Judges: WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General
Filed Date: 6/27/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Ted Thomas State Representative 900 South Shackleford Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Dear Representative Thomas:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether Act 1206 of 1995 requires the Arkansas State Employee/Public School Personnel Board to make available all health maintenance organization plans that offer point of service options and desire to participate, whether the act requires the board to choose only one such HMO plan, or whether the act permits the board to do either, at its option.
In my opinion, the board must offer to state employees and public school personnel all HMO plans that offer a point of service option and desire to participate.
Act 1206 of 1995 creates the board to "manage the state employee and public school personnel health insurance and self-funded medical programs." Act 1206 of 1995, § 1(1). The act further provides that the board "shall . . . promote increased access to various plan options and health care models with at least: any health maintenance organization(HMO) that offers a Point of Service option to its enrollees. . . ." Act 1206 of 1995, § 5(2) (emphasis supplied).
The first rule of statutory construction is to construe a statute just as it reads, giving words their ordinary and usually accepted meanings in common usage. Bolden v. Watt,
Although the act might have been drafted to express the legislative intent in more unequivocal terms, the legislature's choice of words in section 5(2), particularly the words "shall" and "any," do not, in my opinion, permit any interpretation other than that the board must offer to state employees and public school personnel each HMO plan that offers a point of service option and wishes to participate.
The word "shall," when used in a statute, means that the legislature intended mandatory compliance unless such an interpretation would lead to an absurd result. Campbell v. State,
The phrase "with at least" is not as clear as it might be, but I believe the phrase must mean, in essence, "by offering at least." I can discern no other possible meaning of the phrase that makes sense and is consistent with the remainder of section 5(2) of the act.
In Manley v. Moon,
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General J. Madison Barker.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:JMB/cyh