Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/21/2022 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB172 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 172-MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES & MEDS
1:03:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 172, "An Act relating to admission to and
detention at a subacute mental health facility; establishing a
definition for 'subacute mental health facility'; establishing a
definition for 'crisis residential center'; relating to the
definitions for 'crisis stabilization center'; relating to the
administration of psychotropic medication in a crisis situation;
relating to licensed facilities; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working document on
2/16/22, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 172,
32-GH1730\W, Foote, 2/16/22 ("Version W").]
1:04:28 PM
MARK REGAN, Legal Director, Disability Law Center of Alaska,
provided invited testimony during the hearing on HB 172, Version
W. He explained that the Disability Law Center was the
plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) regarding the system of involuntary
evaluation and treatment of patients. The lawsuit was based on
people "stacking up" in [police] custody and emergency rooms.
The lawsuit was settled based on the recommendation that the
state implement the Crisis Now model, which would provide for
short-term treatment. He expressed the opinion that Version W
would aid individuals with two major improvements on the
original bill. He stated that the first improvement would be
when an individual is taken into custody on an involuntary
basis, it would provide for an ex parte order to appoint an
attorney for the individual. He stated that the second
improvement would be that when an individual is being held for
more than three days, the individual would have a right to an
attorney and a judicial hearing. He concluded that Version W
would remedy previously held concerns. He expressed support for
the proposed legislation on behalf of the Disability Law Center.
1:08:47 PM
MR. REGAN, in response to a question from Representative
Eastman, stated that the lawsuit had been settled in 2020. He
added that one of the terms of the settlement is the state would
introduce legislation to implement the Crisis Now model of care.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed to a letter from the Disability Law Center
[included in the committee packet] entitled, "HB 172 Supporting
Document - Disability Law Center Letter 2.21.2022.pdf" which
contains additional information on the lawsuit.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there existed any
exceptions to the 72-hour rule, such as inclement weather events
in rural communities.
1:11:57 PM
STEVEN BOOKMAN, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division (Anchorage), Human Services Section, Department of Law,
answered questions during the hearing on HB 172, Version W. In
reference to Representative Eastman's question, he stated that
the 72-hour timeframe would begin upon arrival at a crisis
stabilization center or a crisis residential center. He
reminded the committee that an individual would have an attorney
appointed. Responding to a follow-up question, he stated that a
weather delay could increase the amount of time an individual
was in custody, beyond the 72-hour limit. He added that the 72-
hour period would be based on actual clinical time.
CHAIR CLAMAN questioned whether the proposed legislation would
create changes to how or when guardians would be contacted.
MR. BOOKMAN offered that there exists a statute which requires
notice to be given to guardians. He referred to his experience
in dealing with civil commitments at the Alaska Psychiatric
Institute (API) and pointed out, if the API had knowledge of the
existence of a guardian, efforts would be made to contact this
person. He characterized the process as an informal one. He
expressed the opinion that Version W would improve the quality
of notification requirements by the court of a scheduled
hearing.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that the court system had provided an updated
fiscal note.
1:17:09 PM
HEATHER CARPENTER, Senior Policy Advisor, Department of Health
and Social Services, answered questions during the hearing on HB
172, Version W. She stated that current statute does not
formally mandate the contact of a guardian, while Version W
would codify this requirement.
CHAIR CLAMAN invited the court system to answer questions
regarding guardian contact and the fiscal note.
1:18:23 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, answered questions during the
hearing on HB 172, Version W. She stated that the court system
had conducted research in CourtView to ascertain how many
guardians are private versus those provided by the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA). The conclusion had been that most known
guardians are private. She added the caveat that the data
source for guardians is not ordinarily tracked for this;
nevertheless, she expressed her opinion this was useful.
MS. MEADE, responding to Chair Claman's request for information
regarding the fiscal note, stated that there is not a current
statutory requirement for the court system to notify guardians
in the case of an involuntary commitment proceeding. She noted
that, per page 6, line 3 of the proposed legislation, the court
would be obligated to notify the guardian when the individual in
crisis is admitted to a crisis residential center, and again, on
page 9, line 28, the court would be obligated to notify the
guardian when an involuntary mental commitment is ordered. She
noted that CourtView is a confidential source of information for
parties to the case, so other entities would likely not have
complete information. She stated that the fiscal note includes
2, range 12, clerk positions. These positions would be
responsible for the increased notification requirement to the
court. Because the probate office is currently very busy, she
explained that the court is not able to absorb the
responsibilities with its current resources. She added that
mental commitment cases are likely to be filed with the court
after [business] hours, and currently no staff are available
during this time.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Crisis Now would be accessible to
minor children.
MS. CARPENTER answered that the proposed crisis stabilization
process would be available to minors in the same way
intervention services are currently available for minors and
adults. She noted that some providers are currently providing
such services to minors via the [1115 Behavioral Health Medicaid
Waiver]. She noted that, currently, when there are involuntary
commitment proceedings against a minor, a guardian must be
notified.
1:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether currently an attempt would
be made to contact a guardian.
MS. CARPENTER answered yes. She noted a "guardian ad litem" is
appointed in such cases, and an attorney is appointed to both
the youth and the guardian.
MR. BOOKMAN added that existing law would permit a minor to
provide consent to services in case the guardian cannot be
contacted. He stated that parents and guardians are likely the
individuals who would bring minors to facilities for treatment.
MR. BOOKMAN, in response to a question from Representative
Snyder, stated that should API have knowledge of a guardian for
an adult, it will attempt to make contact. He pointed out AS
7.25 directs that a guardian shall be notified of a respondent's
rights; however, in AS 7.15 there is no mention of guardian
notification. He pointed out Version W would address this
inconsistency.
1:28:41 PM
STEVE WILLIAMS, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority, in response to Representative Eastman, answered
that the intention of Version W would be to transform the
current system, along with the new components developed and
implemented. He noted that first, a crisis call center would be
contacted, and there would be an attempt to resolve the crisis
with de-escalation and no additional intervention. He explained
that, should the call center determine additional intervention
is necessary, a mobile crisis intervention team, consisting of a
medical professional and a peer, would be dispatched to assess
the situation and make decisions regarding the need for any
additional intervention. He noted that this is the current
practice in Anchorage and Fairbanks. He explained that, should
the crisis intervention team determine the situation cannot be
resolved, the individual would be transported to a crisis
stabilization facility in the community. He further explained
that, should the individual [remain unstable for] more than 23
hours, 59 minutes, the individual would be referred for 7 days
at a crisis residential center. He added that not every
community would have the ability to implement all the components
as described, such as in rural Alaska. He stated that Version W
would allow for each of the components to be implemented
according to resources available in each community.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the scenario described
would apply in a case where someone other than the patient
should call the crisis center.
MR. WILLIAMS cautioned that he did not have direct experience as
an emergency dispatcher and offered that trained professionals
would receive and assess the initial call for assistance. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that a peace officer
or law enforcement officer could refer an individual [to an
escalated level of care]. He continued that Version W would not
remove the authority of law enforcement or other first
responders to respond to an emergency; rather, the intent would
be to deter this level of intervention unless it is deemed
necessary. He offered that health care professionals are
trained and equipped to deal with mental health crises. He
noted that a uniformed responder, or the potential for flashing
lights, may unintentionally escalate a [mental health crisis]
situation.
1:34:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman, offered to
clarify his question into two parts. He stated that the first
question is whether an individual may be brought to a crisis
center by law enforcement, and second, how soon would a medical
professional evaluate the individual. In other words, how long
until a diagnosis is made.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that his line of questioning
concerns when the individual could elect to leave.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that, when a person is brought to a crisis
stabilization center or to a crisis residential center, an
evaluation would take place within three hours.
MS. CARPENTER explained that, once at the crisis center, an
individual would receive an evaluation within three hours, then
a determination would be made as soon as possible regarding the
resolution of the crisis. However, she stated that she would
not offer the DHSS's judgment in lieu of professional clinical
judgment, as each case would be based on individual
circumstances. She stated that the current law permits a
patient to be held involuntarily, while the proposed legislation
would direct a 72-hour timeframe within which a clinical
determination could be made. She added that clinical
considerations, such as the administration of medication, would
need to be considered by a professional. She added that, should
no treatment be required, the individual may not be held
involuntarily.
1:39:35 PM
MS. CARPENTER, in response to a question from Representative
Eastman, stated that a mental health professional, as defined in
AS 47.39.15, in cooperation with the individual in charge, would
determine when a patient no longer meets the involuntary
detention criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned that, if there is a delay for
crisis intervention, and an enforcement officer is on the scene,
could the officer offer professional judgment on whether the
individual may no longer require crisis care.
MS. CARPENTER offered that, per the terms of the settlement of
the lawsuit brought by the Disability Law Center, the state
would be required to enact a re-evaluation after 48 hours to
ensure an individual is not held without cause.
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that the information Ms. Carpenter
provided is not a component of Version W.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the 48-hour re-evaluation
could occur over the phone or by other remote technologies.
MS. CARPENTER answered that the re-evaluations could occur via
telehealth and offered to follow up with the committee after
consulting with the contractor who conducts the evaluations.
1:43:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what percentage of individuals
experiencing a crisis are self-reporting. She expressed the
understanding that the intent of the proposed bill would be to
limit the role of law enforcement in mental health crisis
intervention.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that the percentage of patients self-
reporting is not readily available. He explained that, for the
communities where the system has been implemented, national data
reflects 90 percent of cases are resolved during the initial
phone call and, of the remaining 10 cases, 7 are resolved by the
mobile crisis intervention team. He noted that for the
remaining 3 unresolved cases, the patient would be transported
to a crisis intervention center or a crisis residential center
for 5 to 7 days.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to the definitions listed on page
11 of the bill and asked what the scope of the authority of a
health officer.
MR. BOOKMAN answered that the current definition of a peace
officer includes professionals such as a public health nurse.
He stated that Version W would define "health officer"
consistently to draw a distinction between a health officer and
a peace officer. He noted that a health officer would include a
paramedic or a firefighter. He stated that, should HB 172 pass,
a peace officer or health officer would be the one authorized to
initiate a formal involuntary hold process.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned the health officers' training
which would enable them to make these decisions.
MR. BOOKMAN answered that Version W would not create a change to
any required training; however, it would add firefighters and
paramedics who would have professional licensing. He added that
the health or peace officer would transport an individual in
crisis to a center for an evaluation by a medical professional.
1:48:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA questioned the provision in the proposed
legislation which gives the criteria to hold an individual
against the individual's will.
MR. BOOKMAN answered that the criteria would be that probable
cause exists when an individual is likely to cause harm to self
or others, or is gravely disabled, as defined in current law.
In response to a series of follow-up questions, he answered that
the definition of "likely to cause harm" and "gravely disabled"
is in AS 47.30.915. He explained that a peace officer or a
health officer would have the authority to transport an
individual to a crisis center and a mental health professional
would have the authority to keep the individual in custody. He
stated that mental health professionals include a licensed
clinical social worker, a professional counselor, a
psychiatrist, or an advanced nurse practitioner. He answered
that, once an individual has been taken to a crisis center, the
same criteria would apply to determine whether the individual
stays. He added that a mental health professional would be
required to petition the court and attest to the need for the
recommended treatment.
CHAIR CLAMAN, for a list of definitions, referred to the
committee packet item, titled "Version W Additional Document -
Definitions for Alaska Involuntary Commitment Statutes (AS
47.30.915) 2.21.2022.pdf."
1:54:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE questioned the required evidence for
probable cause.
MR. BOOKMAN answered that an application would be made to the
court for an involuntary hold, and an explanation of the events
leading to the professional's conclusion would be required. In
relation to the individual in crisis, he stated that
considerations may be made based on the ability to communicate
logically, personal hygiene or wound care, and actions,
including catatonia or involuntary movements.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether a mobile crisis team, health
officer, or first responder would be required to provide proof
for the reason for detention.
MR. BOOKMAN answered that an emergency 24-hour hold may be
determined necessary by a police officer or medical professional
without judicial review based on professional judgment. He
stated that a mobile crisis team would be required to keep
records for Medicaid waivers and case management, which are
subject to review by regulatory bodies but not subject to
judicial review.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out the current practice where a police
officer may complete an ex parte order for a 72-hour hold based
on the officer's professionally trained judgment, and this is
subject to judicial review.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed concern that the proposed
legislation would expand authority for health officers and peace
officers to initiate an involuntary hold.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that, in current practice, individuals may
be subject to ex parte orders despite not being in custody. He
deferred to Mr. Bookman.
MR. BOOKMAN offered clarification that the "health officer"
reference would not be an expansion of additional authority;
moreover, it would be a clarification of the definition. He
stated that firefighters and paramedics would be included in the
definition as well. He stated that in Anchorage the fire
department is the designated mobile crisis team.
2:01:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN questioned whether, following the initial
assessment and prior to transport to a crisis center, would a
[mobile crisis team] have the discretion to stop the process.
MR. BOOKMAN offered that Version W is not intended to limit the
discretion of law enforcement. He stated that there may exist a
scenario when a law enforcement officer determines an individual
may need to be transported to jail, an emergency room, or mental
health facility. He stated that the proposed legislation would
expand the officer's options, while maintaining the discretion
to reassess the situation according to police standards.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered the example of an individual with known
mental health issues who lives with his mother. The individual
became convinced the mother left the country, when she had only
left for the store, and then this person experiences a mental
health crisis because of this belief. He explained that a law
enforcement officer with no prior knowledge of the person's
mental health situation could transport the person to a crisis
center. Once the crisis center becomes involved, the mother
would be contacted, and the crisis averted. He offered that, if
the officer had been familiar with the individual, the officer
could contact the mother instead of transporting the person to a
crisis center.
2:05:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a police officer could
offer a crisis center as an alternative to arrest.
MR. WILLIAMS stated that law enforcement has the first
discretion to assess for safety and risk assessment and whether
a crime has been committed. He added that Version W would
establish a system wherein a police officer or other first
responder may determine whether an individual requires mental
health care rather than solely placing the respondent under
arrest. He referred to the example offered by Chair Claman and
characterized it as a good example of the extent of coordination
between law enforcement, first responders, and mental health
professionals to determine the best course of action. He noted
that the role of law enforcement is not to act as a social
worker but to facilitate care and resume law enforcement duties.
2:09:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what safeguards exist to prevent
the abuse of the process, including the [unjustified] threat of
arrest.
MS. CARPENTER answered that there exist patient rights,
including the right to counsel. She added that the Medicare and
Medicaid offices have oversight of hospitals, which have crisis
care facilities. She stated that DHSS has licensing and review
staff to ensure the treatment plans and grievance procedures are
compliant. She noted that each facility should also have a
grievance procedure. She added that the Alaska State Ombudsman
and the Police Standards Council could handle complaints.
MR. BOOKMAN stated that mental health professionals have
expressed a preference to avoid involuntary commitments because
it leads to better patient outcomes, and law enforcement
professionals have expressed a preference that individuals
receive necessary care so officers can focus on law enforcement
duties.
2:13:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that the proposed legislation
would create a third alternative to either arrest or involuntary
commitment and asked what safeguards exist to prevent coercion.
MS. CARPENTER offered to clarify that no new process would be
created, and this pertains to individuals who have not committed
any crime. She stated that an involuntary commitment would
occur when an individual meets the definition of gravely
disabled or a danger to self or others. She stated that crisis
centers are necessary to prevent individuals from sitting in an
emergency room under observation only, or in protective custody
at a community jail.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that a civil commitment may be either court
ordered, involuntary, or voluntary, and the proposed legislation
would allow an individual to be held at a crisis residential
center for a period of less than 30 days.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what safeguards exist to prevent
abuse of the proposed process.
MS. CARPENTER restated that patient rights exist and added that
professionals, such as emergency medical technicians and
firefighters, are required to be professionally licensed and
overseen by the State Licensing Board.
CHAIR CLAMAN added that an essential protection would be the
proposed judicial hearings prior to a 72-hour hold. Another
protection would be the appointed attorney who may advocate for
a patient's release.
2:18:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the definition of peace
officer would include Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs) and
others. He questioned the protections to safeguard first
responders concerning individuals who are taken into custody and
not vaccinated.
MS. CARPENTER answered that VPSOs have oversight via their
licensure. She added that the settlement in the lawsuit with
the Disability Law Center included a provision that DHSS shall
offer training to law enforcement to recognize when an
individual may be experiencing a mental health crisis, and the
appropriate action which should be taken. She stated that there
had been a previously proposed bill which would have allowed for
a voluntary designation of a disability on the driver's license
of a mentally disabled person.
2:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how many beds in the state are
available for treatment in a subacute mental health care
facility.
MS. CARPENTER answered that the facilities which currently meet
the criteria to qualify as a designated treatment and evaluation
facility are the API; Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, which has 20
beds; Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, which has 16 beds; and
Bartlett Regional Hospital, which has 12 beds. In response to a
series of follow-up questions, she answered that API is
currently at its maximum capacity of 80 beds, 10 of which are
for forensic care for those deemed incompetent to stand trial in
a criminal case. She answered that the facilities are maxed out
and waitlists exist, which are reviewed by DHSS daily. She
responded, per the proposed legislation, the 48 beds at the
listed facilities are where respondents would receive treatment.
She continued that Version W would allow for crisis residential
centers to provide care, including 72-hour holds, which is the
shortest effective treatment period. She advised that the
current system does not meet current needs.
2:25:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether there exist sufficient
beds in residential centers in addition to those at the API and
the other hospitals.
MS. CARPENTER offered to follow up to the committee with a list
of facilities which have requested the [1115 Behavioral Health
Medicaid Waiver]. She estimated that 15 facilities had
requested such waivers.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that Version W would provide the licensing
structure for additional residential facilities. He noted that
previous legislation had permitted crisis stabilization centers;
however, these were limited to 23-hour treatments.
2:28:50 PM
MR. REGAN, in response to Representative Eastman's earlier
question regarding the existence of any legal protections for a
potential mistake, or worse. He recalled Representative
Eastman's suggestion that a peace officer may determine an
unvaccinated individual posed a danger to self or others. He
stated that training exists which would ensure intervention is
based on the existence of mental illness and not based on a
difference of opinion. He stated that, should an individual be
brought for emergency evaluation, the health officer would seek
evidence of mental illness. If it is determined there is no
evidence, the individual will be released.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for an explanation of the fiscal
notes concerning the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority's
(AMHTA's) funding and general funding. She drew attention to
the fiscal note from the Department of Family and Community
Services, which would begin with a smaller increment, and then
this increment would dramatically increase over the next five
years.
MS. CARPENTER answered that the reason for the growth depicted
in the fiscal note is because of the estimated growth in the
number of facilities. She added that, if no alternate funding
exists, a statutory requirement determines the state is
obligated to cover the costs for an individual who is
involuntarily committed. She explained that Disproportionate
Share Hospital (DSH) funds within the federal Medicaid program
are available only to hospitals and not to tribal hospitals.
She noted that several DSH qualifying facilities may be paid
with federal and general matching funds.
2:34:42 PM
MR. WILLIAMS offered that a partnership exists between AMHTA,
community partners, and DHSS. He stated that in fiscal year
(FY) 2023 AMHTA had approved $4.5 million of AMHTA funds to
coordinate with communities and the department to develop and
implement the components of the proposed model. He added that
in FY 22 and FY 21, AMHTA invested roughly the same amount. He
stated that the role of AMHTA is to effect positive changes to
the behavioral crisis care system.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the state and tribal health
organizations are partnering to leverage additional federal
resources to meet the needs in rural parts of the state.
MS. CARPENTER answered that the Division of Behavioral Health is
in communication with tribal partners weekly. She stated that
partners providing these services include Maniilaq Health
Services, Norton Sound Health Corporation, and Yukon-Kuskokwim
Health Corporation. She stated that, when a tribal provider
uses the [1115 Behavioral Health Medicaid Waiver] when serving a
tribal beneficiary, the state can obtain 100 percent federal
Medicaid funding. She noted that tribal providers are the only
providers in certain areas in rural Alaska locations, such as
Kotzebue, Nome, and Bethel.
2:38:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether detention, evaluation, and
treatment (DET) facilities would be subject to local ordinances
or policies.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked the pertinence of the question to crisis
residential centers.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated he was inquiring on which entities
would prescribe policies, such as mandatory masking.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Eastman to explain the
relevance of his line of questioning.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he was inquiring to learn
about the authority responsible for running the facilities.
2:39:58 PM
MS. CARPENTER answered that each hospital operating DET has a
unique ownership structure. She noted that hospitals with
Medicaid and Medicare programs are subject to case management
system rules, the Joint Commission, and oversight with health
care facility licensing by the state. She explained that
Fairbanks Memorial Hospital is a community foundation-owned
facility, Mat-Su Regional Medical Center is jointly owned by the
Mat-Su Health Foundation and its co-operator, and Bartlett
Regional Hospital is owned by the City and Borough of Juneau.
2:41:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 172 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 172 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. W 2.16.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/25/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Transmittal Letter 4.9.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Sectional Analysis v. W 2.16.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Additional Document - Introduction Presentation to HJUD Committee 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Additional Document - Definitions for Alaska Involuntary Commitment Statutes (AS 47.30.915) 2.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Supporting Document - Letters Received by 5.14.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Supporting Document - Disability Law Center Letter 2.21.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Opposing and Amend Letters and Testimony Received by 2.15.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 4.7.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note DFCS-IMH 2.11.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note DOH-MS 2.11.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2022 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 172 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.17.2022.pdf |
HJUD 2/21/2022 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |