►
From YouTube: Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee (9/14/21)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Entertaining
my
thoughts.
B
B
The
statute
allows
for
75
000,
which
is
really
just
enough
for
an
analyst
not
really
for
over
the
period
of
five
to
six
years,
like
we're
looking
at
so
there
will
need
to
be
some
sort
of
additional
funds,
but
your
point
is
well
taken
that
we
don't
need
so
many
different
accounting
systems.
That's
one
of
the
reasons
why
this
and
the
broadband
development
program
are
both
well
situated
to
be
taken
care
of
by
kia.
B
There
will
be
some
overlap
in
the
training
that
our
staff
has
and
in
the
computer
systems
that
we
have
most
likely.
However,
we
will
have
to
use
it
staff
to
create
proprietary
software
in
order
to
track
these
funds
properly.
So
there
will
be
some
some
more
funds
that
will
have
to
be
used
there
and
also
I'd
like
to
state
that
this
money
we're
talking
now
about
the
state
law.
The
federal
law
does
allow
for
the
funds
to
be
used
for
administrative
expenses
and
that's
actually
in
their
faq.
It's
it's
addressed
and
it
is
allowed.
B
B
C
Sir,
are
you
asking
us
that
question?
Yes,
sir.
B
Yes,
sir,
the
amendment
you
just
passed,
I
I
didn't
hear
anyone
read
it,
but
what
I
was
sent
earlier
was
one
that
deletes
that
section
from
the
proposed
ordinance
or
regulation.
A
Well,
there
were
parameters
set
in
place
by
senate
bill
36
and
I
haven't
got
that
latest
amendment.
So
I
apologize
for
that.
But
my
main
concern
is:
we've
got
me
and
a
quarter.
We've
got
a
me
and
a
half,
so
we've
got
2.75
million
and
then
I
believe,
there's
another
50
million
that
that
is
on
the
table
there,
with
with
the
kia
also
that
that
will
be
involved
in
this.
So
we're
we're.
You
know
we're
talking,
potentially
600
million
dollars
and
there
again
I'm.
A
I
promise
you,
I'm
not
trying
to
keep
money
from
you.
That's
needed,
but
also
may
want
to
make
sure
that
we
work
efficiently
in
that
and
when
you're
we're
looking
at
a
potential
of
three
million
dollars.
There's
a
lot
to
be
done
with
that
and
if
we
got
two
similar
programs-
and
I
guess
my
my
urging
is
that
we
we
keep
that
in
mind
and
just
don't
take
the
money,
because
it's
there
but
get
as
much
out
from
communities
as
we
can.
A
No
I'm
finished.
I
appreciate
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
appreciate
the
kia,
your
representatives
and
all
that
y'all
do,
and
so
this
is,
I
promise
this
is
not
a
negative
comment.
This
is
just
urging
that
we
do
our
due
diligence
and
I
appreciate
you
guys
for
all
you
did.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
really
appreciate
representative
bridges
line
of
questioning
one
of
the
biggest
roles
largest
roles
of
this
committee
is
not
necessarily
finding
things
deficient
or
asking
people
to
defer,
but
it
is
getting
information
out
to
the
the
general
public,
the
citizenry,
so
my
line
of
questioning's
going
to
be
along
the
same
lines
as
representative
bridges.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
there
being
money
set
aside
to
implement
the
program,
but
but
we
do
need.
We
do
need
good
information.
E
F
Yes,
thank
you
for
that
question.
The
senate
bill
36
authorized
or
appropriated
250
million
for
water
and
sewer
projects
from
the
american
rescue
plan
act.
F
I
believe
representative
bridges
mentioned
the
the
broadband
deployment
fund,
which,
while
it
was
also
authorized
and
funded
through
the
american
rescue
plan
act.
It
is
a
separate
and
distinct
program
with
separate
and
with
a
separate
and
distinct
accounting
structure,
with
the
same
accounting
using
the
same
accounting,
backbone.
F
E
That's
that's
what
I
thought
I
thought
there
were
already
quite
a
few
applications
in
and
this
this
was
going
to
be
a
tremendous
impact
to
the
kia
as
far
as
workload-
and
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that
at
all.
One
thing
I
do
have
a
problem
with,
is
you
know,
part
of
the
another
part
of
the
job.
This
committee
is
to
make
sure
that
the
law
is
carried
out
and
we're
using
proper
procedure
and
process.
E
E
E
E
We
may
be
overlooking
it,
we
don't
see
it
in
the
reg
we'll
check
one
more
time.
G
E
And
once
again,
just
for
clarification,
I
just
just
like
represented
bridges:
I'm
not
trying
to
stop
the
trains
from
moving,
but
we
we
need
to
pay
attention
to
detail
and
I
really
think
would
be
best
if
we
gave
it
the
best
chance.
So
that's
my
that's
my
opinion,
I'm
only
one
on
this
committee.
So
that's
all
my
questions.
B
Sir
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
it
does
say
in
our
reg
that
it's
one
half
of
one
percent
as
allowed
by
law
and
it's
well
taken
that
we
should.
B
We
could
absolutely
cite
that
law
and
and
say
it
is
the
federal
law,
but
what
the
federal
law
was
says
is
that
it's
for
administrative
fees,
so
we
would
be
outside
of
that
if
we
were
to
take
any
of
this
money
and
and
just
put
it
in
the
the
general
pull
that
kia
uses,
so
we
we
are
trying
to
act
within
the
bounds
of
the
federal
law.
Here.
B
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
this
is
the
emergency
reg.
We
can
make
that
amendment
to
the
actual
regulation
which
comes
up
for
review
next
month.
C
C
I
I'm
sure
dave
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
I
know
it's
a
little
difficult
with
the
zoom
it
and
I'm
still
fairly
new
to
this
committee,
but
just
through
my
in
abundance
of
caution,
wouldn't
you
normally
keep
the
language
abroad
like
that
to
say,
as
allowed
by
law
on
an
emergency
rig,
I'm
as
opposed
to
going
and
pinpointing
down
just
to
protect
us.
I
You
know
we're
looking
to
be
in
good
fiduciary
duties,
I'm
obviously
we
want
to
discuss
that
and
make
sure
that
we
hammer
out
those
details,
but
but
in
the
actual
language
of
a
special
leg,
wouldn't
that
normally
be
the
course
of
action.
The
lawyer
in
me
saying
that
might
be
the
most
prudent
course
anyway,
but
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
C
Well,
sir,
I'm
not
an
attorney,
so
I'm
kind
of
a
little
bit
at
at
odds,
not
at
odds
but
kind
of
listening
to
the
attorneys.
In
their
comments
back
and
forth,
I
think
senator
west
could
probably
comment
on
that
specific
question
senator
better
than
I
could.
E
Yeah,
I
think
you're
exactly
right
that
that
it
was
good
to
put
toward
it
that
way
and
put
it
in
the
language
that
way
what
I'm
I'm
not
saying
that
the
federal
law
doesn't
allow
it.
What
the
federal
law,
according
what
was
stated
says,
is
that
you
know
you're
allowed.
E
E
So
I
think
as
legislators
we
have
that
ability
to
make
that
call
and
I'm
just
trying
to
give
this
regulation
the
best
chance
of
of
standing.
So
I
I
to
answer
your
question.
I
think
it's
good
that
it's
in
there,
but
in
some
cases
the
state
law
will
trump
the
optional
federal
laws
in
this
case.
So
that's
my
opinion.
I
No,
I
I
I
appreciate
the
discussion.
I
I
realized
that
obviously,
the
the
federal
law
we're
going
to
be
preempted
and
that
kind
of
sets
the
the
baseline
and
we
can.
We
can
legislate
above
and
beyond
that,
and-
and
so
I
think
that
we
said
that
allowable
bylaw
is
kind
of
a
save
all.
I
But
I
do
understand
that
the
need,
if
we
want
to
further
legislate
within
those
parameters
that
we
have
the
right
to
do
so
again,
I
still
try
to
tread
lightly
as
a
freshman
senator
kind
of
looking
through
there
if
it
increases
the
chances
by
making
sure
that
you
know
we
clearly
articulate
those
parameters
and
by
all
means,
I
guess
just
if
I
was
just
doing
a
contract
review,
I
would
think
it
probably
wouldn't
be
necessary.
But
again
I
appreciate
the
discussion.
C
Miss
williams,
mr
paulie,
the
the
question
actually
was
was
presented.
Would
you
be
willing
to
defer
this.
F
Bill
pauley
did
bring
up
a
really
good
point
that
that
this
is
the
emergency
rag
and
we
will
be
back
before
you
next
month
with
our
ordinary
regulation.
F
If,
if
we
could
continue
with
our
emergency
regulation
today,
with
the
committee's
support,
we
would
like
to
do
that.
It
will
help
us
to
start
evaluating
the
over
400
applications
that
we
have
looking
at
currently
and
that
represents
111
of
our
120
counties.
So
not
even
all
of
the
counties
have
their
applications
in
the
system.
Yet
so,
if,
if
we
could
have
the
committee's
support
for
our
emergency
regulation
and
to
take
your
comments
into
consideration
for
our
for
for
your
review
for
our
regulation
next
month,
we
we
would
like
to
do
that.
Please.
C
And-
and
I
certainly
appreciate
that
very
much
and
thank
you
for
that
that
answer
right
there
senator
west
does
have
a
comment
and
then
I
think
representative
marzian
has
a
question
she'd
like
to
ask
senator
west.
I.
E
Would
just
say
for
the
record,
I'm
perfectly
okay
with
that.
That's
that
sounds
logical.
We'll
get
with
the
emergency
reg
in
the
ordinary,
we'll
get
two
bites
at
the
apple,
so
the
commonwealth
won't
come
to
a
standstill
in
the
next
60
days
on
this
issue.
So
I'm
perfectly
fine
with
that.
K
C
F
I
I
just
thank
the
committee
for
having
us
today
and
look
forward
to
your
action.
C
G
L
2012-270
is
being
amended
to
update
the
requirements
and
criteria
for
minor
violations
and
the
procedures
for
expungement
2360
is
being
amended
to
authorize
the
pharmacist
to
dispense
naloxone
to
any
person
or
agency
for
administration
to
the
public
as
part
of
a
harm
reduction
program
and
remove
the
educational
requirement
for
pharmacist
certification
to
dispense.
Naloxone
2420
establishes
the
requirements
for
pharmacists,
pharmacists
interns
and
pharmacy
technicians
to
administer
vaccinations.
C
C
Is
there
is
a
motion
and
a
second
without
objection?
There
is
a
question
from
senator
alvarado
go
ahead,
senator
alvarez.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
really
briefly
on
section
four,
the
one
thing
I
I
get.
I
understand
the
education
of
our
pharmacists
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
people
that
are
receiving
naloxone
to
administer
naloxone
number
five,
which
is
the
information
on
naloxone.
Is
there
a
reason
why
that
whole
all
that
information
is
being
stricken?
I
mean
everybody
presumes
that
naloxone
has
got
no
potential
risk,
but
there
are
risks
with
administration.
I
know
I
just
went
recently
to
a
group
from
the
university
of
kentucky.
D
They
were
presenting
information
on
narcan
handing
out
samples
of
this
to
people
and
listen
to
their
presentation
where
they
covered
all
this
material
as
part
of
their
presentation,
but
one
of
them
is
that
it
can
cause
pulmonary
edema
in
people,
and
I
think
the
folks
that
administrate
should
at
least
know
that
risk.
So
I
understand
this,
you
know.
Sometimes
you
want
to
just
be.
If
someone's
knocked
out,
you
don't
want
to
delay
and
have
to
go
through
a
lot
of
that
processing.
J
Yeah,
so
I
think
the
rationale
of
the
board
in
making
that
determination
was
that
there
we
received
a
big
push
from
chfs
and
those
that
were
working
to
dispense
naloxone
to
agencies.
We
that
there
needed
to
be
more
access
to
the
dispensing
side
of
it,
and
so
the
remedy
that
that
the
board
conceived
was
that
if
we
were
able
to
remove
the
educator
currently
a
pharmacist
in
order
to
be
certified
to
dispense,
naloxone
had
to
fill
out
the
application
and
also
have
all
of
these
educational
training
requirements.
J
What
has
been
acknowledged
is
because
it
is
this
extra
application
process
that
requires
all
this
extra
material.
There
are
simply
not
enough
pharmacists
out
there
that
are
willing
to
do
the
certification,
and
so
the
thought
is
that
pharmacists
are
professionals
they
are
going
to.
If
they
choose
to
certify
themselves
to
to
dispense
naloxone,
they
are
going
to
know
how
to
do
it.
They
are
going
to
know
the
risks.
This
is
just
trusting
that
the
pharmacist
will
do
that
on
their
own,
rather
than
the
board
supervising
that
educational
training
component.
D
And
I
appreciate
that:
that's
regarding
section
five,
I'm
referring
to
section
four,
which
is
the
education
to
be
provided
to
persons
receiving
a
naloxone
prescription
under
protocol.
So
I
trust
the
pharmacist
and
they're
dispensing
it
to
someone,
but
just
the
information
that
needs
to
be
conveyed
to
that
individual.
So
you're,
going
to
a
lay
person
saying
here's
some
narcan,
here's
how
to
administer
it
to
you
know,
say:
there's
gonna
be
some
written
education
material,
maybe
just
show
how
it's
being
administered
and
that's
it.
D
The
question
I've
got
is
there's
side
effects
from
using
a
drug,
so
for
letting
white
people
have
that
drug
administer
it
there's
risks
to
that.
We're
not
we're
taking
out
the
requirements
to
inform
that
individual
of
the
risks
of
those
drugs
of
what
to
watch
for,
and
that's
why
I
understand
section
5
about
educating
our
pharmacists.
I
don't
question
that
at
all
I
just
question:
the
information
should
be
conveyed
to
lay
people
who
will
be
administering
this
drug
and
we've
stricken
all
that
language.
Out
of
then,
I'm
wanting
for
the
reasoning
behind
that.
J
Yeah
yeah,
I'm
sorry
for
misunderstanding.
Your
question.
I
think
the
reasoning
behind
that
was
because
pharmacists
are
always
anytime,
they're,
dispensing
any
type
of
drug
they're.
C
D
One
thing:
if
you're
administering
a
medication
to
a
patient
who's
taking
it
themselves,
this
is
being
distributed
to
people
who
will
be
administering
it
to
someone
else.
So
it's
you
know
it's
one
thing:
if
you're
getting
a
blood
pressure,
medicine
and
the
pharmacist
is
okay,
this
is
the
blood
pressure
medication.
You
will
be
taking
it
daily.
Here's
how
you
take
it
here.
Are
the
risks?
Here's
how
you
take
it.
Any
questions
that
you
have
this
is
somebody
you're
giving
it
to
someone
else.
D
I
just
need
some
I've
got
a
kid
who
has
a
problem
or
I'm
fearful
of
someone
else
having
it
you're,
not
administering
it
to
yourself
with
risks
of
that
you're
administering
it
to
somebody
else,
and
so
that
that's
my
worry
is
there's
a
lot
of
language
in
there
of
saying
what
what
are
the
risk
factors
of
opioid
overdose,
the
strategies
to
prevent
them.
The
signs
of
opioid
overdose
steps
in
responding
to
an
overdose
information
on
on
the
drug
itself
and
there's
risk
factors
administering
those
drugs
procedures
on
how
to
administer
proper
and
proper
storage.
D
That's
for
some
you're
giving
that
to
somebody
else
who
will
be
administering
it
to
another
person
and
so
we're
striking
all
that
that's
all
safety
language
of
what
this
drug
can
do.
So
I
think
the
average
layperson
doesn't
know
hey.
If
I
give
this
to
somebody-
and
I
thought
they
were
overdosing,
but
they
really
weren't
and
I
give
it
to
them
and
now
they're
short
of
breath
and
having
pulmonary
edema.
What
should
I
do
all
that
all
that
safety
information
has
been
stricken
from
that?
That's
my
concern.
D
J
You
know,
I
believe
our
executive
director
is
currently
on.
Mr
larry
had
comments
regarding
that
concern.
H
I
thank
you
all
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
I
apologize.
I
wasn't
on
earlier.
I
was
detained
and
and
could
not
appear,
but.
C
C
H
And
a
concern
about
side
effects
and
senator
alvarado.
If
I
haven't
characterized
that
correctly,
please,
let
me
know.
H
Is
basically
how
to
administer
and
what
to
look
for
in
and
those
kinds
of
things
as
far
as
when
to
administer,
it
is
typically
an
emergency
situation,
and
so
this
person
who
is
administering
is
typically
a
lay
person
who
is
has
never
used
a
syringe
before
and
so
the
side
effects
you
know
at
that
emergency
time
are
you
know
not
not
the
crucial
factor?
The
crucial
factor
is
to
get
the
narcan
into
the
person.
Who
is
an
overdose?
D
No,
and
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
point-
I'm,
mr
chairman,
you
have
a
lot
of
things
to
go
through,
but
obviously,
when
you're
administering
it
you're
not
gonna,
be
breaking
open.
The
pamphlet.
That's
why
you're
having
this
educational
moment
when
you
give
this
drug
out
to
somebody.
So
someone
comes
in
and
says
I
want
to
give
it
intranasally.
D
Okay,
here's
how
you
give
it!
Here's
the
education,
here's
some
information
on
it
to
explain
a
lot
of
the
information
about
the
drug
risk.
So
you
have
that
conversation
that
person
receives
that
information.
Then,
when
the
moment
of
emergency
comes
they're
already
aware
of
it,
they're
already
educated
on
the
topic,
we
have
purposely
removed
a
lot
of
those
sections
of
what
needs
to
be
in
this
pamphlet
so
or
in
the
educational
material
which
could
change
so
right.
D
Now
it
has
that
information
in
there
by
removing
all
this
information
out,
they
say:
well,
we
don't
have
to
explain
any
of
it.
Just
give
it
to
somebody.
Here's
how
you
give
it
don't
worry
about
the
rest,
that's
where
I
have
the
bit
of
the
issue,
because
administering
if
it
was
just
no
big
deal,
there
are
big
deals
to
giving
narcan.
D
There
are
risks
to
giving
narcan,
and
so
the
purpose
of
doing
this
is
you
give
it
to
someone
ahead
of
time,
inform
them
of
the
risk
so
that
they're
aware,
then,
then,
when
the
moment
comes,
they
can
give
it.
They
know
how
to
give
it,
but
there's
also
potential
risks
of
it
that
they
can
watch
for
and
so
by
removing
all
this
language
out.
It's
like
we're
almost
saying
that
this
doesn't
matter.
It
isn't
really
all
it
matters
is
how
to
give
it.
Don't
worry
about
the
rest.
H
I
I
fully
appreciate
your
concerns
and
we'll
be
happy
to
take
it
back
and
and
rework
that
language.
C
There
being
no
further
questions
before
we
move
to
the
next
regulation,
I
just
want
to
point
out
to
all
any
of
the
members
that
are
joining
us
remotely.
I
know
we
may
have
a
hard
time
communicating,
but
just
you'll
just
have
to
interrupt
and
I'll
recognize
you.
If
you
have
a
question,
just
speak
up
and
let
us
know
here,
we
don't
want
to
miss
anybody.
That
has
a
question
on
anything.
M
G
C
C
C
G
L
201
15
040
is
being
amended
to
change
the
schedule
for
licensure
examinations
and
make
clarifications.
15050
and
15
110
are
being
amended
to
refer
to
the
fees
established
and
201kr.
15030
15125
is
being
amended
to
change
the
timing
of
the
exam
and
payment
of
the
exam
fee
and
refer
to
the
fees
established
in
201,
kr
15030.
C
Good
afternoon,
would
you
please
identify
yourself
today.
C
Thank
you,
christie
for
being
with
us
today.
There
are
no
amendments
to
the
specific
regulations
that
was
mentioned.
Are
there
any
questions
from
any
of
the
members
of
the
subcommittee
today.
C
G
Tourism,
arts
and
heritage
cabinet
department
of
fish
and
wild
301
k,
or100
12
16
18
19
31,
50,
82,
120,
125,
140
152.
All
with
staff
suggested
amendments.
210
215,
with
staff
suggested
amendments.
2041
2050,
with
staff
suggested
amendment
2084
to
111
230,
with
staff
suggested
amendment
and
260
with
staff
suggested
amendment.
L
301
1012
is
being
amended
to
insert
an
additional
exception
to
the
general
prohibition
on
swimming
1016
is
being
amended
to
change
the
term
grandfathered
to
the
term
exempted
in
the
definition
of
existing
structure.
1018
is
being
amended
to
expand.
The
definition
of
camping
1019
is
being
amended
to
refer
to
301
kr
1015,
1031,
1050,
1082
and
1
120
are
being
amended
to
remove
redundant
language,
update
provisions
and
clarify
various
sections.
One
125
and
1
140
are
being
amended
to
add
hearing
requirements
for
denial
or
revocation
of
a
permit,
clarify
provisions
and
clarify
various
sections.
L
1
152
is
being
amended
to
update
and
clarify
definitions.
Add
language
prevent
harvest
of
road
bearing
species
expand.
The
type
of
net
sets
allowed,
update,
call-in
requirements
of
program
participants,
update
harvest
submission
timelines,
require
program,
participants
to
mark
the
end
of
their
nets,
with
floating
buoys,
require
participants
to
harvest
possess
and
transport
fish
claimed
under
this
program
separately
from
fish
harvested
by
any
other
method.
Remove
distancing
and
occupancy
wording
as
it
applies
to
multiple
program
participants
when,
on
the
water,
add
language
to
allow
program.
L
Participants
to
fish
in
waters
open
to
commercial
fishing,
add
language
to
allow
the
department
to
restrict
fishing
in
locations
where
there
would
be
excessive
use
or
conflict.
Add
requirements
for
unlicensed
helpers.
Add
requirements
for
suspension
of
a
commercial
phishing
license
and
make
clarifications.
One
210
is
being
amended
to
update
provisions.
The
staff
suggests
amendments
to
these
regulations
amidst
various
sections
to
comply
with
the
drafting
requirements
of
krs
chapter
13a,
correct
statutory
citations,
add
a
statutory
citation
and
make
technical
changes.
G
And
I'm
going
to
interrupt
the
description,
real,
quick
and
clarify
that
301
k,
r
2,
o
15,
the
feeding
of
wildlife,
was
deferred
immediately
before
the
agenda.
M
O
C
All
right,
thank
you,
gentlemen.
Thank
you,
commissioner,
for
being
with
us
today,
mr
garland,
mr
dreeves,
mr
fields.
We
appreciate
your
time
today
a
lot
of
regulations
that
have
been
brought
before
our
committee
this
afternoon.
There
are
staff
amendments
to
these.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendments?
C
C
Senator
alvarado,
you
do
not
have
a
question
on
frog
limits.
It's
frog
season.
C
I
thought
you
might
be
interested
in
that
specific
regulation
there,
but
I
I
do
have
one
quick
question:
if
I,
if
I
might
please
this
would
probably
go
to
fisheries
director
drives
on
301
k,
r
001
140,
it's
referring
to
the
special
commercial
fishing
permit
for
kentucky
and
barclay
lakes.
Could
you
could
you
explain
to
me
just
real
quick
quickly
what
that
what
that
specifically
involves
or
what
that's
about.
P
Sorry
about
that,
the
special
fishing
commercial
fishing
permit
for
kentucky
and
berkeley
lakes
has
to
do
with
the
fishing
for
road
bearing
species,
among
others,
paddlefish
and
and
the
like.
C
P
P
I
I
don't
believe
that
we
had
that
many
apply,
but
I'm
not
certain
about
that
answer.
Mr
chairman,.
C
P
C
P
They
a
lot
of
fish
are
going
to
fish
meal
and
that
so
that
doesn't
require
much
much
storage.
We
do
have
a
couple
of
processors
that
do
have
capability
to
store
fish
that
are
processed
for
both
human
consumption
and
for
bait
markets
and
in
other
areas
of
the
country.
C
L
605-1030
is
being
amended
to
remove
various
sections,
because
the
provisions
of
those
sections
will
be
promulgated
in
a
new
regulation,
modify,
add
and
renumber
various
sections
to
eliminate
unnecessary
language
clarify
that
licensee
names
must
be
unique
and
provide
that
the
commission
may
request.
Additional
information
include
language
to
clarify
that
members
and
managers
of
limited
liability
companies
may
be
required
to
make
disclosures
and
provide
information
to
the
commission
establish
that
a
minimum
net
worth
of
fifty
thousand
in
encumbered
cash
and
unencumbered
inventory
is
considered.
L
The
minimum
amount
required
to
demonstrate
financial
fitness
of
the
licensee
address
that
the
bonding
requirements
set
forth
in
krs
1903
will
apply
to
applicants
with
a
net
worth
between
50
and
100
000
reflect
that
the
revenue
cabinet
is
now
the
department
of
revenue
and
make
technical
changes.
1035
establishes
facilities,
requirements
for
motor
vehicle
dealers,
one
215
establishes
fees
for
motor
vehicle
dealers,
manufacturers
and
other
entities
regulated
by
the
motor
vehicle
commission
and
establishes
renewal
timelines
and
procedures.
C
Good
afternoon,
gentlemen,
please
identify
yourself
for
the
record
today.
If
you
don't
mind.
C
C
C
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Walk
us
through
605
kr,
zero,
zero
one,
two
one:
five!
You
got
the
motor
vehicle
commission
and
it's
in
the
summary
establishes
fees
for
motor
vehicle
dealers,
staff
and
staff
tells
me
this
is
a
new
regulation.
N
I
can
answer
that
the
statute
krs-19030
changed
this
year
in
order
to
eliminate
the
statutory
fees
for
motor
vehicle
dealers
and
and
change
that
to
provide
that
the
fees
would
be
set
by
the
commission.
The
statutory
fees
had
been
in
place
since
the
early
80s
and
had
never
changed.
E
E
N
Easy
it's
it's
reference
in
the
emergency
regulation
that
was
promulgated
earlier,
and
I
can
I
can
provide
that
to
the
committee.
If
thank.
E
C
G
M
704
kar
7
121
repeal
704,
kar,
7120,
home
and
hospital
instruction,
as
these
provisions
are
being
repromulgated
in
another
regulation,
707
kar-1340
amends
to
clarify
the
difference
between
an
admissions
and
release
committee
or
arc
meeting
notice
to
parents
and
prior
written
notice
provided
to
parents,
including
the
requirements
for
notice,
content
and
time
frames.
The
staff
suggested
amendment
amends
various
sections
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a.
C
C
N
And
co-chair
hale,
if
I
may
yes,
this
is
todd
allen
with
the
agency.
Again,
I
would
propose
if
the
the
subcommittee
is
willing
to
defer
704
kar-7121,
that's
the
repeal
of
another
regulation,
there's
a
companion
that
goes
along
with
that.
That
received
a
comment
during
the
public
comment
period
and
it
will
come
back
to
ours
next
month.
So
I
would
propose
that
we
defer
704k
r7121
to
next
month
to
keep
both
of
those
on
the
same
timeline.
C
Okay,
first
off,
let
me
finish
up
representing
marzian.
We
do
have
some
staff
amendments
and
I
don't
know
if
I
don't
know,
if
I
did
this
or
not,
but
I'm
following
through
there
do
we
have
a
motion
for
approval
of
that.
C
C
Yes,
correct,
yes,
ma'am,
okay,
yes,
ma'am.
C
There
appearing
to
be
no
other
questions.
Thank
you
all.
Please
call
the
next
regulations
this
time.
G
C
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
Would
you
please
identify
yourself
today
for
the
record,
for
whoever
is
from
the
cabinet
robert.
C
Yes,
sir,
mr
o'daniel,
we
are
going
to
proceed
with
the
cabinet
first
and
then
we
will
come
to
you,
sir
okay.
Thank
you,
sir
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
There
are
staff
amendments
for
the
regulations
there
are.
There
is
one
of
these
that
is
going
to
be
deferred
and
we're
going
to
just
have
discussion
only,
but
for
the
other
ones
there
are
staff
amendments.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval?
There
is
a
motion.
Is
there
a
second,
and
there
is
a
second
without
objection
it
is
so
ordered.
C
All
right
there
appears
to
be
no
questions
or
comments
from
anybody
of
the
subcommittee
on
on
those
regulations.
Now
we
will
move
to
803
karo
25
190,
and
this
one
is
going
to
be.
This
has
actually
been
deferred
by
the
cabinet
or
they've
asked
for
a
deferral,
but
we
are
going
to
have
discussion
only
on
this
would
whoever
from
the
cabinet
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
proceed?
If
you'd
like
to
comment.
R
Yes,
mr
chairman,
robert
walker,
yes,
sir,
and
I
can
give
you
a
brief
overview
and
discussion
of
what
this
reg
does.
Yes,.
R
But
first
let
me
thank
senator
west
for
taking
the
time
to
meet
with
secretary
len
mr
flynn
and
myself
and
others
from
the
labor
cabinet
last
week
to
discuss
this
regulation.
I
know,
especially
last
week
was
a
very
busy
time
for
all
members
of
the
general
assembly,
but
we
do
appreciate
the
time
in
him.
Speaking
with
us,
803
kr,
25
190's.
Most
important
change
is
to
add
the
position
of
medical
director
to
department
of
workers
claims
before
we
get
into
the
regulation.
R
I
think
it's
important
to
just
discuss
some
of
the
earlier
relevant
legislation
that
was
passed
by
this
general
assembly
2018.
The
general
assembly
required
the
department
of
workers
claims
to
develop
and
adopt
a
uniform
treatment
guidelines
in
a
pharmacy
formulary,
both
good
ideas
that
were
designed
to
speed
the
delivery
of
medical
benefits
to
injured
workers,
both
both
treatment
guidelines
and
the
pharmacy
formulary
has
been
enacted.
R
This
is
important
because,
during
the
enactment
of
these
measures,
discussion
began
about
the
need
for
a
medical
director
in
kentucky,
it
was
discovered
that
a
medical
director
would
complement
the
treatment
guidelines
and
pharmacy
fee
schedule.
The
department
looked
at
other
states
such
as
tennessee
and
ohio
both
have
medical
directors
along
with
treatment,
guidelines
and
pharmacy
formularies.
R
R
R
The
advisory
role
provides
at
least
annually.
The
medical
director
will
review
and
advise
the
commissioner
and
the
secretary
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
medical
fee,
schedule,
treatment,
guidelines,
pharmaceutical
formulary,
all
in
an
attempt
in
reducing
costs
and
speeding
the
delivery
of
medical
services
to
injured
workers.
R
R
If
the
insurance
company
insurance
physician
disagrees
with
the
treating
position
the
treatment's
not
approved
under
current
regulation,
the
injured
worker
can
ask
for
reconsideration,
and
the
issue
would
be
sent
to
another
physician
chosen
by
the
insurance
company.
Most
of
the
time,
the
new
insurance
physician
denies
the
treatment
again.
R
R
The
proposed
regulation
here
substitutes
the
medical
director
for
the
reconsideration
process.
It
does
not
add
another
layer
of
appeal,
but
merely
allows
a
direct
appeal
to
the
medical
director
after
the
first
denial.
So,
within
days
of
the
additional
denial,
the
injured
worker
could
have
an
employee
of
the
dwc
with
medical
expertise.
Looking
at
the
demand,
there's
no
need
to
file
a
claim
or
seek
interrogatory
relief
and,
depending
on
what
information
is
needed,
the
medical
director
can
have
a
decision
to
the
injured
worker
within
one
to
four
weeks,
much
quicker
than
our
current
system.
R
R
R
R
C
C
And
I
will
allow
senator
west
to
give
the
for
or
ask
the
first
question.
Then
we
have
some
others
to
follow.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
cabinet,
first
of
all,
for
agreeing
to
defer
and
listen
to
further
discussion
on
this
issue.
This
is
this
is
a
big
issue.
This
isn't
this
is
a
big
deal
and
I
think
we
need
to
measure
twice
and
cut
once
for
sure.
E
What
pro,
what
existing
workers
comp
problem
are
we
attempting
to
solve
with
this
regulation?
My
my
understanding
and
conversations
with
plaintiff,
the
plaintiffs
bar
and
the
defense
bars
is
there
are
issues,
but
everything
seems
to
be
working
fairly.
Well,
what
specific
issues
are
we
attempting
to
address
here.
R
And
thank
you
central
west
for
that
question.
We're
attempting
to
speed
up
medical,
deliberative
medical
benefits
to
injured
workers.
I
practiced
workers
compensation
for
over
20
years,
mostly
representing
plaintiffs,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
one
of
the
main
concerns
of
mine
was
when
I
couldn't
get
a
injured
worker
medical
treatment.
Quick
enough
now
remember
this
is
not
involved.
R
R
Also.
I
think
this
will
help
individuals
that
are
not
represented
by
council
a
lot
of
times,
injuries,
workers
that
are
injured
on
the
job,
don't
seek
counsel,
they
don't
know
how
to
do
the
reconsideration
process.
One
of
the
provisions
in
the
medical
director
regulation
is
that
the
medical
director
actually
reaches
out
to
the
injured
worker
and
says
to
them.
R
I
can
review
this
for
you
if
you'd
like,
and
so
I
think
it
also
protects
and
helps
injured
workers
that
do
not
have
counsel
at
this
time.
R
E
Yeah
yeah,
it
does,
and
I
once
again
I
appreciate
you
agreeing
to
defer
and,
as
I
stated
earlier
in
another
regulation,
we
were
covering
one
of
the
great
things
we
do
here
in
this
committee
is
get
information
out
there,
and
this
is
what
we're
doing
today.
This
is
this
is
not
an
easy
issue.
You
have
to
really
think
about
it,
so
you
cited
an
existing
problem
with
the
system
as
a
delay
and
benefits.
E
What
is
the
cause
of
that
delay?
Is
that
due
to
a
lack
of
alj
judges?
E
Is
it?
Could
it
be
that
the
courts
have
been
closed?
A
covet
issue?
Is
there?
Is
there
something
else
we
can
do
before
we
hire
a
new
medical
director
and
create
a
whole
new
bureaucracy
within
the
cabinet.
R
Right
again,
thank
you
for
that
question.
No,
I
don't
think
it's
a
recent
problem.
It's
been
a
problem
that
I
have
experienced
over
my
20
years
as
a
as
a
workers,
comp
practitioner.
R
What
usually
happens
in
in
the
old
regulation
is:
it
goes
to
two
doctors
that
have
were
chosen
by
the
insurance
company.
The
insurance
company
has
has
control
of
the
process,
so,
if
they're
denied
both
times
by
the
insurance
company
doctors,
the
only
recourse
they
have
is
to
go
to
an
alj,
and
that
takes
time
to
get
in
front
of
an
alj
that
takes
time
to
bifurcate
the
issues.
So
the
judge
can
hear
just
the
treatment
concerns.
R
R
S
And
senator
west,
this
is
sam
flynn,
the
general
counsel
for
the
labor
cabinet,
and
I
just
wanted
to
piggyback
on
on
what
the
commissioner
has
just
testified
to
we're
we're
not
actually
adding
a
layer
of
bureaucracy,
we're
removing
a
layer
of
bureaucracy
and
we're
also
reducing
the
amount
of
litigation
that's
associated
with
with
ur
and
going
to
the
alj.
So
this
is
actually
going
to
shorten
the
the
length
of
time
it
takes
for
injured
workers
to
get
benefits
and
also
get
back
to
work.
C
Thank
you,
senator
west,
just
a
quick
comment
and
then
we
have
a
a
question
from
senator
alvarado.
C
But
from
what
I
understand
it
does
it
does
appear
that
your
goal
is
to
definitely
speed
up
the
process
and
get
them
in
front
of
someone
or
get
them
the
opportunity,
and
I
like
the
comment
that
you
made,
that
the
medical
director
would
be
specifically
reaching
out
to
them.
Do
you
just
have
a
quick
comment
or
response
to
that.
R
You
know
that
that's
exactly
right
and
that
was
purposely
put
into
the
regulation
so
that
we
can
we
can
get.
We
can
get
to
more
injured
workers
that
are
unrepresented
by
council.
That
may
not
know
the
system,
so
if
they
get
a
call
from
the
medical
director's
office
saying
I
know
your
treatment
got
denied,
but
I
can
look
at
that
for
you.
I
I
think
that
is
a
huge
benefit,
especially
to
the
unrepresented
injured
workers.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
one
question
a
question
in
the
comment.
So
in
the
current
process
you
go
through
two
physicians
to
review
this.
Then
you
have
be
able
to
go
to
an
administrative
law
judge
who
you're
saying
doesn't
have
any
expertise
in
the
medical
field.
Making
a
decision
after
that
does
the
individual
have
any
rights
to
go
to
the
courts.
R
D
Very
good,
so
this
sounds
like
a
medical
review
panel
of
one
is
what
it
sounds
like
to
me,
which
obviously
I
was
all
for
that,
and
it
was
something
that
we
filed
here
in
kentucky
and
with
the
same
all
the
same
arguments
you're
making.
Sir
the
same
arguments,
I
made
that
we
get
expedited
by
having
medical
experts
who
can
review
a
case,
determine
the
legitimacy
of
something
get
people
an
award
more
quickly.
D
All
these
comments,
you're
making
were
the
exact
same
arguments
made
from
medical
review
panels,
which
were
then
found
to
be
unconstitutional
by
the
supreme
court
here
in
kentucky.
So
this
goes
forward
and
someone
says
hey.
This
is
a
delay
for
me
to
be
able
to
get
to
the
courts
at
the
end
of
the
entire
process,
because
you've
injected
a
doctor,
a
medical
review
panel,
of
one
to
review
this
case.
D
Now,
I'm
going
to
be
required
have
to
spend
more
time
waiting
for
this
when
I
can
go
to
the
courts.
What
would
be
your
argument
against
that?
If
someone
comes
out
because
I
would
imagine
if
the
bar
association,
if
someone
says
hey,
I
can't
get
to
the
courts
as
quickly.
That
was
the
argument
against
medical
review
panels
for
us
when
it
came
to
issues
in
the
state
and
our
supreme
court,
seven
to
zero
said
nope.
It's
unconstitutional.
I
don't
see
how
this
can
be
any
different.
R
D
D
It
takes
you
six
to
eight
ten
years
to
get
to
a
court
to
have
to
argue
a
medical
malpractice
case
that
could
have
been
done
sooner
through
this
because
you
get
judgments,
that's
been
proven
and
the
court's
determined
that
no
this
gets
in
the
way
of
that
person
being
able
to
get
to
the
court
so
that
all
these
same
arguments
I
I
maybe
you're
right.
I
argue
the
same
thing
on
one
angle,
but
our
supreme
court
has
already
issued
a
judgment
on
this
and
that's
why
I'm
wondering
is
when
someone
comes
in
the
terms.
D
R
Well,
instead
of
having
another
insurance
doctor
review,
it
we're
having
the
medical
director
review
it
now,
the
aggrieved
party
can
appeal
it
to
an
alj,
so
it
does
not
end
with
the
medical
director.
So
if
they
feel
the
medical
director
is
is
wrong,
they
can
appeal
to
an
alj.
They
feel
the
alj
is
incorrect.
They
can
appeal
it
to
the
workers,
compensation
board
and
then
the
court
of
appeals
and
the
supreme
court.
D
D
We
said
they
had
a
time
limit
for
a
medical
review
panel
to
review
a
case
and
provide
some
independent
panel
of
doctors
to
take
a
look
and
find
if
they
think
something
was
done
improperly,
because
they
had
more
expertise
in
the
matter
and
if
the
person
had
a
found
that
something
was
improper,
they
can
get
a
judgment.
Much
quicker,
that's
been
shown
across
the
country
where
these
panels
have
been
established.
D
So
your
arguments
are
the
same
arguments
I
made
and
that
were
made
before
our
supreme
court
and
found
to
be
unconstitutional,
and
that
becomes
a
concern
because
we've
already
had
a
judgment.
This
is
basically
a
medical
review
panel
of
one.
Your
arguments
are
the
ones
I
have
made.
So
my
concern
is
the
legality
of
this
and
that
it
would
actually
be
unconstitutional
in
front
of
the
supreme
court.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
P
I'm
sorry
if
I
may,
this
is
dale
hamlin,
the
assistant
general
counsel.
One
of
the
things
that
may
be
different
is
that
in
workers
compensation
an
employee
is
automatically
entitled
to
the
medical
treatment
if
they
are
injured
at
work.
So
it's
not
really
a
matter
of.
Are
they
entitled
to
some
treatment?
That's
a
separate
issue.
In
other
words,
if
they
were,
if
the
injury
was
work
related,
that's
a
separate
question.
P
You
can
immediately
take
to
an
alj
the
the
question
before
the
medical
director
is
simply
whether
the
proposed
treatment
that
the
employee
is
already
entitled
to
if
the
injured
or
injury
occurred
at
work,
whether
that
treatment
is
appropriate.
So
it's
it
may
be
a
slightly
different
question
than
the
one
you
were
raising
before
the
supreme
court.
P
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
case
or
not,
but
perhaps
it
is
that
may
set
workers
compensation
apart
just
a
little
differently
from
what
you
were
arguing.
D
It
I
would
argue
that
it
is
no
different,
it's
just
a
different,
you
know
the
difference.
The
thing
is,
am
I
entitled
to
comp,
you
could
have
somebody
agree
that
something
could
have
been
done.
Should
it
be
higher
or
a
smaller
amount?
It's
no
different
of
an
argument,
but
the
problem
the
supreme
court
was,
it
was
a
delay
to
the
court
system,
and
this
is
going
to
inject
another
individual
in
the
delay
to
the
court
system
and
mind
you.
The
arguments
are
exactly
the
same.
These
are
the
arguments
that
were
made
before
the
supreme
court.
D
It's
going
to
be
deemed
unconstitutional.
If
you
want
to
get
this
done,
then
we
need
to
have
a
change
to
our
constitution.
Mr
chairman,
I
would
argue,
and
I'll
be
happy
to
propose
it.
I
propose
it
every
year
to
give
the
general
assembly
the
authority
to
do
this
and
perhaps
even
give
the
executive
branch
the
authority
to
do
this,
but
it's
already
been
argued.
S
Workers
compensation
rights
are
are
created
in
statute,
not
in
the
constitution.
I
think
that's
a
significant
distinction
here
and
and
why,
ultimately,
this
regulation
would
be
found
constitutional.
It
wouldn't.
I
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
I
appreciate
the
discussion
and-
and
I
think
that
mr
flynn
did
touch
on
as
far
as
dickson
and
constitutional,
compared
to
legislative,
but
even
just
a
very
basic
kentucky
for
a
long
time.
We
found
it
very.
We
found
that
it
was
important
that
that
workers
or
injured
people
receive
quick
and
efficient
treatment.
I
That's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we're
a
no-fault
state
so
that,
regardless
of
fault
in
car
wrecks
under
pit
under
the
basic
recreational
benefits
act
that
we've
found
that
we
want
to
make
sure
people
get
treatment
right
away
under
workers
comp.
I
I
think
the
necessity
of
making
sure
that
workers
are
not
turned
down
or
denied
the
necessary
medical
treatment,
obviously
is
a
an
important
thing
for
us,
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky,
and
so
it
makes
sense
why
we
want
a
medical
director
to
be
able
to
do
that,
because,
in
the
event
that
they're
they
are
denied,
then
you
do
go
through
that
long
litigation
process.
The
difference
between
this
and
a
medical
negligence
case
or
medical
malpractice
case
is
the
medical
malpractice
case
when
you're
going
in
there.
I
If
you're
looking
at
damages
you're
looking
in
to
try
to
get
a
case
of
damages,
it's
unlike
at
this
point,
the
medical
director
would
really
be
for
the
point
of
making
sure
there's
treatment.
You'd
still
go
through
the
same
process
in
the
workers,
comp
to
get
damages
that
wouldn't
be
infringed
or
changed.
I
I
think
you're
comparing
one's
a
gatekeeper
for
you
receiving
medical
damage
compensation
and
the
other
is
just
to
make
sure
that
you're
getting
appropriate
treatment,
and
I
think
that
that's
the
distinguish
that
we
can
we
draw
above
and
beyond
the
difference
between
constitutional
protections
and
that
just
made
by
the
legislature.
Thank
you.
C
O
O
O
That's
first
and
second,
it
exists
to
pay
for
the
medical
expenses
for
treating
injuries
or
occupational
diseases.
We've
had
improvements
on
both
of
those
two
sides
of
the
scale
in
recent
years
now
about
55
of
every
benefit.
Dollar
goes
to
pay.
The
medical
portion
of
workers
comp
and
about
45
goes
to
pay
for
rate
wage
replacement,
and
both
sides
of
that
scale
have
improved
in
in
recent
years
in
in
large
part
because
of
the
2018
legislation.
O
O
O
There's
a
major
change
in
how
you
are
gets
administered
in
this
in
this
new
regulation.
O
Now
the
threshold,
for
you
are
case,
is
medical
costs
of
at
least
three
thousand
dollars
for
an
injury
and
in
the
new
regulation
this
cost
threshold
would
drop
to
a
thousand
dollars.
This
is
going
to
increase
substantially
the
number
of
cases
that
are
going
to
be
subject
to
ur.
O
O
O
Ur
applies
after
15
days,
so
this
is
another
factor
increasing.
The
number
of
cases
that
are
are
going
to
be
going
to
go
to
on
appeal.
O
This
this
medical
director
is
going
to
have
to
be
superhuman,
to
be
able
to
deal
with
all
these
cases
and,
at
the
same
time
improve
the
delivery
of
treatment,
and
I
agree
with
what's
been
said
by
the
department.
If
there's
a
treatment
backlog,
we
need
to
deal
with
it,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
dealing
with
it
in
the
wrong
way,
it
seems
to
me
we
need
to
deal
with
it
by
increasing
the
amount
of
of
medical.
O
O
This
is
a
direct
use
of
physicians
to
decide
on
medical
treatment
and
that's
not
new,
that
that
provision
is
already
in
the
ur
regulation
and
and
that
ur
reg
that
we're
now
operating
under
has
been
in
effect.
I
believe,
since
1995
virtually
unchanged
and
it's
it's
it's
my
understanding
that
the
current
ur
reg
works.
Well,
it
can
be
improved.
O
O
The
the
provision
in
krs
342.035
on
treatment
guidelines,
because
the
way
I
understand
the
reading
of
of
the
regulation,
this
can
lead
to
treatment
things
that
that
are
outside
of
the
treatment
guidelines.
C
Mr
o'daniel,
I
have
given
you
10
minutes,
sir,
and
if,
if
you
wouldn't
mind,
could
I
I'll
give
you
two
more
minutes?
Could
you
kind
of
just
wrap
up
and
we
do
have.
C
O
Thank
you,
senator
I'm
right
at
the
end,
I
would
simply
say
in
conclusion,
I
would
suggest
that
there
be
a
pause
in
the
progress
of
of
this
regulation
and
that
all
sides
be
allowed
to
make
their
points
with
the
department
and
try
to
make
changes
that
will.
O
C
Yes,
sir,
you
now,
you
are
just
please,
please
conclude:
if
you
can,
sir.
O
I
think
I'm
done.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
Thank
you,
sir.
I
appreciate
that
and
certainly
wanted
to
give
you
plenty
of
ample
time
to
respond.
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
for
anyone
from
or
to
any
of
the
individuals
from
any
of
the
members
before
we
proceed
on
senator
west
has
a
follow-up
question.
E
E
E
Maybe
we
can
come
to
an
agreement
at
some
point
on
this
rig,
but
the
idea
of
a
medical
director
actively
seeking
new
claimants
after
a
doctor
has
said
there
is
no
claim.
E
That
tells
me
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
new
workers
comp
claims,
because
invariably
a
client
who
has
been
told
by
a
doctor.
He
has
no,
he
or
she
has
no
claim
who
gets
a
call
from
medical
directors
stating
you
know
you
could
push
this
a
little
further.
E
Clearly,
that's
going
to
increase
workers,
comp
claims
that
may
have
not
otherwise
been
there
and
I'm
an
attorney
and
with
the
kentucky
bar
association,
we
have
ethics
rules
and
guidelines
that
prohibit
the
solicitation
of
clients,
so
sometimes
in
those
cases,
attorneys
in
this
state
would
be
prohibited
from
from
doing
that.
Secondly,
the
the
decision
making
seems
to
be
a
consolidation
into
one
individual
rather
than
a
multitude
of
alj
judges,
and
to
me
this
could
cause
a
serious
swing
in
rulings
in
kentucky.
E
E
Hopefully
you
would
have
a
medical
director
that
would
was
right
in
the
middle,
but
but
that's
highly
unlikely.
So
at
the
very
least
my
third
problem
is
is
this
is
a
huge
change
in
the
way
we
do
business
that
has
not
been
vetted
or
approved
by
the
general
assembly.
So
there's
there's
been
little
to
no
input
on
this
from
the
general
assembly
up
to
this
point.
So
those
are
my
problems
not
saying
we
can't
get
over
those.
E
C
Thanks,
sir,
having
had
some
very
good
lively
discussion,
I
would
like
to
certainly
thank
the
members
of
the
cabinet
again
for
deferring
this,
this
specific
regulation,
and
but
we
have
had
some
good
discussion
on
it
today
and
thank
all
of
of
those
individuals
and
mr
o'daniel.
Thank
you
for
your
time,
sir,
and
some
very
good
questions
presented
us
to
us
today
being
no
further
questions.
Please
call
the
next
regulation
at
this
time.
G
T
806
kr9025
and
12
120
make
changes
to
align
with
the
national
association
of
insurance
commissioners
model
regulation
relating
to
annuity
training,
806
kr
1770
adds
cancer
and
critical
illness
policies
and
indemnity,
and
lump
sum
benefits
to
the
types
of
benefits
recognized
806,
kr
1785
establishes
standards
for
extension
of
benefits,
discontinuance
and
reimplacement
reinstatement
benefit
triggers
inflation,
protection,
home
health
and
community
care
benefits
within
short-term
nursing
insurance
policies.
Advertising
and
disclosures
806
kr17150
requires
forms
to
be
submitted
electronically,
using
the
system
for
electronic
rate
and
form
filing
removes
requirements
relating
to
basic
health
benefit
plans.
T
Updates
market
segments
removes
requirements
for
the
actuarial
memorandum
to
discuss
the
effects
of
certain
state
mandated
benefits
and
removes
requirements
related
to
the
guaranteed
acceptance
program.
806K
17260
makes
changes
relating
to
conversion
policy.
Minimum
benefits,
806
kr
17
290,
makes
changes
relating
to
the
independent
external
review
program
and
806
kr
17
511
repeals
various
administrative
regulations,
the
staff
amendments
for
this
package
of
regulations
I'll
make
changes
for
clarity
and
to
comply
with
keras
chapter
13a.
T
K
C
Thank
you
all
this
today
for
being
with
us,
we
appreciate
your
time
a
lot
of
regulations,
specific
regulations
that
were
presented
to
us
or
given
to
us.
There
are
staff
amendments
to
these
regulations.
Is
there
a
motion
for
the
approval
of
the
staff
amendments?
There
is
a
motion
and
is
there
a
set?
There
is
a
second
without
objection,
it's
so
ordered.
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
the
members
senator
west
has
a
question.
Go
ahead,
sir?.
E
I'm
just
full
of
questions
today,
mr
chairman.
This
is
for
my
information,
not
necessarily
anything
relating
to
these
regs,
but
in
kar
806
kr,
401
0,
where
we
talk
about
pbm
fees
thousand
dollars.
F
E
Okay,
that's
actually
a
question
for
another
committee,
but
yeah
you
can
get
that
to
the
committee
later.
If
need
be,
and
that's
my
only
question.
Thank
you.
C
If
you
could
just
get
the
answer
to
that
question
that
senator
west
asked-
and
you
could
just
send
that
to
the
the
staff
and
they
could
pass
that
on
to
us,
we
would
appreciate
that
very
much.
T
C
C
C
G
Continuing
under
cabinet
for
health
and
family
services
under
department
for
community-based
services,
921
kr,
1020,
390,
400,
emergency
chapter
2015,
emergency
chapter
3027
and
chapter
4,
116
emergency,
both
921
1020
and
390,
have
staff
suggested
amendments.
Q
921-1020
amends
provisions
for
child
support
enforcement
to
make
technical
corrections
and
update
material
incorporated
by
reference.
The
staff
suggested
amendments,
various
sections
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a
921-1390
amends
provisions
for
paternity
verification
related
to
child
support,
to
make
technical
corrections
and
delete
the
fee
and
form
for
the
cabinet
to
receive
a
fee
for
genetic
testing.
The
staff
suggested
amendments,
various
sections
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a,
921
1400
emergency
amends
provisions
for
child
support
and
medical
support;
orders
to
make
technical
corrections
and
update
material
incorporated
by
reference.
M
921
2015
emergency
amends
to
increase
the
reimbursement
rate
for
personal
care
homes
in
accordance
with
2021
house
bill
192
and
establish
the
standard
of
need
annual
cost
of
living
adjustment.
921
3027
establishes
snap
requirements
in
a
new
regulation
because
the
old
regulation,
921
kar
3025,
was
nullified
by
senate
bill
65
in
the
2021
regular
session.
The
companion
emergency
to
this
regulation
was
reviewed
at
the
august
arrs
meeting
921
kar
4
116e
amends
to
delete
the
requirement
that
air
conditioning
units
provided
through
the
program
be
window
units
only
and
increase
the
program.
G
C
C
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
for
being
with
us
all
three
of
you
this
afternoon.
There
are
staff
amendments
to
these
specific
regulations.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
these
staff
amendments?
E
C
C
G
That
concludes
our
agenda.
For
today,
it
looks
like
our
next
meeting
would
be
tuesday
october
12th,
which
is
the
traditional
second
tuesday
of
the
month,
and
that
would
be
at
1
p.m.
C
Thank
you.
Everyone
take
note
of
that
tuesday
october
the
12th.
I
would
just
like
to
say
to
all
the
members.
Thank
you
today,
a
rather
lengthy
meeting
appreciate
the
questions
senator
alvarado
you,
you
joined
us
in
our
last
meeting,
which
is
was
kind
of
an
emergency
called
meeting.