ALC Insurance: Aug. 13, 2025

Representative Robin Lundstrum Okay folks, let’s go ahead and get started. Mr. Wallace, if you and whoever else needs to come up front, let’s go ahead and do that. 

Grant Wallace Grant Wallace, Employee Benefits Division and Office of Property Risk Director. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Let’s start at number one. If everybody could get to their packets. This is the EBD pharmacy formulary recommendations for June. 

Grant Wallace Would you like to go through the pharmacy all three months at once or one month at a time? 

Representative Robin Lundstrum I think let’s start just at the beginning and go one at a time. I think there may be a couple of questions from members. If not, we’ll move right through that. Let’s make sure everybody’s got the right information in front of them. Starting with July. 

Drug coverage changes

Grant Wallace Correct. So, well, this would be under B1. The top of it would say June 2025 EBD pharmacy formulary recommendations. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right, all right. Exhibit B1. All right, go ahead and start. 

Grant Wallace Okay, the first medication that we’re looking at, the Alyftrek tablets, this is replacing Trikafta with a better compliant medication. The next. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Mr. Wallace, you don’t have to go through every single one, but I do think there are members that have questions. 

Grant Wallace The next eight are generics that are being swapped out or name brands that are being swapped out for generics. The ones after that, there are just some quantity limit adjustments. We’re removing age restrictions. There are some multivitamins that are moving over the counter. And that would be for June. I’d be glad to answer any questions. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Members, do you have any questions? Senator Hickey, I know you’re itching to ask a question. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Not really itching, just want to make sure I understand this. So on like the first one up there, I want to be sure I understand this. So it says that the cost is $350,000 annually, $355,585 annually. But you said that that’s replacing another one. So is this an increase from what we’ve been doing once you are substituting? Or I don’t guess I understand that. 

Grant Wallace No, I wouldn’t say that the cost– there might be a slight increase, but we’re getting a better compliant medication. It’s one that’s easier for the patient to take. And so over the long run, we’re actually offsetting costs by getting a drug that is more compliant. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. So  what you’re saying here, and this is what I want to understand, you’re not saying that that’s going to annually increase our costs by $350,000? You’re just saying the cost for that medication is estimated to be $350,000? 

Grant Wallace Correct. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Whereas we were paying maybe more than that on the one you’re going to substitute or close to the same amount. 

Grant Wallace It’s close to the same amount is what I’m being told. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Alright. And then, of course, I’m not smart enough to pronounce these, but whenever you go down here to like the one that begins with a J, number one, two, three, four down. So it says EBR recommendation and we put NC. 

Grant Wallace That’s not covered. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Right. So not covered. So in other words, although we have this on there, we’re not going to cover that particular medication, and that is the recommendation that the State Board of Finance approved and that you are asking us to approve? 

Grant Wallace Correct. For that example, that is a specialty tier currently on, and we are moving it to a not covered, because the next one down is the generic that we’re wanting to replace it with. Or, sorry, maybe the one above it. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Yeah, I think the one is not covered below. It may be the one above it. But okay, that’s great. That’s what I needed to know. Thank you, sir. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any more questions? Just for clarification, so the drug that he said started with a J annually is $277,000 and we’re not covering it. But we’re replacing it with one that’s $5,000 annually? 

Grant Wallace So forgive me. On both of those, the Jynarque and tolvaptan, there is a generic released. There is a program that we’re having a little bit of concern with that launch that might be particularly difficult. So that’s why this would be one that we are going to just observe and make sure. There is an alternative already on our formulary. We’re just holding off on this one. That’s why it’s going to not covered. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right, thank you. Any other questions? Representative Wardlaw. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw Thank you, Madam Chair. So if you’re moving to a drug that actually costs more, but you’re gaining compliance, the overall cost of that patient client to the system should actually go down. Is that correct? 

Grant Wallace Correct. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Representative Tosh. 

Representative Dwight Tosh Thank you, Madam Chair. Grant, for clarification, help me to understand, how do you decide what goes into tier one and looks like tier two, tier three? What’s the criteria that y’all go by to determine which tier level those are? 

Grant Wallace So, it’s real simple. Tier one are generic, low-cost. Tier two are your name brand. Tier three would be where you have a generic available, but the name brand is available as well. So if you use the name-brand, you will have a higher copay with that. Tier four or tier S is specialty. So those are those really high-end drugs that get in that classification. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any more questions? And then we need a motion. Members, any more questions? I need a motion. Senator Boyd. All in favor. Thank you. All right, moving on to B2, drug recommendations for August. 

Grant Wallace Okay, if you look at the first two, that’s just swapping a brand for a generic. If you look at the next, those are RSV vaccines that we’re just removing the age restriction. The next three are currently the manufacturers. Those are unavailable and we already have alternatives on formulary. The Brixadi, that’s moving to a medical benefit. You’ll see that code NC3P. That means we’re just running it under the medical benefit, not the pharmacy benefit. 

If you look at the Accu-cheks, and going all the way down to the Precision Xtra Meter, the manufacturer is running into some financial difficulties and we are concerned that there’s going to be a bankruptcy and no longer being able to manufacture those particular test strips. So we are removing those from our formulary and adding on their competitor so that we still cover it. But we’re just going to make sure we don’t run into any issue with supply or anything like that. 

And then the final ones are new to market drugs that we are awaiting additional evidence on before we make a determination on what to do. Be glad to answer any questions. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Do we have any questions before we take that motion to approve for July and August? 

Grant Wallace That was just July. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum That was just July. So we still need to do August. I apologize. Let’s pull up August. Wait, if we’ve done July, we need to vote on that. All in favor? Opposed? Thank you. Now, let’s do August.

Grant Wallace Okay, on the first one, we’re removing this because we have an alternative that we already cover that can be ground up and compounded with the agent so that we’re just going to the lowest cost alternative for the plan. The next one are adding tablets because we already covered the oral solution. 

We have an RSV vaccine that we are adding. Then you have a generic hydrocortisone is cheaper and can be compounded to meet that need. The HIV, these are new to market and has demonstrated superiority to current treatments. So we’re making sure that we’re adding those on. The Yutrepia, we have a lowest net cost product already available or already on our formulary. The Vyvgart injection, we’re just adding to the pharmacy benefit. It is more accessible and cheaper for the plan. 

The Lopressor solution, this is adding for the pediatric. And you have a new oral contraceptive that we’re adding per federal guidelines. The next three are the brand product is no longer available. So we’re adding the generic over-the-counter alternative. The one after that we’re actually showing superior outcomes in the testing so we’re adding that one on to our formulary. And then the last one is a new generic of Entresto. We’re still having the brand available until we start seeing the price drop and then we’ll reevaluate at that point. Be glad to answer any questions. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right. A motion to approve for the August? So moved. Thank you, Senator Boyd. All those in favor. All those opposed. All right, thank you. Moving on. 

Grant Wallace So we have the medical drugs. And just as a reminder to everyone, the medical drugs, these are ones that are administered in a clinical setting and usually are higher cost medications. Most of these, when you see the exclusion, these are because these are new to market and we are still waiting for additional evidence on those before making a decision. The top half of the first page are biosimilar swaps for name brands. Then you can jump down to the Vimkunya– 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Mr. Wallace, I’m sorry. Let me make sure the members are on the right spot. This is on exhibit 2. B2. If you’re following along, you’re on the right spot. Exhibit B2. Thank you.

Grant Wallace There at the bottom of that first page there are two vaccines. One is a travel vaccine. And per our SBD, we do not cover travel vaccines. The next one is coming out of the national stockpile, so there is no cost. So we are going to add that. Looking at the next page at the top, the drug related to hemophilia, we’re not seeing improved outcomes, so we’re going to exclude that until we have some more evidence. 

Let’s see, you go to kind of that next grouping Zevtera and Ryzneuta, we have covered alternatives. So we going to continue to exclude those. And then the DRG, when you see DRG, those are ones we don’t want to get in the way of administering. That’s usually an emergent situation that’s covered in like an emergency room setting. So we don’t want to have any barriers to getting those drugs administered. So that’s why those are being covered. 

Forgive me, I do want to go back to the first page. Because I do want to highlight, down at the bottom, you’ll see the phrase CAR-T. I just want to kind of walk everybody through because this is kind of a new treatment. What this treatment does is it actually, you take the patient’s blood and then you mix it with these new medications and re-infuse it back into the patient. And you’re actually seeing a curing of that particular disease. So that’s why in these instances it is a last line of treatment. So there are step-throughs that they would naturally have progressed through. But we do want to add those on because we are seeing tremendous outcomes when doing that. 

Going to the next page, you will see the infusion, down the last third, three from the bottom, the infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells. It’s the same kind of concept where you’re taking the patient’s blood, you’re infusing this medication, and re-infusing it back into the patient and seeing good outcomes. 

We are excluding a gene therapy just because we don’t have enough evidence to support the outcome or not enough information to show the cost effectiveness at this point in time. And then the last one related to schizophrenia, again, we don’t want to get in the way of treating that condition. And we’re just adding an option. And the last one, we’re just waiting for more data. Be glad to answer any questions. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Representative Beaty. 

Representative Howard Beaty Thank you, madam chair. I guess my question goes in. You’ve used this phrase many times. ‘We’re’ not seeing much or ‘we are’ seeing. But I’m looking on the information provided where it’s talking about impacted members and a lot of these are zero. So when you say ‘we,’ can you tell me who we is that you’re referring to?

Grant Wallace Yes, sir. And the reason you’re seeing zero impacted members is because these are new to market drugs, so probably within the last nine months or so. When I say ‘we,’ this is a combination of Health Advantage EBD and EBRx. And we’re looking at the clinical studies that are being reported out of these new to market drugs and EBRx is also doing their own analysis and review of these medications. And that consortium is what’s making the determination and recommendations to the advisory commission and to the State Board of Finance and to you all. 

Representative Howard Beaty Okay, I just want to make certain who we was, who you’re referring to in we under those. Because I guess that’s one of the things that drew my attention is the impacted members in our system that would be impacted by these changes. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Thank you, Representative Beaty. Representative Richardson. 

Representative Jay Richardson Thank you, Madam Chair. Over here to your left, far left. 

Grant Wallace There you are, sir, sorry. 

Representative Jay Richardson So, my question, you talked about these items that are being excluded until you get more information. Give me some idea of what that time frame looks like. I mean, how long before you’ve gotten more information to make a decision on these? 

Grant Wallace We generally have these on a yearly kind of cycle. I mean, obviously, if there is new clinical data that kind of comes and really is a huge shift in the study of that particular medication, we will look at it faster. But as a default, we’re kind of on an annual.

Representative Jay Richardson Okay, that’s what I was curious about. Thank you very much. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Seeing any other questions? All right, we need a motion. All in the favor. Those opposed? All right, moving on. 

2026 Rate Schedules

Grant Wallace Okay, I think we’re moving on to the rates for FY 24. So there’s a lot to this particular packet. The things that I would highlight for you, when you look at the base rates, this really drives and is a reported number. The only time it really impacts a member in our plan is when they’re looking at the COBRA benefit and where we determine what they pay on COBRA. 

So going to the next section and kind of generally, and I’d be glad to answer any specific questions, but generally the strategy that we have taken for calendar year 2026 would be to hold the active employees in both the state and school plan level to their 2025 rates so they would not experience any increase. And the reason that we’re doing that is that we still have a lot of unknowns that we are trying to study and just make sure that we are getting the right number related to that. That is the legislative impacts. 

We are currently in the process of bidding out for our third-party administrator. The current incumbent is Health Advantage. So that contract is still out for bid. And then where the just kind of general utilization is going and making sure that we’re pegging these numbers right. 2027 was always going to be a year that we got back to zero. 

And now we’re planning for 2027 and beyond for a very transparent, predictable increase that the state and the employee would experience and share in. That would be driven by medical CPI. It would be, again, a very transparent, known number so that we can get some predictability for you all when it comes to budget and that our members also understand what is driving that. 

Retiree $6 increase

Now, moving on to the retiree. You will see that for both the state plan and the public school plan, there’s a $6 increase on the individual retiree plans for both the UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage Group PPO plan and the Health Advantage Medicare Supplemental Plan. That really was driven by what we will discuss later on in the agenda, which is the one-year renewal for UnitedHealthcare. It was a $60 increase. The state takes 90% of that. The member takes 10% of of that. So that’s where the $6 come from. And we’re keeping parity between the UnitedHealthcare plan and the Health Advantage plan. So that’s what made up the rate recommendations that are before you for calendar year 2026. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum I have a question. There may be other members that want to jump in. This is the rate schedule. It’s B3. And if you look down and you go through here, this is the state of Arkansas Employee Benefits Division. I want to make sure I’m on the right one. On page 11, it talks about increases for the retirees of 42% and 48%. Can you explain why these base charges go up so much? 

Grant Wallace So really, the base rate, again, it’s a reported number. It really doesn’t drive the number that you look at when it comes to the monthly premiums. It’s really driving the COBRA. So a lot of that is just going to be, and forgive me, I don’t know the full calculation on the base-rate because it is a number that we just report out. 

So I think you would look at probably utilization that factors into that. You would look at just natural inflationary numbers that factor into that. And you would just see kind of contract rate, like the UnitedHealthcare, for example, it going up $60 is directly related to that increase. And forgive me, let me look at that because I think that if you look at the dollar amount, that is exactly, the $60 is what’s driving that 40% increase. So it is the contract rate. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum That just seems like a– I know 60 bucks doesn’t sound like a whole lot. But when you see rate increases, like on page 11, at 42%, 22, 42. It just seems we ought to go up a small amount each year to capture the cost. But big jumps, that just seems like a wild– I just want to make sure I understand what we’re doing. 

Grant Wallace The best way that I can answer that is that it is directly related to the United Healthcare annual renewal of the increase of $60. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any other questions? Representative Achor. 

Representative  Brandon Achor Right over here, Mr. Wallace. Thank you for sharing. I appreciate this information. As far as UnitedHealthcare being the main driver for that cost increase, I know that a few years ago there was a decision made to offload those members from teacher retirement on EBD’s plan onto that kind of hybrid plan.

 As UnitedHealthcare seems to be the driver of that cost increase, are we doing any sort of cost analysis to find out where that breakeven point is to where those members should actually be? Would it be more cost effective to be on the state plan as opposed to– because if we’re holding our rates at zero, but their rates are beholden to UnitedHealthcare’s decisions, where’s that fine line of the benefit of that new hybrid plan isn’t in the best interest of the member? 

Grant Wallace So again, we’re only talking about the retiree plan. So this does not correlate to the active plans. Just looking at the retirees, you will see, and you can flip to page– I’ve got mine all messed up. Probably the next page should have the Health Advantage rates. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum When you find it, give a page number so everybody can be on the same page. 

Grant Wallace So staying on page 11, if you look at the tab above where you’ll see the primary EBD plan, you’ll see that the base rate is still higher because that primary plan would be the Health Advantage plan and it is still higher than the UnitedHealthcare MAPD plan. So it is more cost effective to move and have our retirees utilizing a Medicare Advantage Group plan as opposed to keeping them on a traditional Medicare Supplemental plan. 

Representative  Brandon Achor Thank you. And just follow up, I do remember there was some confusion with members as they were trying to make that decision. And they were concerned if they chose to go with the Medicare Advantage plan that they wouldn’t have the option to go back into traditional state employee plan. And I just want to make sure that we’re monitoring where that benefit to the member, if UnitedHealthcare has some sort of unilateral authority to cause these rate increases, that’s beyond the power of this body. 

Grant Wallace Thank you for asking that. Because one of the early things I did when I came on as director is actually reverse that and got away with the opt out decision. Now they have a true open enrollment experience every November. And I encourage every retiree that I talk to, definitely talk with your family, talk with providers, study the options and then every November you have the ability to choose which plan best suits your needs and your medical issues that you’re confronting. So we do have that open choice every year that they can make. 

Representative  Brandon Achor Every open enrollment they could revert back to traditional? 

Grant Wallace Mm hmm. And they can go between the plans to whatever best suits their needs. 

Representative  Brandon Achor Perfect, thank you. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any other questions? Senator Hickey. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. I think you usually tell us that percentage. Have you checked those percentages to see where we’re at?

Grant Wallace Yeah, they’re holding steady. We have not seen a huge swing one way or the other. So just giving rough, because I don’t have it in front of me, you’re kind of upper 50s, maybe hitting that low 60 number on the state side. And you’re probably low to mid 50s uptake on the PSC side. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Okay. Thank you, Greg. 

Grant Wallace Representative Wardlaw. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw Thank you. The targets still hit 60%, right? 

Grant Wallace Actually, they’re looking more, if I remember the conversations with Segal, it was probably like 70, 80%. So we are behind kind of the target that originally was thrown out there. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any other questions? All right, let’s go ahead and vote on that being reviewed. And then let’s look at– no, wait a second. Approved? A motion? Representative Ladyman, thank you. All in favor? Opposed? Let’s look at the EBD contracts. That is B4. A, B, and C. They’re one pagers in your packet. Let’s start with Care Connect. 

Cobra benefits contract

Grant Wallace The Connect Your Care, this is a special procurement to retain our current FSA HSA cafeteria Cobra benefits through the end of this calendar year. We are in the final phases of awarding that RFP for starting in January. We just need this. It had a weird original end term date in August. We need to get us through the end of this calendar year so that no services are disrupted for our members. And that’s for $75,000. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any questions? Senator Hickey. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Did they stick with the current rate that they’ve been doing for the basically five or six months here? 

Grant Wallace Right. This is just making sure that we have the money to do that. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. If the contract had been all the way out through this calendar year, the 75,000 is what it would have cost? 

Grant Wallace Yes, sir. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Approximately. All right. Thank you, sir. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Thank you, Senator Hickey. I need a motion to review. I’m sorry, Representative Wardlaw. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw Special request, madam chair. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Please. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw I just got a question for Mr. Wallace while he is that the table, if you don’t mind, before we make this vote. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw So going back to your earlier statement about PSC and not having enough money to fund that, can you walk me through this last session and what was actually the increase through the Adequacy? Was it 4% plus the 4 like it should have been because we didn’t put anything last time? Or did we catch that back up? Or where are we at? I want to have it in my head going into the fiscal session. 

Grant Wallace Right. So, looking at the number, they had originally pegged at $300. So going back in history a little bit, it was supposed to be 300. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw That’s right. 

Grant Wallace So what was done during this session was– it was supposed to start this past July was 312. So that would have been– 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw That would have been the 300 plus the 4 percent. 

Grant Wallace So what is scheduled to go in next July is 322, if I’m remembering right. There may be some change in there. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw Can you get the committee a pro forma showing what it’s going to look like? What it looks like this year with the 312 and what it will look like next year with the 320 and change so that we have an idea of where those gaps are? 

Because there’s members in here that are on Education and they need to understand that when they’re having these Adequacy discussions, that’s where that gap is filled. It’s not filled anywhere else except right there. I think it’s important that they know where we’re going and how it’s going to get there from looking at those pro formas. 

Grant Wallace And thank you for asking that. Because part of the deficit that we’re working with right now was related to the cut from the 300 down to 234. And we’re still trying to catch that up. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw And that was from two years ago. 

Grant Wallace Yes, sir. 

Representative Jeff Wardlaw OK, thank you, madam chair. Sorry to hold up and sorry to rehash stuff. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum We need to do that every time. If you could make that available at the next meeting so it’s fresh on our minds. It’s from this last meeting. We’ll put it on the agenda for next meeting. Is that possible? 

Grant Wallace Yes ma’am. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Okay. Any other questions? Okay, we need a motion to review. Thank you, Senator Hickey. And I guess I need to ask. I need to have a second. Sorry. Thank you. All those in favor. Opposed. All right. Motion passes. All right. We need to look at exhibit B4. 

HMO Partners contract

Grant Wallace This is for HMO Partners. This is the Health Advantage relationship. This is our third party administration bundled services. This is a special procurement to get us through the end of calendar year 2026. 

A little bit of background in why we’re needing the special is that during the RFP process, we’re needing some additional time to complete that. And we don’t want to rush any kind of implementation or decision, so we are looking to go through one more plan year, 2026, with our current incumbent and then giving us time to complete the RFP process. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Okay, we’re talking about $86 million here? 

Grant Wallace 86 million. This is the natural kind of increase that you would expect on this contract for the next plan year. But this would be, if you were to continue the current relationship with the natural increase that comes every year renewal, this is what that amount is. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Okay. But it says the term is 8/20-25. So it will be a year and four months? 

Grant Wallace Right. Because this was one of those, like the Connect Your Care, that had just a weird August term date. And we’re getting it to a December term date. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum So we’re not spending any more money than is already allocated? 

Grant Wallace Correct. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right, thank you. Questions? Representative Beaty. 

Representative Howard Beaty Can you explain to the committee what the hold up or what was the reservation with getting this completed in time so that we did not need the special? 

Grant Wallace So we have issued out an RFP and not got the competitive responses that we would like to. And with the Arkansas Forward Initiative, we’re working with that team to look at a different strategy and a different approach to these services and the RFP to make sure that we’re getting the best rate and competitive bids for these particular services for the state. 

Representative Howard Beaty So did I just hear you say the reason you did that is so that next time when this contract’s renewed it should be below this $86 million we’re looking at now? 

Grant Wallace I would not promise that because medical costs don’t go down. But I’m hoping that we are able to get, if we don’t see a reduced contract rate, we are able to see more improved services or a wider menu of options that are available to the state and our members. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum How many people does this serve for 86 million? 

Grant Wallace Approximately 160,000 lives minus the UnitedHealthcare plan. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right, any other questions? Thank you. Senator Hickey. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Just so we put it out there. You said that it appeared like, I guess, historically the increase was where it needed to be. Do you know what that percentage was? 

Grant Wallace 3.5 percent. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. And that’s what we’ve seen over the last five years, something like that? Okay, thank you. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right, members, you know the drill, I need a motion to review. Senator Hickey. Motion to approve. Thank you. And a second. Thank you, Representative Ladyman. All in favor? All opposed? All right, motion passes. All right. Let’s take a look at the next one, B4c. 

UnitedHealthcare renewal & future bid discussion

Grant Wallace Okay, this is the UnitedHealthcare one year renewal. This is the normal life cycle for this relationship. We’re in the one year renewal phase and this is not adding any additional money. The overall appropriation of $347 million dollars will cover that $60 increase. So we’ve got the money we need. This isn’t adding any additional money. We’re just extending one year. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any questions? I have a request from the chair. It is my understanding that the rates by UnitedHealthcare are locked in through 2026 and the rates can be expected to increase after that. Due to how lengthy these procurement processes take, we want to encourage EBD to make preparations to put the MAPD contract out for bid this year so we have time to look at it. 

Grant Wallace Will do. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right, thank you. Any other questions, concerns? All right, we have a motion to review. Representative Ladyman, a second. Yes, please do. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. So, if I heard you right, you said just to put it out. Are we expecting to get it back by a certain time? Do we need to discuss that?

Representative Robin Lundstrum I think that’s a goal. We need to look at that contract ahead of time and not be just a month and then the next month vote on it. I think it needs time to be reviewed. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Okay, so we’re expecting it to be here maybe 60, 90 days ahead of time or what? Just so that we know. I don’t know what’s realistic, but if we’re going to make a recommendation like that, I’d just kind of like to know what our true goal may be. 

Grant Wallace So to kind of help level set some expectations, I would want to work with procurement and really review the draft that was written last time for this, work with kind of our actuaries and see if we need to make improvements on that. 

There’s been a lot of improvement in this space since this was last bid out. I think you have a lot more competition within this market. So I want to make sure that we’re taking advantage of the latest setups. So I would say a healthy goal to have an RFP draft out to look, if we want to do that, probably would be in that 90-day range. 

Ideally, we’ll try to do better. But I think a realistic goal would be if we can have about three months to really get this drafting, make sure we’re sharpening the pencil right, and they were headed in the right direction for you all to look at. 

Senator Jimmy Hickey Jr. Okay, that’s great. Thank you, sir. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Thank you. I think it’ll help to review that UnitedHealthcare contract early. All right. Back to the vote. Do we have a motion to review? I believe we need a second. It was Representative Garner, I believe. All right, all in favor? Any opposed? All right. Thank you, motion passes. All right. We’re on Captive insurance next. This is your exhibit B5a. 

Captive Insurance Plan

U of A Athletics

Grant Wallace So shifting hats, now we’re into property insurance. You have all previously reviewed kind of the premium and deductible structure for K through 12 state agencies and higher education. The University of Arkansas Athletics Program was not included in that packet because we were still doing continued negotiations and review with them. 

What you will see before you, and I will apologize that the spreadsheet was presented in this way, but it was the best that we could do in preparation. The main things that I would like for everybody to focus on and what we will need approval for is the proposed 25-26 blended rate of 8 cents and the deductible of $1 million. 

And that deductible is per occurrence. So if there were a tornado that were to go through the middle of campus and hit the football stadium, Barnhill, and Bud Walton, it’s $1 million. With that, I’d be glad to answer any questions. But again, what you all would be reviewing and approving would be the blended rate of 8 cents and the deductible level of $1 million.

Representative Robin Lundstrum Representative Brooks. 

Representative Keith Brooks Thank you, madam chair. Over here, Grant. Appreciate all you do. Relative to the replacement costs on this, I know those are some questions that have been going on throughout the entire process. How up-to-date are we on replacement costs for these structures at the U of A? 

Grant Wallace So this effort and why we needed some additional time was to right size those numbers and that’s what you see reflected on this chart. 

Representative Keith Brooks So we’re confident that these are updated in terms of where we would be with the replacement costs in the 25-26 year timeframe? 

Grant Wallace Yes sir, as updated as we can be at this point. I think there are still, for the year two of this program, still ongoing conversations that need to happen. But at this point, we are comfortable with these insured values. 

Representative Keith Brooks When was the last time that this was evaluated? Do you know? 

Grant Wallace These numbers should be reflective of March. Yeah, so these are reflective of March 2025. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any other questions? I had a couple. Who does the evaluation to make sure we have Barnhill Arena insured at the right amount so we don’t get to the other end of this and it’s incorrect? Who does that? 

Grant Wallace So we’re working with Stephens Insurance. They’re taking the lead, kind of during this transition to make sure that the insured values are adequate. But we in the office of property risk will be rolling out appraisals. We do have a vendor, TAA. I forget. I know ‘Appraisal’ and ‘The’ is in that somewhere. I can’t remember the last A. But TAA is our third party vendor that will assist us in the valuations as well. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Senator Petty. 

Senator Jim Petty Thank you. I know this has been a process. There’s been a lot of work that’s gone into this. But just for the sake of the other members here, can you comment on the blended rate as it compares to other public schools and so forth? And I know the deductible is significantly higher, but maybe some of the others members or some of public do not know. So could you comment on that? 

Grant Wallace Right. And I think that’s really kind of the effort and what the ongoing exercise is going to be is really finding that right deductible rate balance. And we will be spending the next 10 months or so working on that and getting those right sized. 

What I will say is public schools experience the same thing that you’re seeing on this chart. There is a deductible that is set per the district. It’s district wide, so one occurrence hits three buildings. They’re only doing the one deductible. And you’ll see that they had a blended rate. So one new building could be at the 22 cents, or an older building might be at 6 cents. But at the end of the day, there was that blending of their overall rate that drove their premium for this upcoming year. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Any other questions? And this is only for the athletic facilities. This does not have anything to do with the 2 million-plus square feet of building space that the U of A has. That’s on a different policy, correct?

Grant Wallace That’s on a different that’s already been reviewed and approved already. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Reviewed and approved. Any other questions, members? Bear with me for a second. Ms. Michelle tells me we need to move this as reviewed. I need a motion. Motion. Thank you, Senator Hickey. And I believe that was Dismang. Thank you. And Tosh. All in favor? Any opposed? All right, let’s look at the Lead Policy insurance. 

Lead Policy: Statewide Captive

Grant Wallace So the Lead Policy, this is the policy that we have worked with Stephens on developing and the overseas market. This is between the SKIP, the State Captive Insurance Program, and its participants and the entities. With that, I will attempt to answer any questions. But if y’all really trick me up, I’m going to ask that we bring Stephens Insurance up to help. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Let’s go ahead and do that. This is a huge policy, and I want to make sure everybody understands it or at least has a 30,000 foot view. Because there’s quite a few moving parts on this. If you could, introduce yourselves for the record.

JR Bizzell JR Bizzell, Senior Vice President, Stephens Insurance. 

Joe Ramsey Joe Ramsey, Vice President, Stephens Insurance. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Thank you. Representative Brooks, I believe you have a question. 

Representative Keith Brooks Thank you, Madam Chair. Over here, JR. So quick question, and it may not be quick, but relative to this new policy form, what are any material changes to this policy form and the coverages versus what our entities, schools, and others have experienced with their multiple forms in the past? So are there any things that we need to make sure that we advise them of, hey, this has changed, this is a significant difference? So what are some of the details there? 

JR Bizzell From a high level, we bought 1.5 billion in limits combined. If you recall, no single individual policy had more than 800 million combined. So on an aggregate basis, we have more limit to deploy. Some other items of note is we took what we would consider to be the best of all three policies and merged them into one. So we would pick a part for both the AID-led APSIT and AMA programs, as well as ASBA. 

We attempted as best as we could to consolidate those into what we would consider a very bespoke, very specific, very broad form for the state SKIP program. And to be very honest, we’re very pleased with the outcome. We received very little pushback from the marketplace on that. We also made sure that coverages were also protective of the Captive, meaning there are restrictive natures around appropriate valuations and certain factors that may have led to bad outcomes or an inability to hold accountable maintenance cap ex certain requirements that the market would do. 

So what I would say is that, while bespoke, we are also an insurance company and needed to put standard protocols in place to act as an insurance company. Another highlight would be earth movement coverage, 200 million of earthquake coverage. That was not consistent across all programs. 

And in fact, we added certain locations, primarily Northeast Arkansas, that may not have bought earth movement because of the cost restrictive nature. They are added to this earth movement. So they went from not having earthquake coverage to having earthquake coverage. So clearly a balance sheet benefit. 

We received a full 100 million flood. We also were able to acquire $1 billion of terrorism coverage that was not in place prior to, of aggregate limit, as well as 500 million of boiler and machinery coverage that is now consolidated into one effort. And reminder, boiler and the machinery is, quite frankly, an admin exercise of, you must get sign off on boilers and machinery pieces at each location. It’s about 12,200 pieces that have to be essentially signed off on for every single year for regulatory purposes. That is now consolidated into one single group that will be managing that.

 And so I would say those are the highlights outside of really getting in the nitty gritty of it all. But I think one other item I would note. We have 50 million of extra expense business interruption coverage combined. That was not consistent across the three platforms. And what that would be is, in the event of a loss where business income or income would be lost or there is a need to spend more dollars to, say, move a high school, put temporary schooling up or other items in the events of a lose, we have $50 million to deploy individual aggregate limit to do that as well. That was not consistent on the three programs prior to the SKIP placement. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Representative Brooks, did you have a follow-up? 

Representative Keith Brooks Sorry, I hit my button. Are there any coverages that have changed relative to things like deferred maintenance or cosmetic roof endorsements, things like that that schools particularly would need to be aware of as they plan kind of their strategy for addressing any potential needs on their campuses that might impact a claim status? 

Joe Ramsey Joe Ramsey. Yes, there is some cosmetic roof damage limitation in the policy. I’m not sure if that was consistent across the three prior policies, but essentially that’s a common endorsement insurance policy that, just because your roof’s dinged up a little bit, if it’s still functional and working, you don’t get a new roof, where some people may have a roof claim. And the roof claims can be significantly expensive, I think. You hear carriers talk about $15 to $20 a square foot to replace a roof. So getting out of cosmetic total roof replacements is common in the industry and should support the program. 

JR Bizzell One thing I’d add to that is the intent of the exclusion, similar to an insurance carrier, is not to exclude eyeline items, such as roofs that could be seen from the ground. If there’s hail damage to a metal roof that you can visibly see, that is covered. 

What we’re really attacking– and attacking’s the wrong word, poor choice of words– what we are really trying to achieve with this is similar to a insurance company. The metal roof that is not visible, that is not structurally damaged and will continue to function appropriately, a normal insurance company would not replace that roof. They would simply tell you, yes, it’s not a line of sight and it is functional. We are not replacing that. 

Representative Keith Brooks Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Thank you, representative. Senator Dismang. 

Concerns about payments, fraud, Tokyo

Senator Jonathan Dismang And so, really, I just have questions on where this gets us to. Because I had some questions earlier in the week– I think some members did, too– from superintendents that were concerned from everything to where the payments were going to, what to expect next. 

And as one example would be, I guess Origami is going to be the processor or the administrator program? And then someone had decided that those payments were going to go to Tokyo. So I think we were able to clear that up that maybe just a misunderstanding or a jump from the name. Anyway, so I think we got some of those things fixed. 

They were also waiting on some further information. And the way that I understood it was, once this is approved here and then also by the full ALC, that’s when they can get their full packets. Prior to, they’ve kind of got a summary of what to expect of just major coverage limits, what the premiums look like and what their deductibles look like. Could y’all elaborate a little bit just so they are aware of what to expect next? 

Grant Wallace And thank you for asking that question, Senator. And I do want to assure all of you and anybody that is watching, the payment information that was included in the invoices is to the Treasurer of the State of Arkansas’ bank account. 

It is not to anywhere else. It is not fraud. We are not attempting to fraud anyone. We use the exact payment methods that they have been using and all state agencies use for generation after generation. It goes to the treasurer of state’s office and we receive it just like everybody else. It is not going to an offshore account. I have no desire nor any ability to touch these funds. So please understand, there is absolutely no fraud in where these payments are being directed to. 

Now, as far as kind of the next steps in the process, yes, we had to get through what is legislatively required review and approvals. You all are reviewing kind of the largest next piece, which is this Lead Policy. As of the start of this meeting, there were two emails that were sent out to all participants. 

One, a revised invoice that actually said the phrase invoice and a payment amount due. That was an oversight on my part. We corrected it. We’ve sent it back out. The second piece was a summary of values document, which would give them kind of, here are all the properties that are listed under your policy, here were the insured values, this is where we got your premium amount derived from. 

Those two emails have gone out this morning. This packet will now be available for us to send out to all of the entities and start answering some of those direct questions around inland marine, around boiler machinery, around hail and wind and all of those kind of things. We have talked about all of these things at the 100,000 foot view. Now we’re going to get into the nitty gritty details of that. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right. And I thank you for that. And also just, if you don’t mind, and there’s plenty of places on there that say, if you have questions, contact this, depending on what it may be. And is that fair and everything that’s been sent out? 

Grant Wallace That is fair. The email address for all those that are watching isopr@Arkansas.gov. Feel free to email any questions, concerns, and we will address them as quickly as we possibly can. I would give you the phone number, but I don’t remember it off the top of my head. 

Senator Jonathan Dismang All right, perfect. And then– no, that’ll work. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Thank you. Senator Petty, you had a question? 

Senator Jim Petty Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just big picture, 30,000 foot level. From my experience, I think that the coverages and the endorsements are broader than what I have seen in the market. And I don’t deal in public buildings, but I do deal in residential buildings. How would you say, just again in broad terms, how it compares to what they’re used to seeing in coverages and limits? And then I have one follow-up on terrorism after you answer that. 

JR Bizzell Great question. I think on the broadest form, the aggregate limit is massive and the rate that was being charged is significantly lower than market. But the item that we’ve talked about on the three or four instances that I’ve been able to speak to you all, it is the per occurrence versus per building and the wind-hail percentage deductibles. 

The state of Arkansas has been considered a tier one convective storm region now. This is new. You’re going to start seeing that moving forward. What that simply means is most insurance carriers will put some form of percentage deductible on the value of a building. Our policy does not do that. So in our policy, you’ve got a per occurrence, set limit deductible, which in most cases, the maximum amount is $250,000 outside of the Athletics that is $1 million. 

But most schools and participants are sub-$250,000 for a single wind hail event. How that would act in the public realm would be if they went out and were able to achieve a standalone policy, they’re going to have a percentage on a building. So on a $10 million building, they may have anywhere from 3 to 5% of that value is their deductible on that individual building. 

In the event that you have multiple, each building would have its own individual percentage deductible. In our policy, one occurrence, one flat deductible. That is the key to the whole puzzle. And quite frankly, very difficult to achieve without the scale of the SKIP program that’s in place. 

Terrorism policy

Senator Jim Petty Very good points. And I don’t think we can overstate that fact enough. One question, though, again, you commented on terrorism. Can you connect for the average individual, you’ve got endorsement 5, I think, 5 that excludes terrorism and war and how it really does have coverage in there for that?

JR Bizzell Yeah, great question. So on the master policy, which is a London Lead, we requested them to exclude terrorism and war because it is typically more efficient to go by a standalone wrap policy, terrorism policy that has a broader language form and a broader coverage. And so what we went out and achieved was we bought a stand-alone $1 billion limit terrorism policy that will coincide with all of the other property coverages. 

So there is no gap in coverage. I know it may appear that way when you read just the simple nature of the policy, but in fact, we intentionally removed it from the master policy and got a more efficient limit and premium on the standalone policy. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right, Representative Springer. 

Replacement costs: Full or appraised?

Representative Joy Springer Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning. I just have an example. I have a number of public schools that are within my district. And we’re like in the tornado area as well. 

Say, for instance, if an elementary school like maybe Stephens, which is in my school district, was destroyed completely by tornado damage, and it’s valued at maybe $40,000 at this particular time– I mean $40 million. Will you pay– in order to replace the school, it’s going to cost maybe $75 million. Would you pay the replacement costs for that to replace entire school? Is that what I’m hearing now? 

Grant Wallace Right. So that is a shift in this policy. And thank you for asking because it’s something that we need to highlight is that we’re going to full replacement costs and not a targeted appraised value. We’re not saying we’re going to insure– for that particular example, the district may have said, Look, for cost purposes we’re only going to value that at 20 million when the real value is 40 million. We’ve gone away from that to where we’re at full replacement cost of the insured value. 

Representative Joy Springer Very good. Thank you very much.

Representative Robin Lundstrum  And just a quick follow-up on her question. Going to full replacement cost means we also have to pay for full replacement cost. So $250,000 deductible on a $10 million building, how are we going to make all this math work? 

Grant Wallace Thank you for asking that question. And I think that’s the challenge that we have over the next 10 months. But I think we need to highlight the work that all of us have done to get to this point to where there’s not that shock for entities in this first year of this program. 

There’s been a tremendous and targeted effort to hold rates and values to what they reported at the most recent quarter that we could work with and to hold those rates steady for 2025-2026. And it is the magic balancing act that we have to do. And that you’ve got to understand, if you want a lower deductible, you’re going to have to pay a higher premium. If you want a lower premium, you’re going to have a higher deductible. 

And that’s just some of the conversations that we need to have over the next 10 months as we kind of prepare for the 26-27 coverage year is that we get this as right size as we possibly can and that we are not overburdening one side of the program unnecessarily. We have a balancing act with overseas and domestic markets. We’ve got a balancing act with state funds that are limited– I mean, we don’t have a magic tree anywhere that we can go to– and the fairness of the entities that are participating. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Thank you. One follow-up question with that. Do we have a fund for catastrophic events and where we are insured for that type of, if a tornado takes out multiple buildings on a campus? That’s a big deal. 

JR Bizzell We do. And one thing I would remind everybody, from the Captive structure of the marketplace, the single total loss in a given year on a wind-hail event is capped on a single occurrence to $15 million for the state. London and other domestic carriers would take on the remainder. 

And then the state’s total aggregate loss, so if we had multiple events, the maximum state loss is 50 million. So that is the pre-funding that the legislature approved early on. We do have a prepayment by the legislature approved. So that aggregate limit has already been pre-funded in anticipation, in addition to other premium dollars and other lost funds that have been affected. 

So we are very confident, and actually that was a Perr & Knight driven item, the actuary that got to the conclusion that we were funded appropriately for any catastrophic event. And we have the appropriate limit and parameters in place to cover that loss. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Just one follow-up with that. On that pre-funding, that’s not something that we can– that is set aside and secure? It’s not sending the next legislature or anybody can tap into for a special thing? That is only for that catastrophic event? 

Grant Wallace Absolutely. And it’s already in its fund at the treasurer’s office. And it is sitting there doing what it is supposed to do. So no, it can’t be used for any other purposes. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum All right. We have some more questions in the queue. Representative Brooks. 

Representative Keith Brooks Thank you, Madam Chair. Promise this will be my last one. This is for you, Grant. So just kind of a check in, we’re six weeks into the Captive. So kind of how are we doing relative to questions that you’re receiving and relative to claims that we’ve gotten in? How many claims have we gotten in? What’s the value of the losses that have been sustained thus far? So we’re just into this new thing. So how are we looking? 

Grant Wallace All right, so six weeks in, I would give the director probably a C. But I would our vendors an A-plus. They have really stepped up and are really trying to support us and bring us along. 

Obviously, nobody’s perfect, and we’re still learning and growing and improving on the ways that we can build this thing and make it better each and every day. For the claim count, the last report that I’d saw, we were at 12 claims. I will say we were very blessed with our very first claim at 2.30 a.m. on July  1. I asked them about that a lot, but unfortunately for me, they had video evidence of the exact time in which the flood occurred. 

Representative Keith Brooks Was that Conway? 

Grant Wallace Yes, it was. I wasn’t going to name names, but since you did, yeah. I have also gone in and said we are no longer allowed to speak things to existence, so I will avoid using the words flood and fire in this presentation.

 But, no, I think we are right where we need to be. I mean, we have done our dead level best to get invoices out as fast as we possibly could. We have uploaded and built our operating systems as fast as we possibly could, with full production of our Origami system that has been discussed is scheduled to be in November. 

Stephens is doing a tremendous job helping us kind of navigate getting everything in the right place. You’ve had Sedgwick who is kind of coming in and getting on the ground as quickly as possible when claims are called in. We’ve got that smooth, and from my perspective, I think we’re where we would expect a six week old Captive insurance to be. 

Representative Keith Brooks Do we have an estimate on what the value of those 12 losses are roughly? 

Grant Wallace 8.5 million. 

Representative Keith Brooks Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum Senator Dismang. 

School District communication

Senator Jonathan Dismang And one last thing. And this is on just making sure everybody’s aware of what’s going on. Because the other thing that I found out is it’s not being effectively communicated to school board members that this is even happening, that there has been a shift. 

I kind of affirmed that a couple of different times over the last week. So they are unaware. In fact, I had one school board member tell me, we really need to set up a state Captive. But he was not being made aware of, maybe from the superintendent level, what’s happening or maybe there’s not a– if it is possible if we could work with the school board association to get those school board members the same information that we’re sending to superintendents. 

I mean, at the end of the day, they’re the decision maker anyway. I think that would probably be helpful so that they are brought into the loop if they’ve not been brought in the loop otherwise. Thank you.

Representative Robin Lundstrum Representative McGruder. 

Representative Jessie McGruder Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank all of you for the work that you’ve put in to make this successful. I know this wasn’t an easy task, and we have several questions. But I do have a question for my district. We had a flood issue this past year. We had several buildings that were underinsured, and also the equipment inside of those buildings. My question is, does this cover all of that? Do we have anything in place if it doesn’t? 

Grant Wallace I think, when you hear us talk about right sizing and going to total insured value and looking at all of this, that’s exactly what we’re talking to. And your experience is why it’s beneficial for the state Captive. Yes, there were some districts, in order to contain costs– and we all know it’s expensive; we all understand that– did make some decisions that did lead to some underinsuring situations.

This, being able to leverage all of the resources from higher ed from state agencies from K through 12, leveraged all of those together under one plan, gives us the ability to come in and right-size that coverage and make sure that we’ve got appropriate coverages when damages occur.

Representative Robin Lundstrum Members, any other questions? I would encourage you to ask as many questions as possible. We’re charting into new territory, and so questions are good. We don’t want to get to the other end of this in two or three years and find out we didn’t ask the right question. Nobody’s offended by questions, so don’t be shy. And that includes you, Representative Brooks, so just get right back in there if you have a question. 

I have pages of questions that I’m working on trying to figure out myself. So, don’t be shy. We’ve gotten a few texts from different folks that are watching that want to make sure they have a seat at the table, that want to be following this process. And the University of Arkansas has made that request. So we have a lot of eyes on us, but also don’t be shy of asking questions, please. 

I understand now that we need to have this as reviewed for now. We need a motion. Remember, we’re coming back every month and following up. So don’t think this is the end of it. So anyone have a motion? All in favor. Any opposed. All right. One last thing. We need an update on Optimum and Navitus lawsuits. Mr. Wallace. Oh wait, I’m sorry. I am following up. Senator Petty has a question first before we even begin. 

PBM lawsuit questions

Senator Jim Petty Well, it was more of a statement, since I think it was my question that maybe triggered this. Just in broad brush strokes, we realize that we usually don’t go into a lot of discussion in detail on existing ongoing litigation. And so I don’t want my question to think that that’s what I’m after here because that obviously puts the state at a bad situation there. 

And so, I just wanted to clarify the question that I asked at the previous meeting. We understand if the answer to the question of the update is, we still have litigation going, and that’s all you can do. That’s fine. I would like, at some point, maybe we could consider– and I don’t even know if this is legal or not– maybe in our contracts have a provision that says if, unrelated to the contract litigation is instigated against the state, then maybe we have an out or a provision in the contract to terminate or something. 

But that’s just a statement of the question. So with that, I just wanted to kind of set the tone or clarify what the question was from last month. 

Grant Wallace And thank you for that, Senator. I am not a party to this lawsuit. Quite frankly, I do not want to be a party in this lawsuit. I don’t have any information other than newspaper articles that everyone else has been able to read. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum And this is for information only. We will not take a vote on this, but this does need to be something that we keep a close tab on. Senator Boyd, you had a question. 

Senator Justin Boyd Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to clarify, I understand you don’t have a lot of information. I don’t know that we need a lot of information because we can all read the newspapers and watch the court proceedings. But to your knowledge, there’s five lawsuits where pharmacy benefit managers are suing the state of Arkansas. Does that sound like it might be correct? 

Grant Wallace It sounds like it’s correct. 

Senator Justin Boyd Okay, and so a couple of those, OptumRx and Navitus, not EBD, but formerly EBD, your department, has contracts with those PBMs to provide services for the state of Arkansas? 

Grant Wallace Our Optum contract is for the health savings. It’s not pharmacy. And Navitus is our pharmacy benefit manager. 

Senator Justin Boyd I’m sorry, let me clarify. We have a contract with UnitedHealthcare. 

Grant Wallace UnitedHealthcare, yes. 

Senator Justin Boyd Which OptumRx is owned by. So again we do have a contract with–

Grant Wallace Right, UnitedHealthcare is our Medicare Advantage PPO plan. 

Senator Justin Boyd And so these might not be in your area, but to your knowledge, CVS, we have a contract. They’re used in ARHome. And then ESI or Express Scripts, CareSource Passe. And then, also Navitus is suing the state in a separate lawsuit regarding their affiliate, Lumicera. Is that correct, as far as you know? 

Grant Wallace I don’t know about the Lumicera one. If that one’s happened, I’ve missed that one. 

Senator Justin Boyd Okay, well, I think it is. But regardless. So will you get back to us on the ability to change the contract, like Senator Petty said, so that we can look at that seriously in the future? 

Grant Wallace Yeah, I will talk with my colleagues at SAS and get some sort of answer regarding that. 

Senator Justin Boyd I mean, you, personally, if you were sued by somebody you’re doing business with,  would you want to just continue business on status quo? 

Grant Wallace It would probably depend on the circumstance. I would not want to jump to personal. 

Senator Justin Boyd Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. 

Representative Robin Lundstrum If somebody’s suing the state of Arkansas that we’re doing business with, I’m kind of offended by that too, Senator Boyd. So, any other questions while Mr. Wallace is there? We’ll see you at the next meeting. Any other questions or comments for the good of the body? All right, we’ll see y’all next time.