House of Representatives
January 29, 2025
Speaker Evans [00:00:12] I invite the members, staff, press and guests in the galleries to stand and be led in prayer by House Chaplain Brother Richard Hamlin, Senior pastor, Faith Baptist Church, of Cabot and to remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Representative Lane Jean.
Speaker Evans [00:02:11] Members, please indicate your presence by pushing your yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone indicated their presence? Cast up the ballot, madam clerk. With 97 members present, Chair sees a quorum. Any requests for leave? [Leave for Representative Duke, Ladyman, Vaught] Representative Matthew Shepherd moves that we dispense of the reading of the previous day's journal. No objection so ordered. Are there any reports from select committees? You're recognized, Madam Clerk.
Clerk [00:04:09] [House Management, HR 1011, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, do pass]
Speaker Evans [00:04:30] Madam Clerk, are there any reports of standing committees? You're recognized.
Clerk [00:04:39] [Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development: HB 1048, HB 1220, HB 1149, SB 61, SB 68, Do pass.
[00:05:07] [State Agencies and Governmental Affairs: HB 1138, 1135, SB 18, Do pass.
[00:05:17] [ Insurance and Commerce: HB 1205, HB 1237, HB 1238, HB 1271, HB 1273, SB 77, SB 76, Do pass]
Speaker Evans [00:06:18] Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is there any unfinished business? Are there any executive communications? [Recognitions] Madam Clerk, please read House Resolution 1004.
Clerk [00:08:07] House Resolution 1004 by Representative Mayberry to recognize Lorie Tudor to her 41 year career with the Arkansas Department of Transportation and positive impact on the state of Arkansas.
Speaker Evans [00:08:19] Representative Mayberry, you're recognized to explain the resolution.
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:08:23] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm going to ask Representative Childress to come on up here, because Lorie Tudor is actually in your district. So you have the outgoing head of the Department of Transportation and the incoming or current Jared Wiley in your district. So wanted to make sure we recognize those in your district. This resolution is so beautifully written, I'm going to ask the clerk to read it in its entirety. But we do have a wonderful guest up here, Lorie Tudor. She can wave her hand. And you're going to hear her story in just a second.
Many of you I know you know her because this was a resolution that actually brought me a great amount of joy to walk around and ask many of you to be co-sponsors on this. And I just want her to know that when I started talking, I would get like half a sentence out and they would say, yes, let me sign up, let me be a co-sponsor. And so many wonderful words. I wish I was recording what I heard from members here, but I would hear repeatedly, she's wonderful to work with. We might not have always agreed, but we worked on resolutions together. We're so sorry that she's leaving. We wish she didn't have to leave. And my list can go on and on. So you have a great amount of respect right here in the House of Representatives. I'm going to ask for our clerk to read her entire story in its entirety.
Speaker Evans [00:09:51] Madam Clerk, please read the resolution in its entirety.
Clerk [00:09:54] Whereas Lorie Tudor has been employed by the Arkansas Department of Transportation for 41 years, during which time she became the first female director of the department in 2020. And whereas, Director Tudor became a clerk typist in the equipment and procurement division, thus beginning her career within the department. And whereas, Director Tudor worked at the department for 13 years before deciding to explore the possibility of becoming an engineer, which began with taking night classes.
And whereas, after discovering her love and affinity for mathematics, Director Tudor quit her job with the department in order to obtain a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, often driving several hours between Little Rock and Memphis, Tennessee, in order to complete classes at the University of Memphis, all while maintaining her role as a wife and mother. And whereas, upon graduating from the University of Memphis, Director Tudor accepted a job with the department as a civil engineer in its planning and research division.
And whereas, while at the department, Director Tudor quickly rose in ranks and passed her professional engineering exam on the first try. And whereas, according to Director Tudor, one of her biggest projects at the department was transforming a cash forecast system, which took her two years in coordination between the information Technology and fiscal services division. And whereas Director Tudor oversaw countless projects during her time at the department, including leading during the Hernando de Soto Bridge closure on Interstate 40, reorganizing the department to streamline operations and better serve the public in an efficient and responsive manner, and initiating the design and development of the ARDOT Fallen Worker Memorial to honor those individuals whose lives were lost in service to the people of the state of Arkansas.
And whereas, Director Tudor received numerous awards throughout her career at the department, including being inducted into the University of Arkansas Academy of Civil Engineering in 2018, receiving the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Alfred E Johnson Achievement Award in 2019 and receiving the Associated General Contractors of Arkansas Skill Integrity Responsibility Award in 2024. And whereas, Director Tudor became Director of the department only a few weeks after the outbreak of coronavirus 2019, thus being thrust into managing not only one of the largest departments in the state of Arkansas, but also the health and well-being of thousands of department employees and the continuation of day to day services that were essential for the operation of the state's transportation system.
And whereas, when asked about her career and impact on the department, Director Tudor stated women must be confident in who they are and not be apologetic for being a woman. Be yourself, whomever that is. People will respond to your genuineness. Hard work and having a dream go a long way. I know that there is a purpose for me being here because if you look at it on paper, I shouldn't be here. Sometimes I think, What am I doing at this desk? How did this happen? Deep down, I'm still the little clerk typist that was struggling to make ends meet. Anything worth achieving is not going to be easy.
And whereas, Director Tudor has inspired countless individuals, especially women, to pursue careers in engineering and similar fields, demonstrating their ambition and determination can break barriers and redefine possibilities. And whereas, Director Tudor's leadership, resilience, kindness and tenacity will leave a lasting impact on the state of Arkansas. Her influence will continue to resonate for years to come. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the 95th General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, that the House of Representatives recognize the Arkansas Department of Transportation Director Lorie Tudor and her positive impact on the state of Arkansas.
Speaker Evans [00:13:27] The Clerk has read the resolution report. Representative Mayberry has explained the resolution. Does anyone want to speak against the resolution? For the resolution? Representative Mayberry is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the passage of House Resolution 1004. All those in favor say aye. Oppose nay. Let the record show that the resolution is passed unanimously. Congratulations, Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Director Tudor, for your service. Madam Clerk, please read House Resolution 1008.
Clerk [00:14:19] House Resolution 1008 to recognize Monster Michael Todd for his outstanding accomplishment in professional arm wrestling and for honorably representing the state of Arkansas.
Speaker Evans [00:14:29] Representative Duffield, you're recognized to explain the resolution.
Representative Matt Duffield [00:14:38] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you would, I would like Representative Warren, Representative McGrew and Representative Cozart to join me at the well at this time. Colleagues, today we gather to honor a true titan of competitive sports. He is the Monster Michael Todd. With an astonishing 23 world arm wrestling titles and 36 national arm wrestling championships, he has spent nearly 35 years dominating the sport with power, skill and an unwavering determination that continues to inspire.
Competing in his first arm wrestling tournament at the Saline County Fair at the bright eyed and fiery age of 17, he has since faced off and soundly defeated some of the strongest and most skilled arm wrestlers in the history of the sport and has forged a legacy as one of the greatest arm wrestlers of all time. A proud son of the natural state, Mr. Todd represents Arkansas honorably throughout his devout and endless commitment to achieving athletic greatness, inspiring not only Arkansans, but sports fans and aspiring athletes throughout the world.
Michael Todd is a living testament to the idea that through dedication, focus and an unrelenting will to succeed, there are no limits to what Arkansans can achieve. So, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in recognizing and honoring our guest today. He hails from Hot Springs, Arkansas. He is the Monster Michael Todd.
Speaker Evans [00:16:48] Representative Duffield has explained the resolution. Madam Clerk, please read the resolution in name only.
Clerk [00:16:58] To recognize Monster Michael Todd for his outstanding accomplishments in the professional arm wrestling and honorably representing the state of Arkansas.
Speaker Evans [00:17:09] Does anyone wish to speak against the resolution? For the resolution? Representative Duffield is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the passage of House Resolution 1008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. Let the record reflect that the motion was unanimous. Congratulations, Representative Duffield, the resolution is adopted. Morning hour has ended. Members, we will go to the red calendar now. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 1046.
Clerk [00:18:07] House Bill 1046 by Representative Pilkington to establish a blue envelope program.
Speaker Evans [00:18:13] Representative Pilkington, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Aaron Pilkington [00:18:23] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. Today I present to you the Blue Envelope program. It is a program designed to help communication between law enforcement officers and those with autism disability during traffic stops. I think the easiest way is just to kind of explain how this would work. An individual who has autism is driving a vehicle and gets pulled over by a police officer can hand over an envelope that would include their important documents like a driver's license, insurance cards or other medical information or other important documents.
This is a nonverbal way to communicate to the police officer that the driver has autism and so that when they're interacting with them, if their social cues are off or other odd behavior, it might be because they have autism. And so that may be a reason why these individuals acted differently. Yesterday in committee, we had two individuals with autism come in present and tell their stories of traffic stops they had that went off course because the police officer didn't know that they had autism. And they wish that there was a way to better communicate that.
And we also had law enforcement come and testify as well, explaining that this would help them provide their job because as they want to protect and serve us and want to make sure that they're handling the situation the right way possible. And many times some of the behaviors that they present, being autistic, in other situations not being autistic would send cues to escalate the situation. And obviously we would hate to see an escalation like this occur.
I just want to thank the Arkansas Governor's Council of Development Disabilities for supporting this bill and working with us to make it the best they could. And really, it's a pretty simple, easy bill. Six states already do this, and I would hope that we would actually be the first state in the South to pass this. And so I'm excited to be a leader in our region of the country on this.
And I think it's just a good thing. And, you know, it's funny, during my first session, Johnny Rye came up to me one day after a really hard vote and said, 'We did some good today, Pilk.' And every day down here I think did we do some good today. And we can pass this bill and we can do some good today. So with that, I ask for a good vote. Thank you.
Speaker Evans [00:20:28] Representative Pilkington has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Pilkington is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1046. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, madam clerk. With a vote of 96 yea, 0 nays, 0 present, the bill has passed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 1074.
Clerk [00:21:11] House Bill 1074 by Representative Ray to amend the Property Tax Relief Trust Fund and to require a higher vote threshold for using money in the Property Tax Relief Trust Fund for purposes other than property tax relief.
Speaker Evans [00:21:23] Representative Ray, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative David Ray [00:21:27] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, House Bill 1074 would require a three fourths vote threshold to utilize any funds from the Property Tax Relief Fund for a purpose other than property tax relief. The reason I think this would be beneficial is because there have been numerous times in the past when the legislature has gone in and essentially raided funds that were intended for property tax relief and use them to spend on other projects. I don't think that was the intent of the voters in 1999 when they approved Amendment 79 to our state constitution.
I think that the property Tax Relief Trust fund ought to be used for property tax relief. So having a three fourths threshold would provide some meaningful protection for the trust fund. That's the same threshold that we have for appropriations. And so it would still be possible to move money in the event that there were an emergency of some sort. But I think this sends a very strong pro taxpayer message that going forward, this body intends to respect the purposes for which this fund was created. And I'd be happy to attempt to answer any questions. Seeing none, would appreciate a good vote.
Speaker Evans [00:22:41] Representative Ray has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Rye, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Representative Johnny Rye [00:23:02] Representative Ray is exactly right. This all started in the year 2000. And it started out being $300. Now it's $500. But along the way, in 2002, 25 million was taken out of that fund and there was another extraction a little later down the line. Just like Representative Ray was saying, this is meant exclusively for property tax relief. And I appreciate a good vote on this.
Speaker Evans [00:23:32] Representative Rye has spoken for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Ray, do you wish to close for your bill? Representative Ray is closed with the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1074. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? HHas everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. With a vote of 96 yea, 0 nay and 0 present, the bill has passed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 1204.
Clerk [00:24:17] House Bill 1204 by Representative Eubanks to establish recovery of damages for necessary medical care treatment or services rendered.
Speaker Evans [00:24:25] Representative Eubanks, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:24:36] Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Members, when I filed this bill, I don't think I thought it through well. I find it interesting that the optometry students are here today because I ran something almost as high profile and controversial a few years ago for them as what this has turned out to be. That was certainly not my intent, but I got a feeling that it's a good thing this is my last term because I doubt if there would ever be a group of attorneys sitting in the gallery as my guest.
But anyway, members, House Bill 1204 is something that garnered a lot of attention, obviously. It's something that I have cared about for a number of years. And as I said in committee, it was something that I felt strongly about even prior to getting elected. This act, of course, addresses tort. And what it does is it establishes the recovery of damages for necessary medical care, treatment or services rendered. And I was asked to insert the word 'past' when, with regard to the medical services, whatever treatment or care that a plaintiff, an injured party may receive, and I did that.
So it only addresses the past necessary medical treatment, care or medical services and the recovery, the damages received includes only those costs actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or that remain unpaid, and for which the plaintiff or any third party is legally responsible. The bill makes clear that in a personal injury case, the plaintiff's recovery is for what was actually accepted as full and final payment. Now, we all know that when we go to a doctor at a hospital, we've all received bills. And we've received that bill and they agree to accept as full payment, in many cases, what was agreed upon with their insurance company, Medicare, Medicaid.
And so the purpose of this bill is to limit those damages to that amount, not the billed amount, but the amount that was actually agreed upon as full and final payment. Nevertheless, Arkansas courts allow the plaintiff to recover the billed amount even though something less was accepted, and hence where the term phantom comes from. Because the difference between what was accepted as full and final payment and what the billed amount is. It doesn't impact other categories of damages.
And I would contend that if we feel like somebody is not receiving what they are due because of an injury, that's where that those amounts should be, whether it's for future medical cost, whether it has to do with lost wages past and future property damage, noneconomic damages, including past and future pain and suffering and all that is entailed in that. It does nothing to affect the plaintiff's ability to recover amounts paid for medical from collateral sources. So if a health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid or something was to pay that bill, the individual would still be able to keep that portion of the claim.
Now, I know there were some things that came up in committee yesterday. And I guess there are some circumstances where that is not the case because of a term that I've become familiar with over the last few weeks and that Representative Hudson brought to my attention was subrogation. Apparently, for the most part in Arkansas, that doesn't normally happen with regard to the insurance companies, but that is something that does happen on the federal side of that. And I'm not going to deny that. I'm not trying to hide anything here. I'm not going to suggest that insured or and non insured people are completely treated the same. All I know is even if you don't have insurance, your medical is paid.
You know, there's a number of states that have adopted this. This bill is based on the Texas law and the Texas Supreme Court-- of course, I know we're in Arkansas-- but the Texas Supreme Court says the collateral source rule continues to apply to such expenses and the jury should not be told that they will be covered in whole or in part by insurance, nor should the jury be told that the health care provider had just to discharge just because of insurance. You know, over half the states have adopted something similar to this. Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri are three states that we border that have something very similar.
I can show you a list of all the states that have something very similar. So I guess I'm just asking that we try to take a small step and trying to contain the cost that I believe not only business has to accept, but that it also affects all of us in one sense or another. So I'm just asking that we take a common sense approach and just accept what the full and accepted amount of the medical bills were and that be the recovery with regard to these compensatory damages. And with that, I will attempt to answer any questions.
Speaker Evans [00:31:39] Representative Garner, For what purpose?
Representative Denise Garner [00:31:41] Question.
Speaker Evans [00:31:41] You're recognized.
Representative Denise Garner [00:31:44] I just want a little bit of clarification. And just watching it seems like if I pay my insurance forever and get hit by someone else who doesn't pay insurance, then my damages are less than that person who's uninsured. Is that correct?
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:32:04] I heard that discussed yesterday. But I think if you are receiving the settlement for what the medical bills were and you received also, and your insurance paid the bill, you are, in essence, receiving additional recovery, are you not?
Representative Denise Garner [00:32:24] No, not the way the bill is written. It looks like the folks that don't have insurance are being paid more with a multiplier higher than those without insurance. So what happens is the person that's insured and has done the right thing gets penalized. And so the only people that are really benefiting are the insurance companies who are housed outside ofArkansas. And then the Arkansans who have been paying insurance are the ones that are hurt by that. Wouldn't you agree?
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:32:55] No, I think we'll have to disagree on that one, actually. Appreciate a good vote.
Speaker Evans [00:33:04] Representative Eubanks has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Hudson, You're recognized to speak against the bill.
Representative Ashley Hudson [00:33:23] Gosh, I've never been called out from the well before. I wanted to clarify a few things. I have practiced law here in the state of Arkansas for the past 18 years. I've worked for and against insurance companies. And so I want to clear up a few things about how this works. So I used an example yesterday in committee of three people all involved in the same accident with the same exact injuries.
One of those people has a Cadillac plan, really great insurance. One of them is uninsured and one of them has catastrophic injury insurance. The total cost, the total billed cost of each of their injuries is $10,000. Well, the person with no insurance is going to get to recoup the full $10,000. The person who has paid premiums for years and years and years, done the right thing, kept track of their insurance, is going to get a reduced amount, maybe $2,000 in recoupment on their medical bills. The person who has an okay plan, but not a great one, may get five.
Now, here's where that becomes a problem. And this is something that we can't legislate away because it is an industry custom within the insurance industry. The way insurance adjusters decide what your soft damages that is, the damages for things like pain and suffering, any sort of long term issues you may have as a result of the accident, those soft damages that are property damage or hospital bills, the way they typically decide how to award those is to use what they call a multiplier.
And what they do is they take the amount of your medical damages and they multiply it by something between 1.5 to 3%. So going back to our three people who were injured in an accident, if I have no insurance and I have $10,000 in damages, then my multiplier, if they multiply by three, gives me $30,000. If I have really good insurance and I have only $2,000 that I actually pay, my multiplier only gives me $2,000. If I'm the middle person, then I get $15,000.
So you see where this creates a situation in which two things happen every single time. One, the person who is uninsured gets a much higher level of recompense or of compensation as a result of their damages because of the fact that the multiplier is always used in these situations too. We are giving a benefit to the tortfeasor, that is the person who committed, caused the accident or committed the crime that led to the injury because that person's insurance is going to pay less if the person that they happen to injure has insurance. So there is a benefit that goes directly to the tortfeasor and to their insurance company.
The other thing that you all need to remember is that this doesn't just apply to car accidents. The way this bill is written, it applies to any sort of tort, which means that it applies to situations in which someone files a civil case because they were sexually assaulted, for example, because they were trafficked, because they were beaten up, or because there was some other issue other than just a car accident. So this applies across the board to any sort of tort case.
Now, the other thing that we heard a lot yesterday in committee was that this is about fairness. One thing that y'all may not know if you haven't had to go to court because of an injury or because you were involved in an accident is that we don't tell the jury who has insurance. So that means that the jury is not given the information that an insurer is paying these bills. So when we talk about fairness, on the one hand, the responsible plaintiff is being penalized because they carried insurance and they were able to care for their injuries.
And on the other, the defendant, the Tortfeasor, who has insurance, isn't required to disclose that an insurance company is paying these bills. So we're talking about what is already a little bit of an uneven playing field. But what becomes even more uneven and more complicated by creating the system in which we have multiple classes of plaintiffs who may be out there and recovering on damages. And really, at the end of the day, I don't think that Arkansas wants to be in a situation in which we are penalizing people for maintaining their own health insurance and doing what they should.
One last thing about the comparators in other states. We all know that the issues of tort reform have been going on for a number of years. And this is, I know, kind of being referred to as tort reform lite. And one of the things that has been put out as a reason to move forward with these types of bills is that it will somehow reduce insurance costs for Arkansans. In Texas, since they passed tort reform, their insurance costs have risen 69%. Prior to tort reform in Texas, their insurance costs were rising at about little bit less than a percent per year. That has gone up to 1.6 or 1.7% per year. Since then, insurance costs have also risen in Missouri and in Oklahoma and in Mississippi and in other states.
So we can certainly discuss whether there's causation or correlation, but we can certainly also agree that we can't say that doing this is going to give any sort of intrinsic benefit to Arkansans. It will not reduce their costs. It will create a situation in which Arkansans are treated differently and in particular, Arkansans who carry good insurance. And it will be a benefit for bad actors because they won't be required to be responsible for the type of damages that perhaps they ought to be. Some of that is out of our control.
We have to acknowledge that the way the insurance industry operates is using these medical damages as a way to determine the rest of those soft damages. We can't legislate that away. That is an industry standard. Those decisions are being made at all of those insurance companies outside of the state of Arkansas who are employing adjusters outside of the state of Arkansas to make decisions that affect Arkansans. So that's why I'm a no on this.
Speaker Evans [00:40:12] Representative Hudson has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Brown, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Representative Matt Brown [00:40:28] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've had a lot of colleagues come and ask me about this bill and get my thoughts on it and kind of get rid of all the attorney talk and tell them what it's really doing. And one thing I think that's important that we all realize is that under the law, you're entitled to be made whole. That's a concept that goes back to little old England, way back, came over on the Mayflower.
And the idea is that if you're injured, if you are hurt, if you have property damage, you are entitled be made whole. You're not entitled to profit from it, but you're entitled to be put in the position you were in before it happened. Now, when we talk about personal injury, we've got all these different pieces that we're talking about. We have the medical bills. We have maybe lost wages. We have pain and suffering. We have disfigurement. If let's say you lost a finger, had scarring, all these different things.
And the issue is that there's no way to put a dollar amount on things like, how much is your pain and suffering worth? My wife can tell you that if it's me, it's probably worth $1 million because I whine a bunch. But how much is a finger worth? And I know that worker's comp has some ideas, but how do you figure that out? Well, you do it with a jury trial. You figure out how much is memaw's pain and suffering worth because she had whiplash from getting rear-ended. So
Representative Hudson talked about the multiplier. I want to make it clear to people, cause I've had some people ask me this question. There is nothing legal in the law or anything about the multiplier. That's just a little rule of thumb that personal injury attorneys in the insurance industry have come up with over the years. Back when I did Insurance Defense, I think the rule of thumb was usually about two and a half times was the most you could expect on a claim. It was just an easy way to value claims to determine are we going to fight this or not?
And usually what that was is you take how much were there medical expenses, multiply it by two and a half times, and that's probably the absolute upper end you could expect on an out-of-court settlement for a car wreck. Now, if you had some sort of extenuating factor, like let's say a semi-truck, maybe worth a bit more money because they got more money. Or if it was a kid that got hurt or someone got seriously hurt. Well, those cases are worth a lot more money. You take those to court and that's where you get your million dollar paydays for pain and suffering, future economic damages, things of that nature.
But getting back to the medical bills, that's just one of many components of a personal injury claim. And on medical bills, I think everyone in this room, whether you're on one side or other side of this argument, would agree with me that hospital billing is a completely made up number. I would compare it to the MSRP on a truck before Covid. I'll give you that, before Covid. You go to Gwartney Chevrolet, I want to go buy that Silverado. It's got MSRP on the sticker. It's fantasy numbers because that truck is not going be sold for that number. It's going to be sold for a number less than that.
The out the door price– or I think even a better analogy, I'm going to harp on my wife, I hope she's not watching this. You go to Kohl's or you go to JCPenney and you buy you a shirt. It's got a little tag attached that shirt. And it says suggested retail price $199. And then it'll have a little yellow sticker where they mark it down to 29.99. And then, of course, you know, with JC Penney's, they're doing the sale the century every day. And they're 20% off because this is a day that ends in Y sale, and the number is somewhat less.
That's what you actually pay for it. Well, if I take that shirt back because it doesn't fit me because I ate a little too much ice cream-- which the ice cream machine is missing, by the way. I don't know if you saw that. I take that shirt back, do I get reimbursed how much I paid for it or do I get reimbursed how much that sticker was? Everybody in this room knows the answer. It's how much I paid for it.
Let's go back to medical damages. You go to the hospital. You're injured. You get a bill for $100,000. We all know that that number that actually paid is somewhat less. It may depend on your exact insurance what they've done, but it's going to be lesser if you're self-pay. Which is another example. When my oldest daughter was born, I got a bill in the mail about three weeks after she was born. It said pay $3,600. So luckily I was in a position, I wrote the check and sent it off. And then later I figured out, wait a second, they didn't run her on my insurance. What the heck? So I called them up, they're like, we're sorry, Mr. Brown, We missed it. Ran our insurance. I got a refund for $200 bucks. So having all that maternity coverage will only save you $200 on a birth.
But regardless whether it's the insurance discount or self-pay discount, what the hospital's willing to take is somewhat less. So what does this bill do? This bill simply says if you go into court and you say, you have hurt me medically, I had to go to the doctor because of what you-- Scott Richarddon punched me in the nose because I told a stupid joke and I went to the doctor. I get a bill for $2,500. After they do all their rigamarole, it comes down to $500.
If I sue Scott Richardson in court, I can talk about the $2,500 bill all day long. I can argue to the jury it was a $2,500 bill and I want punitives based on that. I want $1 million punitive and $50,000 pain and suffering because I was so tore up after he punched me in the nose. I was catatonic for a week. But when it comes to the medical bill, all I'm entitled to is to be made whole on the medical piece. And what was I out of pocket? $500. And that's all I'm entitled to.
And that's all this bill does is simply says, regardless of what the made up number was, when it comes to your medical bill piece, you're only entitled to be reimbursed what you how you actually spent or what your insurance company spent on your behalf. You're not entitled to make profit on the medical bill piece. You don't get a check for 30 grand because your insurance company negotiate down to 70,000 or because the self-pay discount was 70,000. That's all this bill does.
Another point I'd like to point out is that there's been a lot of talk about, this treats different tortfeasors differently. If someone hits you without insurance that you get $100,000. Or let's say you don't have insurance, I'm sorry. Your medical bills are $100,000, and for whatever reason, there's no self-pay discount. But if you have insurance, your medical bills are only 70. So you're getting hosed to the tune of $30,000.
But one thing that was never mentioned in committee yesterday that I just now realized, not ten minutes ago. No one ever brought up medical liens. We have law on the books, has been for years, that when you go to the doctor or the hospital or the ambulance or whoever picks you up and someone else is the fault of your injury, that hospital, that doctor, that provider has a right by law to assert a medical lien on your cause of action. Which means that if I didn't go to court and I sue Scott for $100,000 and they've put a lien on my recovery, they are getting the money, not me. It's going to pay that medical bill.
And that's, I think, a very important thing. So this idea of we got all these people without insurance that are somehow profiting off this, it's not true. Because regardless of what the bill is, if you go into court and sue for it, you owe that bill. You're entitled to be reimbursed for that bill. You're not entitled to profit on the bill. And I know there's been a lot of talk about this, but I think that's important to get straight. And I'd ask you all for a good vote.
Speaker Evans [00:47:02] Representative Brown has spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Gazaway, you are recognized to speak against the bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway [00:47:24] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I guess first, let me begin by saying I hate to speak against another member's bill. You will rarely see me down here this session speaking against another member's bill. But in this instance, I kind of feel compelled to do that. There's been a lot of discussion about this. And, you know, we can get into a lot of legalese about it if you want to. I don't think any of you want to hear that. We don't have to get deep in the weeds about it.
I want to talk about what this bill actually does, what the practical effect of this bill is going to be. And so let me tell you this. The practical effect of this bill is if you're an insurance company, it's great for you. You love this bill. Why? Because they're going to make a lot more money when this bill passes. If you're a person who's been injured through no fault of your own, who's trying to get paid. I'm talking about our constituents, the people we represent. You're somebody who's been human trafficked.
Remember, we passed a bill to give people who've been human trafficked a cause of action if they have medical bills. We're talking about somebody who's been the victim of sexual abuse. We've given those people, victims of sexual abuse, a civil cause of action against the people who have sexually abused them as children or a rapist as an adult. If you sue them and you've got medical bills, this bill is terrible for you because it means you're going to get less under this law than you would get if we keep the law in place that we have in effect. That's the practical effect of this. We can talk about subrogation. We can talk about liens. We can talk about the constitutionality. We can talk about the made whole doctrine. We can talk about anything you want to talk about in terms of the legalities of it.
I'm going to talk about what it means where the rubber hits the road. And it means less for your constituents and it means more for the insurance companies, more for the special interests, more for the wealthy, business interests, all the people that hire lobbyists who spend millions of dollars trying to influence your decision on this. It's great for them. It's terrible for your constituents. And for that reason, I'm voting no. I would ask you to vote no.
I'll also say one of the the only justifications I've really heard that really makes a lot of sense in support of this bill or makes any sense really in support of this bill is that it may lower insurance rates. Want to make this clear. It was said yesterday in the committee, you can go back and watch it, there is no guarantee if we pass this bill, it's going to lower insurance rates. In fact, in many states that have passed bills similar to this, guess what? The rates didn't go down. They went up. No guarantee it's going to do that.
Then the other justification I've heard that might make a little bit of sense is that this will help the economy in the macro, the overall the economy. And maybe that's true. But I'll tell you this. There's a lot more that we can do in this chamber to help the economy. We all know what those things are. We can continue to lower taxes. We can continue to make Arkansas a better place for people to come visit. We're the number one state in the nation for inbound migration. We act as if that the state of the economy is so bad, the state of market like we're doing so bad that we must pass this bill in order to have any economic development.
Well go back and look at the statistics. Go back and listen to the governor's State of the State address and how great we were doing when we all stood up and applauded for that. We're doing really well without this bill. We don't need this bill. A lot of things we can do to help, but it ain't this. So with that, again, if you're comparing who this benefits, we know who it benefits. All the people who want it, the wealthy corporations, the special interests, the business community. And it hurts your constituents at the end of the day. I'd ask you to vote no.
Speaker Evans [00:51:45] Thank you. Representative Gazaway has spoken against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Underwood, You're recognized to speak for the bill.
Representative Kendon Underwood [00:52:02] Well, I'll keep it short. I think we've had some really smart people down here making some good points. I totally agree with Representative Brown. I'll just say, you know, I think the point of this bill really is to reach what the point of civil litigation is, which is to compensate the injured party and not to give them a windfall. And all this bill is doing is it's actually covering the actual costs that was incurred.
This was brought up in committee and it's probably been brought up a couple of times today about kind of the benefit for Arkansans. Well, I think generally when there's a climate of heavy litigation that involves high costs, that does impact the pocketbooks of Americans, Arkansans. It impacts doing business as a small business owner and impacts whether you hire new employees or give them a raise or pay a bonus. It impacts the costs of goods and services.
And in fact, I was on a call earlier this week with a rideshare company, and they told me that in some states, 20 to 30% of a fare goes directly to the insurance cost just because of how they're targeted with litigation. So to be clear, I think this is a common sense bill. I don't think civil litigation should be a lottery. It should be about justice and putting somebody back in the position they were in, not paying them for damages that doesn't exist and were never paid. And I appreciate a good vote.
Speaker Evans [00:53:36] Representative Underwood has spoken for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Eubanks, do you wish to close for your bill?
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:53:57] Members, it was a little hard to hear what everybody was saying over there. I heard Representative Hudson referenced the multiplier and I believe Representative Shepherd brought up in committee that there's nothing in rule or statue that requires that a multiplier be used. I would suggest that the attorney should make the case to the jury and they can award that the necessary damages based off of the testimony they receive
With regard to the insurance premiums, yeah, there's no guarantee insurance premiums are going to go down. They may not rise as fast as what they have been. You know, we've been working on school insurance. Two years ago, all of a sudden, the schools got hit with 140% increase. It didn't have anything to do with this. It's just things happen that drive cost up. Representative Gazaway suggested that this only benefits the large corporations and the insurance companies.
I've got information from the National Federation of Independent Businesses that says this is a bigger burden on small businesses than it is on the large businesses. I said in committee yesterday that I'm not connected with any, because of my profession or business interests or investments, with anybody that is going to directly benefit from this. And I think we probably have people in this room that will directly benefit one way or the other, depending on how this bill goes. I'm not one of them. I think it's going to benefit average Arkansans. You know, again, figures from NFIB, they estimate that the cost to the average household in this state is $2,900 and change. That's a significant amount of money.
I'm also not suggesting that if we pass this bill, it's not going to go to 0. But tort costs are rising in this country and the state faster than inflation. Arkansas has one of the highest infant mortality rates and in the country. Based off the conversation I've had with the hospital association and doctors, in large part that's due to the high cost of malpractice insurance to the point that it's limiting access of our citizens to medical care. Could this possibly help with that? I think it could.
How else is it affecting average Arkansans? If we can do something, whether it's incremental or what, to help improve the business climate in this state and attract more business then we will have more investment and the state will have more jobs in this state. And we've done a lot of things. It was brought up. Yeah. Limiting regulation, Cutting income tax. Yeah. We're doing things to make Arkansas attractive to business to locate here. I believe this is another step in that direction.
The organizations supporting this bill are the Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel. I think they're attorneys. Arkansas Farm Bureau. Arkansas Health Care Association. Arkansas Hospital Association. Arkansas Medical Society. Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce. Arkansas Trucking Association. National Federation of Independent Business and the Poultry Federation. Are some of those groups, individuals or groups that Representative Gazaway referenced? Yes.
But at the same time, we benefit from the work that they do in this state. Farm Bureau is an insurance company, but they also represent a lot of farmers in this state. So I believe it is worthwhile to pass this bill and then make an attempt to get a handle on the rise of these costs and the burden that it puts on our state and our citizens. And with that, I appreciate a good vote.
Speaker Evans [00:58:57] Representative Eubanks has closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1204. Members, We have a pair on the desk. Representative Hope Duke votes yes. Representative Ashley Hudson votes no. This pair was witnessed by Representative Steve Hollowell. Representative Hudson is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Seeing none, please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Madam Clerk, prepare the machine. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. With a vote of 71 yeas, 18 nays and five present, the bill has passed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 1214.
Clerk [01:00:00] House Bill 1214 by Representative Bentley to amend the definition of primary instruction within the long term care Aid Training Act.
Speaker Evans [01:00:10] Representative Bentley, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Mary Bentley [01:00:23] Colleagues, a much simpler bill for us to discuss today. Across our state, we have some people, some very important people, certified nursing assistants that take care of the most vulnerable folks in our place, our parents and our grandparents that are in nursing homes. It's very important that those people are trained correctly. I was honored as my first job out of nursing school to be a director of nursing at a nursing home. And so it was very dear to me to make sure that we train these people correctly.
So in that theory, I had passed a bill a couple of years back to make sure that we had instructors that teach these women correctly, because if they don't train them correctly then we're not going to have good seniors out there. So I may have been a little restrictive with my bill. I required that the nursing instructors in the past five years have had a years experience at a long term health care facility to make sure that they were up to date on the protocols and taking care of our senior citizens the way they should have.
And in doing so, with our shortage of nursing instructors and our shortage of nursing, we've had a problem getting enough nursing instructors for our seniors. So this bill takes that down to ten years. So in the past ten years, our nursing instructors must have had a years experience with lon. Term health care. And a replacement of that rule requiring an eight hour continuing education online that they can do through the American Health Association.
So very simple Bill, just makes it easier for us to get some good nursing instructors, but continue to make good instructors out there to make sure that our parents and our grandparents are well taken care of at the nursing home. So with that, I'll take any questions anybody might have on this bill today. Seeing no questions, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Speaker Evans [01:01:48] Representative Bentley has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Bentley, do you wish to close for your bill? Representative Bentley is closed for the bill. Question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1214. Prepare the machine Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, madam clerk. By a vote of 96 yeas, 0 nays and 0 present, the bill has passed. [Announcements]
