Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/15/2000 09:11 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 207
"An Act relating to the establishment and enforcement
of medical support orders for children; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate
Finance Committee.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Division of Child Support
Enforcement, Department of Revenue, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage to tell the Committee that
the division believed that it would help all parties,
including those who are paid child support, those who pay
child support and the agency. She stated that the bill
would eliminate confusion.
Ms. Miklos explained that under existing statutes, an order
for medical support could only be established in
conjunction with a financial support order. This bill, she
stated changes the provision so that a medical support
order might be established on its own. She stressed that
this is important in the case of Medicaid recipients
because the division is required to submit an order of
medical support anytime a client goes on Medicaid. Current
statue, she noted ties medical support together with
financial support, thus requiring the division to submit
the financial support order even if the parents did not
want it. She elaborated that in these instances, the
financial order is issued, but not enforced. However, she
pointed out, the debt continues to accumulate and if the
parent goes on public assistance, the division begins to
collect on that debt. Under this bill, she said the debt
would not accumulate.
Ms. Miklos continued that the bill establishes a medical
support statute to provide that either parent, not simply
the obligor parent, may be required to provide health
coverage. Currently, she detailed Alaska statute only
places that responsibility on the obligor parent, although
the courts have ruled in Civil Rule 90.3 that either parent
could be responsible. She pointed out that this legislation
makes the statute and the court order consistent. She noted
that the division follows the civil rule and requires that
either parent may have to provide health insurance.
Ms. Miklos stated that the bill also amends the law to
require that a medical support order be issued regardless
of whether health care coverage is currently available. She
explained this is a clarification to make the statute clear
that the division can issue the order to require health
care coverage be provided to the child if it becomes
available to either parent. She said this is in place of
waiting until the health care coverage is available before
pursuing the matter.
Senator Phillips asked what other states have this
provision.
Ms. Miklos answered that the division did a survey of all
states and had 24 responses. Of those responses, she said
16 states could issue separate medical and financial orders
and three states could not. In the five remaining states
that responded, she said the court issues all these orders.
Senator Phillips asked why the practice of only allowing
the courts to issue medical and financial orders was not
implemented in this legislation.
Ms. Miklos responded that it is a simpler process and less
costly for the division to establish child support orders.
She pointed out that if the court issued the order, every
change would require the parties to return to court. She
added that most states allow the divisions to issue the
orders.
Senator Phillips remarked that the child support
enforcement office was not the most popular of state
agencies.
Senator Green asked how the Denali KidCare program fit into
this legislation.
Ms. Miklos replied Denali KidCare is a Medicaid program and
therefore requires a medical support order.
Senator Phillips asked which states require the court to
issue the orders.
Ms. Miklos listed Washington D.C., Massachusetts,
Louisiana, Virginia and Maryland. Most of the West Coast
states, she noted have a provision to allow the agency to
issue the orders
Co-Chair Torgerson asked about the mechanics of the
language contained on page 5 lines 5 through 8, "The
hearing officer shall allocate equally the cost of the
health care coverage between the parents unless the hearing
officer finds good cause to order a different allocation of
these costs."
Ms. Miklos explained the appeals process, which begins with
an administrative review by the division and then a review
conducted by a hearing officer outside the division but
within the Department of Revenue. She said the rulings are
made based on which parent has health insurance available
at a reasonable cost.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if currently, the courts normally
determine which parent is the obligor for the health
insurance coverage.
Ms. Miklos replied that it depended upon who established
the order. If the courts issued the order, she said the
court would use the same procedure to make the
determination. She qualified that the hearing officer is
involved only when the order was issued by the agency. In
both cases, she stressed appeals could be made to the
court.
Co-Chair Torgerson then wanted to know how the financial
obligor was established.
Ms. Miklos answered that it usually depended upon which
parent has custody of the child, or in cases of joint
custody, which parent has the greater income. She stated
that the obligator is usually determined strictly by
financial circumstances. By allowing the division to issue
medical support orders separately from financial support
orders, the decision of medical obligator could be
determined based on which parent has reasonable health care
coverage.
Ms. Miklos stressed that the state benefits from the
children having independent health care insurance, because
there is less need for public assistance.
Senator Adams offered a motion to report from Committee, SB
207 with accompanying zero fiscal note from the Department
of Revenue.
Senator Phillips objected. He stated that he would rather
the courts made the decision on the support orders.
Senator Green asked if there were any instances where both
parents are required to carry health care insurance on a
child.
Ms. Miklos responded the parents are not being required to
have health care coverage unless it is available at a
reasonable cost. She added that in some cases, insurance
may not be available at all.
Ms. Miklos then commented on Senator Phillips's concerns
saying that this legislation does not change how the courts
or the division determines the support orders other than to
separate the two orders. This bill, she stressed does not
give any more power to the child support enforcement
agency.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Green, Senator Donley, Senator Leman,
Senator Adams, Senator Wilken, Senator P. Kelly, Co-Chair
Parnell and Co-Chair Torgerson
OPPOSED: Senator Phillips
The motion PASSED (8-1)
The bill MOVED from Committee.
AT EASE 9:25 AM / 9:37 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|