Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2014 02:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB385 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 385 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 349 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 104(FIN)
"An Act relating to appropriations from the dividend
fund; creating the criminal fund; relating to
appropriations from the criminal fund for payments for
crime victims, operating costs of the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board, grants for the operation of sexual
assault response teams and domestic violence
intervention projects, and incarceration costs; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATOR FRED DYSON explained that in 1988 the legislature
adopted restorative justice measures and enacted a criminal
justice fund with the intention to restore victims to their
pre-offense condition. He reported that the prior year's
court ordered restitution totaled $600 thousand for victims
but only $85 thousand was available to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board (VCCB) for distribution. He discovered
that most of criminal's statutorily withheld Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) was being diverted to cover prisoner's
medical cost instead of funding victim's compensation. He
expounded that SB 104 was a clean-up measure to clearly
prioritize the distribution and use of the PFD criminal
fund to ensure adequate funding for victims compensation.
He noted that his first attempt to structure the funds
ensured that the victims received their money before court
or other costs.
Senator Dyson clarified that the bill also allowed other
victims support organizations to receive funding. He
offered that the VCCB had advantages over other groups. The
board appropriated funds to victims before the cases were
adjudicated, which could take years. The victims were
suffering and carried all of the costs. He added that the
Department of Corrections (DOC) did not oppose the bill
because of the increased payout of the dividends and that
under the Affordable Care Act incarcerated criminals would
be covered by Medicare and Medicaid. He added that the
Department of Law (DOL) maintained a recovery section for
court ordered funds that recently improved their recovery
rates. Child support enforcement and collection by the
Department of Revenue (DOR) would not be affected by SB
104.
Senator Dyson added that the bill received "rigorous"
examination in the Senate and improved during the committee
process.
Senator Dyson stated that the legislation would make an
extraordinary difference for some of the victims. He added
that the criminal fund did not relinquish the
responsibility of the amount owed by the perpetrator. The
criminal will reimburse the fund.
Representative Wilson asked whether the fund would pay all
of the child support expenses owed by a criminal and
wondered how the state would recover the costs.
JOSHUA BANKS, STAFF, SENATOR DYSON, answered that the
Senate Finance version of the bill removed the child
support arrears provision. He pointed out that on page 4,
line 6 of the Senate Finance version the second priority
distributed funds to the Council on Domestic Violence And
Sexual Assault (CDVSA).
Senator Dyson interjected that he struggled with the child
support issue. He worked with the administration and Child
Support Services Division and a solution proved difficult.
He delineated that child support arrears were exorbitant
and would make a huge impact on the fund. Issues such as
how far back to assess arrears were problematic. The Senate
Finance committee was unable to determine an equitable way
to address child support issues. He acknowledged the need
and thought a solution could be found in the future.
Representative Wilson asked how the order of priorities was
established.
Senator Dyson replied that the concept of restorative
justice clearly intended that the first priority for the
perpetrators restitution would be used to restore the
victim to the pre-offense condition. He then examined the
other entities that were entitled for court ordered
reparations and pondered who the most worthy was. He
concluded that organizations that provided services to
victims were another high priority.
4:43:26 PM
Representative Holmes noted that the second priority
appropriated funds to the CDVSA. She read page 4, lines 8
through 10:
… for grants for the operation of sexual assault
response teams and domestic violence intervention
projects that input data into the Alaska Public Safety
Information Network…
Representative Holmes reported that the language in
previous versions was broader. She wondered whether the
change was substantive and if it would change the way funds
were currently distributed to the program.
Mr. Banks replied that the language was established to
focus on programs that were successful. The programs
accomplished a large reduction in the rate of recidivism
for domestic violence perpetrators and immediately
responded to the victim's needs.
Representative Holmes restated that the provisions limited
the flexibility of the funds use to two particular programs
of CDVSA's broader mission.
Mr. Banks concurred.
Senator Dyson stated that setting priorities established a
new source of funds to help victims and he advised that the
legislature only distribute funds to organizations that
have a track record of providing services in an effective
way.
Co-Chair Austerman asked what was meant by new funds.
Senator Dyson replied that the prior year's total criminal
fund administered to DOC was $13 million. He stated he
misspoke. The funds were available for a new purpose.
Co-Chair Austerman asked what the cost of SB 104 was out of
the $13 million.
Mr. Banks referred to the chart regarding potential
scenarios of the fund: "Historic PFD Criminal Fund
Appropriations" (copy on file). He stated that the impact
to the department for the next fiscal year was $.5 million.
Co-Chair Austerman wanted clarification regarding the cost
of the bill to the department and the $8.4 million figure
on the fiscal note FN7 (COR).
4:48:58 PM
AT EASE
4:50:47 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Banks pointed to the first priority established on page
4 of the bill and noted that 20 percent of the criminal
fund would be distributed to the VCCB. He clarified that
based on the current years criminal fund of approximately
$10 million the total distributed to the board would be $2
million. Currently DOC received $1.5 million for victim's
compensation. He noted that the projection for next year's
PFD was $1,300 to $1,800. The criminal fund would
significantly increase. He did not anticipate losses for
the department if the later scenario occurred.
COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, explained
that SB 104 re-prioritized the department's needs to meet
the prisoners' medical needs. He exemplified the situation
where a prisoner needed a lung transplant that cost
$800,000. The prisoner was medically paroled and treated at
the Alaska Native Medical Center. If the prisoner had been
denied treatment at the medical center, the law required
that the department would have had to pay for the medical
costs of the transplant. He relayed that the PFD funds
distributed to the department fluctuated each year. The
department requested general fund money to backfill the
anticipated need based on projections. If funds were
lacking due to the legislation the department would request
general fund money or make a supplemental request. He
qualified that the department worked hard to control rising
medical costs and made careful projections in order to
avoid requesting supplemental funds.
Co-Chair Austerman asked what the prisoners' total medical
budget was.
LESLIE HOUSTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, replied that the current year's total was $41
.268 million.
Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that DOC worked hard to
achieve medical cost containment. He stated his neutrality
about the bill but stressed that if the money fluctuated,
the department would have no other choice except to request
additional funding.
Co-Chair Stoltze addressed the $8.4 million appropriation
in DOC's fiscal note. He asked whether that was a worst
case scenario projection in anticipation of decreased
funding due to passage of the legislation.
Ms. Houston affirmed his assumptions.
Representative Holmes recalled much discussion about the
spiraling cost of prisoner's medical care in DOC
subcommittee. She remembered that prisoners were not
eligible for any type of government assistance for medical
care. She wondered how the Affordable Care Act would impact
the department when prisoners qualified for medical care.
Commissioner Schmidt replied that coverage was limited. He
continued that inmates' eligibility was complicated and
that the department worked diligently with the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to understand the
process.
Ms. Houston reported that inmates that were 65 years of age
and older, pregnant women, and unsentenced inmates would be
covered under the Affordable Care Act. The unsentenced
inmates were only covered outside of the correctional
facility for a period of 24 hours in the hospital. She
expounded that Medicaid coverage was split 50 percent
between the state and Federal government but that currently
the split was 60 percent federal and 40 percent state when
paying for hospital costs. The department did not yet know
how much the department could leverage or recover under the
Affordable Care Act coverage.
Representative Holmes asked whether someone who was covered
under Medicaid or Medicare before they were incarcerated
was still eligible when in prison under the Affordable Care
Act.
Ms. Houston answered that once the person was adjudicated
and sentenced they would not be eligible.
Representative Gara asked whether the felony classification
disqualified the prisoner or just the fact that the person
was incarcerated.
Ms. Houston read the four factors that disqualified the
inmate: 1) convicted of a felony during the qualifying
year; 2) incarcerated for a felony during the qualifying
year; 3) convicted of or incarcerated for a felony during
the qualifying year with two prior misdemeanor convictions
that occurred after December 13, 1996; 4) convicted of or
incarcerated for a misdemeanor during the qualifying year
with a prior felony conviction.
Representative Munoz asked about the possibility of
enrolling higher costs prisoners in the program and paying
the premiums.
Ms. Houston stated that inmates were not eligible for the
general Affordable Health Care coverage.
Representative Costello mentioned the $42 million cost of
inmates' health care and asked what the amount spent on
prescription drugs was.
Ms. Houston answered that she would supply the data after
the meeting.
Representative Wilson asked whether the four disqualifiers
for Affordable Care Act coverage were prohibited by state
or federal law. She wondered whether inmates that were
covered by private insurance were prohibited coverage by
state or federal law.
Ms. Houston answered that the prohibitions were from the
code of federal regulations.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested clarification on how the role of
the PFD Division interacted with the criminal fund and how
the legislation affected the division.
5:04:25 PM
DAN DEBARTOLO, DIRECTOR, PFD DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, replied that the bill did not change the
calculation of the criminal fund and was the reason the
division submitted a zero fiscal note. He pointed to page
2, line 12 of CS SB 104 FIN which delineated the three
categories of individuals who were counted in the criminal
calculation. He read:
(A) during the qualifying year, the individual was
convicted of a felony;(B) during all or part of the
qualifying year, the individual was incarcerated as a
result of the conviction of a(i) felony; or(ii)
misdemeanor if the individual has been convicted of a
prior felony or two or more prior misdemeanors.
Mr. Debartolo furthered that each year DOC and the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) sent the division the
list of the individuals who met the criteria. The division
matched them against individuals who applied for the
dividend. The amount of applicants who applied for the
dividend was smaller since many categorized individuals
realized they were ineligible for a PFD. The division then
ascertained who would be otherwise eligible if they did not
fall into the three categories which typically amounted to
95 percent. The applicants and non-applicant offenders were
added together to yield a count which was multiplied by the
dividend amount. The total amount was the criminal fund and
sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
distribution. He added that the amount fluctuated greatly
since 2008 and for the current fiscal year was $9.6
million. He informed the committee that the division did
not decide how the fund was distributed but merely
calculated the amount.
Co-Chair Austerman asked how much of the $9.6 million was
distributed to DOC.
Mr. Houston reported that the department received
$10,000,474 in FY14 in criminal receipts.
Mr. DeBartolo replied that he attributed the $9.6 million
calculation was to FY 15.
Ms. Houston replied that the department anticipated
$8,445,900 in criminal receipts as requested in the fiscal
note.
CSSB 104(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska_Fiscal Note_HB 385_Governor's Proposal 041114.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 Legislative Pres V6.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 Nineteen municipal resolutions of support for Governor's PERS-TRS plan, 12 April 2014.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 - Chenault Transmittal Letter - PERS-TRS.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 Somers Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 Teal LFD 4-11-14 Fiscal Outlook Model-4.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 Teal LFD 4-11-14 Fiscal Outlook Model-3.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HB 385 Teal LFD 4 11 14 Comparing TRS Options.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |
| HFIN Testimony RPEA HB 385.doc |
HFIN 4/12/2014 2:00:00 PM |
HB 385 |