Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee - Senate and House

OK, so. Cheer sees a quorum. We'll call this meeting to order. Morning, everyone. Uh, so the first time on the agenda is to consideration of the minutes from the September 30th meeting. And motion 2. All those in favor, say ah. Great. And unless there's any objections, we're gonna just gonna take this agenda as it's written. So first up on the agenda, Secretary Putnam, are you here? Janet, are you Director Mann, there I, you're hiding behind the pole. There you go. Wherever you like and just press the button. I wanted, I was asked by staff to remind members to put in your pin, uh, when you sit down in the new system just to make sure we can recognize who's sitting in what chair, and y'all just be patient with me in the new system. It's my first time to man the master panel here, so if you can just introduce yourself to the committee and you feel free to present once you've introduced yourself. Yes, good morning, Christy Putnam, secretary DHS. Uh, Janet Mann, deputy secretary and Medicaid Director, DHS. So we, we wanted to come before this committee this morning and present a couple of updates, um, one being on maternal health and, uh, the other on, I think nursing we were requested to bring some nursing information just to provide updates on both of those items, and I'm going to ask, uh, deputy man to go ahead and give the update on maternal health and then we can discuss nursing. My apologies. We discussed this beforehand. We're doing nursing first and then maternal health. That'll be fine. It's Monday. I've had, anyway, good. morning, um, quick update on, um, nursing. We, we were able to pass, get y'all passed a special compensation award program. For our nurses and and what it will do is, it is a recruitment and a retention bonus. First is retention of our incumbent nurses, they're eligible for a $5000 bonus, and the way that that will be executed is as of Friday, November 1st, all of our currently employed nurses will be eligible and then it will be paid on the 11:15 payroll is a lump sum of $5000 for recruitment, we are doing. And it also doing a $5000 bonus, but that will be paid out over 5 months to hopefully keep them longer and so doing this, we, we hope that this will be one measure to help us retain our nurses and recruit additional nurses and maintain them while Everyone is, um, working on a permanent fix or a pay plan process that will include nurses. So, um, I'll, I'll stop there for any questions. Members, do you have any questions, Representative Bentley? One moment. I think you recognize. Thank you all for being here, um, during our budget here which appeared over and over just how much our current pay plan is hurting, um, nurses across the state. So we are working on a pay plan to increase them, specifically nurses. We, we are working to um adopt a new pay plan that addresses all areas that are critical areas for the state, nurses have been part of that conversation. Yes, ma'am. OK, thank you. Representative Richardson, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me ask a question. Good morning, ladies. Uh, I, I meant to ask this question during budget, but is there a, if a employee receives a lump sum or they required to pay it back if they leave before the time, or if they get them, you know, one,000 dollars per month. What if they leave at the end of that seven-month period, do they pay it back? So on the on the retention bonus, it, there will not be a payback because it is retention. On the recruitment bonus that is paid out over time, I believe we do have that flexibility to recoup it if, if they leave right after they get the bonus. Representative Love you recognize us. I'm not sorry, Representative left. Senator Love, you're gonna have to wait a moment. Representative Allen, my bad. It is Monday. Good morning. That's OK. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. I, I, I have a question. My question is, how, how does this new pay plan, uh, compared to what we were paying traveling nurses, are we, are we close to it? Are we getting getting there or what? So the goal with the new pay plan, which, which hasn't been finalized yet, and I don't want to get ahead of, certainly don't want to get ahead of the governor and, and, and this body with approving anything, but, um, the goal of that new pay plan is to be competitive with, um, contract nursing, I, you know, I think one of the things that we want to make sure to call out is contract nursing, it's not an apples to apples comparison, um, because the staffing agencies do take a percentage of, you know, what is paid to the nurses off the top, but, um, but the intention is, yes, to be competitive with The salary that gets paid for the contract nurses and to offer the benefits and the richer, um, longer term stability of having an FTE position rather than being temporary. Thank you. Senator Love, you recognized. Well, you don't have to call on me because the other Fred had asked my question. It's good, it's good we're working together teamwork. Yeah, thank you, but um, but that actually he did, uh. Uh, representing Valley did address my my question in regards to the play plan and, um, how you all are working on that, so. I'm finished. Senator, thank you. Thank you for the update. I know we've had some folks reach out, you know, because of the human development centers specifically. Do you have anything in specific as relates to human development centers and what's happening with our nurses there or the shortage that I, I keep getting phone calls about. Yes, yes, ma'am. So we're hoping that this retention bonus will help some of the nurses at the HDCs and our other two facilities that we operate 24/7 and then in recruitment, we hope that we will be able to keep them longer and then the long term plan is the pay plan to hopefully address, address that. But we stayed focused on direct care nurses, so the retention bonus is direct care, hands-on with patience is the focus. Yeah. And I mean, I think it's fair to say the traveling nurses and what happened, you know, because of the incredible amount of money that was flooded in by the federal government is kind of unsustainable, to be frank. I mean, hospitals and, you know, that, that's, that is an inflation type of an issue that was created. And so I just want to make sure we're careful because I definitely want to pay and retain. But yet, I also don't wanna, you know, Keep chasing after this kind of abnormal situation, uh, that was created by an influx of a ton of federal money that the states just never going to be able to maintain, I mean, hospitals aren't able to maintain that either, because they were able to receive the federal funding to pay for it. So I just think that needs to be fairly stated, uh, to be fair, um, because all health care professionals, you know, clearly are in this space, but that's just something. something that we're continuing to deal with that creates a little bit of the shortage too. And I think that's fair to say. Representative Laderman, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, You know, I met with y'all a while back, and we talked about this. And uh, you told me something that I hadn't thought about, and I, I wish you would state that here for this group as well. But when we're talking about, and I sit in this meeting the other day that it was crazy what we're doing. I take that back, but uh. Uh, when you look at our regular nurses and our traveling nurses and you just look at the salary, there's a big difference. And as you said, you stated that, uh, the company gets part of that because it's a contractor, but um Nobody really talks about the fringes, so the fringe has to be added to the salary because these traveling nurses don't have that fringe. And uh we talked a little bit the other day about the goal would be, uh, to get these traveling nurses to transition into full time at these facilities. And so can you talk a little bit about if we had had the fringe into that, are we a lot closer as far as comparison goes? Yes, sir, for the body, what we discussed the, um, the other day was when you look at the salaries of a nurse as a full-time employee compared to a contract, you also have to add in the personal service. Matching, which is the fringe component, which is about an additional 30 to 32%. So when you take the salary plus the 32% and then compare it to a contract, you're getting as close as you can to an apple to apple comparison because when a traveling nurse, that we pay a contracted rate that is higher allegedly to cover their friend and and then a percentage for the agency. So, We are trying to have that comparison with our contracts and our salaries and our personal matching when we look at those expenses. And we, we have had some transitions, right? Yes, sir. I think, um, also in that meeting, we, um, we've been recruiting and trying to retain nurses, um, across the state, and we did recently hire, I think it was 6 or 7 nurses, 7 to come back to the night shift in several of our facilities that came off of contract. So we are seeing some moves. movement in a positive way, and um, we, we will always maintain some nursing contracts just, just for full disclosure because we have to maintain the staffing ratio, and if we get caught in a bind, we will use the, the contract nurses to fill in those staffing ratios so that we are compliant and that the patients are cared for. We, we would like to see more nurses be full-time employees at our facilities though. Well, and as other people said, we, we probably will need to increase the salary. You know, we, this one time bonus is not gonna solve the problem. Uh, so there's they have, we have to be competitive, but we don't want to forget there's another problem, and that's supply, supply of nurses and supply and demand, if the supply is low, then, you know, if the demand's high, then the price is gonna be high. So that's another problem we need to attack. We totally agree with that and we're looking at ways to, as we're both mothers of RNs. We have daughters who work as RNs and they are in short supply and high demand across the country. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Love, you recognized. Thank you, Michell. The, the other question I have is in regards to I know compensation is kind of. The main, you know, thing that we were looking at moving but. Are we also looking at other incentives, you know, that kind of, uh, you know, the work life balance for nurses, the scheduling, different things like that, are we also looking at that, um, in order to kind of. We are, we're looking at everything we can do, not just for nurses, but across the board with employees where we have 24/7 facilities, um, just looking at, you know, and again, the more nurses we can recruit and retain to be full-time, the better the work-life balance will be. So that is part of the initial push, and we recognize that the bonuses that we just got approved and we appreciate that again and the support for that, but those bonuses are not the long term fix and we are looking for the longer term, you know, how do we address the base compensation and then retain the other tools like work-life. balance the benefits and the, um, you know, the potential for other bonuses to be part of that factor in performance. OK, have, uh, are you all looking in in any specific models or is there any, I guess, um. States that are, you know, doing something specifically that that possibly Arkansas is not doing it. We may say, hey, you know what, here's a model that we wanna look at or I guess a hospital system. And, and we're saying, hey, you know, this is a this is a good model that we should look at so that we could possibly try to replicate some, some of the things that they're doing. Have you all, I mean, I see you looking back, I mean like we, so as I getting into your bag a little bit or what? No, no, that's there's nothing, nothing secret about the fact that it's part of the Arkansas forward and pay plan work, we have been, you know, we have been looking at information from other states, um, and certainly neighboring states to see how the comparison states are around the borders of Arkansas, um, but that is part of the, of the, uh, practice that we're using is looking at all the other practices across the country, but in particular paying close attention to Our border states and what hospital systems and, um, state agencies are doing. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, are there any other questions on this particular topic. Singing Nun, thank you for that update and you're to present the next update on maternal health. OK. And on maternal health, um, I, I will open, but, uh, again, Deputy Mann has the information on the initial, um, statistics. One thing I would like to let this, uh, committee know is that we are, we've been requested to make a quarterly report on enrollment, uh, of women after giving birth, um, on a quarterly basis. Um, we are going to get that information at the end of a quarter, and it's very difficult to pull it all together for the immediate, you know, you know, a week or two right after the close of a quarter. So we will plan to present it with this group's permission, we'll plan to present it the following month during public health. And so with that I'll turn it over to Director Mann, deputy man. Um, certainly. So we, we did include in our, our documents, um, our recommendations to the governor on maternal health and then to follow up on that just to give a few items that we are working on, we, um, are working on monitoring some newborn coverage and also looking at presumptive eligibility and how that can be implemented in addition to some coverage assurance for pregnant women. And so those are ongoing projects, and but, um. Most importantly for, um, some of the statistics that y'all had requested for us to be tracking and we'll start tracking regularly. We, um, for the quarter ending 9:30 of 2024. We, there were 4,234, um, women in pregnant, um, category of eligibility and 1,711 of those um pregnant women stayed in the same category after their postpartum, be it parent caretaker, be it whatever category they were in, um, there was another 901 um women that moved to a different category at the end of their postpartum, and there were 1,451 women that were not eligible at the end of the post. par t um and then um then at the The unknown category of lost eligibility prior to the end of postpartum is 171. So the important piece of this information is we are going back to not eligible at the end of the postpartum, the 1451 and working with our partners at AID and how do we do reach out and how do we do eligibility with them on the marketplace of what they're eligible for, and then we are looking internally in our systems with our, um, DCO team, uh, they lost eligibility prior to the end of postpartum. It was 171. What happened there specifically. So we are working on that. This is, um, like I said, a preliminary report, we will get it finalized and submitted, but this was our first quarter to do this report. Representative Pilkington you recognize and ask for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here today. So if I'm understanding these numbers correctly, 60% of women who gave birth lost coverage after that initial 6 weeks. I haven't done that math, so, um, I'll, I'll take it that you, you have, um, 1451 and 1971, 38%. So the 1451 plus 171 divided by the 4234. So you, but you said 1,701 stayed in their eligibility category. The rest were either lost, uneligible, or, uh, move to a different one. So I guess you take out the 91. It was 1711 that stayed in the same category, 901 that moved to a different category of eligibility. So they stayed in the same category and so when you say stay in the same category, they remained insured or they stayed in the same? category. They stayed in the same category of Medicaid eligibility Medicaid eligible, so they stayed on Medicaid, or they, OK, so they didn't lose the coverage after 6 weeks. So for that 1,701, we know that they maintained coverage, and then the other ones they move the 911 moved to different 1,451, the large or the second largest category we're not eligible and then 171, we have no information on correct? OK. Uh, so I don't know how you got 38, but that's fine. Um. OK, I mean, I, I wish I would have got these numbers sooner, um, and I know you said your statement we requested it, it's not requested, it's in statute now that you need to, that we want this report. So, um, but I, I mean, I I would like to see it as soon as possible, um, you know, we were told 2 weeks ago we're supposed to have it, and, you know, we're told we're supposed to have it now and then we're told we'd have it at this meeting and now we just have I have no, I have nothing, no piece of papers or anything with data on it. I'd like to go through it to see what's going on, but, um, so I just, I just want you to know I'm very disappointed. I wish I had this information because I think we're getting closer to session and we're trying to make policy decisions and trying to figure out what legislation to run and You know, this What, you know, Tom Cotton always says what gets measured gets changed, and that's what we're trying to change this so that we can actually measure it because I think a lot of times in this discussion we've all been looking around in the dark without a flashlight, so I just and and I would just say that we are trying to submit the information as quickly as possible. We, um, have a deadline to submit information to you all 10 days prior to the meeting. So that would have been the Friday before, which I did not have this information then. So I did bring it preliminarily so that we could have it on 1028 when in the previous meeting you had asked about it and we did not have it ready. It's ended on 9:30 and it takes us a little time to pull the information to QC it to have it submitted. That's the reason we've we've requested to submit it the month after the quarter end or in the the middle month of the next quarter, because getting it out 2 weeks, 3 weeks after the quarter end is, is very tight for us to, to see it and then meet the deadlines of submitting to this body. And this being the first month, just to add to that briefly, you know, one of the things that we will look at is automating this report once we know that the, the quality control is in place, but we have to do the first one a little bit differently and make sure that we've got the right, right things being measured, so we're not giving that information to this body. Thank you. And so go oh if you don't mind, the eligibility, um, is higher, correct? Uh, so what, remind us again what that eligibility is to be able to qualify for Medicaid. It's at a higher. Right than what we do for everybody else. Is that correct? It is. That is correct. Eligibility for pregnant women that will cover, um, up to 60 days of postpartum goes to 209% of the federal poverty level, which is, um, different, the highest level of regular Medicaid is 138, which is our expansion population. OK, so, so, OK, and then FPL right now is what? Depending on the um size of the family, I believe it's around family of 1 or 2 is, um, anywhere from 18 to 22,000. It's, it's on a published chart I'm trying to pull it out of my head. I, we can, um, get the chart for you to this group, so you have the updated version. do we have any idea about the age. Do you have ages, a breakdown of ages for these I can ask the team that pulled these, um, different eligible categ. to see if they have the ages there. OK, because I think that's a really key part of this information is the age, um, particularly if you're looking at the FPL of being around 18 to 22,000. And. 209% of FPL then is going to be double that. So they're, I mean, Yes, and I also would like to get you a breakdown that's a lot of, so I guess it's really interesting to me. We have to know that figure, like those are good pieces of information because if it's majority of younger women that are we're losing or who, what's the age that's gonna think, tell us a lot about who or how to outreach to them too. I'd also like to get you the um FPL breakdown for some of the other categories because SIP, our kids A and B. also a higher FPL and if they stayed in that category, if they're under 21 or that 19 to 21, that would be also telling. So we'll get you a breakdown of, try to get a breakdown of the age and the cats because some of those could be teenage mothers and that would then also be on CIP or be able to be qualified to stay on CHIP, correct? Yes. So, I mean this is just a really complicated. Scenario, but I think it's just, I, I think if you know the ages of these, uh, women, that's going to really assist in any kind of policy decisions that we make on outreach, perhaps, and then transitioning them and, you know, also, I mean, 209%. I mean, that's doubling the 22,000. And beyond. So that's a $44,000 a year. I mean, I guess the legislator could qualify for this it is also depend, it also depends on the, the size of the family. So it will change. It increases with more children, right. OK, so I mean, I just think perspective is, is a key takeaway. And then I have the last question is just, um, I think I like your report and I like all the different educate the outreach and the, the continued discussion. I really want to focus on being able to provide some level of Uh, insurance coverage so that we can get the doctors that are trained that know how to deliver babies that are already out in the field working. We've got to knock down those barriers, and I can't repeat this enough. You already have a trained workforce out in the state of Arkansas with family medicine doctors. They are trained, they know how to deliver babies. They did it in medical school, they did it in residency, but the barriers that are in their way. Our malpractice insurance. That's one of the huge barriers. And then, of course, reimbursement because they're not going to be able to see as many women in order to cover the overhead expense of that and then reimbursement. So, I just cannot emphasize enough, we have a workforce out in the field. We have to maximize the workforce out in the field to deliver prenatal care. It is not, it cannot be that complicated to solve. And so, And I know y'all are working on this, and so I'm just saying it really for the benefit of everybody listening and sitting in here today. Let's knock down those barriers. Let's get those folks that are in the state of Arkansas, out in the field that know how to deliver great quality prenatal care to women. And help them deliver those babies in excellent healthcare facilities all across the state. They are these facilities are saving lives. There's no reason in the world why a woman could not deliver her baby at Stone County Medical Center. Except for they cannot pay the malpractice insurance. And There's no reason, because these are excellent facilities that save people's lives all day long, every day. And so we've got to knock down those berries and, and, and I just hope that everybody will hear that, listen to that, and brainstorm about that individually as policymakers as to how we can get those people back to work. Thanks. Senator Boyd, did you have a question you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, this might have fit just a little bit better in the previous discussion, but I think Senator Irvin brought it home about staffing. So there you've had a rule in long-term care about doing TB testing, but I understand maybe that rule is, uh, going away on October 31st. Either of y'all know the answer to that? I believe it is, I believe it is um being sunset at 10:31 out of one of our long-term care manuals. Well, I'd like to thank you for that. That's important. Ramos an important burden. That is keeping people from going to work and wherever in healthcare they're going to work, whether it's long term care, it affects whether or not we have nurses and other people available to work anywhere, so thank you for allowing that out of date rule 2, sunset. You're welcome. I will pass that along to the team and our partners. There we go, Representative Bentley, sorry, having some technical difficulties here. That's fine. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for being here today and for all the hard work you're doing on this area. I appreciate it. Can you go into a little bit more detail on that 1451. I know you quickly said what we're going to try and do to those folks that are no longer eligible. So what are we gonna do to, to help those the the the last number that the 1451. Thank you. So we, um, we are having conversations with AID on what we can do, um, so once we determine that Medicaid is not an option. Then, um, information is transitioned over to the marketplace for insurance. So there's, we discovered during the pandemic that there is a disconnect on that information getting picked up and what we can and can't do. So we're looking at different ways to, to do things. Um, we always have the request to auto-enroll and so we cannot auto-enroll them in a different insurance policy. We're looking at things we can do under Medicaid in that area, but also how do we, um, get the outreach to them and reach. them. So it's, it's a work in progress, um, and so we talked to a couple of our partners, um, that do outreach in the state of can, can we do, what kind of outreach are we allowed to do? Because there is some marketing, there is some direct contacts and things that we are prohibited from doing through the insurance laws. So we just, we're working with one partner in AID on how to reach them. OK, would you not agree that, um, considering the low reimbursement rates for Medicaid are much better for these moms and these babies if we can get them in a private health health insurance plan where they have more, well, actually more access to care because it's only a limit to the physicians that can bring on so many Medicaid patients, so would you not agree in the long term for those women to be much better if we could actually make that bridge for them and help them get to that point. Yes. Thank you Members, are there any other questions? Singan, thank you for your report. Representative Bentley, would you like to present from your chair there you recognize to present your ISPs, if you'd like. I think there's a handout for the first one, members, it's going to be the Medicaid, medication assistance certified program. It should be a blue and white handout. Thank you, Chairman. Um, I just want to thank all of you for your support with our Mac program that we've done at our nursing homes across the state. It's been a huge success. We've been able to take, um, CNAs that were recommended by their staff to go through the Mac program to be able to become Medicaid assistant. So the medication assistance program has allowed us to have a decrease in medication errors. It's allowed our LPNs to really do some patient care and it's been a huge success, probably one of the most successful programs we've had, um, in the nation really right here in Arkansas. So what we're doing here is just really tweaking the um the bill that we've already passed, and this ISP. refine the terms towards used nationwide and allow these folks to give um insulin when they check the medication with the LPN there. So it really is just going to free up our LPNs to do more care for their patients and just a simple couple refineries in this ISP so you have a handout there also, um, I know we've heard over and over in budget committee how low we are on nurses. So an exciting step that we're moving forward this year is to train those Macs to be LPNs, uh, right there being trained so it's an earn as you learn program so they can uh be a salary and allows an opportunity for our constituents that would never have that opportunity to become a nurse. It allows them to do a stair step program to earn as they've learned, and actually what we'd like to say is grow their own so this LPNs will stay right there, the nursing home where we need them so badly, so very simple changes that you can look through and not take any questions if anybody has any. There is there any questions for Representative Bentley, see 9 without objection, uh. This ISP is adopted. OK, Representative Billy recognize I present your next ISP. Thank you. Um, the next one that we're working on is a patient care technician. These are individuals that are highly, uh, specifically trained to do dialysis and our dialysis, um places across the state. So these patient caretakers can already do. Extreme amount of work when I went and watched them set up the dialysis unit. They do complete setup of the dialysis unit. They access the patient, but in the end, they cannot use heparin to keep that port open so this simply will allow them to give heparin to keep that port open, a very simple change and clarifying the language that we have in the patient care tech. So, uh, again, a very simple change and what these folks are doing, and I think it's again, um, making the most use of our RNs that we have there on staff and most of these dialysis units, it's uh 112 patients to 1 RN and 4 patients to 1 patient care. So this will free up the the RNs to do what they need to do with those patients, and I'll be happy to take any questions on this as well. Represented Pilkington, I'm trying to recognize you. Thank you, chair. More of a statement. I went toward one of these dialysis centers to see what was actually being asked in this ISP and um I think going on with Senator Irvin's comment about using our existing workforce. I think this goes hand in hand with that. This is really good policy and when you see how many people are getting pushed to these centers, being able to stretch that to, to make sure that we adequately use our, our, uh, Existing workforces, this is, this is in step with that. I really encourage everyone else to tour one of these facilities to see what we're asking. It's a simple need, but I think it'll go a long ways in helping, uh, helping the workforces take care of these vulnerable population. Thank you. Yeah, I agree 100%. Uh, any other questions for Representative Bentley? Seeing none without objection, the size pieces adopted. You can, Senator Irving. Also, members, I've had folks reach out about ISPs. It is just clarification. It is your as sponsor, you can present your ISP with a lot of information if you would like or not, we can assign it to the Health and Human Services Subcommittee, which is Senator Boyd, I know, on the Senate side, if you want further, um, discussion about it. A lot of times, in my opinion, it brings about collaboration and, uh, an opportunity for, for other members to find out. about it and, and also maybe want to collaborate on those. So if that's something that you want to do as a sponsor, just let one of us, either Representative Johnson or myself, no, and we can um get with our chairs of our subcommittees and they can have a, a more engaged and, uh, hearing if, if that's something that you choose and want to do as a sponsor. Thank you. Yeah, and along that line, you know, the deadlines are going to be looming around ISP for scope of practice, so just, um, I, I fully expect to rush. I don't know that that'll happen, I to be heard, and if we need to, we can allocate those to the subcommittees, but just a reminder to everyone that that might have ISPs related to the scope of practice, uh, we're gonna want to get those her, you know, in the next meeting or two, so get this, get this to staff and, and to the chairs as soon as we can. Um, next up on the agenda. Let's see, Adam F? What? Yeah, Director, Director Bailey, are you here to present? Y'all are welcome to come to the table. It's the Department of Energy and Environment. We'll be reviewing rule number one, prevention of pollution by oil field waste. That's exhibit F from me. And you can state your name when you get to the table and you'd be recognized. Just go ahead and go ahead and present. Hi, good morning, Bailey Taylor, director of the Division of Environmental Quality and Chief Administrator of Environment. Good morning, Keisha Morrison, chief counsel, Department of Energy and Environment. We're here this morning seeking approval of rule one, prevention of pollution by oilfield waste. This role is part of a package of rules that transfers regulation of Class 2 disposal wells and class 2 commercial disposal wells from DEQ to the Oil and Gas Commission. Uh, the Oil and gas commission is simultaneously running a couple of rules that achieve the same purpose. Uh, the proposed amendments will remove some duplicative permitting and really streamline and make things more efficient for both the agencies and the regulated community. And with that we're happy to take any questions. Members, are there any questions on this rule? Senator Love, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, so. Talk to me about What we're currently doing now, and then how this rule would actually change. And I mean, and Kind of give me, give it to me in plain language. What it actually is happening now and then what's what's gonna. What's actually happening now is DEQ is permitting and inspecting the surface facilities of the Class 2 wells and oil and gas is permitting and inspecting the wells, the underground, so they already have a oil and gas inspector going out to do these inspections and they're there, they're capable of inspecting the service facility as well, but instead we DQ is also sending an inspector for the surface facility. So this just streamlines it so that they all the facilities have to expect is one inspector, one permit that will permit the entire well and the inspector is going to be DEQ or the. It'll be an oil and gas inspector. We are moving the class to permit to the Oil and gas commission. We will DEQ will still maintain, um, Oversight, if anything were to happen and impact waters of the state. So once it leaves the pad and if it should impact waters of the state, we would still maintain our regulatory authority there, but this way, the oil and gas inspector can Handle everything while they're on site instead of having two different inspectors for essentially the same facility. I don't know how much I agree with that, but OK, um. Mr. Chair I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna object to it. I just need to. Get further information. I mean. Is that your director? Was he coming to the table? Yeah. You just state your name for the committee when you get seated. Good morning, Shane Corey, secretary for the Department of Energy and Environment and, uh, to further clarify, because I, my history is more on the oil and gas side that. Uh, what Director Taylor said is correct. However, over the past 5 years, we've moved to where historically the oil and gas commission. Has done inspection of the well and the well bore, um, DEQ did the surface facilities once we all became one department. We've started looking for ways to streamline and issue those permits so that about 5 years ago, we transferred the surface facilities for most disposal wells from DEQ primary authority to the oil and gas commission there were in the exceptions for, uh, class. To commercial disposal wells of a certain volume and non-commercial disposal wells of a certain volume that we still had a bifurcated program. Now that we're all within the same Department of Energy and Environment. We're looking for ways to streamline our resources. We already have the oil and gas commission inspectors there who are trained. They meet the same uh requirements under the federally delegated authority from EPA to the Oil and Gass Commission, and they are there much more frequently than our DEQ inspectors could be. So this was a way for us to streamline our resources, but also to allow the industry to have one permit in one place for permits for both the well bore and the surface facilities. OK. It also does not restrict or take away DEQ's oversight authority if there were to be a spill on the surface that entered a waterway or anything like that. It's just the routine inspections that occur on these disposal wells. OK. Members, are there any other questions, Representative Layman, as soon as I can press your button. There you go. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, well, I think I got the same concern that Senator Love has, but he's having trouble mobilizing, I think. Putting the question together, uh, you know, I like the idea. I mean, you're making it more efficient. Uh, this makes it more efficient. I like that idea. I think the heartburn we might have, the commission The head of the commission, are they as, uh, responsible to us as the head of ADEQ. Is that right, Senator Love? Is that what you're thinking? No, I, I can't ask you a question, Mr. Chairman. Sorry about that. Um, but Uh, the com the head of the commission reports to who and is appointed by who? So within the Department of Energy and Environment to kind of give you an over reverse structure. We have myself as the secretary and then I have what I would call to chief administrators, one on the energy side, one on the environmental side, uh, Bailey as the DEQ director serves as the chief administrator of the environment, Larry Bingle serves as our chief administrator of energy. Now, if you look in the statutory authority of what the oil and gas commission director does. He is hired by the commission reports to the governor or is actually serves at the pleasure of the governor and then reports to me a secretary, so they are a little bit isolated. They, they only gas commission, a lot of the administrative duties are given to the director and not to the commission itself. So I would say that ultimately he is responsible to the governor and to the secretary and ultimately uh this body as well. OK. Well, I think that's why some people have a little bit of heartburn with it the responsibility. So, Uh Are they audited by ADEQ, the commission inspections, is there any kind of an audit, uh, quality check program. Well, both programs are federally delegated programs from EPA. So EPA has delegated to DEQ class one class. Three Class 4 in a certain portion of Class 2 wells. The oil and gas commission has also received delegated authority from EPA for class 2 wells. So there's always been kind of this overlapping jurisdiction between oil and gas and DEQ for disposal wells in Arkansas and the way that historically it was operated was that oil and gas commission would do the well war itself, so the technical injection program from the surface below. DQ would do the surface. facility, the tanks, etc. um, as we've moved through that process over the past 30 years and more and more of that has gone to the on guests commissioner commissions inspectors, um, because they are dedicated inspectors for this program. They're already inspecting the well site to make sure that the technical components of the well bore, the mechanical integrity of the well, etc. are meeting those federally delegated standards, so this is just starting to move more and more of what the service facilities are, the tanks and the things that are. Probably easier to see on the surface from DQ inspectors to oil and gas inspectors, um, like I said, as, as a way to streamline our resources at the department and also to ensure that uh the regulated entities aren't having to deal with a duplicative permitting system of getting one permit for the well boar from the oil and gas commission and a separate one from the tank from DEQ. I understand. Um, so does the commission have the same requirement to EPA to implement their programs effectively, you know, EPA would have oversight if you guys are not doing the ADEQ stuff, they can take it back. So this commission have that same responsibility. Yes, sir, we have the same auditing, the same reporting requirements and for that matter, um, it doesn't actually remove even DEQs authority to, to take action should there be a spill that impacted a waterway of the state, but the same federal program is delegated to long gas commission and they have the same. requirements. Thank you. Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none without objection. This rule stands reviewed. Uh, you have the next item on the agenda as well. Recog? Thank you. We also seek a review of Rule 6, that's state administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Uh, the amendments to this rule are necessary to comply with both state and federal law. Uh, this rule is a counterpart to Rule 5, that's liquid animal waste, which was transferred to the Department of Agriculture by Act 824 of the last regular session. Our amendments to this rule to Rule 6 are reflective of our efforts to work with the Department of Ag to keep Rule 6 consistent with Rule 5, their version of Rule 5. Um, Rule 6, it maintains the status quo with respect to the moratorium on swine kos and the Buffalo River watershed, and, uh, because these rules, Rule 5 and Rule 6, work together. We are hoping to have them heard together at, um, reviewed together on the November 14th ALC. A date if they're approved today. Uh, also, some of the amendments to this rule are necessary to comply with federal changes in the law so that we can maintain our federal delegation of authority, uh, so that, um, Administration of this rule doesn't revert back to the EPA. We want to maintain that delegation, so that being said, we're happy to entertain any questions. Members, are there any questions? Representative Laderman, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know this is a normal thing and uh, EPA normally updates their NPDES program on a regular basis, but are there any Big items in these changes, I mean, uh. Are we cutting the copper requirement half or anything like that? Any major changes that would be most likely, um, noted in our rule 2. In those kind of water quality, uh, limits would be in our role too. Um, these changes from the federal government, we have already been implementing them to be compliant with the federal regulations in our permits. We just need our role to reflect that. OK, so no, no major changes over what you're doing. OK, thank you. Seeing no more questions without objection, this rule stands reviewed. Thank you. You can just state your names for the committee. You can present as soon as you've introduced yourselves. Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Laura Sue. I'm general counsel for the Department of Health. Thank you. I'm Laura Rothfeld, uh, state public health veterinarian for Department of Health. Craig Smith, attorney for Arkansas Department of Health. We're here today to present the rules pertaining to rabies control and the amendments are in compliance with Acts 161 and 522 of 2023. We're also making some technical corrections. We did not, um, have a public hearing on this rule, but we did have a public comment period as required by the law. The period expired on September 24th, we received one, comment from the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Association supporting this rule, and we're here to answer any questions. Members, are there any questions? Yeah, I know for sure, Doctor Rothfeld, I've talked to you many times on the phone over the years. You're kind and awfully good to be so accessible to this state with regard to questions around rabies and other issues. It's, it's great, you know, you just pick up the cell phone and it's your cell phone, which is awesome. There's not a lot of people are willing to do that. So I had a rabies issue this weekend with the bat. I didn't need your help. I knew she needed it, so it was OK, but I appreciate all you do for the day. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Does anyone else have any comments or questions? OK, without objection this rule stands reviewed. Thank you. And you reckon to present the next rule. Thank you, Chair. Uh, the next rule is a clean up. This proposed repeal is to, uh, for the rules and regulations regarding retired physician immunity Act, uh, in late 2022. Those were the provisions of this rule were incorporated into another um rule and that was passed by this committee and the Notice of this repeal was published on September 15th, last day for comments were October 15th and no comments were received. Members, are there any questions? Seeing down this sans reviewed. Thank you. Thank you, chair. There's any other business for this committee? Seeing none, we stand adjourned. Thank you.