Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/09/2011 01:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB204 || HB205 | |
| HB129 | |
| HB93 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to providing a death certificate for
a deceased veteran without charge."
2:22:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, introduced his
chief of staff.
GRETCHEN STAFT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG,
explained the legislation. The bill authorized the Bureau
of Vital Statistics to provide a death certificate to
eligible survivors of a deceased veteran without charge for
the purpose of obtaining survivor benefits of some kind.
She defined eligible recipient as a spouse, child,
relative, heir, estate administrators or executors of the
veteran. The bill covered veterans who were residents of
the state of Alaska at the time of death. She noted that
Amendment 1 (27-LS0450\B.1, Bullard, 4/7/11) was withdrawn.
Page 2, lines 22-23:
Delete "one certified copy"
Insert "up to five certified copies"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "an eligible recipient"
Insert "a person"
Page 2, line 26 through page 3, line 2:
Delete all material.
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "(B)"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "(i)"
Insert "(A)"
Page 3, line 9:
Delete "(ii)"
Insert "(B)"
2:25:22 PM
Representative Costello offered conceptual amendment 1
sponsored by Representative Costello to include "and as
many certified copies as requested" after the word
"certificate" on Page 2, line 23.
Vice-chair Fairclough OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Representative Costello discussed the conceptual amendment.
She related from personal experience that often family
members need more than one copy of a death certificate. She
believed the amendment facilitated the true intention of
the legislation. Vice-chair Fairclough wondered how much an
individual copy of a certificate cost to produce and
whether additional copies would impact the fiscal note. She
relayed that occasionally, a recipient requested 40 copies
of a certificate. She added that she did not have an
objection if the change did not increase the fiscal note.
She encouraged limiting the number of certificates issued.
Representative Gruenberg referred to the fiscal note, FN1
(DHS). He explained that the fiscal note represented a loss
of revenue but did not cost the state money. He reminded
the committee that HB 129 was specific to the recipient's
need to procure benefits.
Co-Chair Thomas asked what the cost of a certified copy of
a death certificate was.
2:29:27 PM
WARD HURLBURT, DIRECTOR AND CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DIVISION
OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), explained the fiscal note. He
reported that the lost revenue was based on the $25 charge
per certificate. The projection calculated that 75 percent
of recipients at an average of five copies were requested
per deceased veteran. The lost revenue was significant. The
revenue generated supported the bureau through program
receipts. The decreased revenue would cause negative
impacts. Staff reductions, increased death certificate
fees, or a general fund supplement would result.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered what the cost was to make a Xerox
copy of the certificate certified by the department. Mr.
Hurlburt replied that the copy and a stamp would not cost
much. The certificate fees reflected the cost of operating
the bureau not the actual cost to produce the certificate.
The usual request was for original certified copies. He did
not know the actual cost to produce a death certificate.
Vice-chair Fairclough observed that the change would
actually reduce the department's revenue. She relayed that
the department would need an additional $75,000 to cover
the cost of decreased program receipts. The program
receipts were built into the budget. She believed that the
legislature needed to step up and provide financial support
to the department if the legislation was implemented. She
restated her support to limit the amount of no cost death
certificates.
2:34:15 PM
Representative Gruenberg did not object to a limit placed
on the number of copies granted. He remarked that he
originally proposed a five copy limit. He clarified that on
[Page 2], line 24 the word "benefit" was not qualified. The
intention of the legislation was not to restrict the type
of survivor benefit the recipient could apply for; private
insurance, governmental benefits, or other private benefits
qualify.
Co-Chair Thomas thought that providing a copy of a
certified certificate was sufficient.
Representative Guttenberg wondered what benefits were
acceptable. Representative Gruenberg restated that any type
of death benefit was permissible for qualification.
Representative Gara guessed that the sponsor knew the
estimate of how many copies were needed per recipient. He
thought that the cost of the copies was insignificant. The
money lost was the amount for the original and that was
unavoidable. He asked how many free copies the sponsor
believed were necessary. Co-Chair Thomas indicated that the
fiscal note was based on five original copies per veteran.
He thought the fiscal note was overestimated and therefore,
too high.
2:37:44 PM
Representative Neuman asked if the legislation was
retroactive. Representative Gruenberg surmised that
retroactive requests would be insignificant. He could not
speak to the exact number. He surmised that most estates
were settled within a year. Representative Neuman believed
that it would increase the number of copies requested. He
supported a limit.
Co-Chair Thomas thought that the issue was a simple one. He
contended that making certified copies was easy to do.
Representative Wilson discussed that the issue was related
to having multiple family members request original
certificates. She suggested that only one recipient should
qualify for eligibility. Representative Gruenberg explained
that the original amendment specified "decedent" and
deleted "eligible recipient". The language specified the
designated decedent. The amendment limited the number of
certificates to five. He declared that his amendment would
remedy the committees concerns.
Co-Chair Thomas responded that the original amendment would
change the fiscal note. Representative Gruenberg explained
that the fiscal note was based on an average of three or
four certificate per veteran.
Vice-chair Fairclough addressed the original amendment. She
restated the concern that multiple family members were
eligible to receive copies. The provision was factored into
the fiscal note. The original amendment would address the
concern. She advocated amending the fiscal note to replace
an additional $75,000 with general funds. The bureau
operated on 3 percent general funds and paid for its
program based on fees. She did not want the department to
be faced with layoffs. She was supportive of the
legislation but did not want to harm the department with a
loss of revenue.
2:44:58 PM
Representative Costello withdrew the conceptual amendment
1.
Representative Gruenberg was in favor of the original
amendment 1.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1. The
amendment revised Page 2, line 23, that replaced "five"
with "four."
Page 2, lines 22-23:
Delete "one certified copy"
Insert "up to five certified copies"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "an eligible recipient"
Insert "a person"
Page 2, line 26 through page 3, line 2:
Delete all material.
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "(B)"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "(i)"
Insert "(A)"
Page 3, line 9:
Delete "(ii)"
Insert "(B)"
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The amended
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that the fiscal note did draw
the lost revenue from the general fund and resulted in a
net zero for the department.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Costello MOVED to report CS HB 129 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 129(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with attached previously published
fiscal note: FN1, DHS.
2:47:54 PM
AT EASE
2:49:42 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 49 support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/9/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |