AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION.
Summary
SB67 is a supplemental appropriation act for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). It provides $5 million in additional funding for two UAMS programs: the High-Risk Pregnancy Program and the IDHI Stroke Program. The appropriation is stated to be supplemental to funds already provided in Act 533 of 2025, meaning it adds to existing support rather than replacing it.
The bill also directs the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State to transfer $5 million from the General Revenue Allotment Reserve Fund to the University of Arkansas Medical Center Fund so the money can be used for these programs. It includes standard fiscal and legal compliance language requiring the funds to be spent in accordance with state procurement, accounting, budgetary, salary, higher education, and revenue stabilization laws. The act contains an emergency clause, allowing it to take effect immediately upon passage and approval because the legislature found the funding necessary to avoid disruption to essential services.
Impact
SB67 changes state spending authority by increasing appropriations for UAMS and authorizing a specific fund transfer from the General Revenue Allotment Reserve Fund to the University of Arkansas Medical Center Fund. It does not create a new program or amend substantive health policy, but it does expand available state funds for maternal-fetal care and stroke-related services at UAMS. The bill affects UAMS, the Department of Finance and Administration, the Chief Fiscal Officer, and the state treasury/fund accounting structure used to move and disburse the money.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan support and little opposition. The bill passed the Senate 32-0 and the House 93-1, indicating broad agreement that the supplemental funding was needed. The emergency clause and the stated need to prevent disruption to essential governmental services further reflect a generally favorable view of the measure as a necessary budget action rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record, and no committee transcript excerpts are provided. Any potential point of discussion would likely center on the use of $5 million from the General Revenue Allotment Reserve Fund and whether supplemental funding should be directed to these specific UAMS programs. However, the overwhelmingly positive votes indicate that any disagreement was minimal and did not materially affect passage.