Joint Budget Committee

All right members if everybody gets their seats, we're gonna start in one minute. All right, members. We're gonna call joint budget to order. First item on the agenda is B1, B2, the reports, Mr. Anderson, do you want to explain the reports? Yes, sir. Item B1. This is from the insurance department. This is the status and update report on implementation of emergency rule 128 and, and PBM activities. Do we have any questions on this report? Representative Wooton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Is Ms. Seals with this chairman if she could come forward if it'd be permitted. I think they're coming forward. You get up to the table if you identify yourselves and Representative Wooton, we got questions for you. Good morning. I'm Amy Seal, the director of the PBM department for AID. And I'm Daniel Holland, the general counsel for the PBM division at AID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. My question has to do with uh update on enforcement. What are we negotiating with those uh lawyers about Silverton Foxes I call them. What, what, what, what are we negotiating. They either violated the rule or they didn't violate the rule. I don't think you're working. So it's more about the fine that was assessed as opposed to whether or not they violated, um, we have the authority to assess a penalty up to 5000. Um, so the negotiation was about how much that penalty was going to be assessed at follow up. You, you mean, uh, do you set a fine to start with, or do you negotiate it? So that, that is an issue that we're gonna address in an upcoming bulletin. So now we've developed a penalty structure where we um start kind of on the low end for the first set of violations and then increase that penalty amount if more violations occur, um, so we're doing that in an upcoming bulletin to kind of address this issue. Uh, some of the problem that we ran into with those July enforcements was that we started at the very top and assessed the penalty. at the top end. Um, so that kind of, that created a situation where we started trying to negotiate about the actual amount we were, we were penalizing, uh, so we, we are going to correct that in the upcoming bulletin and actually have a penalty structure that all the PBMs are aware of, uh, and that we'll be able to follow going forward. Well, I, I would think you once you set a penalty, that that's it. Uh, one negotiate something if they violated the rule. For anyone. Yes, sir. I, I agree. I think it was just a little bit unclear in the beginning because that was the first set of enforcements that we had done, um, I, I can't speak exactly to why those uh or to how that penalty was assessed. It was a little bit before my time, but again, we have clarified that going forward. So I don't think we're gonna run into the same set of issues with, with future enforcements. Um, but as far as, you know, what is happening in those negotiations. Um, I really can't, can't speak to you today, sir. In your opinion, is legal counsel, are the rules plain and clear as to what they are to charge and why, why do they violate them? Why, why is there any discussion about it if they know the rule. And they know the law, why, why are they violating it? I mean, other than willful violation, which would call for a penalty to be assessed. This issue happened because in the statute, it actually reads up to 5000. Uh, and that was July enforcement started right at 5000. Uh, so that's, that's what kind of opened the door to, um, To some issue regarding those we're way out in the deeper water now. You got Mr. Booth up here. Thank you, Booth Rand, general counsel, uh, Representative Wootton, uh, the negotiations over fines relate to the amounts in which these companies paid below NADAC, a lot of the fines, and a lot of the infractions were less than 30 cents. Some of them even were less than a fraction of a cent. And so this gets into uh. Uh, uh, our sort of, um, Uh, concerns about imposing a $5000 penalty for a 30 cent violation. And so that's what we're negotiating with these, uh, PBMs is the amounts of fines. Now, I agree with you that if they are 0.03% below NADAC, they are subject to a, a fine of up to $5000 but as I had in my discussions with Senator Hickey, uh, we felt like Imposing a $5000 fine on a 60 cents violation to be excessive and so a lot of the fine negotiations relate to the amounts in which the premiums paid below NADAC. Not every one of them were $30 or $40 below NADAC. Many of them were just a fraction of a cent. Does that make sense? And so, uh, we, we really felt like to be a reasonable regulator, um, it, it's not really fair to impose $5000 fine for a 0.06 cents violation of NADAC. So that's the negotiations that we've been having, and we are fixing that with a bullton right now. It was the problem you run into in my opinion, is the fact that it gives them wiggle room, and we're never gonna get it anyway as long as they can wiggle. I agree with you. I'm saying we need to slam the door on them the first thing and get their attention because they are hurting our pharmacists in the state as well as the taxpayers. Yes, and I agree again we're talking about examples where the PBM is paid less than NADAC by less than 1 cent or 65 cents, not, not significant amounts, and I agree with you that, uh, we need to be more firm with our fis to even stop that from but a lot of these infractions are a, they're not really more than 25 cents or 30 cents, so that's what we've been kind of dealing with. I understand. I understand, I understand your do you see my point? Yes? Does that make sense? Yes sir, get their attention, to let them know that we mean business in Arkansas. They're gonna dillydally around with the pricing and do this and do that and do we need to get their attention. I agree agree 100%. Thank you all very much. I hope we made the point. OK. Thank you. Thank you for being here and thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, Reverend Wooten. Uh, Senator Hickey, you're recognized. Thank you, Representative Jean. I pushed my button before, uh, Mr. Ra come down. That's what I was gonna ask him. Uh, and I'm gonna say I guess I do, I do appreciate that maybe more than some of the other members, you know, that, you know, maybe be representing Wootton even cause it was my understanding whenever all this was happening that, uh, 3 of the scent on a whole bunch of these or something of that nature and it may have been rounding within a computer and you know, I just think that, uh, yeah, if somebody's been a gracious with something, then yes. Bottom, bottom, but if we don't use common sense in this state, then we're gonna get, we're gonna lose our credibility. So I heard what you said and I'm gonna tell you at least I appreciate that part. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Payton, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh, I guess I share some of the same concerns as Representative Wootton. You, you mentioned what's fair and to me what's not fair is, is of us as a state having to audit every transaction. I mean, we put the fine there, the penalty there as a deterrent. So hopefully get these actors. To do their own accounting and make sure that they're billing and charging and reimbursing correctly instead of the state having to audit every transaction for 1/3 of a penny. What do we spend in time and money. Investigating that, what are we spending time and money in the pharmacists have having to report it, um, I think we need to use the penalty. As as a tool. To, to For the PBMs to make sure that they are compliant and that they stay compliant. I noticed in your report. That, uh, They said AID still anticipates several hundreds of reports to be filed by the deadline of February 17th, which is now passed. So how many's a different issue than that that that that relates to Rule 128 reports, which are not about NADA complaints that Representative Wooton. We can talk about that if you would like to thank you for clearing that up because I was lumping it all together here thinking that was violations being reported, those are just reports. OK, well, thank you very much. Well, What worries me is I know that the PBMs are very good negotiators. And they're very good at doing math. If they negotiate the penalties down to a point that the math works out in their favor favor. There's no deterrent. For them to to violate the spirit of the law that we passed, so I would appreciate y'all keeping that in mind as you negotiate and as you set the fine. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Irvin, you're recognized. Thank you. Just a quick question. Could you repeat again the, the level of fun that you found to be out. Way too large for the I believe it came up with a met Impact, uh, Senator Hickey, um, and I had a discussion over, uh, we sought a fine amount of $5000 for a payment below NADAC of 65 cents, and Senator Hickey and I got into a discussion, uh, and he correctly advised me that the statute allowed for a fine up to 5000, not 5000. And so I agreed with him. that the fine ought to be equivalent to the amount of the infraction, and that that was too high so we brought that fine down I think to $300. So I'm trying to be reasonable and not overly fine a company for an infraction of 65 cents for a $5000 fine. So we brought it down to $300 some dollars. Does the statute allow you to do like a first time offense, second time offense, like an escalation of sorts. It does not that, but we are going to do that. And so Amy can talk about that if you would like to, or I believe Daniel, we are riding a bulletin. What do you, does the statute give you the authority to do that? OK. OK. Yes, in our bulletin that's presented in upcoming. There's also the, the amount, but there's also a volume issue, the number of claims, as we've mentioned, so in this bulletin it addresses, there's also a calculation issue, so it's going to cause uniformity in the calculation of where we all land on that NaA value on that particular day of the prescription fill. and then it's a structure that says on your first offense, it's 10 number of dollars, second offense, 3rd offense, and it works its way all the way down to a hearing, and that way we'll, we will address the amounts and the volumes in a very uniform way, and everybody will get on the same page as the bulletins issue. you. You said on a particular day, right? Because NADA changes. That's right, it changes, yes, ma'am. OK, so one week, it could have been 65% less than, but the next week it could be. 25 cents above. And that's been one of the issues, you're correct. So it will it changes weekly. So you can't look at these, uh, in a static sense, right? And that's what we're saying. It's evaluated every week. So if it's that 65 cents less than the, the fine will be established that week for that value. So it's, it's a weekly assessment as far as what's below and it, it fluctuates with what you're saying, the value that CMS determines that week for that. In DC or that particular drug. OK, so, so you just confirmed what just popped into my head is that If somebody sends in a claim on this day, and they say I got paid below NADAC, and it was a 65 cent below NADA. But then the following week on the exact same drug, right? It could be it could be actually in the, that they paid more but it, yes, and it goes on it, so CMS changes its amount every Wednesday, and we take that amount to be accurate on the following Monday. It allows the PBMs are switching time in their, in their systems to To update to that value from the Wednesday before. So the fine will be assessed on that, I know, it's, it's a federal website, and so we have to keep, I'm just thinking about. I just want to make sure that it's not being manipulated in that I'm just gonna submit a complaint based on this date, but we're never looking at these dates before or after, just so that we have, so I think you need to be looking at kind of a month at least. I don't know how you want to look at that, because I just don't want it to be manipulated into where we're playing gotcha when it's below one week, but the next 3 weeks, it's above. Do you see what I'm saying, and let me explain to you, so if, if a prescription were filled on Tuesday. We're able to go in the CMS website and put in the date of Phil that'll accommodate that Wednesday update. So it fluctuates with the fluctuation of the actual CMS that federal website that does the data reporting so it's very, it's as accurate as we can be allowing for updates in computers, so we're trying to address that. I understand those concerns completely. It's an unusual structure that it fluctuates so much. So we've made that accommodation after discussing with everyone what type of switching and time that takes. I just think that if it's for the same drug, you may wanna look at the week before or the week after or something just to see if, you know what I'm saying, becau because if that's the case, then it's, you just. I mean, if I were the person, I'd just file for the one where I'm got paid below, but never being taken into consideration where I got paid above on the exact same fill or drug or whatever, so I understand, but we're going on the data to fill, if that's helpful just for the uniformity. Yeah, I'm just thinking when you look at the assessment of funds, you may want to look at that because that way it gives you more of an accurate, like if it's always consistently that way, or if it's just a weekly thing. So And that, OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rand, I've had conversations with your office about this, but since we're all here together this morning, I thought I would give you a a chance to comment on it. As of right now, 100% of the enforcement is, is with your office and the fines that are levied go to the state, not to the pharmacies that are harmed when they're undercharge. And so I've been thinking about the possibility of giving the pharmacies their own private right of action against the PBMs for the, for the harms that same, for the same harms that you're enforcing. And I just, like I said, since we're all here together, would that be helpful? you or you have no position on it or, or what's a personal position on it. I, I don't have an official position on it. Um, I, I would not be against that, to be honest with you. I think that's, uh, all the help we can get is, is fine, um, but I, I have not gotten an official position from the insurance commissioner from the governor about supporting that initiative or not. OK. All right, I appreciate it. Woo, you got another question. Yes, sir, I do, um. In, in if it's a penny. It could be a greater cost to the pharmacist of 10 to $12 right? Well, and that's one of the reasons why we are, um, looking at dispensing costs, um, and trying to give pharmacies an additional dispensing costs for transactions that are like a penny or so, so that they can be reimbursed back for at least an administrative expense for dispensing those kinds of drugs. They've got to talk to the patient. They gotta do a prior authorization, and many times the pharmacies are just simply filling bottles of. pills for, for nothing. So we're trying to improve that with Rule 128, which is also a part of that report that you're talking about. See, that's to me, that's the whole intent of the rule and the enforcement out there that y'all have. I think you need to, I think that we will see a pen, a penny or 6 cents or 7/10 of a cent is uh it's really a irrelevant if it's costing the pharmacists $10 to $12 to be able to administer to sell the drug for the same price with you 100% and that's why we passed Rule 128. Which is a separate rule that is now going to provide the pharmacies and administrative costs in those circumstances where they're not just doing something for free. So that's what we're, we're addressing with a separate rule that we're issuing that we've already issued that you've already passed, but the follow up point or question to that is if the funds are all going to the state, why wouldn't it be fair to share the, the cost of the administrative costs with uh with, with The pharmacists. That would, that's a great question, and you would need to restructure, um, um, most of our finds and again, I'm not an expert, you may need to talk to DFA, um, most of the fines that we collect or state treasurer go to general revenue. So if we find an insurance company like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, uh, $5 million or $1 million or whoever we are fining, that all goes to general revenue, um, special legislation would be needed to Uh, to, to, to use PBM fine amounts to go to something other than general revenue, but it would need to be a, a different appropriation or you would have to do some sort of bill for that, I think. Well, I'm, I'm no attorney, thank God. But, um, yeah. If, uh If the problem first evidence is that they violated the 6/10 of a cent. I mean, shouldn't we do, I don't care if it's not just gonna be one, there's gonna be numerous ones. So again, we need to get their attention. They need to understand the common sense is one thing, but a rule violation when they know dead come good and well that they're violating the law to start with and the printing and the formerists in a bad position. Relative to even being able, I mean, how, how, how much could, how long could you stay in business if you had to sell a drug, it below your cost and we're with you on that and that's why we passed Rule 128, which is going to give these pharmacies at least an administrative costs where they're not just operating at zero amounts, they will at least get back through administrative costs. And so that's, that's part of your report too. separate from the violation issue, but I entirely agree with you that it is a very frustrating thing for pharmacies to be reimbursed one cent, having spent 15 to 20 minutes with the patient at the counter, they should be reimbursed a lot more than that for sure. And that's what we're trying to rectify with I wish you luck in doing that because, you know, in an old country town, once your mule gets out of the barn, it's rough to drive her back in. I agree, I agree, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Booth. Senator Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick, the basis for assigning the value of the fine is arrived at what determination? How do you, how do you determine the value of the fine that you're assessing. Uh, the frequency is the first thing we look at. Second is the amount of the deviation from NADAC. So if you have a frequency of, uh, a 0.06, uh, cent violation of NADA, and you've repeated it only 6 times. That's going to impact my analysis of what sort of fine I would impose. If you however, have 100, um, NADA violations of $20 to $30 below NADAC, that's going to impact me to want the maximum amount of fines. So it frequency and the amount below NADAC that we look at. Yeah. OK, last question is this, do you factor anything into the fine to recoup the cost of your agency for having to do it in the first place because of a violation once it's determined. We do not because all of that goes to general revenue, um, uh, right now, the fine structures and the fine amounts go to general revenue and do not go back to the PBM division for whatever reason. I don't, I don't know why. All right, we'll talk. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Payton. You push your button, you should have pushed it. There you go. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So would it be helpful if in the statute, you also had the authority in addition to imposing the fine. You had the authority to require restitution be paid to those pharmacists that were being shorted. Um, there is a provision in the Arkansas insurance code that allows the commissioner to reward restitution for people who are economically harmed, uh, we don't use it, but I would not have any objection to your proposal for sure, I guess my question is, do you have enough of an accounting of those shortfalls to to know what the number would be. And, and could you also use that in addition to the fine if you have the figures and you've already done the auditing, it seems like forcing them to pay the pharmacist what they were shorted would be beneficial, not a bad idea, not a bad idea. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sent Irving you back. I am back. I mean, while we're throwing out suggestions, I, I really think that we need to understand if, if something is filled on a Tuesday, and that price changes on a Wednesday. There's, there is. They're, that's the problem. This is a weekly moving target. And so I, I don't want to find people because this weekly moving target that's always changing and on this week, I'm up, but this week I'm down, and this week I'm up, and this week I'm down. That's problematic. There's got to be some consistency, and I know you addressed it, but I just think you've got to be fair and understanding just the dynamics of when things are filled, when this pricing is. being issued and changed and when the claims are being processed because there's got to be a time, and it's not instantaneously, correct? So that, that has got to be taken into consideration because I don't think it's fair or right for like a farm, I mean, I, I want to make sure that we're just being fair and consistent because it's not right for me to go, well, I'm gonna watch it and on every single week, I'm up, but on this week. down, that's the one I'm going to submit to y'all and that's the only one you see I think I think I said what to Senator Hammer, what we look at frequency and the amount below NADAC, but I think you make a very good point that maybe the department needs to look at a month or a month and a half wide, widespread on the NADA deviations because of the flu fluctuations that that you identify a month or a one-year price that would be totally different. But this is weakly changing price. So and I also just want us to remember like this is the government issuing fines on an, you know, an industry. I mean, what if that were construction? What if that were whatever else like we need to understand just the principle here, and we understand the dynamics of how this is always fluctuating and changing. It's, I mean I agree it's entirely a different thing when it becomes that. And it's very dynamic. It's not static and that's the problem I see in all of this. So you gotta have all that information in my opinion, because I can only imagine these systems are set up. And you know, it takes at least a week, sometimes a month to process a claim. Well, if that were the case in this situation, I mean, in the medical world. Now there's is totally, theirs is different and it's quicker, but still, there's got to be a, a delay. So I just, I think that's got to be considered apologize, not mentioning. I do look at monthly, but if, but if you below NADAC consistently over and over and over and over and over and over and over. 100% agree. 100% agree. Like if it's a consistency thing, but I think you gotta have some history there to look and see this sort of issue that you got if it is a constant, you know, then it completely is different, and you should find them and assess the find. I do agree in the staging of it or the escalating of it. I think that's reasonable too, but OK. I just wanted to say that because I think it's really important for us to understand that. Thank you. Folks, we got a committee starting at 10 o'clock. We've been on this for 30 minutes on a report. I've got 3 more that have circled back around, have something else to say. We need to make it brief, and if it's something you could talk offline, let's do it. Uh, Senator Tucker, you got something briefly. to I'll defer to your wisdom, Mr. Chairman. OK. I know Senator Hammer is not gonna take it. Oh, I've been I've been told to take it, trust me. Um. If they paid fair and reasonable rates above NADAC in the first place as required by law, then it would it matter much if the NADAC fluctuates. No, sir, it would not. OK, thank you. And then on the second point, last point, When did the pharmacist find out when they're reimbursed and what they're gonna be paid after the fact or before the fact they feel it, it goes, it's adjudicated at that moment through the PBM, the reimbursement is immediately received prior to dispensing to the patient so they would know at the moment, whether it's gonna be reimbursed above or below, correct? Yes. The other issue I'd like to point out is pharmacists have to uh their, their inventory is a weekly purchase, and the the cost of goods fluctuates weekly because they can't afford to keep the medication on the shelf. So that's why NADAC is used on a weekly or or biweekly, however we decide to look at it, because the inventory does not have a long extended value or or amount of time, if that's helpful. Thank you very much it is. Thank you, Senator. All right, this is the last question. Representative Wooton, this is your 3rd time around, make it brief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will do that. Is, isn't it a fact that's the problem is really with Nayak, and they're they're, uh, sterolation of what they're charging the pharmacist because the pharmacist mainly order their inventory daily. And so that price, that's in effect that day is the fact the, the fact of what they're reimbursed is based on what NADA says the price was on that day. Is that correct? Well, close, um, the PBM's, uh, negotiate the reimbursement contracts relative to the whatever percentage above NADAC that they agreed to. So the PBMs may agree, I think you want to explain this, uh, I think the PBM's established a reimbursement amount relative to NADAC, minimums, so it may be 1% above NADAC, 2%, um, so it's not just NADAC, it's what the PBMs agreed to relative to. A a acts, so they may agree to pay 1% above MADAC or 2% or 3% or something like that, so it's not just NADA. Well, uh, well, it's PBMs and night. Well, then we get, then, then we get the root of the problem. Is that correct? The root of the problem is not the pharmacist, it's a misinterpretation either by NAAC or uh the, the PBM. Is that correct? Right, you want to explain a little bit of that. What we're seeing right Now, which NADA, it fluctuates because it's a voluntary reporting of price. So that's the fluctuation. It could be reporting from New York, it could be different places. So it's a national number, so we start there with somewhat of what you're asking. The second is, currently, we're not seeing the percent, which is part of the equation, we're only seeing the dispensing fee, an average lately has been 30 cents over that NAAC value. So originally the equation was you take NADA, a percentage. with their dispensing fee for your reimbursement, and now the percentage has been somewhat omitted and we're only doing the dispensing fee, and like I said, the average lately has been around 30 cents. Well, thank you for that explanation. I appreciate that, but that explains the root of the problem. It's not the pharmacist. It's not, it's the fact that they violated the rule of regulation on the interpretation of what the price was on that particular day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you all. All right. This report will be filed and y'all are excused. The next reports onsecurities. Mr. Anderson, give a brief description of it. Yes, sir, that's item B2. It's a quarterly report by the Arkansas Securities Department of funds received or transactions through court orders or settlement agreements. Seeing none, it'll file, we'll file it. Next we'll go to uh. Amendments, First Amendment is to Senate Bill 106, Representative Kavanaugh, the Department of Agriculture. You're gonna go down to the table, you do it at your seat save time. Mr. Anderss gonna give you a summary of it. Mr. Chairman, that's on uh C1 is on page one. It's amendment to Senate Bill 106, Department of Agriculture. This reallocates $42,600 from the Arkansas Youth Expo line item to the county fairs line item. Representative Kavanau, you recognize, explain what you're doing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm taking, um, AYE's funding down to $5400 to match the rest of the livestock shows in the state. And then the difference between what they had been originally put in the appropriation like $42,000 has been divvied up between the county fairs. OK. We got any questions? Senator Hester, you're recognized. Well, members, this is something we've beat to death in pre-budget hearings and last year as well. want to take funding from something that 15,000 or 1500 Arkansas kids out of 72 counties participated in last year. Um, I, so it is very likely. That we're gonna that this. Amendment will take money from something that is benefiting every one of our one of our districts. Um, I think it's important that we leave it the way it is. So I'm speaking against this amendment, uh, OK. Well, you have this is really for questions and we get a motion, then you can speak against it. All right. Any other questions? For Repson Kavanaugh. Yeah River came off you close for your amendment, I just want to say that this is not to pick on AYE but it is a livestock show. I understand that kids throughout the state go to it, but I also understand last year the champion was from Oklahoma. And I make. And we're going to pay them what all the other um livestock shows get in the state of Arkansas that benefits all the kids in the state of Arkansas. And with that, I'd make a motion to pass to adopt the amendment. Yes. we have a discussion. Back to you, Senator Hester. I just want to, uh, when we vote, I want to, uh, divide the chambers, roll call and divide the chambers. Any other discussion? Yes, sir. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Senator Hill, did you have something you want to discuss? I started I just want to say I I know that uh the comment was actually made that You know 1500 kids or so show there the same 1500 kids go to our county fairs as well and so the money is actually staying locally in everyone's individual district instead of going to one area. Thank you. OK. So no other discussion. I have 3 hands to divide the chambers. We've got them. And we'll start with the Senate side. Senator English, not seeing Senator English. Senator Scott. Senator Mark Johnson. Senator Hammer. Yes, Senator Tucker. No. Senator Peyton, yes. Senator Irvine Yes, Senator Caldwell. Not seeing Senator Caldwell, Senator Murdoch. Senator Flippo. Yes Senator Blake Johnson. Senator Hill Yes Senator Sullivan Yes Senator Hester No. Senator Leding? No, Senator King. Not seeing Senator King, Senator Boyd. No, Senator Penzo. Senator Bryant. Senator Dees. Senator Flowers. Senator Clark, Not saying Senator Clark, Senator Crow. Yes. Senator Stubblefield Senator Hickey Yes, Senator Davis. No, Senator McKee. No, Senator Gilmore, no, Senator Rice, yes, Senator Petty. No No, Senator Wallace. Motion on the amendment failed when needed 15 votes to receive 9 in the affirmative. So we're moving on to, um, amendment. Senate Bill 106, give a brief description, the rest of these are gonna go to special language, Mr. Anderson. Yes sir, that's item C2. That's in your packet on page 4. Amendment Senate Bill 1, Department of Agriculture. This does have special language. Can we continue? Go ahead. Item C3. It's on page 9. This is amendment by Senator Irvin to Senate Bill 81, State Parks and tourism division. This does have special language. Mr. Chairman, the last one is item C4. It's on page 12 in your packet. Amendment Secretary of State, this has special language. All right, madam members, there's no, uh, bills in the House and Senate packet ready today. We're gonna go to, uh, Adam E and the first one is a, uh, supplemental appropriation on governor's letter number 3, Mr. Anderson, give a brief description. Yes, sir. Governor's letter number 3. Uh, this letter is to allow staff to draft supplemental appropriations which are appropriations for the current year. The summary of those is on page 4. Mr. Chairman, if you adopt this, we will draft the bills and they will come to this committee. Any questions on the letter? Listen to a drafted into bill form. See now we have a motion in a second. Any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed, Mr. Anderson? Governor's letter number 4 is on page 8. This is an amendment to Senate Bill 75, Arkansas School for blind and deaf. This is to add an appropriation out of cash funds for student needs and campus enhancements of $250,000. This is to allow the school to collect activity fees and donations. OK. This, we need a motion to adopt. Have a motion in a second, any discussion. All in favor say aye. Can you post? And I think this is ready to adopt all right, Senate bill 75 is ready to move out with a motion to adopt it as amended. And a second, any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed, Mr. Anderson? Governor's letter number 5 is on page 11. This is an amendment to House Bill 1091, Department of Health that has position changes. Personnel on page 14 is governor's letter number 16, an amendment to House Bill 1105, Human Services. It has position changes send that to personnel. That takes us to page 18, Governor's letter number 7. This is an amendment to House Bill 1107, Department of Human Services, County operations. This adds an appropriation for summer electronic benefits transfer program. Any questions on this? I got a question. Senator Payton, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, I just wanted to know how many participants are in this program and, and, uh. Just Is they're coming forward to answer your question, get to the table, identify yourself and. If Mr. Peyton is to restate his question. So is this a $50 million increase or is this a new total that that it's not all increase and then how many participants are in this program. Good morning. I'm Mary Franklin, director of the division of County operations with Department of Human Services, and there were A little over 293,000 participants in summer 24. We are expecting that many or more this summer, um. The 50 million is. Because the program crosses state fiscal years. This what the governor's letter will help us to continue to continue operating the program post July 1 through the, through the summer of 2025, um, and it, The estimate is We estimated over 300,000 this year, closer to 350 or 370. It is an estimate we don't know exactly how many people will apply or be determined eligible, but essentially this appropriation will allow us to continue the program through the summer. Thank you. And when we say participants, are we talking about individuals or families? Children, children. OK, and so this is a $50 million in addition to whatever was already in the program, can you give me that figure? So it, it was about the same number for 20 federal fiscal year 24 and state fiscal 24. That is the appropriation to cover the estimated number of children plus the administrative funds it. I don't have the exact number. I can get you the exact number, but very similar to this 50.5 million that we're requesting. So this is about doubling it or just replacing it? replacing it, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hickey, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I'm a little confused, so, yeah, uh it's appropriation, but I think that Senator Payton had asked too about the funding. So, so where, where is that funding will come from and maybe that's not a question for you, maybe that's staff, but I think I wanna make sure I understand that my reason is this. is that I know there was testimony here a few months ago that out of the trust fund we're about $250 million. I don't call it in the red on an annual basis, so. Is this additional money coming out of the trust fund or what's going on here? I think we have somebody at the table, especially if you recognize yourself. Jim Hudson, Secretary of DFA on circle back real quickly to Senator Payton's question. We're adding the appropriation to their, you know, bill for the first time. It hasn't been in their, their appropriation previously. So this is the first time it's gonna come in there. We used, I guess, various temporary appropriations, uh, last time for. That's we were kind of bad at testing the program. Mine's the funding. Uh Appropriation opens the account, where's funny you wanna, you wanna add something? Sure, primarily this is I'm sorry, Missy Banks, deputy secretary, Operations and Budget DHS. This is primarily federal funding that goes straight on to the EBT cards. There is about 2.9 million in state matching funds that's required and governor Sanders has previously stated publicly that she liked to use medical marijuana for that funding, and so that's the funding. OK, so you're telling me. 47, I'm just around here, $47 million of this is gonna be federal. And then we'll have to pick up the rest through, through some of the program. That's correct. That's fine with me. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? OK, Senator, you recognized Senator Irvin. Did we make that statutory change to allow medical marijuana money to fund this. Did we do that this session we will OK. Will that be through an appropriation bill, or does that need to be through regular statutory. Both, both chambers passed the bill. OK, it's, it's in the bill that we, OK, that's what I was just making sure that we confirm that. OK, thank you. Representative Wooton, do you have a question. Very quick, Mr. Chairman. How, how, what was the number of participants in the program. You, you gave that and I missed it for summer 2024, it was a little over 293,000 children. 293,000,930,293,000 thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, members saying no more questions, we need a motion to adopt the amendment. Of a motion in a second, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Amendment is adopted on House Bill 1107. Mr. Anderson, item 6. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That takes us to page 21 in the agenda. That's Governor's letter number 8. This is an amendment to Senate Bill 39 Department of Commerce. It has personnel changes. Let's send the personnel. Governor's letter number 9 is on page 24. Amendment to House Bill 1174, Department of Corrections. It has position changes. Send a personnel. On page 27. It's governor's letter number 10, amendment to Senate Bill 93, Department of Education. It has position changes. The last one also has position changes. Amendment to Senate Bill 22, Department of Inspector General. Send the personnel. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. I have a motion to move that, that when the pay plan bill gets filed, it'd be referred to personnel upon filing, OK, uh, members will understand that the pay plan may get ready to file and we've got a lot of subcommittees meeting next week and what we're doing. Usually we get the we get the the bill filed, then we'll send it, uh, to the subcommittee. This will just go ahead and speed up the process of the subcommittee will have it. It may, may make or take a couple of weeks for them to look at it. It's pretty extensive the pay plan, so we're just, we're just saving some time. You get So Jackie first Miss Chair, I apologize. I back to DHS if you don't mind. I know you hate to back up, but I was OK with the testimony and then got to thinking what, what if the federal funding was to be cut, and we're giving this appropriation. Are we just giving this as a, a blanket appropriation. Maybe that's a question for staff, or does it have to be tied to the federal funding. Uh, Mr. Chairman, would you like me that is paid out of their paying account. So it's not tied specifically to federal or anything. They're paying account allows various funds to be paid out of. But, but once again, we just adopted an amendment. The bill is still sitting in there. I understand. I'm just uh I don't, I don't know if there's a way to add another amendment since it's been testified to that it would be paid out, you know, that large percentage, and we actually had just 2.9 million was going to be state funds. I don't know if there's a way that we could do an additional amendment if there is, I'd like to see us do it. Thank you, sir. I think there's always a way to put an amendment on so yeah thank you, sir. Thank you. Uh. Senator Davis, you good? OK. All right. OK. All right. We have a motion by Representative Johnson in a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right, members, uh, next week. Claims will meet in uh Big MacB at 8:30 Tuesday morning at 8:30. Uh, EBD subcommittee will meet Tuesday morning at 9:30 in Big Mac A. On Wednesday we also have two subcommittees. Pier will meet at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning and special language will meet upon adjournment of both chambers, uh, 15 minutes after adjournment of both chambers here in uh Big Mac A and joint budget will meet again next Thursday. We'll have our members' bills also at 9 a.m. next Thursday. Appreciate your good work. We are adjourned.