Bills: SB1287 , SB1983 , SB1796 , SB1806 , SB1558 , SB2135 , SB483 , SB1198 , SB1265 , SB2154 , SB2139 , SB1552 , SB2118 , SB1775 , SB259 , SB1344 , SB1380 , SB2007 , SB1572 , SB2074 , SB1423 , SB1425 , SB1502 , SB1503 , SB1833 , SB1561 , SB1555 , SB2044 , SB1749 , SB904 , SB1565 , SB1500 , SB667 , SB1484 , SB1562 , SB1644 , HR1045 , SB227 , SB1627 , SB1475 , SB1966 , SB2049 , SB1531 , SB80 , SB1734 , SB1630 , SB1894 , SB1975 , SB1432 , SB1437 , SB1812 , SB346 , SB710 , SB1489 , SB1614 , SB2045 , SB1250 , SB1304 , SB1501 , SB1946 , SB592 , SB65 , SB1257 , SB444 , SB640 , SB2178 , SB1242 , SB1642

Keywords: abstraction, licensing, Oklahoma Abstractors Board, criminal background, good moral character, SB1983, foster care, resource family partner, resource family partners, Department of Human Services, DHS, child welfare, foster homes, foster children, placement data, data sharing, de-identified data, aggregated data, sibling groups, placement disruptions

Bills: HR286 , HR287 , HR288 , HR289 , HR290 , HR291 , HR292 , HR293 , HR294 , HCR114 , HR275 , HR276 , HR277 , HR278 , HR279 , HR280 , HR282 , HR283 , HR284 , HR285 , HCR112 , HCR113 , SCR62 , SCR64 , SB132 , SB135 , SB405 , HR179 , HR216 , HR223 , HR225 , HR274 , HCR89 , SB39 , SB99 , SB111 , SB112 , SB124 , SB134 , SB174 , SB189 , SB190 , SB201 , SB233 , SB236 , SB258 , SB270 , SB273 , SB288 , SB307 , SB313 , SB320 , SB321 , SB325 , SB326 , SB331 , SB339 , SB341 , SB345 , SB346 , SB347 , SB353 , SB357 , SB359 , SB387 , SB393 , SB401 , SB415 , SB419 , SB422 , SB426 , SB435 , SB437 , SB440 , SB451 , SB464 , SB470 , SB487 , SB488 , SB495 , SB504 , SB505 , SB518 , SB523 , SB228 , SB408 , HR168 , HR174 , HR194 , HCR54 , HCR74 , HCR79 , HCR87 , HCR94 , HCR95 , HCR97 , HCR98 , HCR102 , HCR104 , SCR23 , SCR38 , HCR26 , HB250 , HB265 , HB339 , HB427 , HB445 , HB463 , HB468 , HB606 , HB639 , HB649 , HB665 , HB746 , HB781 , HB853 , HB861 , HB872 , HB886 , HB916 , HB937 , HB1054 , HB1068 , HB1117 , HB1237 , HB75 , HB705 , SB34 , SB164 , SB172 , SB198 , SB208 , SB232 , SB281 , SB286 , SB317 , SB322 , SB334 , SB380 , SB385 , SB409 , SB417 , SB421 , SB430 , SB439 , SB447 , SB458 , SB510 , SB54 , SB56 , SB72 , SB79 , SB97 , SB105 , SB123 , SB125 , SB129 , SB163 , SB171 , SB252 , SB287 , SB375 , SB386 , SB461 , SB466 , HR84 , SCR3 , HB582 , HB625 , HB646 , HB998 , HB1191 , HB1255 , SB81 , SB100 , SB109 , SB197 , SB374 , SB479 , SB78 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HCR65 , HCR71 , HB284 , HB302 , HB306 , HB341 , HB366 , HB393 , HB458 , HB577 , HB603 , HB605 , HB614 , HB733 , HB752 , HB773 , HB798 , HB911 , HB955 , HB996 , HB1035 , HB1069 , HB1113 , HB1140 , HB1180 , HB1240 , SB82 , SB89 , HB134 , HB258 , HB359 , HB782 , SB149 , SB382 , SB441

Keywords: HR286, House Resolution 286, LED, Louisiana Economic Development, rural development, energy efficiency, renewable energy, public-private partnership, tax credits, economic development, workforce training, school energy costs, community colleges, technical colleges, local government, building modernization, on-site energy generation, public facilities, rural parishes, distressed communities

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 1162 by Representative Glorioso is an act in Title 22 relative to the payment and adjustment
• Senate Bill 465 by Senator McMath is an act to amend Title 22 relative to payments of health care to

Bills: SB525 , SR112 , SR109 , SCR61 , SCR62 , SCR12 , HB175 , HB276 , HB437 , HB456 , HB457 , HB459 , HB488 , HB579 , HB656 , HB804 , HB818 , HB841 , HB981 , HB1052 , HB1089 , HB1101 , HB1154 , HB1166 , HB1193 , HB1194 , HB1203 , HB1209 , HB1244 , HB1249 , HB221 , HCR69 , HCR58 , SB57 , SB405 , SB414 , HB62 , HB193 , HB203 , HB205 , HB210 , HB220 , HB222 , HB228 , HB246 , HB420 , HB475 , HB486 , HB574 , HB584 , HB750 , HB799 , HB813 , HB815 , HB826 , HB870 , HB949 , HB953 , HB1045 , HB1092 , HB1151 , HB1162 , HB1176 , HB1177 , HB1196 , HB1214 , HB1236 , HB1241 , SB106 , SB206 , SB248 , SB441 , SR86 , SCR30 , SB83 , SB135 , SB143 , SB155 , SB157 , SB202 , SB237 , SB276 , SB295 , SB388 , SB450 , SB465 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB246 , SB249 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB323 , SB363 , SB369 , SB474 , SB484 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , SB501 , SB513 , HCR31 , HB301 , HB358 , HB359 , HB384 , HB413 , HB428 , HB450 , HB462 , HB547 , HB613 , HB631 , HB657 , HB669 , HB675 , HB680 , HB691 , HB712 , HB716 , HB720 , HB723 , HB727 , HB728 , HB735 , HB747 , HB759 , HB825 , HB845 , HB846 , HB903 , HB904 , HB907 , HB923 , HB929 , HB941 , HB962 , HB965 , HB1036 , HB287 , HB370 , HB515 , HB521 , HB570 , HB1200 , HB29 , HB39 , HB58 , HB67 , HB73 , HB76 , HB77 , HB82 , HB112 , HB121 , HB125 , HB132 , HB134 , HB151 , HB154 , HB155 , HB161 , HB166 , HB187 , HB191 , HB207 , HB211 , HB224 , HB238 , HB241 , HB242 , HB250 , HB260 , HB265 , HB275 , HB300 , HB320 , HB338 , HB339 , HB349 , HB379 , HB399 , HB427 , HB463 , HB464 , HB468 , HB545 , HB550 , HB551 , HB565 , HB588 , HB639 , HB725 , HB782 , HB805 , HB808 , HB834 , HB847 , HB853 , HB858 , HB861 , HB883 , HB916 , HB937 , HB977 , HB1012 , HB1027 , HB1044 , HB1054 , HB1091 , HB1117 , HB90 , HB127 , HB138 , HB150 , HB201 , HB268 , HB273 , HB285 , HB315 , HB354 , HB355 , HB360 , HB376 , HB445 , HB506 , HB606 , HB649 , HB665 , HB681 , HB721 , HB746 , HB757 , HB781 , HB835 , HB844 , HB857 , HB872 , HB886 , HB889 , HB892 , HB972 , HB982 , HB987 , HB1037 , HB1068 , HB1072 , HB1078 , HB1085 , HB1132 , HB1137 , HB1167 , HB1174 , HB1232 , HB1238 , HB23 , HB136 , HB36 , HB119 , HB126 , HB129 , HB245 , HB271 , HB280 , HB337 , HB351 , HB677 , HB726 , HB789 , HB850 , HB956 , HB966 , SB149 , SB382

Keywords: unclaimed property, abandoned property, escheat, state treasurer, administrator, claimant, purchase agreement, assignment, property recovery, owner verification, documentation requirements, fraud prevention, bankruptcy, bankruptcy court, court order, Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes, R.S. 9:167.1, Chennault International Airport, 40th anniversary

Transcript Highlights:

• creating an all workers' compensation medical claims database, so the state can use real Louisiana payment
• It also moves the system toward electronic medical billing, strengthens oversight of timely payment of

Bills: SR110 , SR109 , SCR58 , SCR59 , SCR12 , HB198 , HB225 , HB508 , HB512 , HB599 , HB632 , HB763 , HB909 , HB971 , HB989 , HB1066 , HB1171 , HB1204 , HB1231 , HB1246 , HB1248 , HB1250 , HB221 , HCR41 , HCR63 , HCR76 , HCR77 , HCR86 , HCR92 , HCR93 , HCR58 , SB83 , SB135 , SB143 , SB155 , SB157 , SB202 , SB237 , SB261 , SB276 , SB295 , SB388 , SB450 , SB465 , HB17 , HB21 , HB42 , HB45 , HB51 , HB55 , HB74 , HB106 , HB108 , HB133 , HB140 , HB159 , HB168 , HB215 , HB226 , HB263 , HB296 , HB299 , HB322 , HB324 , HB364 , HB519 , HB535 , HB538 , HB568 , HB571 , HB622 , HB635 , HB676 , HB772 , HB784 , HB821 , HB823 , HB1006 , HB1018 , HB1033 , HB1034 , HB1043 , HB1070 , HB1134 , HB1237 , HB1239 , SB162 , SB382 , SR93 , SCR40 , SCR30 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB228 , SB246 , SB249 , SB268 , SB269 , SB282 , SB283 , SB296 , SB323 , SB338 , SB363 , SB369 , SB408 , SB431 , SB474 , SB484 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , SB501 , SB513 , HCR6 , HCR31 , HB297 , HB305 , HB336 , HB337 , HB351 , HB436 , HB594 , HB789 , HB956 , HB957 , HB995 , HB1040 , HB50 , HB117 , HB120 , HB122 , HB139 , HB148 , HB149 , HB185 , HB247 , HB271 , HB286 , HB301 , HB358 , HB359 , HB384 , HB413 , HB428 , HB450 , HB462 , HB547 , HB613 , HB631 , HB657 , HB669 , HB675 , HB680 , HB691 , HB712 , HB716 , HB720 , HB723 , HB727 , HB728 , HB735 , HB747 , HB759 , HB825 , HB842 , HB845 , HB846 , HB903 , HB904 , HB907 , HB923 , HB929 , HB941 , HB962 , HB965 , HB1036 , HB287 , HB370 , HB515 , HB521 , HB570 , HB1200 , HB29 , HB39 , HB58 , HB67 , HB73 , HB76 , HB77 , HB82 , HB112 , HB121 , HB125 , HB132 , HB134 , HB151 , HB154 , HB155 , HB161 , HB166 , HB187 , HB191 , HB207 , HB211 , HB224 , HB238 , HB241 , HB242 , HB250 , HB260 , HB265 , HB275 , HB300 , HB320 , HB338 , HB339 , HB349 , HB379 , HB399 , HB427 , HB463 , HB464 , HB468 , HB545 , HB550 , HB551 , HB565 , HB588 , HB639 , HB725 , HB782 , HB805 , HB808 , HB834 , HB847 , HB853 , HB858 , HB861 , HB883 , HB916 , HB937 , HB977 , HB1012 , HB1027 , HB1044 , HB1054 , HB1091 , HB1117 , HB90 , HB127 , HB138 , HB150 , HB201 , HB268 , HB273 , HB285 , HB315 , HB354 , HB355 , HB360 , HB376 , HB445 , HB506 , HB606 , HB649 , HB665 , HB681 , HB721 , HB746 , HB757 , HB781 , HB835 , HB844 , HB857 , HB872 , HB886 , HB889 , HB892 , HB972 , HB982 , HB987 , HB1037 , HB1068 , HB1072 , HB1078 , HB1085 , HB1132 , HB1137 , HB1167 , HB1174 , HB1232 , HB1238 , HB36 , HB119 , HB126 , HB129 , HB245 , HB280 , HB677 , HB726 , HB850 , HB966 , SB68 , SB149

Keywords: youth fitness, school achievement, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana Governor's Games, elementary education, Louisiana Arts Day, arts and culture, cultural heritage, artists, musicians, writers, performers, culture bearers, tourism, creative economy, economic impact, cultural sector, Louisiana Partnership for the Arts, festivals, visual arts

Transcript Highlights:

• , credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now, pay later financing, and other aspects of the payments
• , credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now, pay later financing, and other aspects of the payments
• And second, the limits on the global payment electronic payment system.
• Klinga Smith spoke to emerging payments payment rails in the United States.
• Ubiquity of instant payments.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Business held a public hearing focused on credit card interchange fees, cashless transactions, chargebacks, fraud, and possible reforms affecting small businesses in Massachusetts. Chair Paul Feeney opened the meeting, outlined the commission’s charge, and noted that the hearing would hear from small business owners, industry representatives, and others on the effects of payment trends and proposed policy changes. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that universal card acceptance and the current interchange system are important to Massachusetts tourism and should not be disrupted ahead of a busy summer season. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates, who said processing fees are especially burdensome because restaurants operate on very thin margins and are charged fees on sales tax and tips that are not retained as revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, and Kerry Colzer described rising operating costs and gave examples of annual or monthly fee totals, urging relief from fees on tax and gratuity amounts. Ryan Lotz also asked for chargeback reforms, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, proportional fees, and safeguards against repeat abuse. Several witnesses, including Dan Swanson, argued that states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system and cited the Illinois litigation and federal court rulings as support for state action. Opposing testimony came from credit unions, banks, payment industry representatives, and policy groups, who warned that changing interchange rules could create compliance burdens, reduce rewards, raise account fees, and shift costs elsewhere. Witnesses such as Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Keely McEwen, David Montero, Hunter Hamburlin, and Luke Bondar emphasized fraud prevention, network security, consumer protections, and the need for a stable, uniform payment system. Some suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation, surcharging, instant payments, or QR pay code standards, while others argued that sales tax and tip amounts cannot easily be separated within current card-network architecture. The chairs said the commission is still exploring options, discussed possible state-level solutions, and announced plans for one more public hearing before moving toward recommendations and a report. The commission then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• , credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now, pay later financing, and other aspects of the payments
• And second, the limits on the global payment electronic payment system.
• Klinga Smith spoke to emerging payments, payment rails in the United States.
• It doesn’t impact the electronic payment system at all. No impact on the electronic payment system.
• It doesn't impact the electronic payment system at all. No impact of the electronic payment system.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing chaired by Senator Paul Feeney and Representative Jamie Murphy. The commission reviewed its charge to gather input on payment trends, cashless transactions, credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now/pay later, and related issues affecting small businesses. Representative Sean Garballey testified in support of maintaining the current card system, emphasizing tourism’s importance to Massachusetts and arguing that universal card acceptance and interchange stability are especially important with major upcoming events and visitors. A large portion of the hearing focused on independent restaurants and small businesses arguing that credit card processing fees are burdensome and unfair when applied to sales tax and gratuities that are not business revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others described razor-thin margins and said restaurants pay fees on money passed through to the state or employees. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses first, and making fees proportional. In response, credit union and banking representatives, including Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Deb Peters, and Keely McEwen, argued that interchange funds fraud protection, card infrastructure, and consumer protections, and warned that state-specific changes could create compliance burdens, higher costs, or reduced access to services. Several witnesses addressed legal and policy questions. Dan Swanson and David Montero said states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system, but Montero warned that state-specific rules could create uncertainty and conflict with federal banking law. Julian Morris and other industry witnesses argued that card payments benefit consumers and merchants by reducing cash-handling costs and increasing spending, while critics of reform said changes could shift costs into bank fees or reduced rewards. Commission members questioned whether sales tax could be separated from card transactions, whether surcharging should be considered, and whether vendor compensation or other state-level relief might be more workable. The chairs said they were exploring a narrower, targeted approach rather than a broad overhaul, and announced plans for one additional public hearing to allow further testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now, pay later financing, and other aspects of the payments industry
• My focus is on payment, research focus is on payment acceptance within small businesses, and today I'm
• And second, the limits on the global payment electronic payment system.
• It doesn't impact the electronic payment system at all. No impact on the electronic payment system.
• It doesn't impact the electronic payment system at all. No impact of the electronic payment system.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• In front of you is Senate Bill 6139, an act relating to partial rental payments and rental payment methods
• A landlord must first apply any payment made by a tenant toward rent before applying any payment toward
• the tenant any means of payment agreed upon in the rental agreement and any means of payment previously
• Payment portals are not neutral tools. Once they are open, payments are automatically accepted.
• Will you accept a partial payment?'

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee held public hearings on three bills. SB 6237 would require landlords to disclose flooding history and flood risk to new tenants, along with notices that renters’ insurance and flood insurance may be needed and that county or local government sources have hazard information. The sponsor said the bill was a simple disclosure modeled on other states’ laws after recent flooding in Washington. Testimony was generally supportive, with an environmental nonprofit urging a broader jurisdiction-based disclosure instead of only county government, and housing industry groups saying they were neutral or concerned about added lease disclosures and asking for clearer language about what flooding information must be disclosed. No vote was taken on the bill. The committee then heard SB 6214, which would authorize public corporations, housing authorities, and certain nonprofits to operate as land bank authorities for affordable housing, with requirements for affordability covenants, annual reports, priority access to tax-foreclosed properties, and tax exemptions for qualifying land bank property and transfers. Supporters from Spokane, counties, housing authorities, affordable housing groups, and developers said land banking would help lower land costs, speed development, and expand affordable housing production. One member of the public opposed the bill, arguing it could remove land from the market and affect rural land supply. Department of Revenue staff flagged a technical issue, saying the bill needs a clearer definition of a qualifying land bank authority so the exemption can be administered, and confirmed the proposal would shift property off the tax rolls. The committee also asked whether the bill would allow non-housing uses such as parks or green space; staff said the bill requires affordable housing use, though the other half of land bank activity is not specified. The committee also heard SB 6139, which would require landlords to keep accepting previously used payment methods and continue to accept partial rent payments during an unlawful detainer process, while making clear that partial payments do not reinstate a lease or stop an eviction unless the parties agree in writing. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address cases where tenants can make partial payments but landlords shut off payment portals and refuse them, forcing judges to issue case-by-case standstill orders. Tenant advocates opposed the bill, arguing it would encourage evictions, remove judicial discretion, and could trap tenants by inviting partial payments that do not protect their housing. Landlord and property management groups were concerned about requiring continued access to payment portals and about ambiguity over whether accepting partial payments would waive eviction rights, though they said the bill was a good starting point and suggested clearer receipts and statutory protections. The public hearing was closed without action on SB 6139. In executive session, the committee adopted a proposed substitute for SB 6091, which limits broker marketing restrictions without requiring open access to homes and removes a Washington Law Against Discrimination provision, then voted the bill do pass to Rules. The committee also voted to recommend confirmation of gubernatorial appointments 9278, Pedro Espinoza, and 9279, Diana H. Perez, to the Housing Finance Commission.

Transcript Highlights:

• days prior to the quarterly payment to receive the September 1st 1001th quarter payment.
• payment.
• payment.
• scholarship payment.
• That would be getting a 0. 25 scholarship payment to a student who would be 2.5 scholarship payment.

Transcript Highlights:

• AS THE SLIDE SHOWS FOR STATUE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE SECOND QUARTER PAYMENT THE PAYMENT FILE FOR CROSSCHECKING
• PAYMENT FILE.
• , WERE THERE ANY STUDENTS ON THE SECOND QUARTER PAYMENT FILE NOT ON THE FIRST QUARTER PAYMENT FILE FOR
• PAYMENT TO BE RECEIVED?
• ALL INVOICES OUT THE FORM OF PAYMENT, JUST A LITTLE BECAUSE NOT ALL INVOICES OUT THE FORM OF PAYMENT

Transcript Highlights:

• Rent ledgers often include partial payments, subsidy timing and payments, payment plans, or disputes.
• On-time<00:09:07.880><c> payments.</c> On-time payments. On-time payments.
• , subsidy timing and<00:09:36.240><c> payments,</c> and payments, and payments, payment<00:09:37.960>
• payments in this bill.
• Payments and post payments in place.

Transcript Highlights:

• program payment, DSH payment, the UPL payment, GME, outpatient APC opt-outs, and EHR payments.
• structure. payment, uh the UPL payment, GME payment, uh the UPL payment, GME outpatient<00:30:34.880>
• </c> product of the impact payments going up. product of the impact payments going up.
• You got paid in a dish payment. patient. You got paid in a dish payment.
• </c> these add-on payments is not reflective. these add-on payments is not reflective.

Committee: Joint Medicaid

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> every instance to disclose a payment every instance to disclose a payment withhold,<00:03:07.519
• </c><00:15:18.720><c> is</c> reduce suspend or withhold payments is reduce suspend or withhold payments
• So reduced suspend or withheld payments.
• </c><00:15:33.040><c> have</c> actually doesn't know that payments have actually doesn't know that payments
• I still to this day do not know if payment has been suspended.

Summary: House File 3542 was heard in committee and moved forward with a recommendation to be re-referred to the Children, Families, Finance, and Policy Committee. The bill would change current law so that the commissioners of Human Services and Children, Youth, and Families must disclose the existence of an investigation, rather than may disclose it, with the stated goal of increasing transparency to the public and legislature. Members and agency officials discussed concerns that mandatory disclosure could tip off subjects of investigations, especially in fraud cases, allowing them to destroy evidence, coordinate stories, or otherwise interfere. The Department of Human Services and the Inspector General said disclosure can compromise investigations and noted that providers are typically notified when payments are reduced, suspended, or withheld, though federal law can sometimes require delayed notice. Representative Pinto offered an A2 amendment to require disclosure within 30 days unless it would compromise an investigation, but it was rejected. Representative Hudson then offered an oral amendment stating that disclosure would be required if the commissioner has taken action to reduce, suspend, or withhold payments to the subject of the investigation. The chair waived the rule to allow the oral amendment, and it was adopted. Staff clarified that the bill would only require disclosure of the existence of an investigation, not underlying details, and would not address trade secret redactions. After the amendment, the committee approved the motion to re-refer the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as your call, the state director payment programs consist of the various supplemental payment programs
• within 180 days of enactment of the act and then also any payment state-directed payments for preference
• on each of these supplemental payment program, state-directed payment programs.
• If if the physician supplemental payment program and then hospital directed payment program, if it's
• So that's the information that drives the low income pool payments and then for the DPP payments that

Transcript Highlights:

• And in addition to the regular fee-for-service payments, we do make hospital access payments.
• And in addition to the regular fee-for-service payments, we do make hospital access payments.
• Our UPL payment, or upper payment limit payment, is $473 million for state fiscal year 25.
• upper payment limit payments.
• So the hospitals fund their upper payment limit payments.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The subcommittee met to review Arkansas DHS hospital spending and reimbursement methods, with Secretary Janet Mann and Deputy Secretary Misty Eubanks explaining Medicaid hospital payments. They described fee-for-service per diem payments, cost settlements, and the upper payment limit (UPL) program, noting that SFY 2025 hospital payments included $688 million in inpatient/outpatient claims, $473 million in UPL payments, $248 million in cost settlements, and about $47 million in other payments such as graduate medical education and disproportionate share hospital funds. Members asked about why per diem rates vary, how cost settlements work, why UPL applies mainly to private hospitals, and how assessment fees are structured and funded. DHS said the hospital assessment fee is broad-based and uniform, used as the state share to draw federal funds, and that supplemental hospital payments after federal match totaled $548 million with no general revenue used. The Arkansas Hospital Association’s Jody Ann Tritt then gave a broader overview of the hospital landscape, explaining the different hospital types in the state, including critical access hospitals, rural emergency hospitals, PPS hospitals, and specialty hospitals. She said Arkansas hospitals face financial strain, citing a negative 5.18% patient service margin statewide and lower reimbursement than surrounding states. She argued that Arkansas hospitals are paid less than hospitals in neighboring states for similar services, that commercial payer rates and administrative burdens are a major problem, and that Medicaid and Medicare rates remain below cost even with UPL support. She also said hospitals are the backbone of community care, provide emergency and public health functions, and are looking for ways to invest in technology and telehealth but often lack the revenue to do so. Members pressed for clearer data on hospital finances, reimbursement adequacy, and the impact of commercial insurers. Tritt said the association had just authorized a statewide survey to gather updated financial information from hospitals, which she said would take about a year to complete. She also explained that Medicaid pays weekly, Medicare and commercial plans can involve delays and denials, and that hospitals often spend significant resources on revenue cycle work. The discussion ended with a brief update on assisted living reimbursement: DHS said one facility, The Pillars of the Community in Crossett, had announced closure, nine Living Choices waiver clients were being transitioned, and the updated rate study would be available after cost reports are collected, likely before the end of the fiscal year. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• BNPL is typically offered during a customer payment, at the point of payment during a transaction, and
• Those payments are deducted automatically from the consumer's payment account.
• the transaction, so those payments are deducted automatically from the consumer's payment account.
• So when you are at the point of payment, when you choose your payment option, right, and what I mean
• Payments are typically automatic.

Committee: House Consumer Protection & Business

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> because Under The Prompt payment because Under The Prompt payment statute<00:24:23.679><c> um</c
• We make weekly payments to general contractors, especially those who submit our payment applications,
• often averaging over 20 payments per week, including up to about $8 million per week in payments.
• the payment payment requirements the payment performance<00:35:51.119><c> bonds</c><00:35:52.119><c>
• in these payment receiv these payment in these payment inquiries<00:37:00.319><c> we</c><00:37:00.440

Bills: HF1234 , HF1956 , HF1025 , HF1172 , HF791

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• favoring greater incentivization of unconditional payments.
• It clarifies that a payment doesn't restart prescription. Simple as that.
• So, no, by accepting a payment, you're not relinquishing your right to file... ...accepting a payment
• any payments.
• And that tender is not just for the medical payment portion. ...treat.

Committee: House Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• And in addition to the regular fee-for-service payments, we do make hospital access payments.
• Our UPL payment, or upper payment limit payment, is $473 million for state fiscal year 25.
• upper payment limit payments.
• That sets your upper payment limit.
• So the hospitals fund their upper payment limit payments.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The subcommittee met to review Department of Human Services hospital payments in Arkansas Medicaid, with DHS Secretary Janet Mann and Deputy Secretary Misty Eubanks presenting first, followed by Arkansas Hospital Association Executive Vice President Jody Ann Tritt and a brief comment from Arkansas Children’s. DHS outlined the main hospital payment streams: fee-for-service per diem payments, upper payment limit (UPL) supplemental payments, cost settlements, and smaller payments such as graduate medical education and disproportionate share hospital funds. Members asked for plain-language explanations of cost settlements, why per diem rates vary by hospital type, and why UPL applies to private hospitals. DHS said cost settlements and UPL are mechanisms to help offset Medicaid underpayment, with SFY 2025 hospital payments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and no general revenue used for supplemental payments beyond the state share funded through hospital assessments and related financing structures. Committee members focused heavily on whether Arkansas hospitals are adequately reimbursed and why rural hospitals struggle. Tritt explained that critical access hospitals, rural emergency hospitals, PPS hospitals, and specialty hospitals operate under different federal and state rules, and said lower per diem rates for some facilities help with cash flow and later cost settlement adjustments. She said Arkansas hospitals are under financial strain, citing a negative patient services margin statewide and noting that Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers all contribute to the problem. She also said the association had just authorized a statewide survey of hospital finances and costs, which she expected would take about a year to complete. A major theme was commercial insurance reimbursement. Tritt argued Arkansas hospitals are paid far less than hospitals in neighboring states even though premiums are similar, and said administrative burdens, prior authorizations, and denials add to the problem. She said hospitals receive about 52 to 53 cents on the dollar for Medicaid costs without UPL and about 78 cents with UPL, still below cost. Members also discussed Medicare wage index issues, Medicare Advantage, and whether hospitals could use technology or alternative arrangements to improve finances. No votes were taken on the hospital presentation. At the end of the meeting, DHS provided a brief update on Living Choices and assisted living reimbursement. Officials said one assisted living facility, Pillars of the Community in Crossett, had announced closure, with nine waiver clients being transitioned to other settings. DHS said the current cost reporting period was underway and that a new rate study could be ready for review before the end of the fiscal year if reports were submitted on time. Members also asked about the broader waiver plan, and DHS said the next waiver iteration would likely be brought back to the committee in the summer.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to the regular fee-for-service payments, we do make hospital access payments and cost settlements
• Our UPL payment, or upper payment limit payment, is $473 million for state fiscal year 25.
• upper payment limit payments.
• Medicare is considered the upper payment. So the difference is the total payment that can be paid.
• So the hospitals fund their upper payment limit payments.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE