contacted by clinics, APRNs and such that do the same thing. Can you give me a clinic name? I mean,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
40:06
it's easy to sit here and so, so we are just to take
you on your word that hey, this is it, that other, other ones are done and do we know if those APRN clinics had chiropractors working there, the ones that I'm aware of were did not. They were just strictly
Speaker 156
40:21
an APR. So you're aware of clinics, but you can't name
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
40:23
the clinic. I'm not going to name the clinic.
OK, I mean, we're, we're in a public hearing. And We'd like to know where else this is happening because there's all this
topic about, hey, we're being singled out, there's a reason that it is being singled out and but you're telling us no, there's other, I mean, what are the nurse practitioners supposedly offering to the accident victims. Getting their business. OK. Is there any other questions?
Speaker 21
41:03
Same done, we go to the next presenter is Don Tilton against. Can you hear me? OK,
Don Tilton
Unverified
41:16
good. Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee. Good morning. My name is Don Tilton. I'm a contract lobbyist. I've worked around here for had the privilege to work here for 30 some odd years, probably makes me a dinosaur to sit in in terms of seeing some of these issues, but
Let me suggest On the front end. Whether intended or not. And I don't believe it was intended on the part of either sponsor. The bill is seriously flawed. And let me tell you why it's a lot on principle. It's flawed on the principle that we're all equal under the law. We are setting, setting in motion with this proposed statute.
Speaker 187
42:06
A case where that is not the case. It is anticompetitive. We are affording other professions that need
Don Tilton
Unverified
42:14
this kind of information. A leg up, 2 weeks' worth of a leg up. That can be critical. Now, The second thing I would say is that Particularly in response to Senator Boyd's statement just
now about other professions. If compounding pharmacists, we're making a mistake. We would not go after all of pharmacy. In this case, that's what we're doing. We're making a profession where many are complying with the law at a competitive disadvantage. I do not believe
Speaker 187
42:59
that that was intended on the part of either sponsor, but in fact, that is what occurs.
Secondly, If someone in Let's say orthodontics, uh, is making a mistake. We don't go after all of dentistry. We go like at the problem. Why is it there and what can we do about it? If Someone in the bar. And let's just say the trial bar. makes a mistake.
We don't go after the entire bar. We take a look at what's happening inside the entire bar. We take a look at what's causing the problem inside the trial bar. equal under the law. And this bill does not provide for that. It provides for the exact opposite, and if For whatever reasons you wish to proceed and validate this bill
and pass it on through. We have put anti-competitive language inside a statute, and I've heard so many of you campaign over the years on let's make things comp competitive, and
Don Tilton
Unverified
44:28
that includes pharmacists. Now, You would not expect me if I've been around as long as I say I have managed to survive this process.
You would not expect me to come to you. And just be critical. I'm trying to be constructive in the points that I'm making cause I'm not alleging Improper behavior on the part of the sponsors. I am alleging that the bill is not written in such a
Speaker 187
45:03
fashion to avoid equal under the law. And the treatment of, of the professions equally. We don't penalize an entire profession. Now, let me make a suggestion.
That I hope is constructive and you'll you'll give it some consideration. If we really want to take a look. At these practices, as you say
Don Tilton
Unverified
45:31
you're just being swarmed with complaints over. If that's the case, I guess we would find the same thing over at the board of chiropractic medicine, correct? No. When that bill
Speaker 187
45:44
passed in 2019, it was sponsored by Representative Mark Perry.
And chiropractors actually campaigned. And lobbied for the passage of that bill. They didn't run away from more regulation or more thorough investigation of the of the profession. They said we stand for that. And the bill passed and we were proud that it passed. And we relieved that it passed. But I'd like to suggest to you That what needs to take place is this bill be laid aside.
Or else amended. To clean up the language that is one discriminatory equal treatment under the law. And 2, Allows A legislative inquiry. Into the board of chiropractic medicine. Go over there and see. How many complaints they
receive. What's the nature? Whoa, whoa, whoa, what's the nature of it and what has been done. Look for the accountability of the profession underneath that board. And if that board is not performing the way it should, you all have the authority to dissolve it. reconstitute it or just disposed of it. Now I suggest that a more reasoned approach.
is a deep study at the board level. And then come back with your suggestions for constructive results. One closing
Speaker 192
47:46
or more. You can This proposal into law.
Speaker 187
47:51
But just because it's in the law does not make it right. And
Don Tilton
Unverified
47:59
these flaws in that bill ought to be considered before we impose that kind of thinking and support that kind of thinking on the general public. I thank you for your time. Thank
Speaker 125
48:17
Mr. Tilton, so you're gonna have to speak up. I'm hard of hearing. Mr. Tay, uh, So you, uh, Go with the equal under the law
Speaker 158
48:33
are all all medical practices equal. Can you, I didn't hear his question. He's asking if all medical practices are equal. If you're calling the argument of equal protection of what now are all medical
Don Tilton
Unverified
48:53
practices. No Is that what did I say that right? Theoretically, yes, sir, because that's The responsibility of the profession and the legislature. Theoretically they're equal.
Functionally in terms of their education and
Speaker 187
49:10
preparation. Those differ, whether you're a dentist, whether you want to specialize, whether you're a pharmacist, whether you want to specialize, whether you're an attorney, whether you want to specialize. And there, there are those inside of chiropractic practice that would like to see their credentials. Increased. Those are not the
Don Tilton
Unverified
49:36
people that I represent. I represent the people that are complying with the law that
Speaker 201
49:42
is it written today and want to think. If I'm complying with the law.
Speaker 10
49:50
Why me in terms of penalty. Thank you. So
Speaker 23
49:54
I ask you are all medical professions equal, so your answer is no, because they all have different functions. So this, this law is a change
within one medical practice. Not across the board as that that you would like to see, but chiropractors do something different in medicine than PTs do, then PRNs do or our doctors, our neurosurgeons and you're asking for the same treatment for all and the function is different in all, uh, that's not what's before us today, equal
under the law is is. Treating all chiropractors the same, which I think this, this does. You can't treat all medical practices the same because there's different laws and different functions for each one. I appreciate your testimony, Senator Boyd. Do you have a question? I, I'm gonna try. I'm just gonna say the last time that I went to the chiropractic board.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
51:02
I'm sorry, I'm speaking up for you. I hope you can hear me and I'm not being inappropriate loud for
everybody else. The last time I went to the chiropractic board as a sitting legislator and
did an inquiry. Do you have any idea what the response was from the chiropractors who didn't like it? Well, I'm asking you the question, but the answer is, is they bombarded the poor director with FOIA requests after FOIA request about
my conversation with her. So that's how I feel about doing another legislative inquiry at the Board of Chiropractors.
Speaker 21
51:42
any other questions? From the committee saying none is there, you got a question. Uh, that is all the testimony that I have, uh, against this bill. Is there anybody for the bill? That would like to speak. Seeing none, you, you
Speaker 28
52:03
are, you can, you can leave the table. What did.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
52:14
So with your response, we do have a brief closing. Despite the historical changes, things
are still not working. We've had challenges in Fort Smith, and I'm confident those challenges are across the state as well, uh, you know, I can't tell you why there are more reports, fewer reports, what have you. It could be that people just gave up on the system because it doesn't seem to be working. Uh, what I do know is that I would be upset if someone showed up on my front porch, you know, at 7:30 in the
8, at 7:30 a.m., you know, telling my wife that how you've got to get down to the company doctor right now. to today to be checked out, um, and find out that the company doctor was a chiropractor who wasn't really the the insurance company doctor as was implied. I would say that I, I really, I'm not familiar with any other um medical type professions, soliciting patients based off accident reports, if that is happening and it is
inappropriate and Arkansans are being hurt, I would entertain a separate bill personally if someone wants to bring that to me to to regulate that behavior as well, but that's not something I'm familiar with is hurting Arkansans. Um, so, We have a case where, you know, hey, it's all the bad actors. Well, we had bad actors in Fort Smith that were charged with felonies, but That worked in those cases where they were caught. Not everybody knows to go to an attorney, not
everybody knows to, to complain. And finally, if you're wondering what, what is this matter to the average Arkansan. Hey, this isn't affecting me. It affects all of us. We just about everybody has vehicle insurance on that vehicle insurance you have something called Meddpay. That medpay is usually about $5000. Uh, and so people bring in the people, the accident. Victims, they go through that med pay. Sometimes they go beyond the med pay
and put them in medical debt. We all pay, or not all of us, but a big chunk
of us pay for automobile insurance and it's driving up rates. This is a very rare situation where both trial attorneys and insurance companies are on the same page. I would say we have a problem here. I would say that I very much would appreciate your vote, as would Representative Richardson. Yeah, briefly just add
Speaker 142
54:39
a couple of other things from the testimony that we heard when Representative Richardson and I were drafting this original bill. One of the things that
came up was the Supreme Court case that was mentioned there in testimony today, and I want to be clear as to what that court case says. It did not say that it was unconstitutional to regulate one profession. What it says is they had a problem with that similar statute because it did two things wrong. One, it didn't define a time period during which the chiropractors were limited from contacting people. We've solved that problem. It's now 14 days. 2, it
didn't identify the class that it was seeking to limit, so it didn't limit it to accident victims or collision victims. They just said you can't have contact with anyone and everyone. So the Arkansas Supreme Court said, we don't like that, but it specifically mentioned that if they changed it and made those corrections, that it's something that could pass constitutional muster. So I think that's important. As
Speaker 214
55:40
far as why it just applies to chiropractors. One point's been touched on. I know in my business I never have anyone
Speaker 142
55:50
coming in saying, Mr. Buckley, there was an orthopedic surgeon who showed up at my door today, or Mr. Buckley, there was a neurologist just really trying to get me
Speaker 214
55:58
into her office or a dentist or a pharmacist or anyone else. It's always a chiropractor or a chiropractic runner. Who shows up. The other reason we limited it, because originally there was a bill in the House, and it did
Speaker 142
56:12
apply to all medical providers, but we limited it because one of the things that came up was what happens in an emergency situation. What happens if
there's a tornado that hits and you've got first aid out there treating real immediate injuries. People are bleeding. People are dying. They're going to their doorsteps to help. Oh, obviously we don't want to prevent that, but again, to go to your point,
Speaker 214
56:33
Mr. Chair, chiropractors provide a different Service, no better, no worse, but they're not the people who are showing up at that time period. It's more of your emergency responders, so we adjusted the bill so that it could fit there. The other issue with the reporting things to the
Speaker 142
56:51
chiropractic board. I know I personally have called the board, and a lot of times I can't even
Speaker 214
56:56
get someone on the phone, and I know of other people who have experienced similar type issues. So part of the problem, I don't know this is somewhat a guess on my part, but part of the problem could be that people who are injured, people who are hurt can't get to the chiropractors. There's no communication, so they're trying, but they just can't do it. Also, it's to the point that it singles out chiropractors that
Discriminates against them as a class. That's just not true. What it does is it says, If you're going after people, if you're violating this law, yeah, we're singling you out because we want it to stop, so it's about finding the people who are violating the law. There are lots of chiropractors who are for this bill. I know you've spoken to some of them because they want the bad actors eliminated. They don't see it as some attack on them as a class, and the courts won't either. They're saying it as an attempt
to eliminate the bad actors and to protect people when they're at their most vulnerable. This is in the Hours after following a pretty tragic or traumatic event, and that's what this bill aims to do is to stop those sorts of practices and
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
58:08
and with that, Mr. Chair, we are closed for this bill. I'd make a motion do pass
Speaker 23
58:14
motion by Senator Boyd. Second by Senator Murdoch. All in favor
Speaker 11
58:20
say aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator, you passed your bill.
Unknown speaker
58:24
Thank you. As amended as amended. Yeah.
Speaker 25
58:55
All right, we'll go to Senate Bill 329. It has an amendment. Some Yeah Oh
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
59:42
I Mr. Chair, when you're ready, I'll
Speaker 40
1:00:00
I'll start. You know, just introduce each one of you and
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:04
you're welcome to begin. Justin Boyd, state senator Brad Ne representing Airbnb. Byron Warbier, associate general counsel, Airbnb.
So, uh, committee, Senate Bill 2 329. This bill simply establishes a regulatory framework for online marketplace guarantees handle an amendment first. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 23
1:00:25
yeah, thank, thank you. Motion to adopt
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:27
the amendment by Senator Ervin, seconded
Speaker 125
1:00:32
by Senator McKee, all in favor? Say aye. I opposed like signed. All right, Senator, now you can
Speaker 11
1:00:39
present your bill. Now I'm presenting
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:41
as amended. This bill simply establishes a regulatory
framework for online marketplace guarantees with the emphasis on guarantees. What we're going to hear today is the crux of the debate is what's a guarantee and what's insurance and this bill clarifies a guarantee while establishing that regulatory framework guarantees or something that happened not infrequently in our lives. For instance, maybe our child wants a loan at the bank, and we go co-sign that loan, that would be an example of a guarantee. Uh,
the, and we're going to hear more about this, but in short, the Arkansas Supreme Court has developed a 3 factor test whether a contract of indemnity is insurance, and the 3 factor test is the contract mandatory. Is there a profit motive? And importantly, is it intended to be actuarially sound, and I would argue when I go co-sign that note for my kid while they might look at my finances, nobody's determining is it actuarly sound. The online marketplace
guarantee. This is an important point as
well. It's incidental to another business that's being conducted. So We're looking at One is am I conducting a business and is this incidental to And 2, what is the difference between a guarantee and insurance and this
bill again simply establishes that regulatory framework for online marketplace guarantees. With
that said, I'm gonna turn it over to these guys for
Speaker 161
1:02:22
a little more in depth explanation. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 229
1:02:26
and I want to thank Senator Boyd for his interest in this issue and for bringing this bill forward. We've been talking about this issue in the form of a potential model at incoil through last year, but this is the first bill to be filed in the state legislature, so again, as has happened quite a few times. Arkansas seems to be leading the way on these emerging issues and
sort of setting the parameters that I think other states are going to eventually follow. Um, the online marketplace itself, I think it's important to distinguish that it is a three party transaction where you have one individual offering some service, another individual purchasing that service and it's done through the marketplace through the online marketplace. The best example of the guarantee is probably the Airbnb for explanatory purposes, the way that the Airbnb guarantee works
today is that you as a property owner or a host decide to list your property to be available. A guest or a renter of the property, then does that through the Airbnb platform contractually that guest is responsible to you for any damage that could happen to your property. Uh, but in the event, and it happens infrequently and it's usually very low dollar, but in the event that there is damage and the guest does not fulfill their obligation to pay
you back. Airbnb guarantees the host. We'll pay that damage and then we'll decide. How or whether to continue pursuing that guest to pay for those damages. That's the crux of the guarantee, and it's outside of the insurance context. It gives the host peace of mind that their property has some protection, and it's just included in our terms of service and guarantees are distinct from insurance. There are a lot of examples just in life and in the marketplace. Senator Boyd
mentioned co-signing a loan, a general contractor guaranteeing the work of a sub. contractor, these types of scenarios happen all the time. There are already 24 states that have a general exemption in their laws that capture the type of guarantee contemplated here under this bill for online marketplaces, but without the specificity that this bill contains. Arkansas is not one of those states that currently has that more general exemption in
their law. There is favorable case law that the senator referred to. The establishes it's not insurance, it's not regulated as insurance, but we think it's preferable to have have this in the statute, and as analogous to this is the service contract model that was promulgated by NAIC and that was passed here in Arkansas and put into your statute. That's another example of where these types of, in that case it's a service contract instead of a guarantee are
offered, put in the in the statute and established as not being the trans. action of insurance. Finally, in the end coil development process. It has been ongoing. We've had a productive conversations with other stakeholders, other insurers, and particularly the trade groups APCIA and NAMI. We've been having good conversations with them. It's been kind of slow going, to tell you the truth. We're hopeful that if they have suggestions that they would like to see. We have more conversations scheduled with
their national folks on this that we will be able to agree on language and and potentially amend the bill if necessary to satisfy any of their concerns I think there's a good chance of reaching compromise language there, but we think that the bill is is appropriate to continue moving forward through the committee today. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I can, I can wrap up and thank you. I hope I hope for your favorable consideration. You have anything else to add? No, Byron's here for questions.
Speaker 23
1:06:26
All right, is there any questions? See none. We have one to speak against this bill. It's Katie
Speaker 232
1:06:39
Burns. American press. I Yeah I've I've got
Speaker 23
1:06:43
3 pages of stuff here and I don't care who goes first. So if you want to come to the table, just come on, introduce yourself and
Speaker 221
1:07:04
it. All right. Just to introduce yourself and Chairman Johnson, Vice Chair Boyd, committee members. The song.
Ward Tisdale
Unverified
1:07:13
Hear me OK. There we go. OK, there we go. Uh, my name is Ward Tisdale. I'm with the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies where national trade already been mentioned earlier, and we are in opposition to the bill. I did
send a letter earlier laying out sort of our reasons. Um, I do want to start with a quote which is insurance is a contract that shifts the risk of loss in exchange for premium. was a finding that the Wisconsin Insurance Department. came up with in a memo January 17th of this year, less than 6 weeks ago, looking at the online marketplace guarantee activity that was going on with Ecoil. And that's really, that was their position that this actually is insurance. There,
therefore it should be regulated by insurance. That's been our position and really the basic message we want to leave today is these conversations are happening right now, as was mentioned. And so this is a little bit of the cart getting before the horse. Let's have that discussion at NOI stakeholders were at the table. I think they're close, a draft model bill is
Perhaps imminent. They don't always come out the way that that folks want them to, but let's go ahead and let that process play out. I believe there's a meeting next month and in Charleston to have those discussions, as you know, Ann Coyle is a national organization with insurance legislators from around the country. We have groups certainly Airbnb is at the table. Ami is our friends at the APCIA are there as well, so what
Have that discussion there and come up with the right language that can provide a model act for Arkansas and for the entire country. And you know there was an adverse action by the Washington Insurance Commission on a similar product that they felt was being used as insurance and not being appropriately regulated, so This is unfinished business, and I think, I think that we need to
let the process continue at Ecoil to get a good model act. Thank
Speaker 23
1:09:43
you. So what you're saying is we don't have an insurance market for this online service at this time. Well, we, we think this is an
Speaker 238
1:09:55
insurance product which should then be, I mean, if Air BB wants to sell this product, then they should
Ward Tisdale
Unverified
1:10:04
Become a licensed insurance provider. Our members in this state, and I was just talking with Michael So at Farmbureau, one of our members. They're heavily regulated. Um, they abide by the law, they abide by the regulations, and so this is creating what really is an unlevel playing field if you're letting entities that aren't insurance companies to offer that product in the market. It says on page 3. Line 30
Speaker 23
1:10:37
Should the provider shall file a registration with the insurance commissioner and on line 36, the Ensure all online market guarantees. Uh, reimbursed insurance policy. Issued by an authorized and insurer authorized, so it sounds to me like they're not saying that it will not be an in. That doesn't make it an insurance product, sir.
Ward Tisdale
Unverified
1:11:07
In our opinion, we also in our in our letter, we we do offer the the AID the opportunity to weigh in on on their viewpoint just as other states have, so I'll just leave that out there, so They, if
Speaker 21
1:11:21
they have to register with the insurance commission, you still don't consider them my insurance, sir. OK. You got a question, Senator Boyd.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:11:39
I was just going to suggest that we
go ahead and bring up the insurance commissioner, and he can weigh in whether this reflects case law in Arkansas or whether or not that he feels like this is just
Speaker 21
1:11:56
clearly injured. you got, if you guys would introduce yourselves even though you don't want to Alan McLean, insurance commissioner.
Speaker 79
1:12:10
Jimmy Harris, deputy commissioner. So have
Speaker 15
1:12:13
you all had an opportunity to review this and We have looked at
Speaker 84
1:12:21
the bill and had just in the last week or so, we have not
Speaker 81
1:12:27
been engaged at the national level on this through incoil or the NAIC. I understand that that there's a fair amount. I learned just in the last day that there's a fair amount of discussions about what's a good
model bill for this and what's what's not, so we haven't weighed in on that and really haven't had a, you know, the chance to to to write. up to respond to to what Ward was mentioning, uh, you know, I think Senator Boyd framed it up pretty well the same way I would in terms of what what's in Arkansas right now in terms of defining what an insurance product is and so I don't have
anything to to to add to what he said and this bill would appear that that that is pretty well specifies. You know, what that it's not to be considered an insurance product, so you all make the laws and if you'll say it's not insurance, then then that's what I, as a regulator will, you know, go by, so but having said that, we have not had an opportunity to digest all the comments from the industry and and making
particular position one way or the other on it as my counterparts in Wisconsin, I think have, so that's really What I have to offer, sir. Right. Is there any other questions for
Speaker 23
1:13:54
Mr. Ward? If if there's not your, you're dismissed. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there any other questions? That have been
Speaker 134
1:14:05
led to the insurance commissioner. OK, all right. We'll, we'll do the
Speaker 15
1:14:16
next one Katie, y'all might want to stay there. If, even if you don't want to, uh,
Speaker 249
1:14:33
Katie Burns against that'd be fine. Yeah. I'm not Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I appreciate your time. Um, I'm here today on behalf of who has already been mentioned, the APCIA American Property Casualty Insurance Association. The insurance industry has been opposed to the model billet and
coil due to the scope of the bill and the underlying conflict of calling a transfer of risk ultimately an insurance product, not actual insurance. APCIA and I think they can speak to this on the other side have continued negotiations with the proponents of this bill at coil to protect consumers and to do what makes sense for their business model and for the insurance industry that are looking to try to find a way to thread the needle as to whether this does or does not constitute insurance. We very much appreciate Senator Boyd's
efforts and involvement within Coil. We understand the frustration and why we're here, um, but we do feel like this bill is premature at the moment and until those negotiations have been resolved, we need to take a break and step back. Um, it's a complicated issue that may have future um far-reacher, far-reaching implications, and just to kind of go back. I can't exactly remember how many years ago, but like about, I think it's about 10 years ago, Uber, there was a kind of a specific or a particular bill that came through committee and it was involving Uber and there
were discussions about how there was current negotiations going on at the national level. The Uber bill went through here, and then you come back, and then once the national level association and those issues were resolved, that had to then again come back to Arkansas and be tweaked. I mean we're just trying to kind of skip that step. um APCIA is very far to the negotiations. I do believe there's even another Meeting tomorrow and has been at the table trying to push and get this across the finish line, so that's just why we are here to oppose today because we feel like it's premature and that
we're going to get there on the national level. Um, we remain concerned that the current draft is overly broad and would create the unlevel playing field mentioned by Mr. Tisdale by allowing nearly identical products to those already offered in the PNC market to be subject to a much different and lesser regulatory structure, um, and due to the, the breadth of the bill and the future. consequences of other online platforms utilizing that we just feel like the bill is of great concern to go forward at this time. Thank you so much,
Speaker 21
1:16:52
uh, you said there's similar products uh that those products guarantee online.
Speaker 11
1:16:56
I think the point to that is that there's
Speaker 249
1:16:59
similar products in But that the insurance industry that provides that same kind of protection as heavily heavily regulated and that this side would not be. But they would provide the same outcome. So which would be, which would be a less cost
Speaker 15
1:17:14
for the consumer. I can't speak to that. I can find out, but I cannot
Speaker 23
1:17:22
speak to that. I mean, in this they have to register with the insurance commissioner, but I, I, I don't believe that
Speaker 249
1:17:31
registering makes you a licensed agent. Well, the next page it says you have to be an authorized. And like
Speaker 23
1:17:38
I said, I mean, I'm, I'm just here to let you know why we wanted
Speaker 249
1:17:43
to have conversations and get to a point because we think it's premature. I can anything deeper down you want to dive into, I'll be happy to, I can get back to you with
any answers on your questions. Is there
Speaker 21
1:17:55
anybody else got a question? For Ms. Burns. Sean,
Speaker 125
1:18:01
thank you for your testimony. Thank you. So Is there any other questions that have arisen. I don't know Go
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:18:26
So, there, there seems to be a question period about where we are. I've, like you've been with and call several times and Um We see how they develop. These model pieces of legislation what goes into it. So I just, just listening to the testimony, but we feel like we're ready, you're ready, you feel, you feel comfortable to move forward. This has been baked
and cooked and and uh and a commissioner, you feel
From a Because some protection. What you do for us and for citizens, uh, OK, this bill, you don't have any angst with this legislation.
Speaker 81
1:19:12
I don't have any angst with the legislation. You've given us in this bill rulemaking authority, which I think we can spell out a fair amount of belts and suspenders and guards rails to do what you're asking for us to do in here, so we
Speaker 21
1:19:29
thank you. Thank you, chair. I mean, we don't have a law in place, but is there case law that
Speaker 245
1:19:43
would allow this. Commissioner. I don't know the answer, but the, the case, well, there's,
Speaker 81
1:19:48
there is some supreme Supreme Court case law that Senator Boyd referenced that he probably has the background on, but that that that referenced the three pronged test that he was talking about and whether it's, you
know, insurance or not, so that that's really what we have to rely on, Senator Boyd,
William Buckley
Unverified
1:20:03
if you would so what this does is it sets guardrails in place so
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:08
that we can have this appropriately in place for consumers in the state of Arkansas. So I don't know that there's case law that says we can't do this, but I think it's important that we protect consumers and we make it clear and we don't make it hard for businesses to go and try to figure things out. We can just say, here are our rules, this is how
you're going to play in the state of Arkansas. So, that's the purpose of the
Speaker 125
1:20:32
legislation is to make those things clear. Is there any other questions? Seeing no I have no one else to testify for
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:20:45
against the bill. You want to close your bill? Yes, sir. Thank you very much committee for hearing this today. We heard about Wisconsin. This is Arkansas. In conversations have drag on. Arkansas case law is clear. This legislature doesn't meet again for 2 years. We need to put these consumer protections in
place now. With that said, I'm closed. I'd make a
Speaker 10
1:21:08
motion to pass and appreciate a second. Motion by Senator Boyd, seconded by Senator McKee. Any discussing discussion, saying none,
Speaker 11
1:21:14
all in favor say aye. All opposed like sign. Thank you, Senator. You passed your bill. Hm
Speaker 205
1:21:34
Representative Kavanaugh. She's been here twice, Josh. Do you, you don't need, you don't have an amendment. It's engrossed, OK. All right. We're on House Bill 1238.
Speaker 134
1:21:52
Just introduce yourself and you're welcome again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:22:00
committee Fran Kavanaugh, state rep District 30. Um, this is a
bill that's been driven by a constituent issue. They went through a strict foreclosure with a bank, um, during the strict foreclosure process in court. The judge awarded them. They were the winners of the lawsuit. The judge wished to actually award them some attorney fees. But our law did not allow that. This bill just simply states when it would be an allowable that if a judge wanted to, not that they sell, but they may
Speaker 10
1:22:37
award attorney fees under these conditions. Is there any questions? I don't
Speaker 15
1:22:51
think we have anybody let's go through this. This is 12,
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:22:57
8, 123828. Go ahead, Senator Murdoch. What precludes them now from Awarding
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:23:04
attorneys' fees from my understanding and talking and drafting this bill,
the strict foreclosure law in Arkansas doesn't allow attorney fees to be awarded. It's not saying that it can, it doesn't say it can't, so it's gray and the judge
felt because it was gray, they could not award, so this just makes it clear that if the judge feels
that these are reasons here are reasons and if they feel that they need to be awarded attorney fees, they can be. It's clarifying something that's more of a gray area that the judge felt that they could not award even though they wanted to. And so the scenario is that if you
Speaker 264
1:23:40
foreclose, I'm, I'm foreclosed on. And
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:23:43
therefore on top of me losing that property. I also owe attorney fees. Is that, is that correctly what happened with my constituents was exactly that.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:23:54
They went through a strict foreclosure. The court ruled in their favor, they had to pay for all their attorney fees and could get none back, and that's what was a catalyst of this bill and the judge just said in her ruling
that she could not give attorney fees because she did not feel that she had the ability to do so because of current law in our strict foreclosure law, and this just set some lines about when they could consider it actually awarding an attorney fees, and it says May, it doesn't say shell, it's permissive. It's up to the judge. Yes sir. OK. You
Speaker 267
1:24:35
know the questions. Seeing then, you want clothes? Uh, I appreciate that. It's a
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:24:42
simple bill driven by a constituent, I think it was just an oversight, and I would
Speaker 10
1:24:48
appreciate a good vote. Thank y'all. by Senator Ervin, seconded by Senator McKee. Any discussion,
Speaker 11
1:24:53
saying none, all in favor. Say aye. I'll oppose like sign. Thank you.
Speaker 21
1:25:05
Thank you so much. Appreciate it, committee. I have committed to run House Bill 1184 for Senator Hill and
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:25:23
uh I will relinquish the chair. Senator Johnson, if y'all will introduce yourselves, and
Speaker 269
1:25:33
you may begin. Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. Keith Little speaking on behalf of the mortgage Bankers Association of Arkansas. I'm
Speaker 11
1:25:43
going to pass the mic over to Mr. Uh, first, I'd
Speaker 271
1:25:47
like to say I appreciate Chairman Johnson carrying the torch for us on this. This is a consumer
protection bill in respect of the committee's time. I'll try to be brief and concise to define the problem when a consumer applies for any sort of credit transaction, whether it be mortgage, automobile, their credit information is pulled. It has defined the type of transaction if it's mortgage, automobile, that information is then being resold by the credit reporting agencies to lenders out of state who are starting to call the customer. They are not defining clearly who they are. I can speak from personal
experience in the summer of 23, we decided to relocate our family from central Arkansas to Northwest Arkansas. I quit counting after 47 phone calls? How many times I've been solicited several times these people would state they're from the loan department. They're from the processing department. In fact, one called and said that I'm calling about your centennial loan. I knew after 20 years of experience in the business that those people did not work with us. They were not with the lender that I had actually sought credit from. So the
average consumer does not know that. I believe Senator Murdoch used the term predatory in some earlier discussions, and I think that is a very appropriate description of what's going on here. So to define what this bill does not do, it does not ban the practice of people purchasing this information, nor does it preclude them from calling consumers. What it does is require them and codified some ethical standards that they must clearly and conspicuously identify who they are. Whom they work for and how they receive that information. It also does codify that it would
be prohibited to contact someone who had either registered on the federal do not call list or had opted out from having their credit information sold. So we feel this is a consumer protection bill, similar legislation was passed in December in Texas. There has been some more prohibitive legislation that was active on the federal level was removed from a spending bill late in the year, but in the we know how fast those things. moved and in the spirit of protecting the citizens of Arkansas, we feel this is a good bill. I would be happy to entertain any questions on this.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:27:58
Senator Mark Johnson question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I feel like I maybe I've been a victim of some of this and I've gotten and and it's it's a little bit unnerving because uh a few years ago my wife and I took out a 10 year mortgage and worked real hard to pay it off, and it wasn't easy. So when someone's calling me about my mortgage application. I get a little bit testy, especially during session. The
texts were bad enough, but the phone calls came at the most inopportune time. I like the bill a lot. The question is why in the hell is there not a penalty in it? Can you answer that, Senator Blake
Speaker 278
1:28:42
Johnson? No, I'm just trying to help Ricky. I don't
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:28:47
want to slow down. OK, well, if, if somebody wants to come up with something that would add a significant penalty. We all get overwhelmed, but I just, again, thank you for that,
but is there some logic of why there's no uh I won't say didn't have teeth, but it's I just think it maybe needs more
Speaker 271
1:29:10
tea, so Senator Johnson, to add credence to your statement, we polled the membership lists of the mortgage Bankers Association. We had 107 respondents, 100% of those respondents said that this was a problem to them. 68% said that the phone call started within 4 hours and it goes down from there at the time that I sought my mortgage, they were not selling instantaneous triggers,
but now that they, the bureaus are selling that information to where we've had anecdotal evidence of consumers sitting in the mortgage loan originator's office and their phone calls start and receive. We did not put the penalties in there because this will be governed through rulemaking by the Securities department and as pretty appointed laws only work for law abiding citizens. It's susceptive in that they spoof local members when they call to give the presence they're calling from within the state, and they're not. We feel like this is a good step in the right direction Personally, sure, I would like
to see more teeth to it, but currently there are no protections for consumers whatsoever. So we feel like
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:30:10
step. Would, would it, is it your opinion that it would be a possible that by rule some sanctions monetary sanctions could be added, Mr. Chair, can I introduce another witness that
Speaker 25
1:30:19
could give clarity to this, please, Mr. Chair, thank you. Please introduce yourself. Hi Tierney. Karen Tierney, Arkansas Securities
Speaker 283
1:30:29
department, we do have provisions in the Fair
March Lending Act that specify how much we can find and it's up to $10,000 per violation. OK.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:30:39
That, that makes me happy. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Mr.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:30:45
Chair. Thank you. Any other questions by the committee?
Speaker 286
1:30:50
I'm closed. Go ahead we have anybody speak for or against? Alright, uh,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:30:54
are you closed for your bill? All right, we got a motion to pass. We've got
a second, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Congratulations, Senator, you passed your bill.
Speaker 21
1:31:26
House Bill 1307 and then we'll go to We'll go to uh
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:31:37
House Bill 1309. You recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. House Bill 1307 from Representative McClendon is a is a passion of hers to make sure that we are good stewards of our investments and our endowments across the state. If you remember in 2023, she was the lead sponsor and author of a one that applies to state organizations and state entities.
Um, this applies that same logic into endowments for our colleges and universities across the state. It is to protect our institutional funds and endowments and ensuring those funds are responsibly maximized and to prevent the misuse of funds for any political or social agendas that do not serve the interests of the taxpayer. So to do this, what she has done is she's amended the uniform prudent Management of institutional Funds Act of 2016,
known as AMISA to prioritize the responsibility by prohibiting investment decisions into environmental social governance goals that do not yield the best financial benefits. However, there is a provision in the bill that if they can prove that even though ESG exists in the financial package, it still provides the best financial benefit that endowment or that actor over that endowment can provide that information and still invest in those funds, assuming that it has the best financial investment.
Um, it also requires that the institution document and justify these decisions if they deviate from the standard financial objectives, so ultimately 1307 and reinforces the intent of the national MFFA law to ensure the financial health, the donor trust, and the prudent fund management by ensuring that public funds are managed in the best interests of the taxpayer. Is there any questions on 1307?
Speaker 21
1:33:36
See, none. I don't see anyone to speak for or against the bill. You, you know, close your bill. I'm close motion by Senator Ervin, seconded by Senator Penzo. Any discussion saying none, all in favor say aye. All pose like sign. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for being patient. We will go to 1309.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:34:09
Thank you, Senator Missy Urban District 24. Ryan
Rose representative District 48, Van Buren Fort Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. House Bill 1309, simply put, uh removes all cost barriers for diagnostic breast cancer screenings here in Arkansas. Last session we passed a bill that removed co-pays for these types of screenings, some cost
shifting took place and so co-insurance was being required. What this bill does is more or less strip away all cost sharing for anyone to receive a diagnostic breast cancer screening, uh, roughly 400 women will die in Arkansas this year from breast cancer. What this bill does is helps. Diagnosed breast cancer sooner, and the sooner we diagnose it, more lives are saved. And additionally, more expensive treatments, surgeries, and
associated costs are also removed, so it saves money. More importantly, it saves lives, and I'm open to any questions or any
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:35:21
comments the senator has just to follow up. I think it's really brave to see my colleagues who are married to women who have suffered through breast cancer becomes such strong advocates for their wives, and I'd just be remiss if I didn't see that and acknowledge that as a policymaker, but somebody who cares deeply about what's
happening with their wives, and I just respect that very much, and many of my male colleagues have had their wives have suffered through breast cancer. And I just appreciate their advocacy on these issues, and I think it's a really, really important bill just to eliminate any of those barriers for anyone to seek a preventive measure, so we can catch that cancer earlier and treat it for a better successful outcome and to save
their lives. So happy to answer any questions. I don't believe there's opposition. I think actually I was contacted that they that their insurance carriers were supportive of this of this bill. On
Speaker 297
1:36:29
EBD there's no additional cost shift or anything. It's a great question.
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:36:34
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So there's no fiscal impact. The only impact that would have been there would have been to payers that would have been exploiting
the cost shifting loophole and EBD was not doing that. All
Speaker 9
1:36:49
right. You got a question Senator Murdoch. OK. Hold on just a minute. We got 12 to speak I'm not, if there's no other questions, 4. Miss Miss Jennifer Styron, who is the
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
1:37:05
CFO and executive VP at Carta actually signed up to be able to join with us at the table, and she
didn't want to speak unless it was necessary, OK.
Speaker 23
1:37:18
I'm finding it not necessary are you close? Clothes for your bill, right, motion by Senator Johnson, second by Senator Murdoch, all
Speaker 205
1:37:33
in favor say aye. I oppose like sun.
Speaker 293
1:37:37
He, he stuck his hands up first, so, oh well, Johnson Senator Irvin Thank you
Speaker 110
1:37:44
Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, senators.
Speaker 23
1:37:52
All right, we, Senator, Senator Boyd has another bill. be less controversial bill It's house, House Bill 4 1466. He says it's a departmental bill. Uh, if somebody, Miss
Speaker 101
1:38:06
Marshall, yeah. OK, well, 1460 House Bill 1466,
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:38:12
a couple of pharmacists. So, um, no, it has nothing to do with
Speaker 267
1:38:24
pharmacy at all other than we're just citizens like everybody else.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:38:29
You need to disclose anything on this bill. I'm already
Speaker 9
1:38:32
disclosed clarify that last night, uh, Senator Boyd, you're, you're welcome to begin if you would just let your colleagues
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:38:39
Senator Justin Boyd, and if you'll introduce yourselves. Good morning, committee Susannah
Speaker 311
1:38:43
Marshall, Arkansas Securities Commissioner and bank commissioner. Karen Tierney, Arkansas Securities Department and Mr. Chair, for Tom's sake, we're
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:38:52
just turning it over to them so
they can tell us how this updates the mortgage lending Act.
Speaker 314
1:39:01
All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Boyd. Our proposal today affects the existing Fair Mortgage Lending Act. There are two amendments to the existing Act that we're proposing. These are not bill amendments, but amendments to the existing law. One is containing concerning prudential standard requirements and the other is concerning data security requirements. This will affect non-bank institutions, so non-bank mortgage companies, companies that are not banks
that offer mortgage products. We want them to remain healthy and well managed through all economic. cycles and we will focus with these standards on financial condition requirements and corporate governance requirements. Uh, this will bring prudential standards for these servicers, and the industry has been looking for this type of action since about 2014. The proposal regarding data security, it will leverage existing Federal Trade Commission safeguard rules, which will give us a robust robust framework for mitigating
cyber threats, preventing data breaches. And truthfully upholding the integrity of the financial system, and so it's two areas that we are focusing on and happy to answer any questions. I will add on the prudential standards regarding financial condition, we're looking at ensuring that we have good capital standards and good liquidity standards and good corporate governance standards such as guidance for boards of directors and internal and external audits. Happy to answer any questions.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:40:28
Go ahead, Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for bringing this bill. Uh, with regards to the cybersecurity aspects of this, I assume that as a state we have some sort of a general plan that we try to make it all encompassing. Is that a reasonable
Speaker 314
1:40:47
assumption. Yes, sir, specifically for this spill, these are model laws from our national association. So what we're trying to do is implement standards that are going to be applied across the country, not overly burdensome on these firms, but consistent framework,
and this would be our regulatory requirements for these firms to adhere to as independent private sector businesses that are regulated under our authority. OK, so this, this, but this is something that's going to keep folks' data we certainly
Speaker 319
1:41:11
hope so, yes, sir. Something that's missing that we hope will we have to be right
Speaker 320
1:41:19
be right once. Yes sir. Anything to add, Karen? No, that's absolutely correct.
Speaker 283
1:41:25
It's to scale for the businesses, so a smaller servicer wouldn't need the the
As encompassing as one of the larger servicers that, you know, Mr. Cooper or Rocket Mortgage, obviously with, you know, thousands upon thousands of loans and information they need to protect obviously need the, the most uh uh strength, strengthening of uh cybersecurity policies. Follow up, Mr. Chairman, and you
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:41:50
mentioned Rocket mortgage. Did you know I had my mortgage through Rocket because I'm my dad's not, so if you have
Speaker 125
1:42:05
All right. Is there any other questions? Say no, do you want to
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:42:11
close your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am closed. I make a motion to pass
Speaker 125
1:42:16
and would appreciate a second. I'm gonna recognize Senator Murdoch for the 2nd. All in all in favor say aye. I oppose likean. Thank you, Senator. All
Speaker 23
1:42:29
right, has any other senator or anybody got anything else to run today.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:42:37
I was now. Yes, sir. Do we have an update
Speaker 267
1:42:46
on our fiscal impacts? I hadn't been given one. I will try, I will try and the staff, do they have any kind of Update, no
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:42:56
because I've got two tied up for fiscal impacts that I know don't have physical impacts, so it doesn't confused why we're this session. We've cleared
Speaker 125
1:43:03
our schedule off pretty good on a regular agenda, and
I'll see what I can find out on the the physical impacts on the
Agenda
Call To Order
HB1193 Cavenaugh TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO INCLUDE A LIENHOLDER ON PAYMENTS MADE UNDER AN INSURANCE POLICY.
REGULAR AGENDA
SB276 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE; AND TO CLARIFY THAT SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE IS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE FOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COVERAGE.
HB1405 J. Richardson TO AMEND THE STATUTES CONCERNING PROCURERS; AND TO ADD ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF A PROCURER BY A LICENSED CHIROPRACTIC PHYSICIAN.
SB309 D. Sullivan TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE CONSUMER ACT; TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PSYCHIATRIC COLLABORATIVE CARE MODEL"; AND TO INCLUDE CERTAIN CLINICAL PSYCHIATRIC PHARMACIST SERVICES IN THE PSYCHIATRIC COLLABORATIVE CARE MODEL.
SB329 J. Boyd TO CREATE THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE GUARANTEES ACT.
HB1184 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE FAIR MORTGAGE LENDING ACT; AND TO PROTECT A CONSUMER'S PRIVACY IN CERTAIN MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS.
HB1307 McAlindon TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE FUND MANAGEMENT; AND TO AMEND THE UNIFORM PRUDENT MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS ACT (2006).
HB1238 Cavenaugh TO AUTHORIZE A MORTGAGOR TO RECOVER FEES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE STATUTORY FORECLOSURE LAW.
HB1466 Achor TO AMEND THE FAIR MORTGAGE LENDING ACT.
HB1309 Rose TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COVERAGE OF EXAMINATIONS FOR BREAST CANCER; AND TO CLARIFY THE COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMINATIONS FOR BREAST CANCER.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE, Mar 6, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 11
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 23
Speaker 25
Speaker 27
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 26
Speaker 30
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 49
Speaker 63
Speaker 78
Speaker 79
Speaker 81
Speaker 82
Speaker 83
Speaker 84
Speaker 93
Speaker 100
Speaker 105
Senator Dan Sullivan
Unverified
Speaker 111
Speaker 114
Speaker 116
Speaker 125
Speaker 127
Speaker 9
William Buckley
Unverified
Speaker 142
Chris Cathy
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 149
Speaker 152
Speaker 156
Speaker 158
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 153
Speaker 168
Don Tilton
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 192
Speaker 201
Speaker 28
Speaker 214
Speaker 40
Speaker 161
Speaker 229
Speaker 232
Speaker 134
Speaker 221
Ward Tisdale
Unverified
Speaker 238
Speaker 249
Speaker 254
Speaker 245
Speaker 205
Speaker 264
Speaker 267
Speaker 269
Speaker 271
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 278
Speaker 275
Speaker 283
Speaker 286
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Representative Ryan A. Rose
Unverified
Speaker 297
Speaker 293
Speaker 110
Speaker 101
Speaker 311
Speaker 314
Speaker 319
Speaker 320
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified