04/03/2007 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR1 | |
| HB181 | |
| HB100 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2007
3:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Relating to reauthorization of federal funding for children's
health insurance; and encouraging the Governor to support
additional funding for and access to children's health
insurance.
- MOVED SJR 1 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to traffic offenses and traffic offenses
committed in a school zone; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 181(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 100
"An Act relating to exempting certain air ambulance services
from insurance regulation and requiring certain air ambulance
services to provide services."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 207
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 1
SHORT TITLE: MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
02/07/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/07 (S) HES, FIN
02/19/07 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/19/07 (S) Bill Postponed To 2/26/07
02/26/07 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/26/07 (S) Moved SJR 1 Out of Committee
02/26/07 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/28/07 (S) HES RPT 5DP
02/28/07 (S) DP: DAVIS, ELTON, THOMAS, COWDERY,
DYSON
03/05/07 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
03/14/07 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/14/07 (S) VERSION: SJR 1
03/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/07 (H) HES, FIN
03/31/07 (H) HES AT 12:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/31/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/03/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 181
SHORT TITLE: TRAFFIC OFFENSES: FINES/SCHOOL ZONES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
03/07/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/07/07 (H) HES, JUD
03/22/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/22/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/27/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/03/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 100
SHORT TITLE: AIR AMBULANCE SERVICES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) HES, L&C
02/15/07 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/15/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/07 (H) HES, L&C
02/22/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/22/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/01/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/13/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/13/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/03/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RICHARD BENAVIDES, Staff
to Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 1 on behalf of Senator Bettye
Davis, sponsor.
ROBERT MYERS, Intern
to Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 181, on
behalf of Representative Peggy Wilson, prime sponsor.
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced DOT&PF staff during the hearing
on HB 181.
KURTIS SMITH, Traffic and Safety Engineer
Division of Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
181.
DENNIS COOK, Transportation Coordinator
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
LT. RODNEY DIAL, Deputy Commander
A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
181.
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Re-introduced SSHB 100, as amended, on
behalf of Representative John Coghill, prime sponsor.
LINDA HALL, Director
Anchorage Office
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
SSHB 100.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:07:09 PM.
Representatives Wilson, Seaton, Gardner, Roses, Fairclough, and
Neuman were present at the call to order. Representative Cissna
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SJR 1-MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN
3:07:15 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Relating to reauthorization of
federal funding for children's health insurance; and encouraging
the Governor to support additional funding for and access to
children's health insurance.
3:07:44 PM
RICHARD BENAVIDES, staff to Senator Bettye Davis, presented SJR
1, on behalf of the prime sponsor, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
SJR 1, Medical Assistance for Children states that the
Alaska State Legislature urges our Congressional
delegation to work diligently to achieve a timely
reauthorization of the State Children's Health
Insurance Program and to continue federal medical
assistance percentages (or FMAP) for the Denali
KidCare program.
Denali KidCare is Alaska's version of the state
Children's Health Insurance program of SCHIP which was
created in 1997 and is slated for reauthorization this
year. It has been and continues to be a successful
federal-state partnership, now covering over 4 million
low-income children and enjoying bipartisan support.
However, in the upcoming federal fiscal year, 17-18
states, among them Alaska, are projected to have
insufficient federal SCHIP funding to sustain their
existing SCHIP programs.
According to various estimates by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Congressional
Research Service and other independent analysts, these
states will face an estimated $800 to $950 million in
total funding shortfalls in 2007. Here in Alaska that
shortfall could total over $12 million.
Without additional federal funding to avert these
shortfalls, Alaska, along with other states may have
to reduce their SCHIP enrollment, placing health
insurance coverage nationally for over 500,000 low-
income children at risk. States may also be forced to
enact harmful changes to their SCHIP programs, such as
curtailing benefits, increasing beneficiary cost-
sharing or reducing provider payments.
Congress has acted in the past to address SCHIP
shortfalls successfully and can do so again.
To the end, with you permission I'd like to read the
opening paragraph of the update in your packets from
Families USA published on March 29th:
"Before adjourning for their April recess, both the
House and Senate passed their budget resolutions.
Both chambers included a commitment of $50 billion for
SCHIP. The $50 billion will go a long way toward
meeting our goal of providing health coverage to the 9
million children in this country without health
insurance. It shows that Congress places a high
priority on reauthorizing SCHIP and on expanding
coverage for children as we enter into the next phase
of the debate over reauthorization."
We ask your support of SJR 1 to add the Alaska State
Legislature to the many voices urging our delegation
and the rest of Congress to enact legislation
immediately that provides additional SCHIP funding to
ensure that all states have sufficient federal funding
to sustain their existing SCHIP programs in FY 2007.
3:10:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether SJR 1 differs from the
house companion resolution.
MR. BENAVIDES opined that there is no difference.
3:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report SJR 1, 25-LS0476\A, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SJR 1 was
reported out of House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee.
3:11:01 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:10 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.
HB 181-TRAFFIC OFFENSES: FINES/SCHOOL ZONES
3:11:44 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 181, "An Act relating to traffic offenses and
traffic offenses committed in a school zone; and providing for
an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 181, Version
25-LS0613\L, Luckhaupt, 3/20/07.]
3:11:53 PM
ROBERT MYERS, Intern to Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska
State Legislature, addressed questions that were raised during
the bill's first hearing. He clarified that the large penalties
assessed by the bill are designed to clearly define unacceptable
behavior. Mr. Myers pointed out that, in 1998, the legislature
passed double traffic fines in construction zones to protect
construction workers and last year, similar legislation was
passed to protect the public in highway safety corridors. Thus,
this legislation is needed to protect school children just as
much as construction workers and the general public. In
addition, he explained that pressuring local agencies for
increased enforcement of existing laws places an undue burden on
police forces and the enforcement of laws remains in the domain
of local municipalities and the Alaska State Troopers.
MR. MYERS continued to explain that data from 2002 through 2004,
shows that there was a 33 percent reduction in construction zone
accidents; however, overall accidents rose 18 percent. He
opined that this data tends to support the effectiveness of the
double traffic fines in construction zones. He concluded by
saying that accidents in school zones increased by 110 percent
during the same time period.
3:14:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how many of the school zone
accidents involved children.
MR. MYERS responded that the data does not specify.
3:15:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES agreed with the intent of the bill;
however, he said that he has a concern about the difficulty in
collecting the fines. He expressed his hope that this may serve
as a deterrent and that whatever can be done to slow people down
in school zones is worth a try.
3:16:37 PM
MR. MYERS replied that the problem of collecting traffic fines
will exist whether this legislation passes or not. Research
during the drafting of the bill showed that non-payment of
traffic violations is most prevalent in Anchorage. He opined
that the collection problem does not detract from the merits of
HB 181.
3:17:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether camera monitoring can be
used to enforce the school speed zones.
MR. MYERS assured the committee that camera surveillance and
ticketing can be set-up; however, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled
that surveillance is a violation of privacy rights.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN opined that violations may be challenged
when the fine is $1,000. He then asked for an explanation of
Sec. 5, that annuls 13 AAC 02.325(d) and 13 AAC 03.325.(d).
MR. MYERS explained that Sec. 5 replaces the old definition of a
school zone with the new definition in Sec. 4. He said that the
old definition uses the presence of a crosswalk to determine a
school speed zone. The new definition determines that a school
zone is marked by speed limit signs and the fines are effective
only during the times indicated by those signs. For example,
double fines will not be in effect at 10:00 p.m. in July.
3:21:06 PM
CHAIR WILSON informed the committee that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) requested the
clarification of signage for school zones.
3:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed his understanding that a sign
that states "School Zone" indicates the applicability of the
double fines.
MR. MYERS explained that a driver would only be subjected to
double fines if there is a sign that states "School Zone" and
states a speed limit and a time frame, or "When Children
Present."
3:22:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether DOT&PF has been
consulted on this bill.
MR. MYERS affirmed that DOT&PF was consulted on the school zone
definition.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether there is a fiscal note
for the cost of new signage.
MR. MYERS advised that there would not be a need for new signs.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH questioned Mr. Myers about the time
limits that need to be added to the existing signs.
MR. MYERS answered that information is already on the posted
signs.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH recalled that at her local school
there are flashing lights that indicate the school speed zone,
but there is no time designation.
MR. MYERS explained that the school speed zone is only in effect
when the lights are flashing.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH remarked:
The lights are only flashing on a collector street,
which would be a street that's designated as a
particular traffic volume. But the more dangerous
accidents happen closer to the school where there is
no flashing light, there's only a free-standing sign
that says "School Zone" going in, I think they're
like, neon yellow right now, going in, but there's no
designation. So, if there's no time that you are
going to add to the sign, ... it's 24/7 that we're
going to enforce it from the police department. ...
There's after school activities, there's basketball on
the week-ends. ... A school zone time, as I understand
it, is the hours of operation, 30 minutes before and
30 minutes after, at least at an elementary school....
3:25:10 PM
MR. MYERS deferred the question to the legislative liaison from
DOT&PF.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH further asked whether the sponsor has
garnered comments from the police departments around the state.
She stated her interest in knowing if the police departments
believe that the bill will be easy to implement.
MR. MYERS assured the committee that the sponsor consulted with
the Department of Public Safety, and its issues with HB 181 were
addressed in the Committee Substitute (CS). He noted that there
are no laws being created; the bill merely alters the penalties
for those already in force.
3:26:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the difference between
"annulling" a statute and "repealing" a statute.
MR. MYERS said that annulled is the correct term for changes in
the administrative code.
3:27:16 PM
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
introduced Kurtis Smith.
3:27:48 PM
KURTIS SMITH, Traffic and Safety Engineer, Division of Design &
Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), asked for clarification of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH restated her question regarding the
lack of a time designation on the signs in the school zone of
her local school.
3:28:54 PM
MR. SMITH answered that DOT&PF will not require additional
signage. There are three ways for signs to indicate when school
speed zones are in effect: flashing lights; "When Children are
Present"; and by day of week and time of day.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether law enforcement could
issue a double fine ticket during week-end activities.
MR. SMITH explained that the "When Children are Present" sign is
problematic for law enforcement. He expressed his understanding
that the law could be enforced on week-ends and after school
hours.
3:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there is a traffic safety
problem at schools.
MR. SMITH responded that the roads can always be safer; however,
DOT&PF annual safety reviews do not identify school zones as
problem areas. He opined that compliance with traffic laws in
school zones is reportedly better than in other places.
3:30:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked:
So, if we were to accept that we could do something to
make them safer, or that there was any change needed,
do you think that doubling fines would be the first
way you'd go for it?
MR. SMITH answered:
I think enforcement is the most important thing. ...
Fines are already higher in school zones and ...
enforcement, I think, is the key.
3:31:42 PM
MR. MYERS clarified that present law elevates the fines in
school zones for speeding only, not for other traffic offenses.
CHAIR WILSON asked what the difference would be between speeding
and traffic offenses.
MR. MYERS said that other traffic offenses include running stop
signs and unsafe passing.
3:32:28 PM
DENNIS COOK, Transportation Coordinator, Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, stated his support for HB 181. He
informed the committee that his office receives many complaints
about vehicles speeding in school zones. He opined that the
bill will increase safety for children walking to school and
home during the months of inclement weather and darkness. In
his personal experience he has seen vehicles speeding in school
zones. He said that double fines are effective in slowing
vehicles in construction zones. Mr. Cook thanked the committee
for looking closely at HB 181.
3:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether the $1,000 fine is an
arbitrary amount or the maximum set by the court system.
3:34:43 PM
CHAIR WILSON responded that the fine is not to exceed $1,000;
and the judge would decide on the exact amount.
3:35:00 PM
MR. MYERS explained that a traffic fine is set by a bail
schedule established by the Alaska Supreme Court. The current
maximum fine for speeding is $300. The bill will increase the
maximum possible fine for speeding to $1,000. Therefore, the
amount of the doubled fines will not be limited by the current
ceiling of $300.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH verified that there is a formula that
uses the speed of the vehicle to calculate the fine.
3:36:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Cook whether enhanced and
improved enforcement of existing speed limits would improve the
safety in school zones.
MR. COOK said yes. Speaking of his experience along the Parks
Highway, he opined that the double fines are an effective
deterrent in construction zones.
3:37:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN observed that the fine also includes
double points against a driver's license and if a driver has two
school zone speeding tickets within two years, the license is
revoked.
MR. MYERS agreed. He added that the first time a license is
revoked for traffic points, it is lost for 30 days.
3:38:07 PM
LT. RODNEY DIAL, Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, recited the
schedule of points assessed toward the suspension or loss of a
license.
3:38:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how often the state troopers patrol
the school zones.
LT. DIAL answered that coverage varies upon the area. In
Ketchikan, traffic offenses in school zones are low; however, a
significant amount of federal support for extra highway safety
patrols can be used for enforcement in school traffic zones. He
informed the committee that the percentage of patrols is
community specific.
3:39:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the public's awareness of
more coverage by law enforcement results in better compliance.
LT. DIAL answered yes. For example, he said that the troopers
advertise around the holidays about [increased] DUI enforcement
and it is effective.
3:40:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Lt. Dial for his approach to
improving school zone safety.
LT. DIAL responded that he would dedicate officers to patrol
school zones, during school hours, on a random basis.
3:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether increased fines would
increase enforcement.
LT. DIAL replied that the amount of the fine is irrelevant to
the enforcement decision. Troopers base enforcement on the
greatest need; however, increased fines may have an effect on
compliance.
3:41:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked:
... Kurt Smith, who was with the traffic, traffic and
safety engineer with the Department of [Transportation
& Public Facilities] said, "fines are already higher
in school zones, enforcement is the key." Is that
something that you'd agree with?
LT. DIAL agreed.
3:42:24 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether doubling fines in other traffic areas
is effective.
LT. DIAL responded that doubling fines may act as a deterrent in
highway safety traffic corridors where there is sufficient
advertising and signage to make drivers aware of the additional
cost of a violation.
CHAIR WILSON concluded that a difference will not be made
without new signs.
LT. DIAL said:
I think what I'm trying to say is that if the public's
not aware of it, they just wind up with a citation
that's a lot higher. I can tell you that my
experience as a patrol trooper, people are not even
aware of the differences, in many cases, between
municipalities in the state. For example, Anchorage
Police Department tends to have fines that are double
those of the state troopers ... if it's clearly
communicated I believe it will have more of an effect.
3:43:57 PM
CHAIR WILSON closed public testimony.
3:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 1 that read:
Citations may be issued utilizing automated photo
radar or similar technology if authorized by local
ordinance.
3:44:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected.
3:45:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that DOT&PF and the troopers agree
that enforcement is the key. He opined that when people expect
enforcement, the public is more compliant and the awareness of
enforcement by radar will encourage compliance and promote
safety for school children.
3:46:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN recalled that DOT&PF concluded that school
zones are safe, and that Lt. Dial testified that law enforcement
is placed where it is most needed. He said he did not support
the amendment.
3:47:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH relayed that Anchorage has experience
with photo radar as a means of enforcement. The Anchorage
assembly implemented a photo radar program in school zones;
however, there was a subsequent ballot initiative and the city
overwhelmingly repealed the ordinance. The City of Anchorage
wanted a police officer, not a camera, on site to enforce
traffic violations. She said that photo radar did make it
easier to cite violators, although public opinion was that the
program was implemented to raise revenue.
3:49:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH removed her objection.
3:50:03 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that, there being no further objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:50:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said that she agreed that enforcement
is the issue and the success of the program depends upon
citizens' awareness of the double fine zone. She offered
Conceptual Amendment 2 which read:
Signs will be added to inform the public that double
fines are enforced in a particular area.
3:50:49 PM
CHAIR WILSON objected for discussion.
3:50:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that, even though there will be
capital costs, it is important to have appropriate signage to
raise the education and awareness levels of the public.
3:51:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that the amendment does not include
the limit of $1,000.
CHAIR WILSON said, "That follows with the rest of the bill."
3:51:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH pointed out that, in Sec. 1, the bill
speaks to double fines. She recalled testimony that explained
that the fine is calculated by a formula based on the speed of
the vehicle. She suggested that the signs should be similar to
those posted in highway traffic safety corridors.
3:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether signs will be posted at
every school in Alaska.
3:52:34 PM
MR. MYERS informed the committee that DOT&PF guidelines, copies
of which are included in the committee packet, determine where
signs need to be placed. He noted that some rural areas are not
counted as school zones.
3:53:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that the signs need to indicate
double fines and double points in order to be a deterrent.
3:53:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH acknowledged that Representative
Gardner made a valid point; however, she encouraged the use of
existing and consistent signage.
3:54:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES observed that the signs indicate double
penalties.
3:54:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 2 that adds:
... and if automatic technology is authorized the
signs shall so indicate.
3:55:36 PM
CHAIR WILSON objected for discussion.
3:55:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated that the use of technology is a
local community or municipal choice. If a local community
wishes to utilize photo radar, the community could choose to add
an appropriate sign.
3:56:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Neuman, Seaton,
Cissna, and Roses voted in favor of Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 2. Representatives Gardner, Fairclough, and Wilson
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
3:58:15 PM
CHAIR WILSON removed her objection to Conceptual Amendment 2, as
amended. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment
2, as amended, was adopted.
3:58:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked about the effect of the new
signage on local communities regarding the use of photo radar
enforcement.
3:59:25 PM
CHAIR WILSON observed that the amendment will require a fiscal
note.
3:59:47 PM
MR. SMITH opined that double fine signs will be installed
initially, and later, as appropriate, the local jurisdiction
would add a separate plate to notify drivers of radar
enforcement.
4:00:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his understanding that DOT&PF is
only responsible for signage on state roads.
4:00:49 PM
MR. SMITH answered that DOT&PF is responsible for signs on state
roads and on new projects.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether DOT&PF will have the
responsibility to install signs for school zones on state roads,
or on all roads, in response to this legislation.
MR. SMITH opined that DOT&PF's responsibility would be for state
roads.
4:01:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH re-stated the intent of the amendment.
She said:
The Department of Transportation, on a state road,
would go through, at their earliest convenience, to
implement this law and place a sign that showed a
double penalty. ... And that we would follow up, then,
with how we would enforce the "and portion"....
4:01:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed with Representative Fairclough, and
then said that the amendment to the amendment would add that the
photo radar sign would be placed by the local communities.
4:02:19 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated:
... that's on the record, that, that, if the community
chose to do that, then that would be their
responsibility to make sure there was adequate
signage. And, obviously, that wouldn't be permanent,
because that's not always there, those things can be
moved, and so ....
4:02:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised that if a municipality authorizes
the use of radar, then it would be noted on the school zone
sign. A community may set this type of enforcement up on a
temporary or permanent basis, and the sign should reflect the
presence of radar enforcement. He opined that the amendment
clearly states that a local ordinance is needed to allow such
technology.
4:04:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated the need for a [revised] fiscal
note.
4:04:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 181, Version 25-
LS0613\L, Luckhaupt, 3/20/07, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
4:05:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected and recalled that the
representative from DOT&PF testified that school zones are
generally safe, and that the trooper testified that enforcement
is the key. He stressed that school zones should be made safe;
however, this is not the approach.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated her objection, for the same
reasons as Representative Neuman, and also due to the lack of
documentation supporting the bill. She said that testimony
supporting the bill was limited to one member of the public and
agency support is absent. Representative Gardner said that she
felt that the bill is unnecessary.
4:07:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH spoke in favor of moving the bill,
having explained the previous reservation she had about the
$1,000 maximum. She said that she felt the amendments will aid
in educating the public and that the judiciary committee can
further refine the bill, if necessary. Representative
Fairclough referred to a letter of support from the Alaska Peace
Officers Association, and other testimony supporting the bill.
She expressed her belief that education will provide more of a
deterrent than an individual's receipt of a costly ticket.
4:09:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that the amendment that requires
the radar enforcement issue to be addressed at the local level
is important. She recalled that this is not a new idea;
however, as long as it is a local choice to use this, it may be
helpful.
4:10:52 PM
CHAIR WILSON observed that, although enforcement may be the key,
sometimes law officers are not available. She opined that the
threat of double fines can make a difference.
4:11:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his support for the bill, even
though the fine increase may not change behavior.
4:12:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Roses,
Fairclough, Seaton, and Wilson voted in favor of reporting CSHB
181, Version 25-LS0613\L, Luckhaupt, 3/20/07, as amended, from
committee. Representatives Gardner and Neuman voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 181(HES) was reported out of the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee by a vote of 5-
2.
4:13:08 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:13 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.
HB 100-AIR AMBULANCE SERVICES
4:14:27 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 100, "An Act relating to
exempting certain air ambulance services from insurance
regulation and requiring certain air ambulance services to
provide services."
4:14:47 PM
KAREN LIDSTER, staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, prime sponsor, informed the committee that
there is a CS for SSHB 100, the legislation to exempt air
ambulance services from insurance regulations under AS 21.03.
Two amendments were passed at the previous hearing; Amendment 1
gave the definition of an air ambulance service and Amendment 2
limited the subscription period to not greater than two years.
Ms. Lidster introduced Linda Hall to answer questions regarding
the insurance code.
4:16:23 PM
LINDA HALL, Director, Anchorage Office, Division of Insurance,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), stated that she was available to answer questions.
4:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether the amendments to SSHB
100 are de facto insurance regulation. She pointed out that, if
passed, the Division of Insurance will be responsible for
complaints and compliance relating to this legislation.
MS. HALL answered that an agency is always needed to enforce any
statute and to provide opinions thereof; however, the enforcing
agency for this issue may not need to be the Division of
Insurance. She recalled that the bill relates to consumer
protection, and her conversation with Clyde (Ed) Sniffen, Jr.,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair Business
Section, Department of Law (DOL), who heads the consumer
protection unit, indicated that if there is no other state
agency that has oversight, the consumer protection unit will
take on the responsibility for oversight. The consumer
protection unit of DOL investigates reports of unfair or
deceptive conduct, or sales practices, and fraud. Ms. Hall
advised that the terms of subscriptions sold, and related
issues, will fall under the jurisdiction of the consumer
protection unit.
4:19:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the sale of product
memberships, by air ambulance services and through a non profit
organization, is selling insurance.
MS. HALL said that is correct.
4:20:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said:
... like here in the [bill] title it says "requiring
certain air ambulance services to provide services",
so this states, that's actually saying that the state
is telling a private industry that you have to do
this?
MS. LIDSTER answered:
Representative Neuman, it is not telling air ambulance
services that they have to do this, it also states
that there are designations on qualifying as an air
ambulance service, but they do not have to offer these
memberships. No, sir.
4:21:43 PM
CHAIR WILSON offered that the service is optional.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN repeated his statement:
... it says requiring air ambulance services to
provide those services. It's ... confusing there.
MS. LIDSTER remarked:
The question would be that the requirement is that you
cannot deny ... medical service in an emergency to, to
someone whether or not they have a subscription or
membership with you, that was the requirement there.
4:22:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH expressed her belief that this is an
insurance product that needs to be regulated. She read the
title and asked Ms. Hall to explain why this is not insurance.
MS. HALL explained that Title 21.03 gives the Division of
Insurance a list of items that are specifically excluded from
the definition of insurance. For example; certain kinds of
service contracts, that are low cost products and not a serious
source of financial harm to a consumer. The Division of
Insurance regulates home warranties, but not a service contract
for a toaster. Ms. Hall stated that a public policy decision
needs to be made to determine whether the legislature wants
subscription services, such as mentioned in SSHB 100, to be sold
in the state. If so, policy will need to be written instructing
the Division of Insurance on how they are to be regulated. Ms.
Hall described division requirements that are imposed on an
insurance company such as; deposits in the bank, proof of
capital and surplus, annual audits, and tri-annual financial
exams. She opined that air ambulance companies would not
qualify; therefore, an unique and new regulatory mechanism may
need to be created. Ms. Hall stated her support for this bill,
but that she does not believe that the Division of Insurance
should regulate these subscriptions as insurance.
4:26:40 PM
CHAIR WILSON described her experience with Medivacs, as a nurse,
and opined that this type of coverage for a person could be a
comfort.
4:28:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked:
... I just want to be certain I absolutely understand.
Basically, it is an insurance product that they're
selling, and they've been selling it illegally, but
we've chosen to be somewhat sympathetic to ... and not
pursue it, and instead what we're going to do is
legislatively say the product isn't insurance and make
it a consumer protection issue. So it would be
monitored and the interests of Alaskans would be
protected by Ed Sniffen and the people in his
department.
MS. HALL said that there are differing opinions within the
division about whether this product is insurance. Although the
question surfaced years ago, and the division has advised
consumers that the product is insurance, a formal legal opinion
from DOL has not been solicited. She declined to say whether
the product is insurance.
4:29:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her belief that life in small
communities is becoming more expensive and residents are leaving
because of that. How the state deals with health care costs is
possibly the single most important issue of livability in rural
areas. She opined that regulation should only occur when the
need arises; to do otherwise will shape the products available
to the public from the private sector. Representative Cissna
then said:
We need a future for experimentation in bringing down
health care costs. We need to put the safety pieces
in place, I agree, but not before we have a problem
and ... I'm with this bill.
4:32:30 PM
MS. HALL stated that the one of the considerations on this issue
is that resources are based on consumer complaints. She noted
that there has never been a complaint about Medivac services in
Alaska or 27 other states; this is indicative of a product that
has not created an issue.
4:33:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES clarified that this bill states that if a
subscription is sold for air ambulance services, the state is
saying that you are not selling an insurance policy, regardless
of the statement in the bill title. He asked:
If I came to you and I wanted to, if I came to the
state and wanted to get a business license to run an
air ambulance service, am I be required to have
certain insurance for my company in place when I go to
get that license and operate within the parameters of
the state? Worker's compensation insurance, liability
insurance, so on and so on.
MS. HALL responded yes. She added that previous testimony spoke
to the clear requirements of insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES then asked:
As the commissioner for the department that regulates
insurance, if I were to read this and it says this is
an act relating to the exempting [of] air ambulance
services from insurance regulations, does that mean I
don't have to have any insurance any more?
MS. HALL replied, "I would not read it that way ... I clearly
would not support that."
4:35:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES repeated his question and said:
... I just want it on the record that it's not the
intent of this individual sitting here that's voting
on this bill, that that's what this means.
MS. HALL agreed that it is important to establish legislative
intent.
4:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether amendments to the bill have
been adopted.
CHAIR WILSON confirmed that Amendments 1 and 2 have been
adopted.
4:36:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered Amendment 3, that read:
Page 1, line 1, following "regulation":
Insert ", prohibiting sale of air ambulance
services to persons already covered,"
Page 1, line 5, following "services.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 1, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) An air ambulance service may not sell a
subscription to a person who has full coverage for air
ambulance services from another source, including the
Indian Health Service, Medicaid, or private
insurance."
4:36:32 PM
CHAIR WILSON objected for discussion.
4:36:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that many people have health
insurance that will cover the cost of an air ambulance.
Therefore, the sale of a subscription for additional coverage
would be taking advantage of the buyer. Amendment 3 will
prevent the sale of a subscription to persons already covered.
4:37:06 PM
CHAIR WILSON offered Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 that adds to
line 11 "or" between "Health Service" and "Medicaid", and
strikes out "or private insurance". She opined that private
insurance may not totally cover the cost of air ambulance
transportation.
4:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said:
The sentence actually reads, "An air ambulance service
may not sell a subscription to a person who has full
coverage for air ambulance services from another
source." So, if you have private insurance that may
pick up part of it, then you could still buy this
policy....
4:38:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked:
As a person that has about three coverage's, I maybe
don't have 100 percent insurance ... we continue to
keep talking about how this isn't insurance, but this
amendment ties it directly to insurance ... you keep
arguing that it's [not] an insurance policy but you
want to those exempt people that have insurance from
buying it if you're already covered...
4:39:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated her personal desire for "emotional
insurance" rather than to look at this as a commercial insurance
product. She said that an individual living in a rural area may
want to keep his/her bases covered regarding transportation
sources and should be able to choose to purchase what he/she
wants. Representative Cissna recalled that her constituents on
Prince of Wales Island complained about their lack of choice.
She opined that this is an issue of choice.
4:40:56 PM
CHAIR WILSON added that, even with 100 percent coverage,
insurance may not allow full payment because the air ambulance
charges are beyond the allowable cost limit for the service.
4:41:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that the need for air ambulance
services is not limited to rural areas. He recalled that
witnesses have stated that the bill will have a direct negative
impact on their businesses. He cautioned that the amendment
ties the bill to insurance, and may not stand a legal challenge.
4:43:13 PM
CHAIR WILSON commented that for three years this has been an
issue, and no one has gone out of business. The sponsors are
trying to help people in rural areas.
4:43:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that requiring the air ambulance
service to determine an individual's private insurance coverage
is extremely problematic. He stated his support for the
amendment to the amendment.
4:45:09 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 was
adopted.
4:45:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether "prohibiting the sale of air
ambulance services to persons already covered" pertains to the
sale of membership subscriptions service only and not to air
ambulance services in general.
4:46:22 PM
CHAIR WILSON suggested that the same terminology as read in line
l1 could be added to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed that adding verbiage to the
title would be cumbersome.
4:47:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated her objection and said that people
have the right to choice.
4:47:32 PM
MS. LIDSTER commented that, to insure the intent of the
amendment, the title may need to reflect Representative
Gardner's addition.
CHAIR WILSON suggested the addition of the word "certain" in
front of "persons."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER disagreed. She stated that her intent is
to prevent a situation similar to one where a person sells an
elderly person a new roof that they do not need.
4:49:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether the intent is to [prohibit]
air ambulance services or the subscription services.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied, "The sale of subscription
services."
4:50:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then offered Amendment 2 to Amendment 3,
that inserted the word "subscription" between "ambulance" and
"services".
There being no objection, Amendment 2 to Amendment 3 was
adopted.
4:50:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her concern that decisions are
being made without the perspective of the people who will be
using this service.
4:51:39 PM
CHAIR WILSON removed her objection to Amendment 3, as amended.
4:51:59 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that Amendment 3, as amended, is before
the committee.
4:52:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA sustained her objection.
4:52:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Roses,
Fairclough, Neuman, and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 3, as
amended. Representatives Cissna and Wilson voted against it.
Therefore, the Amendment 3, as amended, passed by a vote of 5-2.
4:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the Division of Insurance
questioned whether the legislature wants to make a policy
decision on the sale of subscriptions in Alaska and the
regulation thereof. He recalled the testimony offered opposing
this bill, and other testimony that spoke to a huge marketing
scheme of air ambulance services subscriptions that would
generate $2.5 million for one company. He stated that the
existing system of air ambulance services is working in Alaska
and a competitive marketing venture is not necessary. In
addition, he opined that testimony did not convince him that
patient care would be improved by the passage of SSHB 100.
Representative Seaton said he will not support this bill.
4:56:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his concern about the testimony of
an individual whose air ambulance company serves 75 percent of
the state. He described how medical care may be delayed while a
patient waits for his subscribed service, and observed that this
bill will not provide an added level of comfort or confidence to
subscribers. Representative Roses said that the value of the
bill goes to the one business that wants to sell subscriptions.
He stated his opposition to the bill.
4:58:41 PM
CHAIR WILSON described how difficult Medivac transportation can
be with the current services that are available. She expressed
her disappointment at the opposition to SSHB 100.
5:00:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that the cost of health care in the
United States and in rural Alaska is a problem. Communities
need to have to find ways to economize; in fact, in the Yukon
Flats area, health care professionals are flying in on a regular
basis. The number of emergencies is being reduced by this
preventive health care. Economic solutions that allow people to
live in their villages, in a healthy way are called for. She
said that unhealthy products are being flown in to these
villages instead of bringing in health care. Representative
Cissna stressed that the bill should be given a chance to work.
5:03:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:03 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.
5:04:29 PM
CHAIR WILSON cancelled the hearing on HB 207.
5:04:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES observed that SSHB 100 does not state that
if a subscription is purchased that the Medivac flight is paid
for. He then remarked:
All I heard the person that spoke of subscriptions
[say] ... "Well we would cover, we wouldn't go after
them for ... the co-pay." [They] didn't say they
wouldn't be going after payment. Nor anywhere in here
does it, do we have a sample of what the subscription
would look like if somebody sold it. How do we know
we're not letting them sell a membership and then
they're going to have to go after them to collect the
fees anyway. There's no guarantee of that in this
bill.
5:05:39 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that SSHB 100 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|