Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/31/2009 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB192 | |
| HB71 | |
| HB190 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 192-CHILD SUPPORT/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT 3:04:54 PM CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to nonpayment of child support; relating to certain judicial and administrative orders for medical support of a child; relating to periodic review and adjustment of child support orders; relating to relief from administrative child support orders; relating to child support arrearages; relating to medical support of a child and the Alaska Native family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." 3:05:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt CSHB 192, Version 26- LS0483\P, Mischel, 3/30/09, as the working document. There being no objection, CSHB 192, Version P, was adopted as the working document. 3:06:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, prime sponsor of HB 192, said that HB 192 was introduced at the request of the administration. He presented a high level review of the bill, and explained that it emanated from a federal requirement. He noted that HB 192 included conforming language, a definition of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and the administration of the order of support for the Child Support Services Division. He referred to Section 3 of the bill, and ascertained that this was a federal mandate in order for Alaska to receive federal money. He directed attention to the definition for "state" contained in Section 3 (19) which was amended to include "an Indian tribe." He pointed out that Alaskan tribal issues were based in enrollment, bloodline, and corporation whereas in the Lower 48, the tribal issues were based on geography. He explained the intent language in Section 1(b) which read: In Alaska, the scope of tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order is an unsettled legal question, due in part to the lack of Indian country in most of the state. In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction to enter, modify, or enforce child support orders, and the amendments are not intended, either directly or impliedly, to acknowledge, expand, or restrict tribal jurisdiction. He summarized that this tribal definition declared that Alaska was different than the 48 contiguous states. 3:09:42 PM CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the Tanana chiefs were involved with this definition. 3:10:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he had worked on the definition with the Office of the Attorney General. He stressed that this definition was an unsettled question in Alaska, and that acceptance of the federal definition could create serious issues in Alaska. He expressed his desire that it not become a big issue in Alaska. 3:10:52 PM RYNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, said that she would divide the sections of the bill into four categories: Sections 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12 add cash medical support for sections of the law that apply to child support and health insurance under existing law; Section 1 redefines the word "state" to include "the United States Virgin Islands" and "an Indian tribe"; Section 4 required child support to review cases on a three year cycle; Sections 7 and 8 allow the child support agency to correct a clerical error in an administrative order without a motion from the obligor. She noted that the first three categories were required to comply with federal law, or lose $18 million annually in federal funding. 3:13:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to cash medical support orders, and asked if this bill was seeking conforming language, or were these support orders currently issued. MS. MOSS replied that Alaska had medical support orders, but not cash medical support orders. She reported that the bill would include both. She explained that this would extend to both custodial and non-custodial parents. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reported that it was currently assumed the obligor had insurance, but that this proposed bill broadened that both parents would be assumed to have insurance or cash medical support, in lieu of insurance. 3:15:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there was a necessity for cash medical support if there was medical insurance. 3:16:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Representative Seaton, said that the cash was for medical coverage. 3:17:40 PM JOHN MALLONEE, Director, Anchorage Central Office, Child Support Services Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), said that child support was a federally mandated, but state operated program. He explained the federal requirements and the federal funding for the program. He described the three areas that HB 192 addressed for changes of the state statute in order to meet federal requirements for funding: the first area was within the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), an act which provided efficient procedures for the collection of child support in interstate cases and eliminated multiple support orders, and he pointed out that the Alaska definition of "state" would need to conform to that in UIFSA; the second area was in regard to child medical support, and he pointed out that HB 192 added to existing law "the authority to order either or both parents to pay cash medical support if warranted;" the third area addressed support orders, and he noted that under HB 192 clients could now request a review at any time, that child support orders must now be reviewed at least every three years, and that language was removed which limited who could request a correction of (1) a clerical mistake in an administrative order or, (2) a decision based on default income, and not the ability to pay. 3:23:21 PM CO-CHAIR KELLER asked if the state had been out of compliance since 1996. MR. MALLONEE agreed, with regard for the definition of "state." CO-CHAIR KELLER asked what had occurred to make this now more important than in 1996. MR. MALLONEE said that this had been brought to the attention of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, which sent a pre-notice letter of consequences for non-compliance to (Alaska) Child Support Services Division. MR. MALLONEE, in response to Co-Chair Herron, offered his belief that it had been previously overlooked. 3:25:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, line 20 of the bill, which read, "agency shall issue a support order," and he asked to define a cash medical support order. 3:26:07 PM MR. MALLONEE explained that the Child Support Services Division first determined whether either party had health insurance, and if not, then a set amount of money was required as cash medical support. 3:27:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this was limited to co-pay or deductibles in addition to the insurance. 3:28:15 PM MR. MALLONEE, in response to Representative Seaton, said that the cash medical support was in lieu of insurance. He noted that non covered medical payments, such as co-pay and deductibles, were already addressed in statute. He pointed out that this applied to people who had no medical insurance available to them, so that some money was available for medical expenses. 3:29:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify the need for "or both" language in the bill with reference to "a medical support order" and "a cash medical support order." 3:29:44 PM MR. MALLONEE replied that it was required language, and he theorized on the possibilities for the need of both. 3:30:58 PM STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General;, Statewide Section Supervisor, Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), said that she was available to answer questions. 3:31:30 PM CO-CHAIR KELLER asked what legal effect the proposed intent language for the definition of "state" in HB 192 would have for a legal determination to tribal jurisdiction. 3:32:32 PM PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), replied that the legal question was whether the state was changing any procedures under the UIFSA. He relayed that the tribal argument might be the implication that jurisdiction was intended. He said that the intent language of HB 192 was clear, and that this was not a position, merely a conforming amendment. He said that the unresolved issues were whether the inherent jurisdiction of the tribes was extended for child support orders, specifically in Alaska. He opined that HB 192 would not be a central argument for resolution. 3:36:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to "other insurance coverage" on page 3, line 24, and asked if that was Denali Kid Care. 3:37:33 PM MS. STEINBERG explained that Denali Kid Care was not private insurance, but a form of public assistance; therefore, it would not cover this. She said that Indian Health Service care would suffice, as would military health care. 3:38:24 PM GINGER BLAISDELL, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), reiterated that the first pre- notice letter for non-compliance was received on March 27, 2009, and it stated that block grant funds for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) would be at risk if the state did not enact conforming child support legislation. She stated that HB 192 would enact all the necessary conforming laws. She said that the amount of money at risk for the state was about $85 million. She emphasized that it was critical to conform to UIFSA. 3:40:40 PM CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if Alaska had been aware of not being in conformity, even though the federal government was not. 3:41:01 PM MS. BLAISDELL said that Alaska had been aware for a short time. She said that Alaska had requested a waiver on January 29, 2009, which was denied. 3:41:53 PM MS. BLAISDELL, in response to Co-Chair Herron, said that she did not know when a warning letter would arrive. 3:42:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that, unless Alaska was willing to do something else for its citizens, it was necessary to pass this bill. 3:43:45 PM BOB LOESCHER, Judiciary Committee, Sub Committee of State and Tribal Affairs, Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, reported that he had been working on the federal compliance issue for several months, and he stressed the impact this would have on Alaskan families and children. He discussed the Central Council of Tlingit & Haida tribal child support program, which did not use state funds, but was funded directly from the federal government. He shared that the tribe cooperated with the state children services and the DOR. He confirmed that Alaskan tribes were recognized under the United States constitution, by the U.S. Congress, and by the Secretary of the Interior. He pointed out that the Statehood Act recognized Alaskan native peoples, which was based on tribal enrollment. He asked that the legislature recognize that tribes did exist, as there was a mutual benefit for cooperation with the tribes on programs of common interest. He noted that this kept people working, kept children safe, and kept families fed and taken care of. He pointed out that Alaska was the only state which did not include "Indian tribe" in adoption of the federal act. He said that the Central Council supported HB 192, but he opined that Section 1(b) of the intent language did not comply with federal law. He suggested that the jurisdiction should be decided by the courts, and not be written into legislation. He offered his opinion that it was not helpful to the relationships. 3:52:41 PM JESSIE ARCHIBALD, Attorney, Tribal Child Support Program, Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, explained that the purpose of UIFSA was for conforming procedures among states and tribal jurisdictions for child support orders. She stated that Section 1(b) was contradictory, and did not support the purpose of UIFSA. She shared that tribes in Alaska now had their own federally funded child support programs. She offered her belief that the purpose of the program was to provide child support, not to argue about jurisdiction. She agreed that this was a procedural statute. 3:55:54 PM CO-CHAIR HERRON asked to clarify that Mr. Loescher supported the proposed CS for HB 192, except for Section 1(b). MR. LOESCHER asked to clarify that "uncodified" meant that it was proposed and that "codified" meant that it was already in statute. 3:57:10 PM MIKE FORD, Assistant Attorney General & Legislative Liaison, Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said that the reference to uncodified law meant that there was not an AS section assigned, and that it was in a different section of the statutes, but he clarified that it was still law. 3:58:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Mr. Loescher and Ms. Archibald, said that there were other tests of authority to be worked out. He affirmed that this needed to work for all Alaskans. He explained that Alaska had different tribal issues than the lower 48 states, and he noted that Alaska had enrollment based programs which were not geographically based, as in most other states. He welcomed the Tlingit & Haida involvement with child support programs and the TANF program. He explained that the language in HB 192, Section 1(b) was not intended to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction. He endorsed support for Alaskan families and children. 4:03:38 PM CO-CHAIR KELLER reiterated that the bill language in Section 1(b) stated "does not grant or restrict," which was not a statement on tribal jurisdiction. He considered the rest of the bill to be procedural for conformation to federal regulations. 4:04:33 PM MR. LOESCHER asked about the guidance memo from the governor and the commissioner of the DOR. He reflected that the language in that memo was clearer than the language in Section 1(b). 4:05:19 PM CO-CHAIR HERRON asked that the guidance memo be placed in the bill file. He noted that Mr. Loescher and Ms. Archibald had concerns with Section 1(b), and that they suggested for it to be deleted. 4:06:13 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:06 p.m. to 4:07 p.m. 4:07:06 PM CO-CHAIR KELLER moved to report CSHB 192, Version 26-LS0483\P, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 192 (HSS) was reported from the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HSS192pkt.PDF |
HHSS 3/31/2009 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HSS190pkt.PDF |
HHSS 3/31/2009 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HSS71pkt.PDF |
HHSS 3/31/2009 3:00:00 PM |