Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB263 | |
| HB211 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 263 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 18, 2014
1:35 p.m.
1:35:07 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Sponsor; Vasilios Gialopsos,
Staff, Representative Charisse Millet; Millie Ryan,
Executive Director, REACH, Inc.; Les Morse, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Richard Sanders, Program Coordinator, Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education; Catherine Babuscio,
Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, Palmer; Art Delaune,
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education,
Fairbanks.
SUMMARY
HB 211 EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CSHB 211(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Education and
Early Development and three previously published
zero fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM); FN2 (DHS); FN3
(LWF).
HB 263 EXTEND SENIOR BENEFITS PAYMENT PROGRAM
CSHB 263(HSS) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(HSS).
HOUSE BILL NO. 263
"An Act extending senior benefits."
1:36:21 PM
Representative Costello moved the House Health and Social
Services Committee bill version before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, SPONSOR, relayed the change
made in the CS tightened up the bill title to specifically
reference the Alaska senior benefits payment program. The
bill would extend the existing senior benefits program for
six years from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2021.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the largest issue was the
"lengthy" extension. Representative Hawker stated that the
opinion was that of the co-chair.
Representative Hawker communicated that the bill would
provide a needs-based financial supplement to seniors in
Alaska based on the federal poverty level. The program
offered a $250 per month stipend to seniors who fell below
75 percent of the federal poverty level, $175 to seniors at
the 100 percent federal poverty level, and $125 to seniors
at 175 percent of the federal poverty level. He addressed
the length of the extension in relation to the number of
seniors benefitting from the program and the relatively
small stipend. The average age of the recipients was 75;
the benefits served seniors up to the age of 103. The
population was increasingly aging and vulnerable and faced
escalating medical, housing, and food costs. The bill
helped to provide elderly Alaskans who had the least
resources and most limited ability to secure employment
with a relatively small stipend to support their lives. The
program provided assurance and comfort to the state's
senior citizens. He stressed that it was the legislature's
priority to be concerned about senior citizens in the
state. He addressed the length of the program extension and
believed that for the price of the program it should be one
of the state's highest priorities. He opined that because
the program was a high priority, a long-lived extension was
warranted.
1:41:20 PM
Representative Hawker spoke to the reason the program was
not open-ended and implemented in statute. He was proud of
senior advocates who had communicated that it was important
to revisit the issue over time. He elaborated that it would
be necessary to evaluate the program parameters in the
future to determine whether it remained viable. He
hypothesized that the world could change sufficiently in
six years and increasing the program's generosity could be
warranted at that time. He relayed that the maximum time
for extending boards and commissions was eight years; the
bill's six-year term communicated the legislature's
commitment to seniors in the state. The extension would
ensure certainty for the individuals benefitting under the
program and would also allow the legislature to revisit the
issue in a reasonable period of time.
1:43:12 PM
Co-Chair Austerman did not disagree with statements made by
Representative Hawker; however, he believed under the
current budgetary circumstances that the extension should
be shortened to three years. He agreed that perhaps in six
years the program benefits could be increased if the state
was facing an improved financial environment. He was
currently uncomfortable extending the program too far out
into the future.
Representative Gara appreciated the bill. He relayed that
had introduced a similar bill with other minority members.
He discussed the former longevity bonus program that did
not have a sunset; however, as beneficiaries passed away
the cost of the program declined. He supported the senior
benefits program. He opined that it was difficult to argue
when the sunset should occur. He discussed that the bill
was fair and fiscally conservative given that benefit
levels had not been raised. He noted that a number of
seniors may contend that benefit amounts had been eroded by
inflation. He understood leaving the benefits at the
current level given the state's fiscal situation. He
believed a six-year extension was appropriate.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Representative Hawker had
sponsored the initial bill related to the program and
wondered if the Senate had increased the benefits in the
past. Representative Hawker replied that he had offered the
bill in 2007 and did not believe the benefits had been
changed since its introduction.
1:47:48 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether a program recipient
would continue to receive the benefits after moving into a
state-run Pioneer Home. She wanted to ensure the state was
not paying the benefits to a state agency. She was in favor
of the program.
Representative Hawker pointed to a Senior Benefits Program
Fact Sheet dated January 31, 2014 (copy on file). He
relayed that payments were not available to seniors living
in prison, a nursing home, an Alaska Pioneer or Veterans
Home, or in a public or private institution for mental
disease.
Representative Wilson reiterated her prior comment and was
in support of funds going to program recipients.
1:49:11 PM
Representative Costello spoke in support of the
legislation. She recalled when a prior iteration of the
program had been implemented after the longevity bonus had
been discontinued due to budgetary reasons. She pointed to
page 2 of the Senior Benefits Program Fact Sheet; the
number of beneficiaries was 4,000 in Anchorage and 10,954
statewide. She referred to the annual gross income limit of
$10,935 for the $250 benefit. She believed the numbers were
amazing and that the program was very important. She opined
that because the state was in a difficult budgetary
situation it was important to send the message that the
state was committed to the senior population. She was in
favor of extending the program out into the time period
when state revenues would be more challenged. She spoke
about an 83-year-old family friend. She believed that
seniors worried about the responsibilities they were
placing on younger generations.
Representative Guttenberg imagined that when the
legislature debated the continuation of the program during
the budget-crunch time that it would be difficult to
discontinue it. He believed the program represented one of
the backstops the state had for Alaskans. He was sorry when
the longevity bonus had been eliminated.
1:53:03 PM
Representative Edgmon thanked the sponsor for offering the
bill. He looked at the three monthly benefit tiers [shown
on the Senior Benefits Program Fact Sheet] and guessed that
elderly rural beneficiaries fell under the higher monthly
payment [$250]. He surmised that similar to the Low Income
Heating Assistance Program that the per capita amount of
the benefits was slightly higher going to the bush. He knew
that the $250 went a long way for many elders in his
district. He appreciated the bill.
Representative Hawker respected and understood the earlier
point raised by Co-Chair Austerman. He spoke to the
uncertainty of the current budget and about the optimal
fiscal times of the past ten years. He acknowledged that
the state was entering a period of fiscal uncertainty; but
he believed the program should be extended six years
instead of three because it was a matter of communicating
the legislature's priority. The program amounted to $20
million. He stressed that extending the program for six
years provided extra assurance to individuals that it would
not be competing for funds with other programs during that
period of time. He questioned whether it was a higher
priority to provide a stipend for seniors or a stipend for
film subsidies; he landed on the side of seniors. He wanted
the legislature to make the greatest possible statement of
policy that it supported the small stipend for the lowest
income segment of the state's senior population.
1:57:33 PM
Representative Guttenberg thanked the department for the
helpfulness of the Senior Benefits Program Fact Sheet.
Co-Chair Austerman believed he and the sponsor shared the
same goal, but had different ideas about the appropriate
timeline. He discussed the governor's proposed cuts of $30
million to agency operations. He stressed that the senior
benefits program was not on the chopping block. He could
see three years into the future but it was difficult to
know how the state's fiscal environment would look beyond
that time. He believed a three-year extension was
appropriate.
Representative Wilson appreciated the bill, but believed
seniors recognized that the state was experiencing a
challenging budgetary environment. She did not believe
reducing the sunset to three years communicated that
seniors were not a top priority. She mentioned K-12
education as another top priority. She believed it was hard
to decide between extending the sunset for three or six
years; however, she believed a three-year extension was
appropriate given the current fiscal climate.
Representative Edgmon remarked that there was more than one
way to look at the issue. He pointed out that seniors were
the fastest growing sector in the state's population. He
spoke to their value to the state and to the value of the
program. He believed a six-year extension would keep the
program off of the chopping block. He supported maintaining
the current bill language.
2:01:29 PM
Representative Hawker explained that three years earlier
the program had been extended for three years. He shared
that the amount of senior benefits had not been changed. He
detailed that the Senate had added four sections that had
increased the personal needs allowance for individuals
residing in long-term care facilities (including nursing
homes, Pioneer Homes, and Veteran Homes) to $200 per month.
The residents had been ineligible for senior benefits;
therefore, the change provided them with the $200 per month
stipend.
Representative Munoz referenced the Senior Benefits Program
Fact Sheet. She wondered how the provision determining that
program eligibility did not look at asset ownership had
been established. Representative Hawker answered that the
decision had been a policy call when the original
legislation had passed. He explained that the legislature
had decided to format the program as a current income-based
program. The legislature had determined that it did not
want savings to count against the program. He detailed that
factoring in assets involved many judgment calls that he
had wanted to avoid (e.g. house size, geographical
location, and other). He added that the assumption that a
person with substantial liquid monetary assets would have
substantial liquid income had been contemplated when
deciding to make the program income-based.
2:05:01 PM
Representative Costello asked what percentage of the
recipients were WWII veterans. Representative Hawker
responded that he did not know. He thought the department
may have detail on the question. He relayed that the
average age of a recipient was 75 and the maximum age was
103. The sector included the age group that was passing
away the quickest.
Co-Chair Stoltze made a personal comment related to a
family member.
Representative Costello shared that her father had served
in WWII. She surmised that seniors who had served in WWII
represented around the median age of seniors benefitting
from the program.
2:06:43 PM
Representative Hawker spoke to a statistical analysis the
department had prepared at his request (he would provide
the document to the committee). He shared that 49 percent
of the beneficiaries were 80 years of age or older; 35
percent were under 75; and individuals between the ages of
75 and 79 accounted for approximately 25 percent. He
surmised that the most common age was between 75 and 79;
however, the program was heavily skewed to individuals over
the age of 80.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Austerman appreciated that the sponsor had
introduced the bill in 2007. He MOVED to AMEND the bill to
reduce the extension from six years down to three years;
the date 2021 would be replaced with 2018.
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze deferred to the co-chair on the issue.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Wilson, Stoltze, Austerman
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Holmes, Munoz, Costello, Edgmon, Gara
The MOTION FAILED (4/6).
Representative Costello discussed the fiscal note from the
Department of Health and Social Services. The note included
six full-time positions and had a fiscal impact of
$23,090,500 in FY 15, $25,018,700 in FY 16, $25,700,400 in
FY 17, $26,402,400 in FY 18, $27,125,500 in FY 19, and
$27,870,400 in FY 20.
Representative Hawker communicated that the six positions
were a continuance of the personnel currently employed by
the program. He noted that the numbers in the fiscal note
were an estimate by the agency.
Representative Costello moved the MOVED to REPORT CSHB
263(HSS) out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION CSHB 263(HSS) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (HSS).
Representative Hawker appreciated the committee's attention
to the bill. He observed that the issue raised by Co-Chair
Austerman was legitimate and would be a concern addressed
by the legislature on many issues.
2:13:44 PM
AT EASE
2:17:00 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 211
"An Act relating to the education and employment of
individuals with disabilities."
2:17:20 PM
Representative Costello moved the House Labor and Commerce
Committee bill version before the committee.
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLET,
relayed that the bill would make Alaska an Employment First
state. He explained that goal for departmental and agency
levels dealing with disabled individuals would be to work
towards a primary objective of gainful employment. He
detailed that more than 25 other states had adopted similar
legislation recognizing the problem of expanding Medicaid
and healthcare costs and the underrepresentation of
disabled individuals in the workforce who were without the
appropriate tools. Additionally, the bill addressed whether
the desired outcome was currently met with the funds spent
on individuals with disabilities.
Mr. Gialopsos communicated that the bill would implement an
external body that would collect silos of data to be vested
in the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. The data would
work towards determining whether departments and agencies
were currently producing the preferred outcomes; whether
individuals receiving benefits were getting the requisite
training, and whether benefits were enabling recipients to
reach the desired outcome. Additionally, the bill language
worked to prevent individuals with a disability from
feeling that their disability kept them from being a
gainful member of society. Gainful employment enriched
individuals' lives, enabled them to increase their net
worth, and reduced healthcare costs. He stated that
individuals statistically led healthier lives, were
psychologically much happier, and that the broader society
benefitted from the contributions as well.
Mr. Gialopsos provided a sectional analysis of the bill
(copy on file). Sections 1 through 5 required departments
working with disabled individuals to ensure the primary
objective of gainful employment. Sections 1 and 2 dealt
with the Department of Education and Early Development;
Sections 3 and 4 dealt with the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD), Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation; and Section 5 dealt with the Department of
Health and Social Services. He discussed an oversight in
Section 2; the section dealt with a requirement related to
transition services. He detailed that transition services
pertained to children with disabilities over the age of 15
who had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The
original bill language aimed to ensure that as part of the
transition services that school districts make it a primary
objective to help the students become gainfully employed.
The language had inadvertently precluded the potential for
any postsecondary education. He believed a change should be
made to fix the error.
2:22:55 PM
RICHARD SANDERS, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON
DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION (via teleconference),
was available for questions. He relayed that the bill was a
priority of the council's. He shared that he worked on
employment programs including the Alaska Integrated
Employment Initiative. He had previously worked on the
Disability Employment Initiative with DLWD over the past
three years. He agreed that the initiative was seeking
employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that Representative Millet had
read song lyrics by Rich Sanders' father on the House floor
during an earthquake resolution. He explained that Don
Sanders was a former educator, gold miner, and musician. He
asked Mr. Sanders if his parents were from Seward, Alaska.
Mr. Sanders replied in the affirmative.
2:26:12 PM
CATHERINE BABUSCIO, MAT-SU REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PALMER
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
spoke to a program called Project Search, which was a
collaboration with the Mat-Su Borough School District, the
Governor's Council on Disabilities, and the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation. She detailed that the business-
led vocational program was for adult students aged 18 to 22
who experience disabilities. The ultimate program goal was
securing employment within the community. Students
experienced full emersion at the hospital worksites and had
three 10-week rotations; students were then placed based on
their skills and experience. There had been three
successful program completions since 2011; all students who
completed the program had achieved employment. The average
wage of those employed was greater than $13 per hour. She
communicated that the medical center had employed 20
percent of the program's participants; the individuals
apply competitively and were currently successful members
of the workforce. She elaborated that the program had
greatly benefitted the organization by measurable increased
employee satisfaction and dedicated skilled workers.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented on the great employees at the
medical center. He was impressed by the employees' strong
work ethic and the pride they took in their jobs. He had
been pleased to see the medical center featured in an
educational and promotional video.
2:29:35 PM
ART DELAUNE, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support
of the bill. He shared that his son had Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and other mental health issues. He discussed his
son's personal story related to high school and graduation.
He detailed that his son had worked with the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation to find a career path, but he had
not been satisfied with the job options that had been
suggested. Subsequently, his son had become involved with
Project Discovery where a division counselor and employment
specialist worked to determine a person's skills, desires,
and how they would fit into the community. His son had
voiced interest in working as a meat cutter; the program
had enabled him to work as an apprentice meat cutter at the
local Fred Meyer. His son was integrated in a workplace
with people without disabilities and was making the same
wage as others at his skill level. He shared that his son's
self-esteem had grown tremendously. His son was currently
receiving state Medicaid benefits; he was hoping to get on
his own insurance in the future. He pointed to his son's
experience as proof of success and spoke in strong support
of the legislation.
2:33:44 PM
MILLIE RYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REACH, INC., testified in
support of the legislation.
Research tells us that vocational rehabilitation
funded supported employment services for individuals
with severe disabilities is cost-effective regardless
of the type or severity of disability. In 2009, Dr.
Robert Cimera from Kent State University determined
the average benefit cost-ratio across 17 states was
1.46. He also found that when supported employment
agencies like REACH had financial incentives to reduce
paid job coach support and use the natural supports of
the business supervisor and coworkers that their
average cost decreased by 57.6 percent. Data across 42
states including Alaska, that establish Medicaid buy-
in programs currently shows that buy-in enrollees earn
more money, work more hours, contribute more in taxes,
and rely less on Medicaid than people with
disabilities on regular Medicaid. Mathematica policy
research prepared an expenditure report on buy-in
enrollees in 2005 and 2006. In Alaska average annual
Medicaid expenditures for buy-in enrollees was $15,288
compared to $23,865 for individuals who were not
enrolled in the buy-in, which represents a significant
decrease in expenditures. In summary, House Bill 211
not only makes sense for Alaskans with disabilities,
it also makes sense for the State of Alaska.
2:36:30 PM
Co-Chair Austerman CLOSED public testimony.
2:36:57 PM
AT EASE
2:37:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED to ADOPT corrected Amendment 1
(offered by Co-Chair Stoltze by request):
Page 1, Line 15
Following "disabilities" remove "."
Following "disabilities" insert ", or become enrolled
in post-secondary education."
Representative Holmes OBJECTED for discussion.
Mr. Gialopsos relayed that the proposed amendment would
modify Section 2, page 1, line 15 by adding that for
transition services, a school district's primary objective
and preferred outcome is not just to help a student become
gainfully employed in an integrated workplace alongside
individuals without disabilities, but also to become
enrolled in postsecondary education if the individual so
desired. He explained that if an individual with an IEP was
able to enroll in a postsecondary course of any kind,
transition services should not dissuade them from
furthering their educational opportunities.
Representative Holmes WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, corrected Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Gara pointed to the absence of a fiscal
impact note and wondered if the department was currently
providing similar services offered under the legislation.
2:40:15 PM
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, answered that the bill used data that
was currently collected by the department and did not
create an additional burden for the department's workload.
He relayed that the only extra effort involved the transfer
of data the department currently collected to another
agency.
Representative Gara asked about potential costs associated
with teaching people with disabilities skills to work
alongside people without disabilities. He wondered if the
training was currently taking place. Mr. Morse answered
that under current law students in the age range (age 15 or
16 and up) were required to have a transition plan for
employment or postsecondary education. He believed with the
collection of the data there may be more effort put into
the work. He noted that significant work was currently put
into IEPs.
Representative Costello addressed the four zero fiscal
notes including three previously published notes from the
Department of Administration, the Department of Health and
Social Services, and the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, and one new note from the Department of
Education and Early Development.
Representative Costello MOVED to REPORT CSHB 211(FIN) out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION CSHB 211(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new
zero fiscal note from the Department of Education and Early
Development and three previously published zero fiscal
notes: FN1 (ADM); FN2 (DHS); FN3 (LWF).
Co-Chair Austerman discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:44:02 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:44 p.m.