ALC - Administrative Rules
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Speaker 35
1:00
Members, if you will start taking your seat, we're going to get this
meeting started. All right, members, I call to order the Arkansas Administrative Rules Subcommittee to order.
For those in the audience, for those who want to comment on any rules, there's a sign-up sheet available, and we'll be picking that up shortly. And please specify which rule you're going to be commenting on. Members, go ahead and sign in to your station if you already haven't done so. I also want to note that in addition to the rules already stricken through on your agendas,
we will be passing over item E-11E, the maternal health providers and remote monitoring rules, as they've been pulled by the agency. All right, we're going to move on to B. we have a report from the executive subcommittee concerning emergency rules uh that report is in the packet if there are no questions regarding that that file that report will be filed
seeing no questions file the report item c is uh reports from alc subcommittees concerning the review of rules they are also in our packet are there any there are there any questions regarding that report seeing none file the report please item c is report uh no excuse me item d reports on administrative directives pursuant to act 1258 of 12 2015
uh for the quarter ending march 31st 2026. those reports are
also on our packet if there are no questions seeing
none that file that report Ahhhh.
Item E as the rules filed by the various agencies will begin with E1 Department of If you will introduce yourself
for the record, you will be recognized to explain your rule.
Matthew Ford
Unverified
4:46
Good morning. My name is Matthew Ford, Chief Legal Counsel for
Speaker 19
4:52
the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. Good morning. I'm Andrew Fidler. I'm the
Speaker 20
5:04
state veterinarian from the Arkansas Department
Matthew Ford
Unverified
5:07
of Agriculture. Good morning. The first rule we have on the agenda today is the repeal of criteria for persons engaged in the voluntary embedding of identification chips for equine monitoring. Essentially, these rules allow the department to regulate the issuance of ID chips in an equine.
The statute, Act 703 of 2025, repealed the statute that authorized those rules. And so, in effect, we've also repealed those rules. So that's why we're here today on the equine rule. Members, do we have any questions? Seeing
Speaker 35
5:42
none without objection, this rule will be reviewed and approved.
Matthew Ford
Unverified
6:11
financial assistance. So I'm bringing in Chris Kohlcler, Director of our Natural Resources Division, Debbie Dixon from the Department
Chair
Unverified
6:17
of Agriculture if they will introduce themselves, so You'll be recognized to proceed Good
Speaker 27
6:24
morning members Chris call closure director of the natural resources division at the Arkansas Department of Agriculture
Speaker 29
6:31
And I'm Debbie Dixon I work manage the water development section at the Arkansas Department
Speaker 27
6:40
of Agriculture So we're here today to present our finance rules, and so what we did as part of this, amendments to these rules, is did some general cleanup. This was a relatively old rule that needed to be updated to reflect transformation and just some streamlining of processes. We also added the new Water and Sewer Treatment Facilities Grant that was created through Act 812 in the last session,
and then we also repealed the clean water and drinking water state revolving fund rules and incorporated those into this rule so a lot of general cleanup new program and and repeal of two rules and in combining of some rules happy to take any questions members
Speaker 35
7:28
any questions seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you very much
Matthew Ford
Unverified
7:33
e3 good morning our next rule um has to do with the pesticide use of kaput um bringing up
corey seats the director of our plant industries division please
Speaker 38
7:50
introduce yourself yes sir corey seats arkansas department of agriculture you recognize the proceed thank you sir the department proposes to amend the arkansas rules on pesticide use which is codified at two code of arkansas rules part 70 to create a new classification of pesticide called class j to include all pesticides containing warfarin when used as a feral hog toxicant this proposed rule amendment sets forth the requirements for
dealers applicators training and record keeping related to the sale and use of class j pesticides members any questions
Speaker 35
8:38
seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thanks sir
moving on the e4 Department of Commerce
Amanda Gibson
Unverified
9:00
please introduce yourself for the record my name is Amanda Gibson from the Arkansas Insurance Department you recognize explain the rule good morning members of the committee the department proposes amendments to 23 code of Arkansas part 203 Arkansas workers compensation insurance plan the insurance commissioner is charged with administering the workers comp insurance plan this plan funds coverage for those employers who are required to have workers comp
coverage but cannot find that coverage on their own or through an agent the plan guarantees that these employers will have coverage the insurance code authorizes the commissioner to appoint a plan administrator the National Council on Compensation Insurance or the NCCI has been the plan administrator since the plan was established over 30 years ago. The NCCI is a licensed advisory organization which files its rating rules with the insurance department. Those rating rules must be followed
by the carriers who participate in the plan. The provisions in those rating rules are also contained in the agency rule promulgated by the department, and that is the rule before you today. Because those provisions in the agency rule are duplicative of the provisions in the rating rules that are filed by the NCCI with the department, the department proposes that the duplicative provisions be removed from the department rule.
Speaker 35
10:37
Members, any questions? All right, seeing none, without objection, this bill is reviewed and approved.
Thank you. E-7, Department of Human, no, I'm sorry, E-5, Department of Corrections.
Speaker 51
11:09
Please introduce yourself for the record. Wade Hodge, Chief of Staff, Department of Corrections. You recognize, explain the rule. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Board of Corrections had a rule that covered visitation for their facilities and you may recall there was some recent legislation that placed our community correction centers under the division of correction and so the board rule didn't cover visitation for the community correction centers. So we're repealing the old board rule and we're now presenting one unified visitation rule which has been promulgated by the secretary.
Speaker 35
11:48
All right, members, any questions? All right,
Chair
Unverified
11:55
seeing none. I'm sorry. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
12:00
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may not be pertinent to your rule here, but I had a question
about visitations. I've been told that during the pandemic, at least at some of our prisons, Uh, the visitation hours were reduced from like four hours to two hours on weekends.
And that was during the COVID. And these people tell me that that has not been reversed after COVID. Do you
know anything about that? Uh, I, I believe that has
Speaker 51
12:29
been reversed, but, um, uh, I don't know for sure, but I can get you that information. I'll provide that to staff. The one in Newport
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
12:36
is the one that I was asked about and they said it had not been reversed. Okay, I'll check on that for you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 35
12:51
Any other questions, members? All right, seeing none, without objection, this rule
is reviewed and approved. E7, Department of Human Services.
please introduce yourself for the record and you'll be recognized to explain the
Speaker 63
13:28
rule good morning paula stone arkansas department of human services office of substance abuse
and mental health this rule is in compliance with act 301 of 2025 which amended the medicaid provider-led organization act which is the act that governs the passes to clarify marketing by direct service providers it sought to ensure that potential and actual enrollees of the past program have the right to know that a direct service provider and that's not the passes that's the provider who's providing the Medicaid reimbursed services if they are in network with a
particular pass the consequences of choosing a network with a pass and that the direct service provider is not participating as a network direct service provider so we are issuing these marketing rules to comply with that
Speaker 33
14:23
act okay thank you any questions remember
Speaker 66
14:28
okay seeing none without objection this bill this rule is reviewed and approved thank you
EA it's also DHS please introduce yourself for
Speaker 68
14:56
the record good morning I'm I'm Amber Sartain, Assistant
Speaker 69
14:58
Director of Policy Practice and Training with the Division of Children and Family Services. And good morning. I'm Tiffany Wright, the DCFS Director.
So the rule that you have before you today is a comprehensive revision of the DCFS policy manual. The purpose of the revision is to ensure that our policies reflect the current law, practice, and administrative requirements. The rule incorporates legislative changes enacted by the General Assembly. It aligns policy with our federal requirements and current child welfare practices, updates terminology and references throughout the entirety of the manual, and improves consistency and clarity across those policy sections.
The revision also reorganizes the manual by separating our internal operational procedures from the administrative rule, consistent with the governor's executive order on reducing promulgation while still maintaining all the policy requirements and legal standards and other substantive requirements within the rule itself. In addition, we have removed outdated, duplicative, and obsolete provisions, and the manual has been updated to align with the Code of Arkansas Rules
formatting standards. Overall, this rule package is intended to ensure that our policy is current, that is accurate and that it's consistent while providing clear guidance that supports children, families, and the staff that are responsible for serving them. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy
Speaker 75
16:29
to take any questions. Any questions, members?
Speaker 35
16:33
All right, seeing none, without objection, this rule
is reviewed and approved. Thank you.
Moving on to E9, DHS, Division of County Operations.
Chair
Unverified
16:56
please introduce yourself for the record you're recognized to
Speaker 78
17:04
explain your rules good morning i'm mary franklin director of
Speaker 79
17:10
the division of county operations the first rule does two things
Chair
Unverified
17:14
it adds the definition of and the allowance for fictive
kin as an eligible relationship so that children who are in fictive kin placements through DCFS may qualify for our kids Medicaid. The second part of this rule is to comply with Act 875 of 2025 related to ABLE accounts and what it does is raise the age from 26 to 46 as far as the onset of disability. Anyone who has disability onset up to the age of 46 is eligible to
apply for and have an ABLE account. And that is the content of
Speaker 35
18:00
this rule. Any questions? All right seeing none without objection this rule
Chair
Unverified
18:08
is reviewed and approved. The second rule I have for you is related to presumptive eligibility for pregnant women. CMS requested that we make some changes to fully align with federal regulations regarding presumptive eligibility for pregnant women. So the changes we have made are to clarify
that the temporary coverage for presumptive eligibility for pregnancy begins on the day the determination is made, not the first day of the month of application, but the day the determination is made and also that the end date occurs when the full determination is made on the the regular application for full coverage during the pregnancy be happy to take any questions seeing no questions
Speaker 35
18:53
without objection this rule is reviewed and approved 9c the third rule i have
Chair
Unverified
19:01
for you is a follow-up permanent rule to a previously approved rule through emergency promulgation and this rule involves changes to the snap certification manual the transitional employment assistance manual and the work pays manual the changes involve work requirements in the snap manual changes to the work requirement to clarify the individuals age 60 to 64 years of age must comply with the able-bodied adult without dependent requirement to work unless they meet an
exemption other than age. The exemption for general work requirements were also updated for compliance. Clarification was inserted to state that verification must be provided if a disability is not obvious or if it's questionable. And terminology regarding general work requirement and disability was updated throughout the sections and sanction information updated as needed. This policy also implemented the mandatory employment and training in the SNAP program
and details those who are subject to the general work requirement who do not meet an exemption will now be required in a mandatory participant in employment and training. And if they do not comply or do not agree to the referral, they will be sanctioned from SNAP. We also removed workfare as out-of-date terminology. That section was removed. This rule also involved changes to alien eligibility to comply with the federal HR1 Act.
And those changes include that those who are eligible for citizenship include those who are lawful permanent residents. who are Cuban and Haitian immigrants, who are Compact of Free Association residents, and the other ineligible U.S. Nationals, citizens, U.S. Nationals, lawful permanent residents,
Cuban and Haitian entrants, and Compact of Free Association citizens are the only eligible individuals for SNAP. Two minor changes that we made in the SNAP program in this rule include moving the standard medical deduction amount to appendix because this amount can change by a very small amount annually, so we have moved that to appendix. And we have also moved the SNAP benefit issuance schedule, which currently starts the 4th of the month and goes through the 13th of the month, and we are planning to change those days, spread them out just a little bit more.
through the month and so we have moved that to appendix changes in the team manual were made to comply with Act 640 of 2025 and this is where we have added the requirement for a T or work pays the applicant who is determined job ready to be required to complete some job search activities before the application is processed and with that I'll happy to take any questions
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
22:23
Representative Ladyman you're recognized for a question thank you Mr. Chairman
Mary thank you for being here and presenting this I just how are we going to verify compliance with the work if
they come in they qualify they're working or they're checking on that I don't how are we going to verify that and make sure that they're executing what they're telling you they're executing uh this may not cover that but i'm a little concerned how we how we're going to do that how we
Chair
Unverified
22:55
verify individuals are cooperating with their mandatory snap employment yeah i mean is
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
23:01
there an audit are you going to call the employer or
Chair
Unverified
23:05
what what how does it work well um i can just in general at application and at recertification we verify income so we verify income with the employer or through a data a data service if we have information available through a data service to verify that information and the compliance with the snap mandatory employment and training we we do that in partnership with providers so we communicate regularly with those providers and
the providers let us know if someone is not performing the activities in their employment plan as
Speaker 35
23:44
they should okay thank you look okay seeing no other questions without
Speaker 79
23:52
objection this rule is reviewed and approved moving on the e10 e10 is a rule related
Chair
Unverified
23:57
to eligibility for certain incarcerated individuals this rule is necessary to comply with provisions in the federal consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2023 and the act requires states to provide certain coverage for eligible incarcerated youth and the coverage includes care coordination services, targeted case management services, including referrals to care and services available in the geographic region of the juveniles residence and the eligible juveniles that are impacted by this rule are individuals between the ages of 18 and 26 and are eligible, if they're 18 and 26 and are eligible under the former
foster care group, along with individuals that are ages 19 and 20 and are eligible for any healthcare program, including Medicaid or CHIP, have been fully adjudicated, which means officially sentenced. The length of this coverage is during the 30-day period before release and the 30-day period after release and other updates related to this rule included grammar Corrections and with that I'll be happy to take any questions okay seeing no
Speaker 35
25:09
questions without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you moving on to 11 members as
I mentioned beginning of the meeting besides the one the rules that are crossed through and in our packet we let rule
11 E has been pulled at the request of the agency please introduce yourself
Chair
Unverified
25:35
for the record you recognize explain your rules and members were
starting on 11 B good
morning Elizabeth Pittman division of medical services the first rule I have today is the rule concerning adverse decisions this rule is pursuant to several acts passed in 2025 including acts 515 635 and 772 it does several things including adding corrective action plans as an adverse decision that can be appealed it also extends the time frame to appeal from 35 to 65 days and it also requires us to put all policies and procedures related to prior
authorizations on a website which we are currently updating right now this has been approved by CMS and I believe there is a small fiscal impact yes of about five hundred thousand dollars and with that happy to
Speaker 95
26:35
take any questions representatives banner you're recognized for a question thank you
Chair
Unverified
26:43
mr. chair you You said you're updating that right now. Do we have a timeline when that update may be completed?
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
26:50
Should be any day now. Any
Speaker 61
26:55
day? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, seeing no other questions. Without objection,
Chair
Unverified
27:02
this rule is reviewed and approved. C? The next rule I have for you today is the increase to the RSV administration fee for children. We currently provide the RSV administration and vaccination to Medicaid-eligible children. The vaccination is provided and paid for by the Vaccines for Children program. However, providers do bill Medicaid for the administration of that vaccine.
Pursuant to Act 634, we have increased that administration rate to match the Vaccines for Children rate. There is a small fiscal impact to this as well. I believe it's $46,000, about that, per year. It's very small. Additionally, the CMS has approved this spa and happy
Speaker 35
27:44
to take any questions. All right, seeing no questions without objection. This rule is
Chair
Unverified
27:52
reviewed and approved d Rule D is another rule that was passed pursuant to 2025 legislation act 5 856 act a 58 56 expanded the
Emergency treat triage and transport act for ambulance services and allow them to provide on-site medical care Without calling a physician or behavioral health practitioner if there are guidelines in place by their medical director for them to do so We do not anticipate this to have any fiscal impact Nor did this have a spa that
Speaker 101
28:19
needed to be submitted to CMS as they had already approved this service. I'm so happy to
Speaker 35
28:28
take any questions All right, remember seeing no questions without objection this rule is reviewed and approved
Chair
Unverified
28:36
F Yes, sir. Rule F is the rule to allow for reimbursement of physical and occupational therapy in a clinic-based setting. This, again, was pursuant to an act in 2025, Act 103. Under this rule, we are expanding our coverage of physical and occupational therapy services to allow for them to provide those services in a clinic previously for adults receiving rehabilitative therapy. They were not allowed to receive those outside of a hospital, inpatient, outpatient setting or a rehabilitative hospital this allows them to go to a physical therapy clinic to receive
those services thus increasing access because we're paying the services at the same rate we don't anticipate a fiscal impact to this it's not changing who is eligible to receive the service or the rate we're paying so we're not anticipating a fiscal impact and again because these services were already covered we did not need to submit a spa so happy to take any
Speaker 35
29:32
questions Seeing no questions. Without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. And my
Speaker 101
29:38
last rule today is pursuant to Act 1025, and it is an increase to the dental rates.
Chair
Unverified
29:45
Act 1025 did several things, the first of which is increased dental rates for pediatric dental services, orthodontic dental services, and the services of oral surgeons, the dental services of oral surgeons. So that was part one. That was submitted as a spa and approved by CMS. The additional part was to increase the service limit for individuals with special needs. We did submit that to CMS. However, they determined that that could not be approved because it was tied to a diagnosis. So we withdrew that spa, and we're continuing to work through that with CMS
and anticipate coming back with a solution to that soon. However, with the rate increase, we received several comments, one of which was that we increased the orthodontic rate with the initial rule. Let me back up a minute. With the initial rule following the guidelines of the pink book, the National Dental, I can't remember, the NDAS document that we used to set the rates, the orthodontic rates actually dropped. We received several comments that that was not the intention of the law and that if you read the black letter of the law, it does not include orthodontics.
Reading it that way, we did determine that we should go in ahead and leave the orthodontic rates the same as they were not intended to be addressed by the law, nor were they written into the law. We also received comments regarding the oral surgeons dental services that that was not meant to apply only to dental services of oral surgeons, but rather to a set of codes that all dentists and oral surgeons provide. That is not our black letter reading of the law, and we can't guess at legislative intent. And so we did not raise that with that.
Happy to take any questions. Representative Ease, you're
Representative Eas
Unverified
31:28
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you back up? I know it's been six months or longer when this issue came up originally and we couldn't increase reimbursement rates based on a specific diagnosis. Can you go back and remind me what that was all about?
Chair
Unverified
31:45
Yes, sir. So that is not related to the reimbursement rate itself. That is related to the limit. So we currently have a $500 limit for adults, and under the Act 1025, there was an intent to raise that limit for individuals with special needs.
CMS will not allow us to raise a benefit limit or give a benefit based on a diagnosis. And so we've had to pull that portion back, move forward only with the rates, and we're continuing to work with CMS to try to put in place something to address
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
32:13
the special needs population. Okay, so what rates are you
Chair
Unverified
32:17
increasing? All pediatric rates. Okay. We are also increasing, I'm sorry, now I have to remember, individuals with special needs rates and then the dental services of oral surgeons.
Speaker 61
32:28
okay thank you represent Mayberry you're recognized for
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
32:39
a question thank you very much first of all thank you for your hard work because I know that you all
are really trying hard to help us with the intent of the law and working with us and with with the Dental Association and all that so thank you very very much I know it's hard work I do want to point out something because I
want to make sure that legislators understand and that DHS hears that the intent of the language that we had in there and I believe it specifically says oral and Mac forgive me I'm gonna mess up this word but max of maxillofacial am I saying that right close enough you all know what i'm saying um surgeons dental services including anesthesia that that's the language that we're talking about and you made reference to the
the actual reading of that so dhs is interpreting that um that does not apply to all dentists that it just applies to the surgeons dental surgeons and the dental association is actually the group that gave us that wording many of you might recall the last few days of the session we had some quick changes that was the wording that we got from the Dental Association and I don't think the Dental Association would have given us that wording if they thought it didn't have a
broader reach to include surgeries that dentists perform and they thought it would be broader based on the codes that are out there, and that's kind of a sticking point. We had a lengthy discussion. I know Missy Irvin chaired the meeting recently, and maybe she'll chime in. I know that she said she's going to try to help fix this in the next legislative session, but we did ask the question of you.
I asked, well, how much would this cost if we had the broader interpretation, which I believe was the intent I know it was my intent I know it was the Dental Association intent and it's what I told legislators that they were voting for um you said it was 1.5 million um but then later on I sent you an email and I asked is that state chair so it's actually correct me if I'm wrong 500,000 is that is uh give or take give or take yes ma'am about 500,000 to include this broader
interpretation so my question is I don't want to do anything to hold up this okay this particular rule we we want to move things on but DHS has the ability correct to increase that even though we didn't specifically say that even if you want to interpret it that way would would that be correct? So we never try, we always try
Chair
Unverified
35:40
to honor the intent of a statute, and if a statute specifies
that we do something and not do something else, we're going to try to honor that intent as best we can. We can raise rates without legislative statutory, not without legislative approval, obviously we have to come to you, but without statutory authority. That said, we also have to have the funding, and that's also got to be in place. So I would not be able to sit here today and tell you whether or not we could do that without having all of that sort of assessed and looked at. But that kind of gives you our broad authority to raise rates.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
36:15
Okay. I wanted to make sure legislators understand, because this will, if we don't fix it now, hopefully it can be fixed in the next legislative session with maybe some clearer language. But keep in mind, then it goes through rules again, and we're looking at it way off in the distance before it would actually take place, and the intent was that it
was to take place now. So, again, thank you. Continue the discussion.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
36:46
Thanks. Representative Leitman, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Elizabeth, thank you for bringing this today, And there was a lot of debate. It's been a long road to get here. And based on what Representative Mayberry said, we're not to the end of the road yet. But I just had a couple quick questions. So are these
Speaker 92
37:14
new rates in effect now? They will go into effect July 1st.
Yes, because we're in June. July 1st, we'll start paying prospectively.
Chair
Unverified
37:20
The rule itself goes back to September 1st of 2025. So once we actually start prospectively paying the rates, we'll actually go back and go through what we call our mass adjustment process. So we'll go back and readjust all the claims that have been billed since September 1st of 2025. That probably won't happen all at once because it takes our system a little bit of time to do all of that. But we'll start retroactively making those payments. Okay, I
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
37:45
saw that date in the rule. So you are retroactively going back and covering that?
Yes, sir. Okay, the other question is how does the agency communicate to the individual providers? I know you've talked to the Dental Association, but how do they know that now they can actually be paid through Medicaid for this? How do you communicate that to the broad community out there? We have several ways. One of the main ways we
Chair
Unverified
38:06
do it is through what we call a remittance advice message. So once a week, providers all get their remittance advice, which tells them how much they'll get paid the next week. We can put a message targeted to provider types on that to let them know.
We do something called an official notice, which goes out to providers and is posted on our website. And then we also use our provider support vendor, which is currently the AFMC, and they actually provide dental provider support. We started that when we went back to fee-for-service in 2024. And so they actually go to dental offices, so they can also provide that message to them. All the
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
38:39
way down to the individual dentist? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
38:50
Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for a point of personal privilege at this time. So, I can't say
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
38:57
anything about this issue, right? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Pittman, I want to say, first off, thank you for your work on the DME rule. Thank you for pulling it down. And I'm guessing you guys have had that meeting this week.
Yes, sir. Appreciate all that. Now on to my point of personal privilege. Today, we have the Warren Summer Camp with us today from the Warren Middle School.
These guys have been tracking all over the state. They've been to a farm. They've been to a pizza restaurant. They've been to all kinds of places to learn about what real life is about. And today's the day they figure out that they'll never figure out what government's about. But I got to walk them through our new tunnel and walk them around the Capitol, and I want to make sure you guys got to see them today, and they got to see us at work. So if you would, help me give them a warm welcome to their capital today.
Chair
Unverified
40:02
All right, Senator Irvin, you're recognized
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
40:06
for a question. Thank you. Just more or less statement. We did, as Representative Mayberry pointed to, we did have a thorough discussion about this. rule in public health and what is at question is the language that is in the law itself which says surgeons instead of surgery that's a quick fix and we can make that happen next session I've already got it drafted again we would need to meet with you all in the governor's office about that
But I think that was the legislative intent and the fix is in, so to speak, I would say. So I'm happy to carry that forward because I do think when you're looking at the intent of trying to address a special needs population, they're not all going to be located in an area where there is an oral surgeon. And I think that was the whole idea behind it. And so it does make sense that general dentists have the ability to have an increased rate as it relates to those types of surgeries because it includes anesthesia.
And you have to use a level of anesthesia if you're treating those patients. And so I think it's a fix, and we can move forward. And so I just wanted to add that to the conversation. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
41:34
Representative Vaught, you're recognized for a question.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
41:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if the intent of the bill is about
it being surgeons, is that right, Senator?
Is that what you were saying a second ago? All dentists, right, ma'am? Surgeries. They've got it for me over here. It was supposed to say surgeries, I assume, is what the problem is. with y'all on y'all's end is it doesn't say surgeries would that be correct yes or no the problem
Chair
Unverified
42:10
we have is that it says oral surgeons apostrophe service dental services so I don't know what it was supposed to say but yes ma'am that's our problem okay so let me ask a question
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
42:21
then in all the discussions prior to the legislation coming to committee I
know there had to been people from the dentist association there had everybody probably was at a table at some point in time we knew what the intent of the bill was before it even passed off of any floors am i correct we did not discuss the
Speaker 132
42:40
oral surgeons issue with the dental association to my knowledge this language okay is there someone here from the dental association there is
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
42:47
can i ask them come to the table please mr. chair yes they can come to table please introduce
Speaker 135
43:05
yourself for the record yes thank you I'm dr. Terry Fidler with Arkansas State Dental Association of a retired
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
43:19
private practitioner thank you sir I'm sitting right here um did y'all
have discussions prior to the bill being passed off of one or both floors where you talked about what the intent of the bill was yes ma'am okay was dhs in the room when that
was happening yes ma'am thank you sir now then my question goes back to you miss pitman i know that there's a lot of things y'all can do through rules because of mental behavioral health I understand because I've sat in a lot of meetings where a lot of things can change in rules doesn't necessarily have to have a law is there a way to change the rule to fit to what the intent of the law was as it is
Chair
Unverified
44:11
right now I think that what I've expressed to representative Mayberry is the
answer to that question we always try to follow and I think this is going back to the same issue we had with the DME and the CGM bill where I think the intent of the law did not get conveyed in the wording and unfortunately we don't have the benefit of a record where we can understand legislative intent so we can only go by the black letter language of the law and so we were trying our best to honor that that said yes we have authority to raise rates provided we have funding and I can't sit here today without finance and Secretary Mann to answer that question, but that is our
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
44:48
authority. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Senator Irvin, you recognize? Yes. It was just in response to Representative Vought's questions. Ultimately, it's the sponsor's bill, and the sponsors are the ones responsible for the language that's in the bill. So it's not DHS's responsibility to edit all of our bills.
Sorry, it's just not. And so, you know, I honestly think it was a mishap, it was the wrong word that was used, and here we are today. but it is important that we understand we want our state agencies to follow the letters of our laws that we pass but then you know we get upset if they if they don't or and I just I just want to make sure that we understand clearly what the law states and it's clearly stated that it's a
surgeon's rate and I know that there's some discrepancy and to further that point in public health there is no exact definition in state law of what an oral and maxillofacial surgeon constitutes or is there's no definition of that so that also further complicates it because there's nothing to go back to for DHS to point back to so that's another part of it which never probably would have been anticipated by sponsors of a bill to go and see if there was a definition of what
that surgeon is in state law and so I think it's just honestly it was just a mishap that happened but here we are today where the rules have to follow the language black and white language of the laws that we were passing so I think in the end of the day you know there was probably a better and clearer way perhaps to write this to where this didn't happen but it was very at the end session. And I know Representative Mayberry and Senator Penzo were working really, really hard on
this. I mean, we even called a special public health committee meeting in the Senate just for this one bill in order to get that amendment changed because of the fiscal impact issues that it had. So I just really think that that's what happened. And I just want to make sure that we state that. I cast no responsibility on anybody. It's just here we are today. And I think at the end of the day. We can fix it. We will fix it. I give that assurances for sure. So anyway, I just
want to make sure we're clear about that, and I wanted to state that clearly so that nobody gets mad at one person or any one agency or the sponsors or anything like that or the legislature. It's just we have to follow the language of the law. This is what the law says. This is why the rule says what it says. We can change it and move forward. That's the beauty of our nature of government. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
47:55
Mr. Chair, for the latitude. Representative Mayberry,
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
47:58
you recognize for a question. Thank you. Dr. Fiedler, can you help explain to
everybody, first of all, the language that we used was given by the Dental Association, was given to me by y'all, based on what? Can you tell me where that language comes from because it comes from the the codes and dentists out there believe that that wording covers them can you help expand on that i will expand as concerning
Speaker 143
48:34
what a dentist would say i was one of those people who delivered
Speaker 145
48:40
services oral surgery services and I'm not an oral surgeon I did a quite of a number of oral surgery procedures that was the intent that in ours and as far as the Arkansas State Dental Association is concerned for our membership that those individuals especially in rural settings that they would be able to be provided an increase in fees for their oral surgery services knowing that they
were not an oral surgeon and so it is there was the intent to reward the services rather than the position of degree if you will on an additional degree and for those individuals who are representative in here for senators and representatives who are from rural areas for I'm also the Arkansas director of the Arkansas Mission of Mercy and so I deal with a lot of those and we do oral surgery every day and so that was our intent to reward an increase for the
services rather than for the individual thank you so
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
49:59
miss Pittman if you don't mind me asking if this is approved the way it is today. And realizing that waiting until 2027, which I'm very thankful Senator Irvin is willing to do and get this cleared up and I think it will, legislators will pass this. I mean, I won't be here, but I think, but
you never know because there's so many variables that are out there but that also is going to take a lot of time you got to get get it through a session okay then you you got to wait then look this was passed in um march april or so of 2025 and here we are a year and many months later still kind of talking about it so is there not a faster track is is there still an ability to
go through rules and add this one thing in there and if so how is that done because i don't know how that's done so again i can't tell you right
Chair
Unverified
51:09
now if if we can do this because every rule we do i have to have secretary man's approval and we have to have the governor's office approval and So sitting here today, I obviously don't have those approvals. If we get those, then I would have to determine if this needed to go back to CMS. That was a large part of why this one took so long, because we went back and forth with CMS for quite a while.
And so if that doesn't have to happen, it's a much faster process, because then we're just relying on the state. But it would go back out for a 30-day public comment and back through public health and this body. Okay. So, but
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
51:42
that would, I believe, still be a quicker route than waiting for the next legislative session so and the money is going to have to come up no matter what so anyway thank you for the comments thank you for the work and I hope we can find a resolution
to this I apologize it was my bill I was the house sponsor but I knew what the intent was I knew it was coming from the people who knew the language. This is what they do every day, and they had no doubt that this wouldn't apply to all dentists for this procedure. So in other words, someone extracting a tooth, if they're the oral surgeon, they will be paid a higher rate than the dentist extracting the same tooth from the same child. Is that correct, Dr. Fiedler? Is that what we're
Speaker 145
52:38
looking at that is my understanding if I may one thing there are many many procedures that a general dentist does not attempt to do an oral surgeon does perform however there are a litany Anna of list of procedures that we as general dentists do and the end result is that we remove the same tooth that an
oral surgeon does in the same place and at this my understanding is is that the fees as of hopefully after the end of this the fees will increase for the oral surgeons for doing that procedure that will not increase for the
Speaker 136
53:31
general dentist for doing that same procedure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
53:44
Representative Bentley, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, chairman. Um, so I know that in my district, talking to my dentist, we're going to lose some dentists taking care of kids. They just
can't afford to do it anymore. That was a whole reason we went through this whole litany of things because we carry our kids in rural Arkansas and I care about them getting taken care of. Can you explain to me, Ms. Pittman, why the fiscal impact was what it was if we were only talking about oral surgeons and we weren't talking about dentists across the state performing these procedures in committee when we were discussing the bill and we're getting our fiscal impact it included dentists across the state it
didn't include just surgeons so explain that to me
on why that was the case if we weren't talking about surgery being done by general general dentists across the
Chair
Unverified
54:27
state so there are three categories of rates that are increasing the first one of those is all pediatric dental services so dentists that are performing services on children whether they be these codes or other codes will will receive that rate increase special needs services for adults and oral surgeons dental services for adults those were the three categories that were increased based on the language of the
law and that's why the fiscal impact is what it is because the majority of dental services that we provide are
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
54:59
to children and those rates all will go up so when we were sitting in committee and the physical impact that we received went along with the rules you're doing now or are you saying it did not include general
Chair
Unverified
55:11
dentists being paid for surgery to pediatric patients it does include dental services to all pediatric patients whatever those dental codes are so that would include the services that that the oral surgeons are providing that separate category is only for adults and so
that fiscal impact did include those services it does not include the oral surgeon services for adults, the dentals provided by dentists. Okay. Thank you. Representative
Eves, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
55:44
you. I just kind of wanted to walk through this. This committee has the ability
Representative Eas
Unverified
55:50
to reject a rule that doesn't comply with legislative intent. I think mostly this one does comply with legislative intent.
There may be an argument to be made that not entirely. But I think if we go down the road of rejecting that, you're at another, what, three, four months before we can get back here with another rule. Alternatively, we can go into session. In 2027, Senator Irvin has indicated she would be, I think, I don't want to put words in her mouth, interested in fixing the language of the bill. It could have an emergency clause. You could pass an emergency rule that would last 120 days. Would that give you enough time in that 120-day period to get the permanent rule to us?
And I guess through CMS is really the question. As
Chair
Unverified
56:32
long as we don't have to go through CMS, I would not see a problem with that. If we do, we would want to make sure we
Representative Eas
Unverified
56:39
lined that all up with CMS before. In the case I just described of us fixing the bill in session with an emergency clause, you passing or creating an emergency rule, would you have to go to CMS? I don't know that's sitting right here. I
Chair
Unverified
56:51
can answer that for you once I'm able to do a full analysis of what our state plan says. Yeah, just let us know. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions? Anything else from the witnesses? All
right, without objection, the rule is reviewed and approved. Members, we're going to move to item 12, Department of Human Services.
You'll have a seat and introduce yourself and you
Chair
Unverified
57:51
can present the rule. Good morning, Martina Smith, Director for the Division of Provider Services and Quality Assurance at DHS. I am before you this morning regarding changes to the rules for our Nurse Aid Training Program. These changes are as a result of Act 105, which was passed during the regular session of 2025. those changes are regarding two definitions the general nursing experience definition and the
primary instructor definition and so our regulations have been revised to reflect the changes in those two definitions additionally we made a change to the number of hours that are required to become a cna the new language mirrors the federal regulation which requires 75 clock hours and 16 clinical hours for a total of 91 hours. The current regulations state 90 hours. We also made some technical and grammar corrections to that manual. Additionally,
we are repealing the manual for criminal records checks. We are not saying that individuals do not have to have criminal records checks because they do, but we are placing the procedure for doing so on our website because sometimes those requirements change and so we then change the wording on the website i'd be happy to take any questions any questions representative boyd or
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
59:19
senator boyd sorry you're recognized i was trying to get my
all right any questions seeing none without objection the rule is reviewed and approved thank you moving to item 13 department of shared administrative services office of property risk we have two items if you'll introduce yourself to the committee and present item a good morning
Speaker 170
1:00:01
grant wallace director of the employee benefits division and office of property risk
I'll describe both A and B in the same light, but be glad to answer any questions specifically on them at the appropriate time. Both of these are permanent rules or making permanent temporary rules that we've had in place since the passage of the insurance program law in the 2025 session. They essentially take what was in the law as far as the operational aspects of the insurance program and put them into the rules. With that be glad to answer any questions and the state insurance
Oversight committee reviewed these yesterday as well. Okay any questions? Seeing none without objection the rule is reviewed and approved item And as to item B which he also presented any question without objection the rule is reviewed and approved moving to item 14
department of shared administrative services office of
state procurement you're recognized to introduce yourself
Speaker 176
1:01:15
and present the rule good morning jessica patterson department of shared administrative services office of state procurement item a on the agenda is the revisions the procurement rules these revisions were made as a result of legislative changes during the 2025 general session including act 782 osp worked for several months with acaso consulting who was hired by alc by the legislative council to review the procurement laws and rules
and make recommended changes they also reviewed our rules and in order to ensure that they were in line with all procurement laws so these changes generally implement those recommendations that that were made by acaso we also made some non-substantive changes to reflect the rule 19 codification and we also updated some websites and some statutory and some other statutory numbering some of the more significant changes that were recommended by acaso include
clarifying the definition of sole source by law and maintenance updating i mean excuse me defining unrealistic and unreasonable bids and updating some protest requirements and debarment procedures I'm happy to take any questions any questions represented Bentley you're recognized for a
question thank you chairman and thank
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:02:45
you just want to add extra question probably want to publicly say
because I had talked with some agencies and some procurement that they've done But it is perfectly fine for an agency to in their questioning of a vendor to find out what their length, if they have worked
for the state before, how long they've worked, and what their experience has been on the state with
Speaker 176
1:03:08
working with the state on a contract before. Yes, during the discussion phase of an RFP, all those questions can be asked. In addition, we have vendor performance reporting. And so negative, if a department has a negative experience with a vendor, there is a process for filling out a report of that, and those are available to all state departments.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:03:28
Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair
Unverified
1:03:33
Senator Rice, you're recognized for a question.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:03:36
Thank you. It's not, it's for this person, but
not on this item. Is the governor's hiring freeze still in place? I believe so, but I'm not the probably the
Speaker 176
1:03:49
appropriate person to answer that question. All right I'm not with the office of personal manager. You're not okay. It's okay. Thank you
Chair
Unverified
1:04:01
Senator Irvin you're recognized for a question.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:04:05
Thank you, mr. Chair. Just quickly I'm not sure if it's current. I just need it or in this revision but when somebody bids and they're an in-state business do we check on to see if they're up to date with paying taxes to the state of Arkansas is that part of procurement before we can award a contract to an entity to make sure that they're current with their Arkansas state taxes that is
Speaker 185
1:04:31
not a part of our standard procedure however they do
Speaker 176
1:04:35
have to demonstrate have their certificate of business that's given through the Secretary of State's office. So we have to make sure that they're up-to-date on that, but I don't, in our standard process right now, we are not checking for tax delinquency.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:04:52
Okay. I mean, a certificate of good standing is just paying and remitting your franchise taxes, which I understand, but that's something we
I think should look at. Thank you. I just wanted to see if it was in the revisions or not, but in my opinion, if they owe the state of Arkansas and they're very delinquent in their taxes that they've remittance, I think that something should be considered before we award them a contract with state tax dollars if they're not willing to pay their own state taxes. So perhaps you could take that back to the Secretary. Thank you. Absolutely.
Any other questions? Without objection the rule is reviewed and
Speaker 176
1:05:41
approved Next item item B on the agenda is updates to the commodity management rules This was generally a cleanup of Some definitions some consolidation of definitions into a single rule. We also updated some of the language to make To make it more consistent throughout the rule again. We updated to Make sure that the numbering was consistent with title 19
We also made some substantive changes to implement a new revenue distribution model that was Passed by act 778 of 2025 and then finally we just made some Some amendments to streamline some existing procedures and to generally provide some more clarity to the rules Any questions? With that objection, the
Speaker 188
1:06:31
rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you.
That brings us to item F, agency request to be excluded from reporting requirements of Act 595 of 2021. In those instances where an agency believes that a rule is not necessary for the operation of a newly enacted law, Act 595 of 2021 allows the agency to submit a written report requesting or notifying the subcommittee of the intent not to adopt the required rule and requesting that it be excluded from the agency's monthly updates on rulemaking. We have two requests
from the Department of Commerce, State Insurance Department.
I'll ask them to come forward and to present their first request for exclusion.
Speaker 194
1:07:28
Good morning, members. I'm Sarah Ferris. I am a general counsel
Speaker 195
1:07:32
of the State Insurance Department. And our first request for exemption is regarding Act 772, Forced Organ Harvesting. There are two provisions in Act 772 regarding rulemaking. The first permits the commissioner to designate by rule any countries
other than the People's Republic of China that participate in forced organ harvesting. We are not aware of any countries that do this, but if we learn of any, we will indeed promulgate a rule. The second states the commissioner shall develop and promulgate rules for the implementation and administration of this section the act is well written and complete and a rule is not necessary for us to enforce the act therefore the state insurance department request respectfully requested exemption from the rulemaking requirements of act 772
all right as to the first request is there any question is there a motion to approve the request for exclusion motion is there a second there's a second any discussion all in favor of exclusion say aye any opposed motion is approved as to item two which you've already presented is there a motion to approve the request for exclusion there is a motion is there a second there's a second any discussion all in favor of exclusion say aye any opposed motion is approved thank you
Okay. We went ahead and voted on the second one. You can go ahead and present on the second one if you like.
Speaker 195
1:09:10
I just want you guys to know that we absolutely intend to promulgate rules on restorative reproductive medicine, but it is still so new that there is just no information right now for us to be able to use to promulgate rules. So we are watching this. We are working with the Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine of America.
They're still drafting their clinical guidelines. So as soon as we have some information on which to base some rules, we will indeed promulgate rules. But for now, we requested exception.
Okay. Thank you. I got ahead of myself. Unless anyone has questions or wants to revisit the previous vote,
well, Representative Bentley, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:09:50
and I'm sorry, just real quick. So do we have a timeline where we think we might, I mean, just a rough timeline. I think it's really important for us to
Speaker 195
1:09:59
get these rules established. Yes, ma'am. Right now there are no providers in Arkansas that are performing restorative reproductive medicine, to my knowledge.
We have some that are doing so via telemedicine. We have surveyed some providers. The only provider we heard from was a provider who doesn't like RRM at all, so that wasn't terribly helpful. But as I say, we are in touch with IRMA. That's the institute that's supposed to be drafting the clinical guidelines and offering our two cents for whatever that's worth. And as soon as they are able to get those guidelines finished, hopefully by the end of the year, we will be able to come out with some good rules. Could I, just a real quick
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:10:32
follow-up, Chairman, could I ask that you reach out to our Surgeon General?
Absolutely. Dr. Kay Chandler, she's actually already performing some of these in her service. I would appreciate it if you would reach out to her to get some clarification on that, and I
would appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman. Any other questions? unless
there's other questions or discussion then without objection will the the vote has already been taken the exclusion has been granted and we'll wait to hear further on that thank you thank you all right members we're moving to item g evaluation of rule review group three
agencies pursuant to act 781 of 2017 and act 65 of 2021 we're continuing our review of the group three agency rule reports under 781 today we have department of education division of career and technical education the report is in your packet does anybody have any questions if not is there a motion to accept the division's uh recommendation to keep and extend its rules
we have a motion there's is there a second of the second is there any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed the motion passes next we move to the item h the agency updates on the status of outstanding rule making from the 2023 regular session pursuant to act 595 of 2021 does anybody have any uh these are this is for your information does anybody have any questions
or want to ask any of the departments or agencies to
come to the table. All right. Seeing no questions, we will
move to item I, which is the agency monthly written updates pursuant to Act 595 of 2021 concerning rulemaking from the 2025 regular session for June 1st, 2026.
Does anybody have any question of that related to that item and that information? Seeing none, without objection, the updates will be filed. Seeing no further business, the committee is adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Report from the Executive Subcommittee Concerning Emergency Rules
C. Reports from ALC Subcommittees Concerning the Review of Rules
D. Reports on Administrative Directives Pursuant to Act 1258 of 2015, for Quarter Ending March 31, 2026
E. Rules Filed Pursuant to Arkansas Code § 10-3-309
F. Agency Requests to Be Excluded from Reporting Requirements of Act 595 of 2021
G. Evaluation of Rule Review Group 3 Agencies Pursuant to Act 781 of 2017 and Act 65 of 2021
H. Agency Updates on the Status of Outstanding Rulemaking from the 2023 Regular Session Pursuant to Act 595 of 2021 (April 1, 2026, and May 1, 2026 updates are retained in the file)1
I. Agency Monthly Written Updates Pursuant to Act 595 of 2021 Concerning Rulemaking from the 2025 Regular Session for June 1, 2026 (April 1, 2026, and May 1, 2026 updates are retained in the file)
J. Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 35
Matthew Ford
Unverified
Speaker 19
Speaker 20
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 27
Speaker 29
Speaker 38
Amanda Gibson
Unverified
Speaker 51
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 63
Speaker 33
Speaker 66
Speaker 68
Speaker 69
Speaker 75
Speaker 78
Speaker 79
Speaker 95
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 61
Speaker 101
Representative Eas
Unverified
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 92
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 132
Speaker 135
Speaker 143
Speaker 145
Speaker 136
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 170
Speaker 176
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 185
Speaker 188
Speaker 194
Speaker 195