Arkansas water quality rules, urgent care access changes held for further review by lawmakers
Water quality rules will be taken up by lawmakers later this summer. (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service/Flickr)
An update to Arkansas' surface-water quality rules was pulled from the Legislature's Joint Public Health Committee's agenda Wednesday to give lawmakers more time to consider it.
Meanwhile, a Department of Human Services rule, which would change state Medicaid rules to allow recipients up to two urgent care visits a year without a doctor's referral, was sent to a subcommittee for further consideration after multiple legislators expressed concern about whether the text of the rule could have unintended consequences.
The changes to Rule 2, which contains the water quality standards for rivers, lakes and other surface waters in the state, were brought before the committee by the Department of Energy and Environment's Division of Environmental Quality.
States such as Arkansas that have been authorized to administer the federal Clean Water Act are required to undergo this review every three years to update existing water quality standards.
Committee chair Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, said Rule 2 would likely receive its own hearing in June or July, separate from the committee's other business.
The regulation containing Arkansas' existing water quality standards was already long, and the current review introduced a number of changes. DEQ is making cadmium and ammonia standards — which are from 1986 and 1999, respectively — more stringent to match the standards set by the EPA in 2016 and 2013 for those pollutants. Additionally, DEQ included standards for five new pollutants not currently in the regulation.
These pollutants — benzene, ethylbenzene, phenol, toluene and xylene — can have a wide variety of detrimental effects on human health. The standards are 'health-based,' the division said in its documentation, and are meant to protect the health of humans and wildlife exposed to the state's surface waters.
'I think [committee members] needed more time to review it,' Irvin said after the meeting concluded. 'There were a lot of public comments, as well as comments from other state agencies and constitutional offices — so a lot of questions.'
The Arkansas Department of Transportation and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission submitted feedback during the public comment period earlier this year. While ARDOT questioned when the new standards would become applicable to permit holders and how the change from a fecal coliform bacteria standard to an e. coli standard would affect permits, AGFC continued its requests to designate more waters in the state as 'Extraordinary Resource Waters' in order to protect vulnerable and endangered species.
The agency made a similar request in 2020, during the last triennial review.
A proposed amendment to a DHS rule aiming to hasten access to urgent care clinics for Medicaid recipients was referred to the Human Services subcommittee.
Representatives from the department said the goal of the change was to divert patients from emergency rooms when there were other treatment options available. The need for a referral was a barrier to this when medical care became necessary after hours and a referral could not be obtained.
The rule would allow Medicaid recipients with a primary care provider to go to an urgent care clinic twice a year without a referral, while those 'who are not yet assigned' a PCP would be allowed to go up to four times. Referrals would be required after the number of yearly visits are exhausted.
Some lawmakers instantly took issue with the rule's language. Rep. Aaron Pilkington, R-Knoxville, said he was opposed to the change due to concerns it would remove incentives for Medicaid recipients to obtain a primary care provider.
'It seems like this flies in the face of what the Legislature has been doing the last decade, trying to get more people to have an assigned PCP who is someone who can actually be the quarterback of their care,' Pilkington said.
Research has found people with a PCP tend to have better health outcomes than those without one, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
'We want to preserve the bond between a patient and their PCP,' said Nell Smith, DHS' deputy director of medical services. 'That's why we still require a PCP referral [after a certain number of visits]. We don't want to shift care onto urgent care clinics.'
However, Smith said, when these patients need care outside of business hours, they're being sent to the emergency room because of difficulties obtaining referrals.
'It's a fine balance, I'll give you that,' Smith said.
Sen. John Payton, R-Wilburn, appeared to take issue with requiring referrals for urgent care clinics at all.
'This referral process can really slow down medical care,' he said, explaining how one of his employees was 'sitting at home' in pain because of the wait to see a specialist. That employee visited the emergency room twice while waiting for an appointment, Payton said.
'I think we should be evaluating whether or not the urgent care clinic is capable of diagnosing and treating more than we worry about how the patient got there and whether they were referred or not,' he said.
While he understood trying to get Medicaid recipients to get an appointment with a primary care provider, Payton said urgent care clinics also had licensed physicians and nurses capable of treating and diagnosing conditions.
Irvin cautioned that it was important the department make its definitions within the rule clear after multiple lawmakers also asked questions about how the rule defined an emergent care clinic. She said many PCPs offer day clinics for these purposes and it was important that the rule didn't cause them to be 'skipped out on.'
Irvin ultimately moved the rule to the joint Human Services subcommittee for further consideration. The subcommittee is headed by Pilkington.
The agency received no public comments on the rule.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) Soared On Thursday
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) stands against other best-performing stocks on Thursday. Oscar Health snapped a five-day losing streak on Thursday, jumping 10.6 percent to close at $15.65 apiece as investors resorted to bargain-hunting while waiting for more concrete developments on the Trump administration's Medicare Advantage review. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a $5-trillion tax-and-spending package that shaves as much as $900 billion in Medicaid, which servers over 70 million low-income households. A close up of a patient and a healthcare professional engaging in conversation, showing the company's commitment to patient care. Now, Senate Republicans to broaden savings by looking for supposed inefficiencies in the Medicare program for senior citizens. In the first quarter of the year, Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) registered a 55-percent increase in attributable net income of $275 million versus the $177 million registered in the same period last year. Revenues rose by 42 percent to $3.046 billion from $2.142 billion year-on-year. Overall, OSCR ranks 5th on our list of best-performing stocks on Thursday. While we acknowledge the potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
In Lansing, Democrats warn Medicaid and SNAP cuts would be a 'perfect storm' for the poor
U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly) and U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City) at a June 6, 2025 town hall in Lansing. | Kyle Davidson Members of the Michigan Democratic Party laid out the impacts of congressional Republicans' 'big beautiful bill' at a town hall on Friday, calling on residents of Michigan's 7th Congressional District to help educate their friends and family as well. A few hundred supporters packed into the gym of Everett High School in Lansing as U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly), U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City) and Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel detailed how the Trump administration's policies would impact everyone, particularly individuals with limited income. The Michigan Democratic Party has hosted several similar events in Republican districts throughout the state, Hertel said, noting House Republicans had been instructed to avoid town halls with their constituents. 'The most basic thing for a public servant is to be able to sit and answer questions. … The least someone can do is sit down with people and explain their votes' Hertel said. And the 7th Congressional District's current representative, Tom Barrett (R-Charlotte) has a lot of explaining to do, Hertel said, slamming Barrett for supporting Republican's spending plan, and arguing the representative failed to stand up to the President and make himself available to his constituents A Barrett spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Prior to taking questions, McDonald Rivet slammed the Republican spending effort, telling audience members that it would take away healthcare and raise the cost of medicine, education and energy in order to deliver a tax break to the wealthy. 'Oh, and by the way, it's going to increase the deficit by several trillion dollars,' She said. Slotkin looked back on the president's first term, when Trump was looking to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which expanded access to Medicaid and barred insurance providers from denying people coverage or charging them due to preexisting health conditions. 'It was the first thing he talked about when he got sworn in, he even had the House of Representatives vote to repeal Obamacare. And now we not only still have it, we expanded it, and how? Because we educated people,' Slotkin said. However, rather than cutting people's healthcare outright, Slotkin argued Trump is aiming to hide those cuts by requiring individuals to reregister for Medicaid every six months, making it harder to qualify and more difficult to sign up. While the current proposal would implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients, Slotkin noted it also raises the age limit for those requirements to 64. According to KFF, an independent health policy organization, 92% of medicaid recipients under 65 are already working full or part time. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Republican's budget plan would result in 10.9 million additional people being uninsured in 2034, with 7.8 million fewer individuals on Medicaid due to the policy's proposed work requirements. Even individuals who are not on Medicaid will feel the impacts of cuts to the program, Slotkin said, noting that nursing homes, hospitals and mental health facilities all rely on Medicaid funding. 'I would just say this bill is designed to really be a perfect storm for poor people. If you are living at or below the poverty line, you're getting hit in every direction. Medicaid, your health care; SNAP your food; a bunch of programs, right, that you depend on. … They are paying for those tax benefits for the most wealthy by really the perfect storm of cuts for the poorest among us,' Slotkin said. On top of cutting SNAP benefits by $300 billion, the Department of Government Efficiency had canceled $1 billion in funding to programs supporting school meals and food banks, McDonald Rivet said. 'So you're that hungry kid and you have lost access to a food bank. You have lost access to food at school, and now you don't have SNAP benefits. This is the America that this bill creates,' McDonald Rivet said. Alongside questions on cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, audience members asked the lawmakers about the legal challenges levied against the Trump administration, and Democrats' plans to counter Republicans heading into the 2026 mid-term election. On Friday, the Trump Administration backed down in its resistance of a Supreme Court order demanding that the administration facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador three months ago. However, the fight goes beyond Abrego Gracia, into whether the executive branch needs to obey orders from the Supreme Court, Slotkin said. 'Now, we haven't had to deal with this issue in the years past because Democrats and Republicans have largely said, 'Huh, if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issues a court order, we're going to follow it.' Trump is pushing the boundaries on all the democratic values and principles most of us grew up with,' Slotkin said. Should an individual defy a federal court order, U.S. marshals would eventually be sent to enforce that order, Slotkin said. However, the U.S. marshals are controlled by the United States attorney general. Should the U.S. marshals receive a request to enforce a Supreme Court order against the president, Slotkin raised the question on whether Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump loyalist, would approve it. 'We've needed to have this fight. We need to have it out. We need a court order that he needs to obey, and we need to precipitate this conversation on the U.S. marshals. But today was an important sign that they don't want to get to that point. They don't want to wait until the U.S. marshals are potentially getting an order to activate,' Slotkin said. In preparing to take on the Trump Administration, Slotkin said she'd gone back to her roots in national security and crafted a war plan in the form of a 17-page powerpoint, with plans to lay out her vision of the nation's future under Democratic leadership. 'It's about facing our problems head on and saying the only way we do well as a country, the only way that we have a strong middle class going forward, the American Dream going forward, is if we face these issues and have a vision. And it's economic, it's about national security, and it's about our democracy,' Slotkin said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal cuts force families to make difficult, and potentially deadly, choices
A mother rushes into the emergency department cradling her 6-month-old baby. He is lethargic, seizing and in critical condition. The cause? Severely low sodium levels in his blood — a result of formula diluted with extra water to make it last longer. With grocery prices climbing and her SNAP benefits running out before the end of the month, she felt she had no other choice. This story is not an outlier. Pediatric clinicians across Wisconsin are seeing the real and devastating consequences of policies that fail to prioritize the health and well-being of children and families. And now, the situation could get worse. The Trump Administration's proposed 'skinny' budget for Fiscal Year 2026 includes deep and dangerous cuts to federal programs that form the backbone of public health in our communities. These proposed reductions include: $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health – stalling critical pediatric research and innovation $3.5 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – compromising disease surveillance, immunization programs, and emergency response efforts $1.73 billion from the Health Resources and Services Administration – cutting access to essential primary and preventive care services for children and families $674 million from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – threatening the Medicaid and CHIP programs that provide health coverage to nearly half of Wisconsin's children. Opinion: We asked readers about wake boats on Wisconsin lakes. Here's what you said. And as if that weren't enough, further reductions to SNAP and other nutrition support programs are also on the table. These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are lifelines. Vital services that help children survive and thrive. When families can't afford formula, when clinics lose funding for immunization programs, when children lose health coverage, the consequences are immediate and, in many cases, irreversible. As front-line providers, we witness this every day. We can do better. Our federal budget is a reflection of our national values. It should not balance its books on the backs of our youngest and most vulnerable. I implore Wisconsin's elected officials to reject this harmful budget proposal. Think of that infant in the emergency room. Think of the thousands of other children across our state whose health and future depend on robust public health infrastructure, access to care, and support for families in need. We urge lawmakers to work toward a bipartisan budget that invests in children, strengthens public health, and protects the building blocks of a healthy society. Wisconsin's children deserve every opportunity to grow up healthy and strong. Our chapter of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners stands ready to partner in this effort. Let's move forward — not backward — when it comes to the health of our children. Christine Schindler is a critical care pediatric nurse practitioner at Children's WI, a clinical professor at Marquette University, and the President of the Wisconsin Chapter of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. She has been caring for critically ill and injured children for almost 30 years. All opinions expressed are her own. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump budget jeopardizes health of American children | Opinion