Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB263 | |
| HB211 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 263 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 263
"An Act extending senior benefits."
1:36:21 PM
Representative Costello moved the House Health and Social
Services Committee bill version before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, SPONSOR, relayed the change
made in the CS tightened up the bill title to specifically
reference the Alaska senior benefits payment program. The
bill would extend the existing senior benefits program for
six years from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2021.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the largest issue was the
"lengthy" extension. Representative Hawker stated that the
opinion was that of the co-chair.
Representative Hawker communicated that the bill would
provide a needs-based financial supplement to seniors in
Alaska based on the federal poverty level. The program
offered a $250 per month stipend to seniors who fell below
75 percent of the federal poverty level, $175 to seniors at
the 100 percent federal poverty level, and $125 to seniors
at 175 percent of the federal poverty level. He addressed
the length of the extension in relation to the number of
seniors benefitting from the program and the relatively
small stipend. The average age of the recipients was 75;
the benefits served seniors up to the age of 103. The
population was increasingly aging and vulnerable and faced
escalating medical, housing, and food costs. The bill
helped to provide elderly Alaskans who had the least
resources and most limited ability to secure employment
with a relatively small stipend to support their lives. The
program provided assurance and comfort to the state's
senior citizens. He stressed that it was the legislature's
priority to be concerned about senior citizens in the
state. He addressed the length of the program extension and
believed that for the price of the program it should be one
of the state's highest priorities. He opined that because
the program was a high priority, a long-lived extension was
warranted.
1:41:20 PM
Representative Hawker spoke to the reason the program was
not open-ended and implemented in statute. He was proud of
senior advocates who had communicated that it was important
to revisit the issue over time. He elaborated that it would
be necessary to evaluate the program parameters in the
future to determine whether it remained viable. He
hypothesized that the world could change sufficiently in
six years and increasing the program's generosity could be
warranted at that time. He relayed that the maximum time
for extending boards and commissions was eight years; the
bill's six-year term communicated the legislature's
commitment to seniors in the state. The extension would
ensure certainty for the individuals benefitting under the
program and would also allow the legislature to revisit the
issue in a reasonable period of time.
1:43:12 PM
Co-Chair Austerman did not disagree with statements made by
Representative Hawker; however, he believed under the
current budgetary circumstances that the extension should
be shortened to three years. He agreed that perhaps in six
years the program benefits could be increased if the state
was facing an improved financial environment. He was
currently uncomfortable extending the program too far out
into the future.
Representative Gara appreciated the bill. He relayed that
had introduced a similar bill with other minority members.
He discussed the former longevity bonus program that did
not have a sunset; however, as beneficiaries passed away
the cost of the program declined. He supported the senior
benefits program. He opined that it was difficult to argue
when the sunset should occur. He discussed that the bill
was fair and fiscally conservative given that benefit
levels had not been raised. He noted that a number of
seniors may contend that benefit amounts had been eroded by
inflation. He understood leaving the benefits at the
current level given the state's fiscal situation. He
believed a six-year extension was appropriate.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Representative Hawker had
sponsored the initial bill related to the program and
wondered if the Senate had increased the benefits in the
past. Representative Hawker replied that he had offered the
bill in 2007 and did not believe the benefits had been
changed since its introduction.
1:47:48 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether a program recipient
would continue to receive the benefits after moving into a
state-run Pioneer Home. She wanted to ensure the state was
not paying the benefits to a state agency. She was in favor
of the program.
Representative Hawker pointed to a Senior Benefits Program
Fact Sheet dated January 31, 2014 (copy on file). He
relayed that payments were not available to seniors living
in prison, a nursing home, an Alaska Pioneer or Veterans
Home, or in a public or private institution for mental
disease.
Representative Wilson reiterated her prior comment and was
in support of funds going to program recipients.
1:49:11 PM
Representative Costello spoke in support of the
legislation. She recalled when a prior iteration of the
program had been implemented after the longevity bonus had
been discontinued due to budgetary reasons. She pointed to
page 2 of the Senior Benefits Program Fact Sheet; the
number of beneficiaries was 4,000 in Anchorage and 10,954
statewide. She referred to the annual gross income limit of
$10,935 for the $250 benefit. She believed the numbers were
amazing and that the program was very important. She opined
that because the state was in a difficult budgetary
situation it was important to send the message that the
state was committed to the senior population. She was in
favor of extending the program out into the time period
when state revenues would be more challenged. She spoke
about an 83-year-old family friend. She believed that
seniors worried about the responsibilities they were
placing on younger generations.
Representative Guttenberg imagined that when the
legislature debated the continuation of the program during
the budget-crunch time that it would be difficult to
discontinue it. He believed the program represented one of
the backstops the state had for Alaskans. He was sorry when
the longevity bonus had been eliminated.
1:53:03 PM
Representative Edgmon thanked the sponsor for offering the
bill. He looked at the three monthly benefit tiers [shown
on the Senior Benefits Program Fact Sheet] and guessed that
elderly rural beneficiaries fell under the higher monthly
payment [$250]. He surmised that similar to the Low Income
Heating Assistance Program that the per capita amount of
the benefits was slightly higher going to the bush. He knew
that the $250 went a long way for many elders in his
district. He appreciated the bill.
Representative Hawker respected and understood the earlier
point raised by Co-Chair Austerman. He spoke to the
uncertainty of the current budget and about the optimal
fiscal times of the past ten years. He acknowledged that
the state was entering a period of fiscal uncertainty; but
he believed the program should be extended six years
instead of three because it was a matter of communicating
the legislature's priority. The program amounted to $20
million. He stressed that extending the program for six
years provided extra assurance to individuals that it would
not be competing for funds with other programs during that
period of time. He questioned whether it was a higher
priority to provide a stipend for seniors or a stipend for
film subsidies; he landed on the side of seniors. He wanted
the legislature to make the greatest possible statement of
policy that it supported the small stipend for the lowest
income segment of the state's senior population.
1:57:33 PM
Representative Guttenberg thanked the department for the
helpfulness of the Senior Benefits Program Fact Sheet.
Co-Chair Austerman believed he and the sponsor shared the
same goal, but had different ideas about the appropriate
timeline. He discussed the governor's proposed cuts of $30
million to agency operations. He stressed that the senior
benefits program was not on the chopping block. He could
see three years into the future but it was difficult to
know how the state's fiscal environment would look beyond
that time. He believed a three-year extension was
appropriate.
Representative Wilson appreciated the bill, but believed
seniors recognized that the state was experiencing a
challenging budgetary environment. She did not believe
reducing the sunset to three years communicated that
seniors were not a top priority. She mentioned K-12
education as another top priority. She believed it was hard
to decide between extending the sunset for three or six
years; however, she believed a three-year extension was
appropriate given the current fiscal climate.
Representative Edgmon remarked that there was more than one
way to look at the issue. He pointed out that seniors were
the fastest growing sector in the state's population. He
spoke to their value to the state and to the value of the
program. He believed a six-year extension would keep the
program off of the chopping block. He supported maintaining
the current bill language.
2:01:29 PM
Representative Hawker explained that three years earlier
the program had been extended for three years. He shared
that the amount of senior benefits had not been changed. He
detailed that the Senate had added four sections that had
increased the personal needs allowance for individuals
residing in long-term care facilities (including nursing
homes, Pioneer Homes, and Veteran Homes) to $200 per month.
The residents had been ineligible for senior benefits;
therefore, the change provided them with the $200 per month
stipend.
Representative Munoz referenced the Senior Benefits Program
Fact Sheet. She wondered how the provision determining that
program eligibility did not look at asset ownership had
been established. Representative Hawker answered that the
decision had been a policy call when the original
legislation had passed. He explained that the legislature
had decided to format the program as a current income-based
program. The legislature had determined that it did not
want savings to count against the program. He detailed that
factoring in assets involved many judgment calls that he
had wanted to avoid (e.g. house size, geographical
location, and other). He added that the assumption that a
person with substantial liquid monetary assets would have
substantial liquid income had been contemplated when
deciding to make the program income-based.
2:05:01 PM
Representative Costello asked what percentage of the
recipients were WWII veterans. Representative Hawker
responded that he did not know. He thought the department
may have detail on the question. He relayed that the
average age of a recipient was 75 and the maximum age was
103. The sector included the age group that was passing
away the quickest.
Co-Chair Stoltze made a personal comment related to a
family member.
Representative Costello shared that her father had served
in WWII. She surmised that seniors who had served in WWII
represented around the median age of seniors benefitting
from the program.
2:06:43 PM
Representative Hawker spoke to a statistical analysis the
department had prepared at his request (he would provide
the document to the committee). He shared that 49 percent
of the beneficiaries were 80 years of age or older; 35
percent were under 75; and individuals between the ages of
75 and 79 accounted for approximately 25 percent. He
surmised that the most common age was between 75 and 79;
however, the program was heavily skewed to individuals over
the age of 80.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Austerman appreciated that the sponsor had
introduced the bill in 2007. He MOVED to AMEND the bill to
reduce the extension from six years down to three years;
the date 2021 would be replaced with 2018.
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze deferred to the co-chair on the issue.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Wilson, Stoltze, Austerman
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Holmes, Munoz, Costello, Edgmon, Gara
The MOTION FAILED (4/6).
Representative Costello discussed the fiscal note from the
Department of Health and Social Services. The note included
six full-time positions and had a fiscal impact of
$23,090,500 in FY 15, $25,018,700 in FY 16, $25,700,400 in
FY 17, $26,402,400 in FY 18, $27,125,500 in FY 19, and
$27,870,400 in FY 20.
Representative Hawker communicated that the six positions
were a continuance of the personnel currently employed by
the program. He noted that the numbers in the fiscal note
were an estimate by the agency.
Representative Costello moved the MOVED to REPORT CSHB
263(HSS) out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION CSHB 263(HSS) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (HSS).
Representative Hawker appreciated the committee's attention
to the bill. He observed that the issue raised by Co-Chair
Austerman was legitimate and would be a concern addressed
by the legislature on many issues.
2:13:44 PM
AT EASE
2:17:00 PM
RECONVENED