HB1405 amends Arkansas law governing the use of “procurers” by licensed chiropractic physicians. The bill defines “solicit” broadly to include in-person, phone, text, internet direct message, and other electronic direct communications made by a chiropractic physician or by someone acting on the physician’s behalf. It also requires chiropractors who use procurers to maintain a written contract, register each procurer with the Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and keep that registration updated annually. The registration must include identifying and contact information for the procurer and the chiropractic physician, and the board-approved registration expires each year on December 31.
The bill adds detailed recordkeeping and conduct rules for procurers, including records of who was solicited, when a solicitation followed a motor vehicle accident, compensation paid, treatment obtained, and any money shared with others. It also creates new restrictions on solicitation of people injured in accidents, disasters, or other events, generally prohibiting solicitation for injury treatment unless there is a family or prior professional relationship or the contact occurs more than 14 days after a motor vehicle accident. Direct solicitation of minors under 18 is prohibited, and the bill bars misleading claims about insurance, government approval, preferred-provider status, gifts, medication, or other deceptive statements. It also preserves certain advertising practices, such as direct mail, radio, television, websites, and social media, so long as they are not coercive, false, or used to violate the solicitation ban.
HB1405 also strengthens enforcement. A violation can require return of payments made for chiropractic services tied to a motor vehicle accident report, bar the chiropractor from collecting fees from the accident victim, trigger a $500 board fine, and allow a private civil action for pecuniary loss with court costs, attorney’s fees, and additional damages. The bill makes chiropractors liable for representations made by compensated procurers under specified conditions, even if there is no written contract. In practical terms, the bill increases oversight of chiropractic referral practices and creates clearer limits on accident-related outreach.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable, with the bill passing the House 69-13, the Senate 28-4, and concurrence on a Senate amendment 96-2. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan support for tighter regulation of chiropractic solicitation and referral practices. No committee transcript is available here, so the record does not show detailed floor debate, but the vote margins indicate the bill was generally viewed as a consumer-protection and anti-abuse measure.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the solicitation restrictions and the compliance burden on chiropractors who use procurers. The bill reaches not only direct solicitation but also communications by employees, agents, independent contractors, and procurers, and it imposes detailed registration, recordkeeping, and liability rules. Potential concerns would be whether the 14-day rule, the ban on solicitation of accident victims and minors, and the liability provisions could limit legitimate advertising or referral activity, while supporters likely view those same provisions as necessary to curb deceptive or predatory practices.
HB1405 amends Arkansas Code § 17-81-107 to regulate chiropractic physicians’ use of procurers more tightly, expanding definitions, registration requirements, recordkeeping duties, solicitation limits, and penalties. It affects licensed chiropractic physicians, procurers, procurement companies, and patients involved in motor vehicle accidents or other injury events, while also giving the Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners additional oversight and enforcement tools. The bill creates new civil and administrative consequences for improper solicitation and referral practices and preserves certain forms of general advertising that do not violate the new restrictions.
The bill appears to have received broad support in both chambers, as shown by strong third-reading votes in the House and Senate and overwhelming concurrence on the Senate amendment. The vote totals suggest legislators generally favored the bill’s consumer-protection approach and its effort to curb deceptive or aggressive chiropractic solicitation practices. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded committee debate to indicate substantial opposition beyond the floor vote margins.
The likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s expanded definition of solicitation, its restrictions on contacting accident victims, and the compliance and liability burdens placed on chiropractors who use procurers. Critics may view the 14-day post-accident solicitation limit, the ban on direct solicitation of minors, and the broad attribution of procurer statements to the chiropractor as potentially overinclusive or burdensome. Supporters likely argue these provisions are needed to prevent misleading referrals, protect vulnerable accident victims, and ensure accountability in chiropractic marketing and patient recruitment.