Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 106
04/18/2019 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB96 | |
| SB37 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 37-RENEWAL OF VACCINE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
4:47:49 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the final order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 37(FIN), "An Act relating to the
statewide immunization program; and providing for an effective
date."
4:48:40 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:49:49 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced CSSB 37(FIN). She explained the bill would
renew the Alaska Vaccine Assessment Program (AVAP) that was
established in 2014. The bill would authorize a statewide
vaccine program in the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS). Because it is scheduled for repeal in 2021, the bill is
a proactive action to extend it. This was a bill in 2014 that
she sponsored. It monitors, purchases, and distributes all
childhood vaccines and some adult vaccines to health care
providers, allowing more access for Alaskans.
SENATOR GIESSEL stated the bill is an innovative solution to a
challenging problem. She related that before this program was
in play many health care providers had to buy two supplies of
vaccines. One supply was for those people who had private
insurance or cash pay. The other supply was for folks who were
Medicaid beneficiaries or beneficiaries of some government
program such as Vaccines for Children. The reason for these two
supplies is that the private pay vaccines had to be purchased by
the providers themselves at the full retail prices. The two
supplies could not be interchanged because the government supply
was obtained by the state using bulk pricing at a much lower
price. The two supplies had to be kept separate in separate
refrigerators and the nurses had to keep track of the insurance
and which supply of vaccine to use. If a provider had purchased
its own supply for private payers and if out of a box of 10
vaccines only 9 were used and then the last one then expired, it
had to be thrown away. Providers had to manage their supply and
the expiration dates so there was full utilization. This
program eliminates that confusion and duplication.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted the program is a private-public
partnership that is funded by the insurers and the government
programs. Everyone pools their money and uses the state's
ability to buy at bulk prices, which results in lower cost for
the vaccines. The program helps the insurance companies because
it allows them to maximize the bulk buying potential that the
state has, thereby keeping costs down for them, and they in turn
supply the vaccine for their subscribers with just the charge of
the injection fee or clinic visit fee. The state asks [the
insurers] how many vaccines for, say, measles are needed, they
estimate that, the state assesses them that amount of money, and
then the state makes a big purchase and stores the vaccines in a
central location in Anchorage. For more distant clinics in
places like Bethel, Nome, or Kotzebue the manufacturer may ship
directly to those locations versus the central location.
SENATOR GIESSEL reported the program has been wildly successful
and has reduced costs, but more importantly it has increased
vaccine rates. [The state] has gotten some awards for increased
vaccination rates over the years that this program has been in
place. The bill would simply renew that, as well as provide a
funding mechanism.
4:54:16 PM
JANE CONWAY, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Giessel, sponsor, paraphrased
from the written sectional analysis of [CSSB 37(FIN)] included
in the committee packets, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1:
Amends AS 18.09.200(b)(1) by removing the "phase in"
language from statute as the Alaska Vaccine Assessment
Program is now fully implemented.
Section 2:
Amends AS 18.09.220(a) by removing the "phase in"
language from statute as the Alaska Vaccine Assessment
Program is now fully implemented.
Section 3:
Amends 18.09.230 by creating the vaccine assessment
"fund" in the general fund for the purpose of
providing funds for the program that will be
appropriated by the legislature, that can also include
program receipts, penalties, money from other sources
along with interest earned from the fund. These
appropriations to the fund will not lapse.
Section 4:
Repeals and reenacts AS.18.09.230 allowing the
commissioner to administer the fund in accordance to
the provisions of the statewide immunization program.
Section 5:
Amends 37.05.146(c)(75) changing the word "account" to
"fund"
Section 6:
Repeals AS 18.09.220(e) by removing the "opt out"
option for assessees since the program is no longer in
the "phase-in" stage.
Section 7:
Repeals the sunset provisions (to repeal the program
in 2021) that were in section 5 of the original bill,
[Senate Bill] 169 in 2014.
Section 8:
Sets effective date for July 1, 2019.
4:57:03 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY passed the gavel to Co-Chair Spohnholz.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ invited Dr. Lou to continue the introduction
of CSSB 37(FIN).
4:57:48 PM
LILY LOU, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Central Office, Division of
Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
stated she served on the Alaska Vaccine Assessment Council for
the first three years. She is a pediatrician and is president
of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Alaska Chapter. She said
she is disclosing this because there is a letter in the
committee packet in support of the bill that was signed by her
as the chapter president a few days before she took her current
position with the State of Alaska.
DR. LOU explained the bill would reauthorize the Alaska Vaccine
Assessment Program (AVAP), a program that makes access to
vaccines universal for all Alaskans. It expands coverage from
the subset of children who are covered by Vaccines for Children
to all children and it also covers some adults. The program
more than pays for itself, it allows for Alaska to get a 20-30
percent discount in the cost of vaccines. She brought attention
to a graph in the committee packet, which shows that over the
three to four years that this program has been in effect Alaska
has saved $11 million in the cost of vaccines.
4:59:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised the savings is because the state
would otherwise be responsible for the cost of the vaccines for
the beneficiaries under state-run health programs. By doing
bulk purchasing the state is realizing those savings on those
individual vaccinations.
DR. LOU replied it is a volume discount because the state is
purchasing vaccines for all Alaskans rather than piecemeal,
including some retail pricing. The payers, the insurance
companies who pay into the program, have realized savings by
doing it this way.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked which adult populations this would
apply to.
DR. LOU responded that the unique part of Alaska's program is
that the state offers payers and practitioners to opt in to
cover vaccines for uninsured adults. Also doing this are the
states of Vermont and Rhode Island.
DR. LOU continued her presentation on CSSB 37(FIN). She pointed
out that this bill and this program would [continue to]
streamline the process of giving immunizations into a single
system. Pediatricians would [continue with not needing] to have
two refrigerators, two log systems, and two completely separated
bookkeeping systems. The program was created in 2015 and is due
to sunset in 2021. In 2018 the program covered 366,000 people,
50 percent of Alaskans. [The state] has demonstrated a trend of
improving its vaccination rates through this system. She drew
attention to a document in the committee packet and said the
left half of the graph is pretty flat for these vaccines, but
after the start of AVAP there is an increase. She noted the
graph doesn't show all of the types of vaccines.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that it was stated
during a hearing before the House Finance Standing Committee,
Health & Social Services Finance Subcommittee, that some of the
vaccination rates had gone down and subsequently Alaska had
higher influenza rates. She asked whether the graph includes
influenza vaccine.
5:02:27 PM
JILL LEWIS, Deputy Director (Juneau), Central Office, Division
of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services,
replied that the graph includes some of the selected vaccines,
but does not include the flu [vaccine] for which the rate has
not gone up.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether this program would allow the
state to increase flu vaccination.
MS. LEWIS responded yes it would but noted it doesn't happen to
show on the chart.
DR. LOU added that flu vaccination tends to fluctuate depending
on the vaccine for the year and how people feel about it. She
confirmed it is one of the covered vaccinations in the Alaska
Vaccination Assessment Program.
DR. LOU pointed out that Alaska was recognized by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for increases in both
teen vaccines and pneumococcal vaccine for the population over
65. She said both are important populations and they
demonstrate that when something new comes along this program is
nimble enough to do something like the human papilloma virus
(HPV) vaccine that prevents cancer. The department has seen the
benefits of this program and that it is proven to be effective.
DR. LOU recapped that CSSB 37(FIN) would reauthorize the Alaska
Vaccine Assessment Program to remove the phase-in language,
including the opt-in language, and to remove the sunset
language. It would not impact any regulations about exemptions,
so it is only the provision of vaccinations. Alaskans will gain
the following from reauthorization: 1) Improves access to
vaccines, one of the few absolutely proven effective health
interventions; 2) Removes the barriers, particularly for small
practices that would have to buy a box of ten to give eight
vaccinations; 3) Allows [the state] to take advantage of
discounted volume vaccine pricing; 4) Allows the use of a
unified inventory system, allowing [the state] to redistribute
according to need and not according to box number; and 5)
Decreases the cost as well as the pain and suffering of vaccine
preventable diseases.
DR. LOU closed by reiterating that this program has proven
itself since it began in January 2015. It has been a great
public-private partnership. The training wheels can be taken
off and [the program] continued into the future with greater
health for all Alaskans.
5:05:52 PM
MS. LEWIS provided a PowerPoint presentation, entitled "SB 37
Renewal of Alaska Vaccine Assessment Program," to explain how
the program operates. She brought attention to slide 2,
entitled "SB 37," and stated the bill would reauthorize the
program, would take out from the new language the temporary
phase-in period that has already ended, would not use state
general funds, and would restructure the vaccine assessment
account.
MS. LEWIS turned to slide 3, entitled "What is the Alaska
Vaccine Assessment Program?" She said the program provides all
childhood and certain adult vaccines for privately insured
children, which does not exclude the uninsured children as they
are covered under a different program that is a federal program.
The program also covers the majority of adults.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ recalled that earlier it was described that
this covers uninsured adults. She asked which adult vaccines
are not included.
MS. LEWIS answered that the formulary of what vaccines are
covered is provided in the committee packet. She said [the
program] covers the vaccines that are recommended by the
national committee that makes vaccine recommendations.
DR. LOU added that the program follows the recommendations of
the [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)].
There are some vaccines [the program] likes, for example the
human papilloma virus vaccine that is provided to young adults.
Part of that is because the vaccines are felt to be most
effective when they are given as soon as they can be in young
adulthood. She referred members to the information in their
packet for the specific details. Things like SHINGRIX [shingles
vaccine] are covered, so the program is nimble enough to bring
new vaccines on board and the assessment is just adjusted
according to what is available and what is recommended by
scientific evidence as effective.
5:08:34 PM
MS. LEWIS resumed her discussion of slide 3. She explained the
program collects money by assessing health plans, health
insurers, as well as other program participants. The state
pools that money together and buys vaccines at the wholesale
[price] at a greatly discounted rate off of a federal contract.
It is a price that the private sector cannot achieve on its own.
The state is in a unique position to provide this benefit. The
state purchases and then distributes the vaccine. So really the
bill is about vaccine purchasing and distribution.
MS. LEWIS moved to slide 4, entitled "What is the Alaska Vaccine
Assessment Program?" She said Alaska is the only state that
gives the providers the option to cover their uninsured adults.
Two other states cover adults, but only for the insured
population, the reason being that there is no assessment to be
paid if there is no insurance coverage to provide the funds. In
Alaska there is an option that if a provider has a large number
of uninsured patients they can choose to opt in and pay the
assessment, which allows them to get that same price break.
Health plans are mandated to participate, but providers that
want to get this price point for their uninsured adults can
volunteer and then pay that. About 9 percent of what [the
program] covers is related to the uninsured adults. About
32,000 lives are covered under the program, so this is an
important option. Alaska is the only state able to offer that.
DR. LOU pointed out that the options for providers that don't
opt-in to the uninsured adult coverage are that they pay full
price for vaccine or they don't vaccinate those patients.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that given what is known about the
"herd protection factor" and how important it is to get the
maximum amount of people vaccinated; she thinks most people
would support getting the maximum number of people vaccinated.
5:11:28 PM
MS. LEWIS addressed slide 5, entitled "AVAP." She explained the
Vaccine Assessment Council sets the assessment rate once a year.
The current rate is $8.61 per member per month for children and
88 cents for adults per member per month. That rate is going to
decrease for 2019 it will go down to $7.44 and 53 cents.
Those rates are adjusted each year and are prospective, so if
the vaccines didn't cost as much as was thought then that amount
is factored into the next year's rate. Every quarter the
assessed entities, the payers, pay their assessment based on the
amount of covered lives they have for that quarter. This allows
the payers to adjust their numbers during the year if they have
a change in the number of members participating. The Division
of Public Health pools that money and then uses it to buy off of
a federal contract at a discounted price. Either [the division]
ships the vaccine to the providers or it is shipped directly to
them. [The division] does not charge the providers for the
vaccine because the insurance plans have already paid for it
upfront. Providers then cover their patients and provide the
vaccines and the only thing they can bill for is the office
visit, the charge to administer the vaccine, because that is not
part of what this program is collecting assessments for. Every
quarter the providers are required to report their vaccine usage
to the department so it is known how much has been used and the
inventories can be monitored and then [the department] uses that
information to provide information back to the council for
setting the next year's rate.
5:13:57 PM
MS. LEWIS displayed slide 6, entitled "Vaccine Cost," and
related that the state is able to achieve a vaccine cost that is
about 20-30 percent lower. She explained the slide shows how
much just for the cost to vaccinate a person through age 18 and
the difference in the cost between the Vaccine Assessment
Program and the private sector.
MS. LEWIS turned to slide 7, entitled "Vaccine Coverage," and
said that in regard to the state's increase in vaccination
rates, the program already covers about 50 percent of the
population, 44 percent of the children, and 52 percent of the
adults. Uninsured children are covered under a different
program and are not represented on the slide.
MS. LEWIS moved to slide 8, entitled "Successes," and stated
that overall it is a win for everyone. The Division of Public
Health benefits because it gets to reduce vaccine preventable
disease, which is one of the division's main objectives.
Providers get improved health outcomes for their vaccinated
individuals and they also have a lot easier stock management of
their vaccine. The health insurance industry pays less overall
for the cost to vaccinate. All Alaskans save money in the long
run due to fewer medical costs and secondary costs from vaccine
preventable diseases.
MS. LEWIS skipped slide 9 and went on to slide 10, entitled "For
every $1 spent on a vaccine in the US...." She stated that the
slide shows how much can be saved for every $1 spent on the
individual types of vaccines in the U.S. For example, for every
$1 spent on the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, $26
is saved.
MS. LEWIS concluded with slide 11, entitled "In Closing...."
She said reauthorizing this program ensures a healthier future
for all Alaskans at a lower cost, plus no state general fund
involved.
5:16:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the nationwide discussion that
is going on about vaccination and some people being anti-
vaccination with subsequent outbreaks. She inquired whether
this discussion is being seen in Alaska or is influencing
anything in Alaska. She further inquired whether the division
is doing anything to overcome that to ensure participation.
DR. LOU stressed that this is an important issue across the
country. However, she continued, vaccine hesitancy is quite
separate from this bill, which is only about vaccine purchase.
In regard to vaccine hesitancy, she said Alaska does have
vaccine rates that are close to the borderline and for each
vaccine there is a different percentage that confers herd
immunity. It is not just the overall immunization rate that
matters, but that collections of people who have a large number
of unvaccinated people are where outbreaks can start.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR concurred it isn't one of the technical
details of the bill. But, she noted, one of the overall goals
of having AVAP is to increase participation by Alaskans. For
example, when HPV first came out there was some hesitancy by
parents around that vaccine, so she is inquiring about whether
these kinds of things influence participation in the program.
DR. LOU replied that as a pediatrician, what she and her
colleagues do every day is try to answer people's questions so
they can make those decisions. This bill, in terms of
vaccination rates, would remove barriers to people who have
decided to get vaccinated and the bill would mean more offices,
even small ones, are able to provide that. Some doctors might
not vaccinate because they cannot afford to keep a stock and
patients might not go somewhere else that does provide vaccines.
The bill would impact that by making it less difficult and less
expensive for people to get immunized. She said she believes
the increase in vaccination rates is from removing barriers.
5:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT requested clarification on provider opt-in
payments. He offered his understanding that the state assesses
a fee on [opt-in] providers to cover the cost of the program.
He asked whether there are people on the outside of this who
might seek to be a part of it, such as individual doctors.
MS. LEWIS explained the program mandates that the insurers, the
health plans, pay the assessment, but it is voluntary for a
provider or a clinic to join. So, a provider's office is not
assessed, but the health insurance industry is. Providers can
opt in because that way they can also get 20-30 percent off of
their vaccine cost, which otherwise they wouldn't be able to do.
The most likely types of provider offices that are interested
are the ones that see a large proportion of the uninsured.
Quite a few that have opted in are in the tribal system or the
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) because they have to
see everyone who comes to them whether or not they are insured.
The providers all have to look at that and see if it costs out
for them given the amount of the uninsured population that they
see.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his understanding that he cannot
look at the financials and determine that that is the amount of
actual usage. He asked how many providers have chosen to opt-in
to the program. He further asked whether the limitation is just
the cost aspect of it, or if in some cases smaller providers
don't have the personnel to look at this and determine whether
it makes sense. He also asked whether there could be a greater
participation in the program by providers who may not be
utilizing it.
MS. LEWIS responded she does not have the number of the actual
providers that are paying in at the moment, but it amounts to
about 32,000 lives that they cover. That will be looked at as
the program continues and more outreach will be done to the
provider community to let them know about the program and the
opportunity. Until now most of the outreach has been focused on
the payer community, the health plans and those mandated to pay
the assessments, because there was that phase-in period that
allowed it to be optional, so it was important that all the
mandated assessment payers were brought on board.
DR. LOU offered her belief that there is information about the
opt-in providers, but that it doesn't really reflect what she
believes Representative Pruitt's question is trying to get at.
There could be providers that don't take care of kids or that
only have two uninsured patients and so it may not be worth
joining the program. But if a provider has 100 patients then it
becomes worthwhile for them to engage with the program. So just
looking at the percentage of providers wouldn't represent the
distribution of uninsured adults.
5:25:30 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ inquired about the mechanism that requires
insurers to participate.
MS. LEWIS answered that the current statute requires the payers
to participate.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ further asked what the authorizing mechanism
is that says insurers must do this. For example, whether the
statute says that anybody who provides insurance in the state of
Alaska must do this.
DR. LOU replied that in 2014 [the division] asked for everyone
to be required to participate, but the bill was initially
written to allow for payers to opt out for the first three
years. During that period, she served on the council and a
growing number of participants was seen because they knew they
would be required to after three years anyway. That gave payers
the opportunity to see how the program worked and to join on.
Essentially all of the payers participate now, including TRICARE
participation.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ offered her belief that there is an incentive
to the payers to participate but that she wanted to know about
the rule.
DR. LOU added that [in 2014] it was a new program and now that
the program has proven itself [CSSB 37(FIN)] would remove the
sunset. She offered her belief that the program has also proven
itself in the minds of the payers.
MS. LEWIS noted the mechanism is in AS 18.09.240. She said a
penalty could be assessed for non-compliance. She offered her
belief that some interest has been assessed, but not any
penalties for non-compliance because the phase-in period was
open for a duration.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked what the penalty is.
MS. LEWIS responded she would get back to the committee with an
answer.
5:29:22 PM
DAVID TEAL, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Director, Legislative
Finance Division, Legislative Agencies and Offices, stated that
CSSB 37(FIN) is a short and simple bill that extends a program
that has been proven successful at both reducing cost and
increasing the availability of vaccines. Although the program
operates at no net cost to the state, there are three fiscal
notes. In February when reviewing the bill in the Senate, his
division suggested the program be re-established as a fund
capitalization rather than as a fund transfer. The existing
financing mechanism is a fund transfer method, which requires
money to be transferred, or appropriated, into the fund and then
appropriated out of the fund. That meant double counting the
money and a fixed appropriation available to the department.
That is because in the appropriation bill simply said the sum of
$10 million is appropriated to the department, the $10 million
being a surmised assessment.
MR. TEAL explained that a fund capitalization differs in that
money only needs to be appropriated into the fund but not out of
the fund. On the way out in Section 4 of the bill it says that
the commissioner can spend the money without further
appropriation. The constitution only requires that money be
appropriated once, not twice. A fund capitalization methodology
provides increased flexibility. If more providers sign on to
the program, or a new vaccine is added, or there is an outbreak
of flu or measles, or other illness, the department can
immediately increase its expenditures without legislative
action, so it is more flexible. If there is not enough money in
the fund, more assessments can come in without appropriation;
whatever amount is collected is appropriated to the fund and
there is no legislative action required to have the department
then respond to the outbreak. It also eliminates double
accounting. By permitting money in the fund to be spent with no
further appropriation, the fund isn't subject to the annual
sweep of sub-funds into the constitutional budget reserve (CBR)
fund. That may not be important, it hasn't been in the past
because there has always been a vote to reverse the sweep, but
if there isn't at some point, that constitutional sweep into the
CBR could end the program if health care insurers refuse to pay
an assessment that didn't get used for vaccine purposes. Any
money that is left in the fund carrying over from one year to
the next would be swept into the CBR.
MR TEAL added that he doesn't see any disadvantage to moving to
a fund capitalization because of the increased flexibility. He
doesn't think that there is a fiscal problem with it. There are
lots of fund capitalizations out there. It is a simpler, more
direct, less double counting method, which is why his division
recommended it.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that it is very practical.
5:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT offered his understanding that revenues
generated in a particular year would have carry forward ability
to the next year if all of them were not needed and the
assessments would be adjusted based on that.
MR. TEAL replied the fund would be non-lapsing, so money in it
would carry forward from year to year.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT recognized that Mr. Teal is explaining it
would go from the vaccine assessment account to the vaccine
assessment fund. He offered his understanding that currently in
an account it doesn't lapse and because it is an account within
the sub-fund the legislature must appropriate the money into
that account and then subsequently the legislature must
appropriate that money to the actual program.
MR. TEAL responded correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT surmised it is just like forward funding
education, where the legislature funds the fund and it would
automatically pay for it the next year as the legislature then
put money into the public education fund.
MR. TEAL answered correct and said that the public education
fund is a good example of an appropriation that goes in and
doesn't lapse and then it flows to school districts without
further appropriation per a formula. In this case it would
simply flow without further appropriations as needed to purchase
vaccines.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that an important element of using
[the proposed] model is that it would allow for responding to
health challenges in the community. So, if there were a need to
dramatically increase the number of immunizations for a
particular health crisis [the state] would be able to respond by
utilizing the funds already on hand, eliminating the need for
having to come back for an emergency supplemental, which would
be important in an emergency situation.
5:36:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opened public testimony on CSSB 37(FIN).
5:36:45 PM
NANCY MERRIMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Primary Care
Association (Alaska PCA), testified in support of CSSB 37(FIN).
She spoke as follows:
The Alaska Primary Care Association supports the
operations and the development of Alaska's 27
community health center organizations. And together
with the leaders of the community health centers in
this state, we strongly support SB 37 to reauthorize
the Vaccine Assessment Program. Alaska's 27 community
health centers are committed to community health and
have as one of their primary and reportable measurable
objectives to promote immunization for infants,
children, and adults. In 2014, when the Alaska
[Vaccine] Assessment Program legislation was passed,
health centers were among the strongest of supporters.
And a quick review of participating providers today
shows that 26 of the 27 community health center
organizations actively rely on this program as a
reliable source for their immunizations. This program
allows these nonprofit practices a streamlined and
cost-effective way to purchase, manage, and administer
vaccinations to their patients. The assembly of
private and public dollars to purchase vaccine through
the AVAP eliminates the need for health centers to
manage and maintain two separate stores of vaccine.
Very importantly for health centers who serve all
patients who walk through their doors regardless of
their ability to pay, it also affords them a way to
provide vaccination to lower income and uninsured
adults, preventing them from contracting debilitating
infectious diseases. The measles outbreak in the
Lower 48, now having affected 555 children and adults
reminds us of the toll of preventable infectious
disease on an economy and the public health
infrastructure. We should want to do everything we
can to make immunizations easily accessible and
affordable. This innovative program has succeeded in
making both procurement and distribution of vaccine
efficient and effective for the State of Alaska,
payers, and health care providers across Alaska.
Alaska community health centers work every day to
improve the immunization rates of all children and
adults regardless of their ability to pay and the AVAP
gives them the framework and cost savings to do this.
Alaska PCA strongly supports the reauthorization of
the Alaska [Vaccine] Assessment Program through
passage of SB 37.
5:40:02 PM
PATTY OWEN, Director, Board of Directors, Alaska Public Health
Association, testified in support of CSSB 37(FIN). She said the
Alaska Public Health Association would be remiss if it weren't
here today because of the connection between public health and
immunizations. Immunizations are one of the main pillars of
public health. An affiliate of the American Public Health
Association, the Alaska association has about 150 members
statewide of public health professionals and other community
members dedicated to improving the health and wellbeing of
Alaskans. The association strongly supports the bill's passage.
This innovative public partnership will make vaccinations more
accessible to more Alaskans. Thanks to immunizations in
general, particularly childhood immunizations, [Alaskans] are
benefitting from increased life expectancy largely due to the
prevention of infectious diseases. Immunizations have become so
successful in preventing diseases that people have become
complacent and resurgence of outbreaks is being seen, so
vigilance is needed. Vaccines are among the most cost effective
clinical preventive service and core component of preventative
service that can be offered. A strong immunization program is
essential to public health infrastructure.
5:42:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ left public testimony open.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that CSSB 37(FIN) was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|