Conduit for Commerce Releases Arkansas Legislative Scorecard for the 93rd General Assembly Regular Session 2021
FAYETTEVILLE — Conduit for Commerce released its Arkansas Legislative Scorecard for the General Assembly’s 2021 Regular session. This scorecard calculates and ranks each legislator’s voting record on economic related bills for the regular session though April 2021.
This Legislative Scorecard is an invaluable resource for Arkansans to learn how their state legislators voted during the General Assembly and compare those votes to the mission of Conduit: more economic freedom for all Arkansans. There are four factors when determining if a bill is good or bad as they relate to economic freedom to Arkansans. This Economic Freedom Filter analyzes bills that do the following: 1. Increase or decrease the size and scope of government; 2. Increase or decrease dependency on government; 3. Does it spend money we do not have, and 4. Increase or decrease transparency in government.
For the first time this year, Conduit analyzed and scored votes on “social freedom” issues. Those bills focused on issues of individual freedom and social order, such as abortion, the 2nd Amendment, election integrity, COVID-19 response/freedoms, and other legislation impacting social issues or individual freedoms.
Conduit for Commerce not only scored each legislator’s voting record, but Conduit also awarded the top scoring legislators for their outstanding record. This year, CFC will be awarding Calvin Coolidge awards to the top 20% of the Senate and House for their voting records.
This scorecard represents how the legislators actually voted this General Assembly. CFC did not take into account their rhetoric or their tweets and failed promises. Actions and votes are what matter most, and that is what their constituents must know.
Follow the Money on 2020 Republican primaries to find out. The research team at Conduit for Commerce compiled an in-depth, comprehensive report following the money on selected 2020 Republican primaries.
The 2020 Republican primary gives hope to Republicans who support the party principle of limited government. Most winners in the primary were either limited government Republicans or favor a limited government position with exceptions. The 2020 Republican primary results are the opposite of the 2018 primary results where establishment Republicans won the day. Establishment Republicans are those who favor bigger government. Establishment Republicans tend to be well funded by special interests.
Conduit for Commerce collected contribution records from the Arkansas Secretary of State Financial Disclosure website, then sorted, tagged, and analyzed those against additional research of the contributing persons. This analysis allowed grouping between similar interests, entities, and persons. We could see who were the “big players” in Arkansas politics, whether contributions came inside or outside a legislative district, and allowed for a peak at the special interests behind the political contributions.
The reader is encouraged to use these findings as a blueprint for predicting future votes by these elected officials as various special interest issues come before the Legislature in January 2021.
If you want to know which way the political winds are blowing, it helps to know which way the campaign funds are flowing.
The report provides in depth analysis of fundraising for the following state legislative primaries:
Marrietta McClure vs. Tony Furman – House District 28
David Ray vs. Karyn Maynard – House District 40
Cole Peck vs. Bobby Long vs. Jon Milligan – House District 53
Ken Yarbrough vs. Brandt Smith – House District 58
Chris Latimer vs. Kendon Underwood vs. Jana Della Rosa – House District 90
Delia Haak vs. Jorge Becker vs. Scott Richardson — House District 91
Adrienne Woods vs. John Carr – House District 94
Paige Dillard Evans vs. Nelda Speaks – House District 100
Jeff Crow vs. Alan Clark – Senate District 13
Dan Sullivan vs. John Cooper – Senate District 21
Ben Gilmore vs. Bill Dunklin – Senate District 26
SELECTED RACE GENERAL ELECTION ADDENDUM TO BE RELEASED EARLY 2021
The Conduit for Commerce (CFC) Legislative Scorecard is a resource for Arkansans to learn how their legislators voted during the 2019—92nd General Assembly and compare those votes to the mission of Conduit: more economic freedom for all Arkansans. Legislation during the session is reviewed and analyzed by Conduit for Action, a sister organization to CFC. Based on those recommendations’ CFC has drafted this legislative scorecard. Bills are included into the scorecard by using the CFC Economic Freedom Filter. The scores are based entirely on a legislator’s own voting record on bills scored.
Economic Freedom Filter The Economic Freedom Filter is the method by which CFC determines if a bill is good or bad for increased economic freedom for Arkansans. The Economic Freedom Filter analyzes bills that do the following:
Increase or Decrease the Size and Scope of Government
Increase or Decrease Dependency on Government
Does It Spend Money We Do Not Have
Increase or Decreases Transparency in Government
If legislation falls into these categories, it is considered for scoring. CFC will support bills that decrease the size and scope of government, decrease dependency on government, saves money, or increases transparency in government. CFC will oppose bills that increase the size and scope of government, increase dependency on government, spends money the state does not have, or decreases transparency in government.
Awards Conduit for Commerce awards the top scoring legislators on the CFC scorecard for their outstanding voting records. These awards reflect the most fiscally conservative legislators based on their actual votes as they compare to the CFC Economic Freedom Filter. CFC has held a biennial Calvin Coolidge Awards Dinner honoring these top legislators since 2013. This year CFC applied the Ronald Reagan 80% rule. If a legislator got an 80% or higher on the CFC scorecard, they will receive a 2019 Calvin Coolidge Award for their outstanding voting record in the 2019 legislative 92nd General Assembly.
The 2019 Conduit Calvin Coolidge Award Winners:
Sen. Trent Garner (SD27)
Rep. Dan Sullivan (HD 53) Rep. Austin McCollum (HD 95) Rep. Clint Penzo (HD 88) Rep. Grant Hodges (HD 96) Rep. Marsh Davis (HD 61) Rep. Robin Lundstrum (HD 87) Rep. Josh Miller (HD 66) Rep. Rick Beck (HD 65) Rep. Mickey Gates (HD 22) Rep. Justin Gonzales (HD 19) Rep. Frances Cavenaugh (HD 60) Rep. Mark Lowery (HD 39) Rep. Nelda Speaks (HD 100) Rep. John Payton (HD 64) Rep. Richard Womack (HD 18)
Note: This article is revised and re-posted for use by the reader for the following three purposes:
1) Assessing the laws passed as “tax reform” by the 92nd Arkansas General Assembly of 2019;
2) Use for future tax reform which will strengthen the Arkansas state economy; and
3) Assessing the effective job of this tax task force as we consider whether a task force is useful in producing better state policy (as opposed to using the committee system already in place.)
We are reminded here that under our Revenue and Stabilization Act, Arkansas government spends all it takes in. Therefore, the best tax reform for Arkansas remains to be one springing from capped and reduced government spending starting with the question —“How much do Arkansans want to pay their state government for its services?” BVT–June 12, 2019.
******
‘Tax Reform and Relief Task Force’ Recommendations
By Brenda Vassaur Taylor, JD, LLM (Taxation)
October 30, 2017
Disclaimer—These are the views and opinions of the author only and may not be shared by others.
It is the objective of Conduit for Action (CFA) to offer to the Tax Reform and Relief Legislative Task Force recommendations for legislative changes which, not only reduce the size of government and therefore increase economic freedom for all Arkansans, but also:
Modernize and simplify the Arkansas tax code;
Make the Arkansas tax laws competitive with other states in order to attract businesses to the State;
Create jobs within the State; and
Ensure fairness to all individuals and entities impacted by the tax laws of the State of Arkansas.[i]
(Note: These recommendations come from experienced Arkansas tax attorneys, certified public accountants, economists, and small Arkansas manufacturers who live and work in Arkansas.)
How Can Arkansas Afford to Cut Taxes?
Before we can have tax reform in Arkansas, it is absolutely necessary that we recognize that in Arkansas, we simply budget and spend all we take in. Therefore, in Arkansas, as a direct result of the Revenue Stabilization Act (RSA 1945), the level of government spending in Arkansas is directly determined by the tax system not the budget process.
While we appreciate that the RSA requires that we balance the budget, under the current A, B, C priority budgeting system, the legislature, with help, designs an annual budget that always “cries for more money.” Under this system, as state dollars come in, “needs” are met (priority A), next the “wants” (priority B) are funded, and in good years the “wish list” (priority C) is filled. Surpluses are also dumped into “rainy day funds” or the now unconstitutional “general improvement fund”—guaranteeing all annual revenues are spent.
The fact that the tax system determines revenues as well as spending was illustrated in a recent answer by the Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research in its RFP No. BLR-170002- Q1 to a prospective tax policy consulting firm with the response that the tax task force with the assistance of its chosen Consultant will determine the amount of revenue that the state needs to raise for public service.
In Arkansas, the partnership of the RSA with those seeking more government solutions means there is no “getting spending under control” in our state as echoed at the Federal level.
It is merely a question of
“how much do the people of Arkansas want to pay for government?”
The authors of a recent research paper sponsored by Mercatus Center, George Mason University expressed this fact in the following terms:
“Taxes are the “tail that wags the dog” in Arkansas budgeting. If taxes are raised, government spending is guaranteed to go up. If taxes are cut, spending is guaranteed to go down. The level of spending is set by the tax system itself. Understanding this fact is crucial to understanding why government spending has increased in Arkansas. …[I]n large part, the absolute size of Arkansas’s spending is determined by the tax system”.[ii]
Therefore, if you want spending reduced in Arkansas, if you want smaller government, you simply cut taxes!
1-What We Pay & Can Afford:So if spending is too high, how much do we pay in taxes?
Again, citing the Mercatus report,
“Arkansas uses all the major tax instruments available to states, including income, sales, and property taxes, while some of Arkansas’s neighbors do not have certain taxes (notably, Tennessee and Texas have no personal income tax).
The overall state-and-local tax burden—10.1 percent—is the highest among the competitor states, and it is the 17th highest in the nation.
Arkansas has the second-highest average state-and-local sales tax rate, at 9.3 percent. The top marginal state income tax rate is 6.9 percent, the second highest among our competitor states …, and two border states have no individual income tax (Texas and Tennessee).
The corporate tax rate is also the second highest among Arkansas’s competitor states, at 6.5 percent… All these data points show that taxes are high in Arkansas compared with border and competitor states, and even compared with the nation in some cases.[iii]
It took BLR, 192 pages to summarize all 10 categories of taxes in Arkansas for the legislature in October 2016 in its bi-annual preparation for the general session.[iv] These also include the regulator taxes and fees not mentioned by Mercatus. It includes not so visible taxes like the 2.5 percent tax on insurance premiums which yielded over $169 million, a 43% increase in receipts from the previous year (FYE June 30, 2015.) (It is also worth noting—insurance companies like all big corporations do not pay taxes—they simply pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer—i.e. the 19.3% increase in insurance premiums recently announced by Arkansas BCBS starting January 2018.
The Mercatus report also cites comparisons showing Arkansas spending per capita at $7,674 as the highest spending per capita among the boarder and comparable states.
“Arkansas spends almost 24 percent more per capita than the state with the next-highest spending, Mississippi. On average, Arkansas spends over 59 percent more than its competitor states, which spend an average of $4,815 per capita. Compared to its border states, Arkansas still spends 51 percent more than their average of $5,072.[v]
Removing federal government spending,
“Arkansas still has by far the highest state government spending compared with the competitor states. The amounts for other very poor states, such as Mississippi, do drop significantly …., but Arkansas remains at the top. The full group of competitor states spends on average $3,192 per capita, and Arkansas spends almost 72 percent more, at $5,481.”
Spending may be acceptable if one can afford it (and it gets you where you want to be!) But Arkansas’sgross domestic product (GDP)percapita trails the national average of $55,295 in 2015 and ranks among the lowest compared to its peers.
“In 2015, Arkansas’s per capita GDP of $41,299 trailed the per capita GDP of Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Florida, but exceeded the per capita GDP of Mississippi (Figure 1a). Each state in the region except Texas is below the national average.”[vi]
The high overall state spending in Arkansas is most notable for such a poor state! It is time to let the people take charge of their own money to seek a better outcome.
2-Specifics Reforms:What changes are needed? CAVEAT: One must clearly understand that in no way should legislators consider broadening the tax base or elimination of exemptions unless and until tax rates are significantly cut. Waiting to cut rates while broadening the tax base and eliminating exemptions is simply a tax increase.
Corporate Tax Reform:
Totally Eliminate the Corporate Income Tax.
This income stream is the most volatile and is in fact double taxation passed on to the consumer.
The state already recognizes reducing taxes on companies increases economic development when it regularly choses certain companies for give tax give a-ways.
Pair this with a complete repeal of corporate welfare spending programs which include state and local tax incentives.
Corporate Welfare picks winners and losers, distorts the economy, and shifts current businesses tax dollars to competing companies. BLATENTLY UNFAIR!!
End the Corporate Welfare Quick Action Closing Fund Tax Incentive Program.
Repeal Corporate Welfare Tax Subsidies including: Create Rebate, ArkPlus, Equity Investment Tax Incentives, Research and Development Credits, and Advantage Arkansas.
This will also allow local taxing authorities to keep more tax dollars.
Eliminate the Corporate Franchise Tax.
Stifles growth in business creation in Arkansas
If necessary increase the initial filing fee when creating the entity to offset some lost revenue.
Eliminate Sales Tax on Inventories
Improves competitiveness with other state
Individual Income Tax Reform:
Individual Income Tax Rates Reduction and Simplify the Schedules to a single, flat rate of no greater than 9%.
Continue the current low-income exemptions and deductions
For pass-through business filers, allow complete expensing in year of purchase rather than depreciation
AR residents will likely lose the state and local tax deductions at the federal level which is basically a tax increase on AR residents. This should be an added deduction on the state level in order to compensate for the increase in tax at the federal level.
Extend the number of years for a carryforward of a Net Operating Loss (NOL)
Allow for a carryback for a NOL
Freeze spending at last year’s level, and implement automatic triggers for rate reductions to be implement for the individual income tax rate reductions over no more than a three-year period as revenue grows.
Reforms to Avoid:
Eliminating exemptions without first significantly reducing rates.
Broadening the tax base without first significantly reducing rates.
Reforms that do not lead to a reduced amount of money going to Government.
An Internet Sales Tax or Gas Tax Increase.
Offer to augment tax reform:
Government Spending Reform
Recommend a Proposed Constitutional Amendment for a Tax-Expenditure Limit to Contain Government Growth.
Tie the limit to the growth in inflation plus population growth.
Include a tax rebate mechanism automatically triggered at certain thresholds to return revenue collected above the spending limit.
A proposal like Colorado’s TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) should be considered.
Government Efficiencies Reform
Implement Performance Based Budgeting
Implement Activity Based Cost Accounting
3-Research or Recommendations Similar to one or more CFA Recommendations: Below is a list of the most respected and conservative groups and foundations in the state and nation who spend millions developing good economic tax policies. Guess what! They have posted research or positions that we find supportive of one or more of our recommendations. This does not imply any of these organizations embrace our recommendations in this article but only to point that their research or recommendations have included positions similar to one or more of our recommendations. The articles on point are referenced in our footnotes.
It is certainly hoped that the members of the tax task force (and all members of future legislative sessions) will take the time to build their own knowledge base so that they will have a bench mark to test their own consultant (and proposed bills.) It is likely that, like most task forces, this one has a pre-determined outcome. But it is hoped that its members will reconsider, meet the challenge and learn what is at stake. Again, the following are all directly on point with at least one or more of the issues discussed under section #2 above:
Conclusion: It is not a matter of how much we are to spend on government or whether there is a spending problem or a revenue problem. The question is—how much do the people of Arkansas want to pay for government services? That is all that determines what is spent in our state. The current mood in our country has sent a clear message to DC and to Little Rock. The people want to keep more of their freedoms and more of their own money and want government to have less. It will be left to another day to discuss the quality of service Arkansans receive for the money now being spent.
[i] Act 78 of 2017 Tax Reform and Relief Act of 2017
http://uca.edu/acre/files/2016/06/Theres-Nothing-Natural-about-the-State-of-Government-Spending-in-Arkansas.pdf; Note added 6/12/2019: since the initial publication of this article, the author was contacted by Nicole Kaeding with the Tax Foundation personally to voice her objection that the original article implied agreement by the Tax Foundation were referenced by this author. Ms Kaeding stated that the Tax Foundation did not agree with the conclusions of the author. I suggest that the reader personally study all reports referenced in these footnotes.
Follow the Money on 2018 Republican primaries to find out. The research team at Conduit for Commerce compiled an in-depth, comprehensive report following the money on selected 2018 Republican primaries. The takeaway is clear: establishment Republican candidates, whose votes favor bigger government, were elected with the large and unified financial support of Arkansas’ most established long-time special interest groups, which hold no party allegiance.
Conservative, limited government groups have a way to go before they see more of their limited government candidates win election in Arkansas GOP primaries.
Conduit for Commerce collected contribution records from the Arkansas Secretary of State Financial Disclosure website, then sorted, tagged, and analyzed those against additional research of the contributing persons. This analysis allowed grouping between similar interests, entities, and persons. We could see who were the “big players” in Arkansas politics, whether contributions came inside or outside a legislative district, and allowed for a peak at the special interests behind the political contributions.
The reader is encouraged to use these findings as a blueprint for predicting future votes by these elected officials as various special interest issues come before the Legislature in January 2019.
If you want to know which way the political winds are blowing, it helps to know which way the campaign funds are flowing.
The report provides in depth analysis of fundraising for the following state legislative primaries:
Breanne Davis vs. Bob Bailey – State Senate District 16
Representative James Sturch vs. Senator Linda Collins-Smith – State Senate District 19
Cole Peck vs. Representative Dan Sullivan – House District 53
Representative Bob Ballinger vs. Senator Bryan King – Senate District 5
Representative Mat Pitsch vs. Frank Glidewell – Senate District 8
Reprinted from Conduit for Action; By: David Ferguson
The members of Arkansas General Assembly are given discretion over millions of dollars in General Improvement Funds (GIF). For the 2015-2016 fiscal year $20 million has been set aside for the whims of legislators. Each legislator determines how “their share” is spent. Some designate their share to go to a college others have the funds sent to the Department of Finance and Administration to then be sent to one of the eight planning and development districts and then awarded as grants.
The public is not privy to exactly how the money is divided among legislators, but if the House and Senate each received $10 million, and then with each Senator getting an equal share and each Representative getting an equal share, then each Senator would have discretion over $285,714.28 and each Representative would have discretion over $100,000.
Why are state funds distributed upon the discretion of an individual legislator instead of through a formula or perhaps retained for other needs? $20 million helps incumbent legislators gain favor in their districts.
2014 Election
Republican Doug Driesel, who ran against incumbent Democrat Representative Scott Baltz in District 61, stopped by a rural fire department to campaign. According to Driesel, several firefighters told him they liked what he stood for, but that they couldn’t vote for him because Baltz had gotten General Improvement Funds for their fire department.
Blaine Davis ran as the Republican candidate in the adjoining District 60, against incumbent Representative James Ratliff. Recently, I asked Davis if he had a similar experience with fire fighters in his race. Davis responded:
“Absolutely. Several that I’d known for literally forever told me they would have to support him or just groaned when I told them who I was running against. He’s given thousands to every one of them [fire departments]. Heck, at the Strawberry Fire Department fundraiser all he [Ratliff] did was stand up and talk about how much he gave them.”
A GIF grant is not likely to be forgotten by the members of an organization receiving the grant. In addition, local governments and volunteer organizations are also likely to be a good source of campaign workers because these are people who are already active in their community.
Could GIF make the difference in a legislative race? You bet! Consider how close Blaine Davis’ came to winning. Davis only lost to the incumbent by 50 votes. There are a lot of fire firefighters in House District 60. If just 26 firefighters voted for the incumbent because of GIF funds, then GIF funds made the difference in the outcome in that race.
Gaining publicity and building voter gratitude.
Legislators doling out GIF grants is a big deal in many areas of the state. Local newspapers, especially in rural areas, love to report that their Representative or Senator got GIF for local communities and organizations. Legislators are quick to get in the photograph when as poster size check is handed out. Click on name for an examples of the publicity legislators get from “their GIF:
Some legislators send all or a portion of “their” GIF to colleges. It is good publicity too. For example, the University of Arkansas made sure its supporters and alumni knew that thirteen legislators deserve recognition for sending GIF to the university for three projects in the combined amount of $3 million. See article: University receives increase in state funding monies from General Improvement Fund
Many people see these articles and think “Our legislator is working hard and knows how to bring home the bacon.” No effort was actually needed. Legislative GIF is just a slush fund created to give every legislator a share, whether the legislator uses it for a good purpose or not.
If the local newspaper fails to report the story or an organization’s newsletter fails to publicize it, what does a legislator do? The answer is easy – toot your own horn on social media. That is what Rep. Ratliff did when he did not get the publicity he hoped for. Here are a couple of examples from James Ratliff’s Facebook account:
June 4, 2014: “Had a busy day. Started by going to the women’s battered shelter in Highland this morning awarding them a grant of $1000 for fixing their plumbing.”
April 12, 2015: “The fire chief Stan Mayland thanked myself (Rep James Ratliff) for the grants that bought all new turnouts and equipment for all the firemen in Strawberry.”
It seem a bit odd for a Representative to need to put his own name in parentheses on his own Facebook account.
Are there reasons for giving legislators discretionary funds (other than election purposes)? Are there legitimate reasons to give legislators discretionary funds? No, there is not. Excuses cited in the past include:
1. Legislative discretion over the money is needed in order to get money for projects in rural areas. Wrong. Sorry but if getting funds to rural areas is the goal there would be a lot easier and cheaper ways of doing it. First, it is not just rural legislators who have say over GIF funds. Second, no legislator is required to use the funds for a rural project or even within his or her own district.
2. Legislative discretion is needed because a legislator knows better than anyone which local project should get a GIF. Wrong again. Legislators sometime do not know the greatest needs in their district and even if they do they have no obligation to use GIF for the most needed projects. In exercising discretion over the money, the legislator’s goals sometimes conflict with the priorities and needs of municipal and county officials.In 2013, Senator Jeremy Hutchinson directed GIF money to a firework show. I happen to like firework shows, but local governments didn’t fund the firework show because of a lack of funds for more important projects.“Saline County Judge Lanny Fite said he has a list of projects that need funding like repaving parking lots or buying new lighting. ”“I did not like the way it was being used, plain and simple,” Fite said. “Money is very tight; we don’t have a sales tax. This money is always good to help us do projects that the county cannot afford.” [i]Also in 2013, then Representative Andy Mayberry and some legislative friends sent $120,000 in GIF to fund a playground that is fully accessible to disabled children. That is certainly a worthy cause! But it also seems to be an instance in which a state Representative single handily pushed a project onto the county despite the quorum court not having money to maintain a park or replace equipment in the future. It was noted by a quorum court member that the county didn’t even have a parks department. Julie Mayberry, Rep. Andy Mayberry’s wife and now a state Representative, responded to criticism by the quorum court in 2013 by suggesting that the quorum court create a parks department.[ii]Could we handle needs without giving legislators an expensive reelection tool?
On the other hand, maybe we would miss those newspaper photos of legislators handing out poster sized checks and their Facebook self promotions. The state also has turn back formulas for sending state support to municipalities and counties.
Also consider that a significant portion of legislative GIF goes to fire departments. Again, there is a funding formula for support of fire departments. In addition, a fire department with a significant need could be overlooked merely because it is in a legislative district where the legislator prefers to give his GIF allotment to a college or perhaps want to use it for a fireworks show.
Consider that a significant portion of legislative GIF goes to colleges. We already have a funding formula for the colleges. The Department of Higher Education should have a good understanding of needs of Arkansas colleges. And, under the current system there is no guarantee that the most important need will be addressed because a legislator with a college in his or her district could choose to spend his or her share on other types of projects.
Do we really have to give a legislator a “please-reelect me fund” in order to fund worthy projects.
[i] Display funding called to question, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, July 4,2014
[ii] Legislator’s letter eased funds for wife’s park project, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Sept 3, 2013
(Note: some words may have been mistyped in this document through conversion from pdf to text format to shorten)
NUMBER: ll-W-00287/6
TITLE: Arkansas Health Care Independence Program (Private Option)
AWARDEE: Arkansas Department of Human Services
I. PREFACE
The following are the Special Terms and Conditions (STCs) for the Arkansas Health Care Independence Program (Private Option) section 1115(a) Medicaid demonstration (hereinafter demonstration) to enable Arkansas (State) to operate this demonstration. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has granted waivers of requirements under section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (Act), and expenditure authorities authorizing federal matching of demonstration costs not otherwise matchable, which are separately enumerated. These STCs set forth in detail the nature, character, and extent of federal involvement in the demonstration and the State’s obligations to CMS during the life of the demonstration. The STCs are effective on the date of the signed approval. Enrollment activities for the new adult population will begin on October 1, 2013 for the Private Option qualified health plan (QHP) with eligibility effective January 1, 2014. The demonstration will be statewide and is approved through December 31, 2016.
The STCs have been arranged into the following subject areas:
Preface
Program Description And Objectives
General Program Requirements
Populations Affected
Private Option Premium Assistance Enrollment
Premium Assistance Delivery System
Benefits
Cost Sharing
Appeals
General Reporting Requirements
General Financial Requirements
Monitoring Budget Neutrality
Evaluation
Monitoring
Health Information Technology and Premium Assistance
T-MSIS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
Under the Private Option demonstration, the State will provide premium assistance, to support the purchase by beneficiaries eligible under the new adult group under the state plan of coverage from QHPs offered in the individual market through the Marketplace. In Arkansas, individuals eligible for coverage under the new adult group are both (1) childless adults ages 19 through 64 with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty limit (FPL) or (2) parents and other caretakers between the ages of 19 through 64 with incomes between 17 percent and 133 percent of the FPL (collectively Private Option beneficiaries). Arkansas expects approximately 200,000 beneficiaries to be enrolled into the Marketplace through this demonstration program.
Private Option beneficiaries will receive the State plan Alternative Benefit Plan (ABP) primarily through a QHP that they select and will have cost sharing obligations consistent with the State plan.
With this demonstration Arkansas proposes to further the objectives of Title XIX by:
Promoting continuity of coverage for individuals,
Improving access to providers,
Smoothing the “seams” across the continuum of coverage, and
Furthering quality improvement and delivery system reform initiatives.
Arkansas proposes that the demonstration will provide integrated coverage for low-income Arkansans, leveraging the efficiencies of the private market to improve continuity, access, and quality for Private Option beneficiaries. The state proposes that the demonstration will also drive structural health care system reform and more competitive premium pricing for all individuals purchasing coverage through the Marketplace by doubling the size of the population enrolling in QHPs offered through the Marketplace.
The state proposes to demonstrate following key features:
Continuity of coverage and care -For households with members eligible for coverage under Title XIX and Marketplace coverage as well as those who have income fluctuations that cause their eligibility to change year-to-year, or multiple times throughout the year, the demonstration will create continuity of health plans available for selection as well as provider networks. Households may stay enrolled in the same plan regardless of whether their coverage is subsidized through Medicaid, or Advanced Payment Tax Credits/Cost Sharing Reductions (APTC/CSRs).
Support equalization of provider reimbursement and improve provider access – The demonstration will support equalization of provider reimbursement across payers, toward the end of expanding provider access and eliminating the need for providers to cross-subsidize. Arkansas Medicaid provides rates of reimbursement lower than Medicare or commercial payers, causing some providers to forego participation in the program and others to “cross subsidize” their Medicaid patients by charging more to private insurers.
(pages 3-4 omitted)
demonstration, the governor or chief executive officer of the State must submit to CMS either a demonstration extension request or a transition and phase-out plan consistent with the requirements of STC 9.
Compliance with Transparency Requirements at 42 CFR §431.412.
As part of the demonstration extension requests the State must provide documentation of compliance with the transparency requirements 42 CFR §431.412 a:tJ.d the public notice and tribal consultation requirements outlined in STC 15.
Demonstration Phase Out. The State may only suspend or terminate this demonstration in whole, or in part, consistent with the following requirements.
Notification of Suspension or Termination: The State must promptly notify CMS in writing of the reason(s) for the suspension or termination, together with the effective date and a transition and phase-out plan. The State must submit its notification letter and a draft plan to CMS no less than six (6) months before the effective date of the demonstration’s suspension or termination. Prior to submitting the draft plan to CMS, the State must publish on its website the draft transition and phase-out plan for a 30-day public comment period. In addition, the State must conduct tribal consultation in
accordance with its approved tribal consultation State Plan Amendment. Once the 30-day public comment period has ended, the State must provide a summary of each public comment received the State’s response to the comment and how the State incorporated the received comment into the revised plan.
The State must obtain CMS approval of the transition and phase-out plan prior to the implementation of the phase-out activities. Implementation of activities must be no sooner than 14 days after CMS approval of the plan.
Transition and Phase-out Plan Requirements: The State must include, at a minimum, in its plan the process by which it will notify affected beneficiaries, the content of said notices (including information on the beneficiary’s appeal rights), the process by which the State will conduct administrative reviews of Medicaid eligibility prior to the termination of the program for the affected beneficiaries, and ensure ongoing coverage for those beneficiaries determined eligible, as well as any community outreach activities including community resources that are available.
Phase-out Procedures: The State must comply with all notice requirements found in 42 CFR §431.206, §431.210, and §431.213. In addition, the State must assure all appeal and
hearing rights afforded to demonstration participants as outlined in 42 CFR §431.220 and
§431.221. If a demonstration participant requests a hearing before the date of action, the State must maintain benefits as required in 42 CFR §431.230. In addition, the State must conduct administrative renewals for all affected beneficiaries in order to determine if they qualify for Medicaid eligibility under a different eligibility category. 42 CFR Section 435.916.
Exemption from Public Notice Procedures 42.CFR Section 431.416(g). CMS may expedite the federal and State public notice requirements in the event it determines that the objectives of title XIX and XXI would be served or under circumstances described in 42 CFR Section 431.416(g).
f. Federal Financial Participation (FFP): If the project is terminated or any relevant waivers suspended by the State, FFP shall be limited to normal closeout costs associated with terminating the demonstration including services and administrative costs of disenrolling participants.
10. Post Award Forum. Within six months of the demonstration’s implementation, and annually thereafter, the State will afford the public with an opportunity to provide meaningful comment on the progress of the demonstration. At least 30 days prior to the date of the planned public forum, the state must publish the date, time and location of the forum in a prominent location on its website. The state can either use its Medical Care Advisory Committee, or another meeting that is open to the public and where an interested party can learn about the progress of the demonstration to meet the requirements of this STC. The state must include a summary of the comments in the quarterly report as specified in STC 46 associated with the quarter in which the forum was held. The State must also include the summary in its annual report as required in STC 48.
11. Federal Financial Participation (FFP). If the project is terminated or any relevant waivers suspended by the state, FFP shall be limited to normal closeout costs associated with terminating the demonstration including services and administrative costs of disenrolling enrollees.
Expiring Demonstration Authority. For demonstration authority that expires prior to the demonstration’s expiration date, the state must submit a transition plan to CMS no later than six months prior to the applicable demonstration authority’s’ expiration date, consistent with the following requirements:
Expiration Requirements. The state must include, at a minimum, in its demonstration expiration plan the process by which it will notify affected beneficiaries, the content of said notices (including information on the beneficiary’s appeal rights), the process by which the State will conduct administrative reviews of Medicaid eligibility for the affected beneficiaries, and ensure ongoing coverage for eligible individuals, as well as any community outreach activities.
(Pages 7-17 omitted)
Administrative Costs. Administrative costs will not be included in the budget neutrality limit, but the State must separately track and report additional administrative costs that are directly attributable to the demonstration, using Forms CMS-64.10 Waiver and/or 64.10P Waiver, with waiver name Local Administration Costs (“ADM”).
Claiming Period. All claims for expenditures subject to the budget neutrality limit (including any cost settlements) must be made within 2 years after the calendar quarter in which the State made the expenditures. Furthermore, all claims for services during the demonstration period (including any cost settlements) must be made within 2 years after the conclusion or termination of the demonstration. During the latter 2-year period, the State must continue to identify separately net expenditures related to dates of service during the operation of the section 1115 demonstration on the Form CMS-64 and Form CMS-21 in order to properly account for these expenditures in determining budget neutrality.
Reporting Member Months. The following describes the reporting of member months for demonstration populations:
For the purpose of calculating the budget neutrality expenditure cap and for other purposes, the State must provide to CMS, as part of the quarterly report required under STC 46, the actual number of eligible member months for the demonstration populations defined in STC 17. The State must submit a statement accompanying the quarterly report, which certifies the accuracy of this information.
To permit full recognition of “in-process” eligibility, reported counts of member months may be subject to revisions after the end of each quarter. Member month counts may be revised retrospectively as needed.
The term “eligible member months” refers to the number of months in which persons are eligible to receive services. For example, a person who is eligible for three months contributes three eligible member months to the total. Two individuals who are eligible for two months each contribute two eligible member months to the total, for a total of four eligible member months.
Standard Medicaid Funding Process. The standard Medicaid funding process must be used during the demonstration. The State must estimate matchable demonstration
expenditures (total computable and federal share) subject to the budget neutrality expenditure
cap and separately report these expenditures by quarter for each federal fiscal year on the Form CMS-37 for both the Medical Assistance Payments (MAP) and State and Local Administration Costs (ADM). CMS will make federal funds available based upon the State’s estimate, as approved by CMS. Within 30 days after the end of each quarter, the State must submit the Form CMS-64 quarterly Medicaid expenditure report, showing Medicaid expenditures made in the quarter just ended. The CMS will reconcile expenditures reported on the Form CMS-64 quarterly with federal funding previously made available to the State, and include the reconciling adjustment in the finalization of the grant award to the State.
As leaders responsible to the people of Arkansas, we will work to terminate the Arkansas Health Care Independence Act of 2013 (Private Option) over the next two months for the following reasons:
Our primary concern is for the complete health and well-being of the people of Arkansas. We will work to insure that the excellent health care (as opposed to health insurance) enjoyed in this great country is continued and available to all Arkansans at affordable costs.
It is our job to protect the health care and financial condition of our total population, including:
our 200,000 citizens expected to be covered under the Private Option;[ii]
our 50,000 small business owners (which include many of our finest medical doctors);[iii]
as well as the fine health care facilities in Arkansas from which we all benefit.
Our concern for Arkansans’ as a result of the passage and implementation of the Private Option are summed up in one statement:
The intent, purposes, and ability to terminate the Arkansas Health Care Independence Act of 2013 have been thwarted by the contract forced on Arkansas by the federal government which unilaterally expanded entitlement benefits to the participants.[iv]
Our specific concerns are as follows:
Obamacare is bad for Arkansas and the Private Option is the expansion of Obamacare:
For an overwhelming number of reasons Obamacare is clearly harmful to health care for all Arkansans;
Arkansans overwhelmingly oppose Obamacare;
As a result of the contract with the federal government, the Private Option is now proven to be an expansion of Medicaid and Obamacare in Arkansas-thus causing Arkansans to be forced into aiding in the implementation of Obamacare in our entire state and country– contrary to the 2012 US Supreme Court ruling.[v]
The Private Option was quickly passed in April 2013 due to what we now know was a false sense of urgency, based on now false principles and false assumptions , not the least of which was that the Arkansas Legislature could pull the trigger on the PO at its discretion .
c. Now that we have passed it….and now “read it”,[vi] we discover that Arkansas has entered into a contract with the federal government vastly different than the Arkansas legislature intended.[vii]
Those differences thwart the intent, purposes, and ability to terminate the Act while giving participants entitlement benefits.
d. These differences are set out below.
i. The intent and purposes of the Health Care Independence Act of 2013[viii] have been thwarted in that:
Rather than competitive and value based purchasing of insurance with increased participation, intensifying price pressures, and reduce costs for both publicly and privately funded health care, we have limited state-wide providers at increased premiums expected to be 138.6% more than prior to the passage of the Act (5th highest increase in the nation);[ix] and we have more than 18 new federal taxes to pay as a result of Obamacare.[x]
Rather than promoting personal responsibility and efficiencies through cost sharing as well as discourage over-utilization and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, we see that programs such as the PO have proven to drive use of the emergency room up 40% for non-emergencies by the users with no improved health consequences; [xi] (and since there is no costs to these users thus no cost sharing involved.)
Rather than private health care options increasing and government-operated programs such as Medicaid decreasing-and actually reducing the size of the state-administered Medicaid program, we see the PO has expanded Medicaid;[xii]
Rather than the decisions about the design, operation and implementation of the PO, including cost, remaining within the purview of the State of Arkansas and not with Washington, DC, we find that the contract forced on Arkansas by the federal government gives the federal government all the say on design, operation, implementation and the cost—including how much or that all the costs are borne by Arkansas taxpayers.[xiii]
5. Rather than improving access to quality health care and increasing quality and delivery system efficiencies, we find from the assurances of our own Arkansas medical community and unbiased national research that health care will be limited and likely rationed compared to that which Arkansans have grown accustomed. “Like having a life-time of gasoline for your bicycle,” was a recent statement made by a local family practice doctor when asked what he thought of Obamacare and Arkansas’ implementation of its Private Option. [xiv] (Sadly we have just witnessed a hospital in CA fighting in court to take from the family the decision to end the life of a young patient—in the name of quality affordable care-referencing her as a deceased body.)[xv]
ii. The triggers within the Act to terminate the program at the discretion of the Arkansas legislature are effectively removed or without real consequence. The five (5) triggers[xvi] within the Act are the following:
1 of 5: DHS is only allowed to submit to the federal government Medicaid State Plan amendments which are optional and therefore may be revoked by the state at its discretion;
2 of 5: If DHS is unable to confirm AR employers shall not be subject to penalties…the program shall not be implemented;
3 of 5: The Program shall terminate within 120 days after a reduction in any federal medical assistance percentages –meaning if the program costs AR in excess of 0% to 10% between 2014 and 2020 it is terminated;
4 of 5: An eligible individual enrolled in the program shall affirmatively acknowledge that the program is not a perpetual federal or state right or a guaranteed entitlement and subject to cancellation upon appropriate notice;
5 of 5: This Act requires appropriations for its continuation; if such is not made by the Arkansas legislature, the Act is void.
Although the Act itself contains the above triggers, through its Terms and Conditions contract[xvii] the federal government (CMS) has forced provisions into the PO which prevent discretionary termination. The contract with CMS purports to severely limit Arkansas’ ability to terminate the program by:
Giving the federal government (CMS) authority to approve or disapprove a transition and phase-out plan.
Providing the state cannot even begin phase-out procedures until receiving CMS approval.
Imposing a lengthy minimum notice period of seven months. This leaves one wondering whether, if the seven month period were to go into or near a new calendar year, would CMS impose another 12 months of coverage beyond the notice period (mirroring “eternal life of a government program” syndrome.)
iii. It was stated in the Arkansas legislation that the private option is not an entitlement program but the CMS Terms and Conditions give rights to participants. CMS added as a condition for terminating the program, that participants in the Private Option then be given an opportunity for a hearing on whether he or she is eligible to be covered by Medicaid and added a requirement that during the person’s appeal process the participant must still be given coverage under the private option, which could be even after the Private Option was scheduled to terminate.
iv. CMS added a condition that has the potential of causing the state to pay more than allowed in Arkansas’ Health Care Independence Act of 2013. CMS added a budget neutrality requirement which could shift cost overruns to Arkansas. Budget neutrality is not an unusual provision, however, it must be noted that the provision has the potential of increasing Arkansas’ burden beyond the spending limits set in Arkansas’ Health Care Independence Act of 2013, at the discretion of the federal government.
v. CAN WE TRUST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT TO CHANGE THE RULE ON US?The track record of the Affordable Care Act is so bad that it is difficult to keep up with all the changes, exemptions and delays. Medicaid expansion is part of that legislation. For Arkansas Medicaid expansion wavier, allowing Arkansas to offer the “Private” Option, CMS Terms and Conditions have already changed the ground rules Arkansas set by its legislation.
vi. SHORT-TERM FEDERAL FUNDING ADVANTAGE VERSUS LONG TERM STATE OBLIGATION.The federal government promises 100% funding initially but after the state has gotten used to having the program the funding goes down to 90% and who knows what the federal funding will be in a few years when the program is fully entrenched in Arkansas.
vii. IS FEDERAL FUNDING LEVEL SUSTINABLE? Remember the funding is being promised by a federal government that is over $17 trillion in debt and rising.
viii. FREE MONEY IS NOT FREE. It was too tempting not to take “free” federal money that Arkansas would lose out on if Arkansas didn’t expand Medicaid or do so through the Private Options. But the money is not free. By Arkansas adding this PO, we have increased the burdens on all across the US. And the money comes from our taxes. Be aware that several new taxes have been added (at least 18). Also, be aware that the “free money” adds to our national debt that ruins our economy and that will continue to burden our children and grandchildren.
ix. WHY HAVE SO MANY STATES REFUSED THE MONEY? If the “free” money was such a good thing then why have only half of the states accepted the money? Many states have refused to expand Medicaid coverage. The Private Option is just another way of expanding the coverage. Note that in Arkansas’ waiver application the state admits that expansion of Medicaid is not workable in Arkansas.[xviii]
ARKANSAS CAN AND WILL TAKE CARE OF ITS OWN! We are committed first to the health and well-being of Arkansans. As a result, we will work to immediately end the PO and replace it with real Health Care reform which is good for all Arkansas. We can do this! We do not need an overreach by the federal government or enslavement to federal debt to take care of the health and welfare of those in our state.
This “Call for Action” is endorsed by the following AR State Senators and AR House Members:
[iv] (CFC)-ISSUES WITH THE CMS TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
To implement Arkansas’ Private Option the state filed an application for 1115 Waiver from Medicaid requirements. The application was approved but as a condition for approval, CMS attached terms and condition as a condition for approval. The requirements are identified as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Special Terms and Conditions, Document Number 11-W-00287/6.
Notice. Arkansas’ Health Care Independence Act of 2013 says Arkansas may terminate the private option “upon appropriate notice”.[iv] (ACA 20-77-2405 (i)(2))Although “appropriate notice” is not defined in the act, it should be noted that the act provides that if federal medical assistance percentages fall below a threshold, the program automatically terminates within one hundred twenty (120) days. (ACA 20-77-2405 (h)) The CMS Terms and Conditions purports to make the termination process more difficult and even imposes an approval procedure. The CMS Terms and Conditions: (Note: the ACA subchapter listed in the Arkansas Act l changed once codified.)
Requires a minimum of seven (7) months of termination notice but this period could be longer in trying to meet all CMS requirements. This includes six (6) month written notice to CMS and before that notice a thirty (30) day public comment period before submitting written notice to CMS (Terms and Conditions (9)(a));
Requires Arkansas to obtain CMS approval of a transition and phase-out plan. No standards are specified on the criteria to be used by CMS in determining whether or not to approve the state phase-out plan. No time limit is provided for CMS to take actions. This appears to be a de facto veto power. (Terms and Conditions (9)(b))
Prohibits Arkansas from even beginning implementation of phase-out activities until 14 days after CMS has approved the plan; (Terms and Conditions (9)(b))
Extends the time in which the private option must be operated by guaranteeing participants the right to continue coverage under the private option even after termination of the program, if the person is appealing a Medicaid denial. (Terms and Conditions (9)(d)) The participants in the private option have the right to a hearing to determine if the person is eligible for Medicaid coverage after the termination of the private option. (Terms and Conditions (9)(c))
Not a benefit plan. Arkansas’ Health Care Independence Act of 2013 says “The program is not a perpetual federal or state right or a guaranteed entitlement” and repeats “The program is not an entitlement program.” (ACA 20-77-2405 (i)(2) and (i)(3)) The CMS Terms and Conditions impose procedures during program termination that in no way favor private insurance contract terminations but does resemble a benefit program. The Terms and Conditions say:
If a private option participant requests a hearing before the date of termination of the program, the State must maintain benefits during the appeal. (Terms and Conditions (9)(c) and (9)(d))
In addition, the State must provide for administrative review to determine if private option participants qualify for Medicaid eligibility under a different eligibility category while also maintaining benefits. (Terms and Conditions (9)(d))
Financial obligation. Arkansas’ Health Care Independence Act of 2013 imposes minimum federal medical assistance percentages (including 100% in 2014 and 2015 and lower percentages in future years). (ACA 20-77-2405 (h))The CMS Terms and Conditions include a budget neutrality expenditure cap for the share paid by the federal government. (Terms and Conditions (55)) Budget neutrality provisions are not uncommon, but the percentage limits in the Arkansas act does not provide for an exception for additional obligations to Arkansas due to a budget neutrality expenditure cap for the federal government.
(CFC) Specific provisions of “The Arkansas Health Care Independence Act of 2013” version prior to codification:
Intent and Purposes:
20-77-2102. Legislative intent.
(a) Notwithstanding any general or specific laws to the contrary, the Department of Human Services is to explore design options that reform the Medicaid Program utilizing the Health Care Independence Act of 2013 so that it is a fiscally sustainable, cost-effective, personally responsible, and opportunity-driven program utilizing competitive and value-based purchasing to:
(1) Maximize the available service options;
(2) Promote accountability, personal responsibility, and transparency;
(3) Encourage and reward healthy outcomes and responsible choices; and
(4) Promote efficiencies that will deliver value to the taxpayers.
(b)(1) It is the intent of the General Assembly that the State of Arkansas through the Department of Human Services shall utilize a private insurance option for “low-risk” adults.
(2) The Health Care Independence Act of 2013 shall ensure that:
(A) Private health care options increase and government-operated programs such as Medicaid decrease; and
(B) Decisions about the design, operation and implementation of this option, including cost, remain within the purview of the State of Arkansas and not with Washington, D.C.
20-77-2103. Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this subchapter is to:
(1) Improve access to quality health care; 11
(2) Attract insurance carriers and enhance competition in the 12 Arkansas insurance marketplace; 13
(3) Promote individually-owned health insurance; 14
(4) Strengthen personal responsibility through cost-sharing; 15
(5) Improve continuity of coverage; 16
(6) Reduce the size of the state-administered Medicaid program; 17
(7) Encourage appropriate care, including early intervention, 18 prevention, and wellness; 19
(8) Increase quality and delivery system efficiencies; 20
(9) Facilitate Arkansas’s continued payment innovation, delivery 21 system reform, and market-driven improvements; 22
(10) Discourage over-utilization; and
(11) Reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.
Triggers:
20-77-2105. Administration of the Health Care Independence Program.
(a) The Department of Human Services shall:
(1) Create and administer the Health Care Independence Program; and
(2)(A) Submit and apply for any:
(i) Federal waivers necessary to implement the program in a manner consistent with this subchapter, including without limitation approval for a comprehensive waiver under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1315; and
(ii)(a) Medicaid State Plan Amendments necessary to implement the program in a manner consistent with this subchapter.
(b) The Department of Human Services shall submit only those Medicaid State Plan Amendments under subdivision (a)(2)(A)(ii)(a) of this section that are optional and therefore may be revoked by the state at its discretion.
(B)(i) As part of its actions under subdivision (a)(2)(A) of this section, the Department of Human Services shall confirm that employers shall not be subject to the penalties, including without limitation an assessable payment, under Section 1513 of Pub. L. No. 111-148, as existing on January 1, 2013, concerning shared responsibility, for employees who are eligible individuals if the employees:
(a) Are enrolled in the program; and
(b) Enroll in a Qualified Health Plan through the Health Insurance Marketplace.
(ii) If the Department of Human Services is unable 25 to confirm provisions under subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i) of this section, the program shall not be implemented.
(b)(1) Implementation of the program is conditioned upon the receipt of necessary federal approvals.
(2) If the Department of Human Services does not receive the necessary federal approvals, the program shall not be implemented.
(c) The program shall include premium assistance for eligible individuals to enable their enrollment in a Qualified Health Plan through the Health Insurance Marketplace.
(d)(1) The Department of Human Services is specifically authorized to pay premiums and supplemental cost-sharing subsidies directly to the Qualified Health Plans for enrolled eligible individuals.
(2) The intent of the payments under subdivision (d)(1) of this 2 section is to increase participation and competition in the health insurance market, intensify price pressures, and reduce costs for both publicly and privately funded health care.
(omitted (d)-(g))
(h) The program authorized under this subchapter shall terminate within one hundred twenty (120) days after a reduction in any of the following federal medical assistance percentages:
(1) One hundred percent (100%) in 2014, 2015, 1
or 2016;
(2) Ninety-five percent (95%) in 2017;
(3) Ninety-four percent (94%) in 2018;
(4) Ninety-three percent (93%) in 2019; and
(5) Ninety percent (90%) in 2020 or any year after 2020.
(i) An eligible individual enrolled in the program shall affirmatively acknowledge that:
(1) The program is not a perpetual federal or state right or a guaranteed entitlement;
(2) The program is subject to cancellation upon appropriate
notice; and
(3) The program is not an entitlement program.
20-77-2108. Effective date.
This subchapter shall be in effect until June 30, 2017, unless amended or extended by the General Assembly.
SECTION 3. NOT TO BE CODIFIED. (a) The implementation of this act is suspended until an appropriation for the implementation of this act is passed by a three-fourths vote of both houses of the Eighty-Ninth General Assembly.
(b) If an appropriation for the implementation of this act is not passed by the Eighty-Ninth General Assembly, this act is void.
SECTION 4. NOT TO BE CODIFIED. The enactment and adoption of this act 13 shall supersede Section 21 of HB1219 of the Eighty-Ninth General Assembly, if Section 21 of HB1219 of the Eighty-Ninth General Assembly is enacted and adopted.
SECTION 5. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Health Care Independence 19 Program requires private insurance companies to create, present to the Department of Human Services for approval, implement, and market a new kind of insurance policy; and that the private insurance companies need certainty about the law creating the Health Care Independence Program before fully investing time, funds, personnel, and other resources to the development of the new insurance policies. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on:
(1) The date of its approval by the Governor;
(2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, 29 the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or
(3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto.
