[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6124486,"mediaKeyId","2682570-ed600a902db80229e7632a20d3f3a86e","parentId",2682570,"title","Arkansas committee approves bill letting next of kin amend or revoke past organ-donor registrations after extensive public debate","audioSeconds",3226,"startMs",3226000,"endMs",-1,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2682570-ed600a902db80229e7632a20d3f3a86e&start=3226&end=0","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2682570-ed600a902db80229e7632a20d3f3a86e/thumbnail_3226000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6124486/Arkansas/Arkansas-committee-approves-bill-letting-next-of-kin-amend-or-revoke-past-organ-donor-registrations-after-extensive-public-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6124486-d4892ed144ca50273d7c2bf1ba94723a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775360995&Signature=ZNfSecD2pURUUgt-L4xd6lgTqo3iI9eMfVDriK4J0ee2quQmAWXEKkjSpv7bQnTGiKDYFVE~9X0eE0NZZSda9J~SIbH2esmvwzRF4WvBww2t1NcuXSufpiMpI5nsExNbk~ZG4srZAGZ71lkuaR4TJNVrPszKed29gQ2iFfOzvZWJeml2YIqfJk7GHKZ1SUtrdOZ8zJBMxoccWqnnha0sipONZc1xRqfp~d75rhCRat6TF3igVed1N0e9pN~LevEnUzUSnbbTiq6TTO~e0~mm51OZHQgDSMpPi1IiFIn7CvVK-vJZdl8UL45hA7tEnyYqXNppQbboPwbWm9poFWZ0Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arkansas Legislature","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Matt Brown recounted a family’s bedside experience and urged lawmakers to give families the legal ability to change an earlier organ-donation designation. \"It is the absolute most horrible decision I've ever had to make in my life,\" Brown said, describing delays and a conversation he called coercive while his father was dying. The House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee approved House Bill 16-79 as amended after extended public testimony and a roll-call motion to pass.

The bill establishes a hierarchy for who may modify, revoke or amend a previously recorded anatomical gift when a potential donor is incapacitated at the time of death, aligning that hierarchy with the state’s disposition law. Representative Jimmy Gazzaway, a co-sponsor, said the bill \"brings the law into alignment with how these decisions are already made in a host of other contexts,\" citing existing statutory frameworks for burial and cremation decisions.

Supporters, including funeral directors and several family members who said they had been surprised at bedside by organ-procurement approaches, told the committee they wanted legal clarity and faster timelines to prevent prolonged holds on bodies and distress for grieving relatives. Charles Fuller, president of the Arkansas Funeral Directors Association, said: \"Pressure and sales tactics should never enter this picture. A trusted nurse or health care professional should be able to preface the phone call from Aurora, not to influence the family, but merely that they will be approached for donations.\" Robert Cailin, a funeral director, offered a similar, specific case in which a father and wife were in dispute and the funeral home sought statutory guidance.

Representatives of organ-procurement organizations and transplant groups opposed tightening family authority to override a recorded donor designation. Mark Tudor, chief executive officer at Aurora (the organ procurement organization that serves most of Arkansas), told the committee he came as \"a CEO of Aurora, but more importantly ... as a donor father,\" and warned that the bill could reduce donations if registrants or their families opt out after passage. Tudor said Aurora would voluntarily enhance customer-service training and increase public education but said the state registry already counts about 1.5 million people.

Aurora officials and other OPO witnesses also described improvements in referral processes and donation rates, and they urged lawmakers to avoid changes that, in their view, could reduce organ and tissue availability and harm Arkansans on transplant waiting lists. Kevin Lee of Mid America Transplant said his organization supports additional public education and school-based programs to improve informed consent.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several factual points that were disputed in testimony: how often families reverse a donor designation at bedside, what federal reporting OPOs already file to CMS, whether tissue recovered for research differs from organs recovered for transplant, and how referral timing by hospitals affects whether an OPO can evaluate a potential donor. Aurora and hospital witnesses said many problems stem from late hospital referrals and that automated referral systems had reduced missed opportunities.

The amended bill requires reporting to state officials of certain donation and recovery statistics (the amendment uses fields similar to those reported to federal agencies) so the Legislature can review trends and outcomes. It also clarifies that, in cases where the decedent expressly and currently authorized donation, that recorded authorization still has force unless the specified family classes in the bill unanimously modify or revoke it under the circumstances the statute defines.

Testimony at the table was sharply divided. Funeral directors and several family witnesses asked for statutory clarity and a requirement that next of kin have priority to decide the disposition of remains and related anatomical gifts. Transplant recipients and clinicians warned that amending the registry posthumously will reduce available organs and cost lives; a heart-transplant recipient told members that overriding a donor’s choice would lengthen waiting lists and endanger patients.

The committee adopted amendments during the hearing to narrow parts of the sponsor’s original draft (the amendment removed or rewrote an initial consent section and focused the bill on who may amend or revoke an anatomical gift when the donor is incapacitated or when family disputes arise). After public testimony concluded, committee members voted to pass the bill as amended.

The statute references and operational details that guided much of the debate included the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (the federal-model framework for anatomical gifts) and the state statutory hierarchy used for disposition of remains. Witnesses repeatedly referenced Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) referral rules, hospital reporting obligations, and the operational practices of organ-procurement organizations.

What’s next: The bill passed the committee and will go to the next legislative stage. Lawmakers and OPOs told the committee they would continue negotiations on implementing language and reporting formats in order to reduce confusion for hospitals, preserve donor-family protections, and limit unintended effects on donation rates.

Ending: Committee debate signaled broad interest in fixing bedside breakdowns that family witnesses described as traumatic while also protecting the donor registry that transplant clinicians say saves lives. The amended measure seeks to codify a default family hierarchy for modifying a previously recorded anatomical gift and to add state reporting so legislators can track outcomes.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Public Health, Welfare, and Labor Committee Meeting Mar 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Matt Brown described a family’s painful bedside delay as the House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee on Thursday advanced House Bill 16-79, a measure that lets specified family members modify or revoke a previously recorded anatomical gift and requires additional reporting by organ‑procurement organizations.","taxTitle","PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND LABOR COMMITTEE- HOUSE, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",21192,"location","Arkansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6124476,"Votes at a glance: Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee actions",8369,929000,9298000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2682570-ed600a902db80229e7632a20d3f3a86e&start=929&end=9298","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2682570-ed600a902db80229e7632a20d3f3a86e/thumbnail_929000.jpg","/articles/6124476/Arkansas/Votes-at-a-glance-Public-Health-Welfare-and-Labor-Committee-actions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6124476-171b6ab51ecdfdf8e82837a3750db60a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775360995&Signature=Fr2Qu1C9nl16Syu7FOVpok--fqBvImi8id3iLclHwKunVAmoCr8i-wQd0geGORaUppTY1uVOO~qdlZqdqnUaOYCbLQCir07ChDj42bj59xuziDUw0MIZoDJoZzQ1zBD3zt8V~8061fKtMs2Uezy3tKcIuw-gNQjxEKoded8FcD5qyWh0R3KMIPjNE4UyjPZOBk4kHgyr7W8R27YY63Qe4KVw1Gd8~9uswTf--IHrGKa6G4ClsqZt2tzuAz80ljhrkqX6CzSChK3d32XvG4IAyujlh6ETRcUL9IxA8riBieUqPTpoAMJvyxFObPrmgBmaZl5Cr-2pGze8G4a~srnsgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee voted on multiple bills during the session. Below are the items the committee formally moved and recorded in the transcript, with key details included from the hearing record.

• House Bill 17-82 (Rep. Ashley Hudson) — Outcome: Passed as amended. Motion: pass as amended (mover: Representative Lademan). Summary: Prohibits over‑the‑counter sale of products marketed as diet pills to people under 18; sponsor cited eating‑disorder risks and NIH statistics. Committee: voted aye by voice.

• House Bill 14-68 (Rep. Bruce Kozart) — Outcome: Passed. Motion: do pass (mover: Representative Lademan). Summary: Gives residential building contractors a 28‑day opportunity to respond and 14 days to acknowledge homeowner complaints before a lawsuit; applies to first‑year defects on new or substantially remodeled residences.

• House Bill 279 (Rep. Jeremy Wooldridge; Department bill) — Outcome: Passed. Motion: pass (sponsor motion). Summary: Department of Labor bill intended to improve Division of Labor investigation procedures under the Arkansas minimum wage act; sponsor said it would help both workers and compliant businesses.

• Amendment to House Bill 1004 (Rep. Aaron Pilkington) — Outcome: Adopted. Motion: adopt amendment. Summary: Request for CMS use of CHIP funding to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage (amendment language as read into record).

• House Bill 17-84 (Rep. Jeff Wardlaw) — Outcome: Passed. Motion: do pass (sponsor motion). Summary: Changes to the informal dispute-resolution process used for long‑term care surveys and findings; sponsor said the bill would allow additional evidence in the IDR process and require a written statement within seven days after an informal hearing.

• House Bill 15-30 (Rep. Jonathan Acre) — Outcome: Passed. Motion: do pass. Summary: Seeks an exemption for Arkansas Surgical Hospital from the hospital‑provider assessment program; sponsor estimated a net loss to the hospital of about $1.3 million and said DHS advised no state‑plan amendment was needed; Arkansas Hospital Association expressed federal‑funding concerns.

• House Bill 16-19 (Rep. Jared Gramlich) — Outcome: Passed. Motion: pass (sponsor motion). Summary: Increase access and reimbursement for nirsevimab (an RSV monoclonal antibody for infants) to encourage broader availability; sponsor cited projected cost savings by avoiding pediatric hospitalizations.

• House Bill 17-58 (Rep. Jared Gramlich) — Outcome: Passed. Motion: pass (sponsor motion). Summary: Technical changes clarifying that hearing aid dispensers may order prescription hearing aids consistent with federal regulatory changes in 2022; sponsor said it does not expand scope of practice.

• House Bill 12-41 (Representatives Mayberry/Johnson) — Outcome: Passed as amended. Motion: pass as amended. Summary: Amendment created a per‑episode cap ($3,750), annual cap per individual ($5,000) and an extension process for certain dental-related services performed through the dental school; fiscal impact was discussed and sponsors said initial-year costs would be limited by program start dates.

• House Bill 16-79 (Rep. Matt Brown) — Outcome: Passed as amended. Motion: pass as amended. Summary: Clarified who may modify, revoke, or amend an anatomical gift; added state reporting requirements for donation/recovery statistics. The bill drew extended testimony from family members, funeral directors, hospitals and organ‑procurement organizations; committee adopted amendments narrowing the initial draft and then passed the amended bill.

For each bill above, committee minutes record voice or voice‑style votes without a member‑by‑member roll call in the transcript. Where witnesses raised substantive factual disputes (for example, on fiscal impacts or donation statistics), committee discussion requested further coordination with state agencies (DHS or relevant departments) or with affected stakeholders before implementation.

","The committee advanced several bills on public health, labor and provider rules; this roundup lists each bill aired in the session, the committee’s action and key details or outstanding issues.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6124481,"Committee clears bill to exempt Arkansas Surgical Hospital from hospital provider assessment after DHS says no CMS state-plan change needed",876,1372000,2248000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2682570-ed600a902db80229e7632a20d3f3a86e&start=1372&end=2248","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2682570-ed600a902db80229e7632a20d3f3a86e/thumbnail_1372000.jpg","/articles/6124481/Arkansas/Committee-clears-bill-to-exempt-Arkansas-Surgical-Hospital-from-hospital-provider-assessment-after-DHS-says-no-CMS-state-plan-change-needed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6124481-ee760b3d5806b9b3026a63a8dde069fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1775360995&Signature=Tlwy-unGdYxqqmMuY5gt5-w26Hk7KJYItLED7r86pVQO8VWuyz8h~kQbv1AvJvAjwSqPdFZ8u4na9FzTWvKNdHyzy6xWt1b~GR5fSwUOvgyKmSGoEMjIeRs4XNTQ2~~Ryozl784yBzjYMHyxDGSogHmwx-maAx7mF8cix9s8ntFpjcuAc6xTMjmKmObiWB1pqh3recgR0Z2FwUCaFxBj9gYQZd4HJ3xKSJACA5HIDFz32jv2fGa96uCptbmZpBtE5OcYl14mObHnbMYTvvdbOFDVpEBdpUVyqkGMrBtflHypcGyE09W-kP~vjOM9GQnKxlXdbosSYxa3qtjvswILRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Jonathan Acre presented House Bill 15-30 to the committee and introduced Brian Fowler, chief executive officer of Arkansas Surgical Hospital, who asked lawmakers to amend the hospital‑provider assessment program to grant his hospital an exemption.

\"This year, that amount is just under $1,300,000,\" Fowler said of the hospital’s net loss from participation in the provider-assessment program. He told the committee Arkansas Surgical Hospital provides specialty surgical services statewide and is a for‑profit facility that, he said, pays significant state and local taxes but does not recover those costs through the supplemental Medicaid payments the assessment funds.

Fowler and Representative Acre described recent discussions with the Department of Human Services and said DHS and its secretary had assured them that the hospital’s exemption would not require an amendment to the state Medicaid plan and that the hospital’s waiver on file with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would not be disrupted.

Jodi Ann Tritt, executive vice president of the Arkansas Hospital Association, opposed the bill. Tritt said the provider assessment program was created in 2009 to shore up outpatient and inpatient payments during a period when state general revenue could not be increased, and that the program helps hundreds of hospitals. She warned the committee of federal scrutiny of provider taxes and said adjustments to the program could reduce federal funding. \"The fear for us is that CMS ... will lose $400,000,000 in this program so that one hospital cannot pay $1,300,000,\" Tritt told the committee.

Acre and Fowler said the change would shift a modest shortfall across many participating hospitals instead of one hospital continuing to shoulder the discrepancy.

Committee members asked whether the hospital had been enrolled in the program previously; Fowler said Arkansas Surgical Hospital had participated for years but had not previously sought the exemption. Members also asked how the program calculates the supplemental distributions (based on Medicaid discharges rather than the type of service) and whether increasing Medicaid patient volume would close the gap — witnesses said specialty services tend to produce a larger gap between costs and program returns.

After the testimony, Representative Acre closed and moved the bill for a do-pass vote; the committee approved the motion by voice vote.

","Lawmakers advanced House Bill 15-30, which would exempt Arkansas Surgical Hospital from the state hospital-provider assessment program; hospital leaders said the exemption would stop a net loss of about $1.3 million, while the Arkansas Hospital Association warned of federal risks to the program's funding.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Arkansas committee approves bill letting next of kin amend or revoke past organ-donor registrations after extensive public debate

Votes at a glance: Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee actions

Committee clears bill to exempt Arkansas Surgical Hospital from hospital provider assessment after DHS says no CMS state-plan change needed