Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/26/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB52 | |
| HB235 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 26, 2010
1:40 p.m.
1:40:53 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None.
ALSO PRESENT
Doug Wolliver, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court
System; Mindy Lobaugh, Juneau; Hannah McCarty, Staff,
Kerttula; Diane Barrans, Executive Director, Postsecondary
Education Commission, Department of Education; David Logan,
Alaska Dental Society; Tracy Oman, Executive Director,
Alaska Optometric Association
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jean Mischel, Attorney, Legal Services; Dr. Mark Prator,
Alaska Dental Society; Nancy Davis, Executive Director,
Alaska Pharmacy Association; Barry Christensen, Alaska
Pharmacy Association
SUMMARY
HB 52 POST-TRIAL JUROR COUNSELING
HB 52 was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and the previously
published fiscal note: FN2 (CRT)
HB 235 PROF STUDENT EXCHANGE LOAN FORGIVENESS
HB 235 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
1:40:58 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 52
"An Act authorizing psychological counseling for
jurors serving in criminal trials who are traumatized
by graphic evidence or testimony."
Co-Chair Hawker discussed housekeeping.
1:41:41 PM
Representative Beth Kerttula presented a brief overview of
the legislation. The bill would allow the court system to
offer juror counseling for particularly difficult cases.
DOUG WOLLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, discussed the$15,000 fiscal note. He explained that
during the process to approximate the fiscal note, he
solicited judges, asking them how often they believed that
juror counseling would be needed. Most judges offered that
they rarely saw cases where juror counseling would be
necessary, but all the judges relayed that they
occasionally heard traumatic cases. Several judges had
revealed that they had entered the jury room after
deliberation and found jurors who were inconsolable.
Co-Chair Hawker submitted that it was not possible to know
how much would be required for the counseling program, but
it was certain that the services compulsory under the bill
would require the court system to procure staff on an
outside contractual basis. Mr. Wolliver replied that that
was correct.
Co-Chair Hawker assumed that the fiscal note was a
reasonable approximation. Mr. Wolliver replied yes.
1:44:39 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas declared that he supported the
legislation. He relayed that he would understand if the
program needed to request more funding in the supplemental
budget.
Co-Chair Hawker dismissed Mr. Wolliver with appreciation.
1:45:34 PM
MINDY LOBAUGH, JUNEAU, read from a prepared testimony (copy
on file):
Mr. Chairman & Members of the Committee, Thank you for
this opportunity and all you do for the State of Alaska.
This bill represents a bridge, a bridge that I and
many other jurors did not have at the end of a very
traumatic trial.
You arrive at the courthouse, given detailed
instruction of what is expected of you as a juror and how
the process of a trial works. What the court system does
not do is transition the juror out of the trial.
It is not uncommon to have major criminal trials run
for many days. I served as a juror on the Rachel Waterman
trial 4 years ago and it lasted approximately 10 days. For
me I arrived open and ready to do my civic duty as a juror.
And for 10 days prosecutors went into excruciating detail
to help the jurors relive the events of an unsuspecting
mother getting abducted from her home, tortured and finally
murdered.
It was then our duty to determine if the defendant,
her daughter was guilty of masterminding this tragedy
against a woman who was a pillar of her community. By the
end of the trial I left there as a victim feeling closed,
mentally battered and very traumatized by the burden of
knowledge that I now carried.
I am here to tell you the media does not even come
close to covering the depth of this trial. As a juror we
had access to piles of emails detailing out various ways
these men planned to kill the mother, physical evidence,
photographs and of course hours of testimony.
For quite some time during and following that trial
eating for me was a near impossibility because of the
constant nausea I felt.
To my friends and family I became a stranger……and each
night I prayed myself to sleep.
One of my fellow jury mates was pregnant with her
second child. She had shared her excitement and ultrasound
pictures with us early on. By the end of the trial she lost
her baby and had to be excused from the trial.
When this trial ended with a hung jury I turned to the
presiding judge and ask if the courts offer some kind of
counseling or process to help jurors deal with all this
traumatizing information? The answer was NO.
For me it was like having a door slammed in my face.
There would be no help transitioning back to my life before
this trial, no bridge. Rather I would have to move forward
with this dark knowledge deeply entrenched in my mind and
the minds of my fellow jurors.
It was at this point I felt the court system had
failed me as a juror doing my civic duty.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Please help me to
build this bridge by supporting HB 52 Post Trial Jury
Counseling. I may not have found closure with respects to
this trial but maybe you can help build that bridge for
future Jurors doing their civic duty by passing HB 52.
Thank you so much for your time and I am open to any
questions you may have.
1:49:44 PM
Representative Kerttula explained that a similar program
had been instituted in King County, Washington, and that
she had spoken with a myriad of counselors in researching
the bill.
1:50:51 PM
Representative Fairclough wondered if counselors were
available for the judges who sat in on traumatic cases.
Representative Kerttula replied that she did not think so.
She shared that while researching the bill, the level of
professional trauma had been highlighted. She believed that
legislation could be crafted that could speak to the needs
of courtroom professionals.
Representative Fairclough added that the issue was the
risk of desensitization among courtroom professionals.
Representative Kerttula agreed.
1:51:58 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the counseling sessions would be
privileged. Representative Kerttula replied that the
information would be privileged unless the client waived
the right to privilege.
Representative Salmon asked how the counseling would be
made available to jurors who resided in rural areas.
Representative Kerttula expected that the court system
would treat rural and urban jurors equally. If necessary,
counselors would be flown in to rural areas in order to
provide the service.
1:53:39 PM
HANNAH MCCARTY, STAFF, KERTTULA, added that tele-counseling
could also be provided as an option in rural areas.
Co-Chair Hawker noted that judges, as state employees,
could use state employment insurance to pay for counseling
sessions.
1:54:26 PM
Co-Chair Hawker opened public testimony.
Co-Chair Hawker closed public testimony.
Co-Chair Hawker solicited further committee testimony and
amendments.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report HB 52 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 52 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and the previously published fiscal note:
FN2 (CRT).
1:56:33 PM AT EASE
1:58:30 PM RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 235
"An Act relating to professional student exchange
program availability and conditions for loan
forgiveness."
1:58:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, SPONSOR, testified that the
bill would establish a loan forgiveness incentive for
Alaskan students entering into the fields of pharmacy,
optometry, and dentistry. The bill would work through the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE),
which is a professional student exchange program providing
students in 12 western states with access to professional
healthcare programs unavailable in the student's home
state. With this legislation the state would agree to pay a
participation fee for each student, thereby reserving
spaces for Alaskan students entering into the fields of
pharmacy, optometry, or dentistry. Alaska currently offers
no programs in the aforementioned fields. The bill would
establish the maximum cohort of 60 students over a four
year period, five students per profession, and 15 students
per year. The participation fee through WICHE was $22,700
for a dentistry slot, $15,600 for optometry, and $6,900 for
a pharmacy slot. A 25 percent forgiveness incentive would
apply to students who return to Alaska for at least five
years, and additional 25 percent was available for student
that practiced in underserved areas of the state or areas
that accepted Medicaid patients.
Representative Munoz continued. The standard repayment
period would be 15 years and participants that qualified
could receive annual credits on loan balances, which would
result in shortening the repayment period or allow for
reduced monthly payments. In FY 15, when repayments begin,
approximately $40,000 would be repaid within the first
year. In FY 16 $116,400 would be repaid and within three
years the repayment would increase to approximately
$420,000 annually. She stressed that the three fields
identified in the bill remained as educationally
underserved professions in the state. She urged support of
the legislation as a vehicle to connect motivated young
Alaskans with job opportunities in fields of high demand.
2:03:10 PM
Co-Chair Hawker felt that the language of the bill was
unclear concerning the 60 students. He said that he had not
seen any reference to the five years of 15 students each.
He noted Page 1, Lines 6, 7 and 8 of the bill:
"the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
shall provide adequate funding for not fewer than five
students to attend four-year programs in each of the
following fields:"
Representative Hawker suggested that the language could be
further clarified.
Representative Munoz replied that the intention was to
allow for five students per category, per year, for four
years. She agreed that the bill should be amended for
clarity.
Co-Chair Hawker expressed confusion with the language in
Section 4; Loan forgiveness for program participants. He
queried why the legislature should appropriate funds that
would enable the state to forgive debt for loans that the
state had granted to Alaskan students.
2:06:04 PM
Representative Munoz responded that the intent of the
legislation was to have 5 percent of the loan forgiven for
each year that the student lived in Alaska upon returning
to the state. If the student were to reside in-state for a
minimum of five years then they would qualify for the 25
percent forgiveness. If they were to practice in an
underserved area, or if five percent of the gross billing
of their practice was for Medicaid patients, an additional
25 percent forgiveness could be granted. The percentages
applied to the state's participation fee, and the funds to
feed the program would be appropriated annually by the
legislature.
Co-Chair Hawker restated his question. He understood that
the state was going to need to appropriate more money to
forgive the loans.
2:07:51 PM
Representative Munoz thought that the language referred to
the funds appropriated initially for the program. She did
not believe that the intention was the forgiveness, but to
fund the initial participation fee.
2:08:50 PM
JEAN MISCHEL, ATTORNEY, LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), believed that the money for the loans
originally came from the Student Loan Corporation, and
those funds were was not considered to be part of the state
general fund, once deposited into the student loan fund.
Once deposited, the funds were not subject to
appropriation, but the loan forgiveness portion was an
asset of the state that would require an appropriation back
into the fund.
Co-Chair Hawker said that if there was a required
appropriation there should be language to authorize the
debt forgiveness. He requested further research on the
issue.
2:10:44 PM
Representative Foster requested the definition of the word
"underserved" as defined by the Department of Health and
Social Services (HESS).
Representative Munoz relayed that the definition was based
on whether or not a community had an adequate number of
practitioners in a certain category of service to care for
individuals in the community. The definition of
"underserved" was not meant to encompass all communities
that were considered rural.
KENDRA KLOSTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ added that
Ketchikan had been defined as underserved because there
were only two dentists that served the entire community.
Representative Foster wondered who made the determination
as to whether a community was underserved. Ms. Kloster
replied that underserved areas were determined by HESS.
2:12:57 PM
Representative Gara shared that the bill introduced a
mandate that was not on a state agency. He stated that the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) was a
quasi-state agency because their decisions were not
determined by the governor. He thought that this point
could help to clarify the language pertaining to loan
forgiveness.
Co-Chair Hawker replied that the language would be examined
further.
Vice-Chair Thomas requested the definition for the word
"resident", as it pertained to the bill. Representative
Munoz replied that legally there was a definition that was
used by the ACPE to qualify for student loans, and that
that definition would be used. She believed that a resident
was an individual that had lived in the state for a minimum
number of months.
Vice-Chair Thomas shared that the University of Alaska
board of regents defined a resident as a person who had
received the permanent fund and had lived in-state for five
years. He pointed out to the committee that under the
governor's scholarship bill, and HB 235, residency could be
established after 30 days. He argued that if a person
wished to receive the benefits under the legislation the
definition should be more stringent. He feared that
students from out of state would default on the loan, and
simply leave the state.
2:16:50 PM
Representative Munoz replied that she was not opposed to
writing stricter residency requirements into the bill. She
added that if recipients of the loans left the state and
did not come back they would not be eligible for the
forgiveness benefit. She stressed that the loan and the
forgiveness applied to the state's participation fee, not
to the full tuition requirements of the student.
Vice-Chair Thomas suggested adding a default clause to the
bill. He asked who determined the three professions listed
in the legislation.
Representative Munoz replied that they were fields that did
not have programs offered in Alaska or out-of-state
incentive programs for Alaskan students.
2:20:12 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas thought that nursing should be included
in the professions listed in the legislation. He had heard
that the university in southeast only allowed for 10
students to enter the nursing program, forcing other
students to seek training out-of-state. Ms. Kloster replied
that nursing was not included under the WICHE program,
which is way it was not included in the professions listed
in the bill.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if pharmacy, optometry, and
dentistry were the only professions identified in the WICHE
program. Ms. Kloster answered that the WICHE program
included; dentistry, occupational therapy, optometry,
pharmacy, physical therapy, physician assistant, and
podiatry.
Vice-Chair Thomas wondered why only three of the programs
under WICHE had been identified in the bill. Ms. Kloster
replied that the three fields had been identified as fields
where students were traveling out out-of-state for training
and not returning to Alaska. Research had shown that
programs for the remaining fields recognized under WICHE
were already available through the University of Alaska.
Additionally, there was an occupational therapy program
available through Creighton University, via the University
of Alaska Anchorage.
2:22:56 PM
Representative Austerman referred back to Page 1, Line 7 of
the bill. He assumed that the language meant that money
would be put forward for a minimum of five students, but
requested further clarification of the language. Moreover,
he wondered if any one of the three identified occupations
were to be offered in-state, would the state continue to
fund sending students out-of-state for training.
Representative Munoz hoped that once the fields became
better represented in the state, and the underserved areas
were provided for, the legislature would cease to fund the
program. She asserted that at the present there was great
need in the three fields throughout the state.
Representative Munoz added that an annual legislative
review of the program, through the budget process, would
determine existence of the program in the future.
2:25:12 PM
Representative Salmon thought that the fields under the
program should be expanded to other medical occupations. He
suggested including all seven fields identified under
WICHE.
Representative Munoz stated that there were several of the
occupations already offered through the University of
Alaska. The two fields not offered in-state that were not
included in the legislation, podiatry and physical therapy,
could be added to the legislation. She said that only three
were chosen in the attempt to be fiscally conservative.
2:28:23 PM
Representative Gara understood that the program was limited
to students who attended WICHE schools for training
programs that were not available in-state. He noted that
the state had a shortage of nurses and primary care
physicians. He wondered why there was no loan forgiveness
for the loans taken out to pursue those fields.
Representative Munoz replied that nursing and primary
physician programs were not an option through the WICHE
program. However, the state had a successful program with
the University of Washington of which more slots could be
added to expand opportunities for Alaskans. She agreed that
the state needed to increase the educational opportunities
for nursing in the state.
Representative Gara understood the need to keep the fiscal
note conservative. He wondered why the forgiveness was
limited to students that attended schools under the WICHE
program. Representative Munoz shared that the legislation
would authorize funding for the participation fees through
the WICHE program. It did not address the tuition fees at
those institutions. She reiterated that the bill addressed
the participation fee in the WICHE program, and not the
actual tuition. She explained that the WICHE program was a
compact of state; the fees were negotiated that then
reserved a certain number of slots for students from the
participating 12 states. In the case of Alaska, if the
state paid the fees, a maximum cohort of 60 slots, for the
three fields, would be secured.
Representative Gara felt that students were already
receiving a discounted education through the WICHE program.
He wondered why a student, studying one of the three
fields, could not attend the school of their choice and
receive the same amount of loan forgiveness. Representative
Munoz responded not sure the requirement of attending a
WICHE school could be removed. She did not think that the
same program could be negotiated with a school like
Stanford or Harvard.
2:34:03 PM
Representative Kelly queried the intent of the language on
page 2, Line 9. Ms. Kloster responded that the language was
on par with the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and
Idaho (WWAMI) program, setting the terms of the loan
repayment on the same interest rate as the other
participating states.
2:35:17 PM
DR. MARK PRATOR, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY (via
teleconference), testified in support of HB 235. He stated
that there were 44 states that had incentive programs to
bring students back to high need areas of their home state
after graduation. He stressed the importance of providing
incentives for students training in the three fields
identified in the bill to return to Alaska. He said that a
new generation of dentists, optometrists, and pharmacists
was becoming more necessary to serve people in high need
areas. He relayed that the average tuition for dental
schools ran between $50,000 and $100,000 per year, and that
the loan forgiveness program would be helpful in keeping
trained professionals in-state.
2:39:14 PM
Representative Salmon shared that he was billed $5,000 for
his last hour and 30 minute visit to the dentist. He
wondered why such a lucrative profession would require loan
forgiveness.
Vice-Chair Thomas wondered how many dentists retired each
year in Alaska. Dr. Prator replied that he did not know. He
related that there were approximately 300 active dentists
in Alaska, a large percentage of which were over 50 years
old. He stressed the importance of getting the Alaskan
residents who leave the state for training in dentistry to
return to the state to practice. He believed that loan
forgiveness was the key.
Vice-Chair Thomas offered that most of southeast was an
"economy free zone" that did not attract healthcare
professionals.
2:42:13 PM
Representative Gara understood that without the passing of
the legislation, the WICHE discount would not be extended
to Alaskan students studying dentistry. Dr. Prator replied
in the affirmative.
2:43:48 PM
Representative Joule wondered the committee would hear from
a representative from the Department of Education.
Representative Kelly asked if the legislature approved the
loan forgiveness component, the discount through the WICHE
program would be included also. Dr. Prator thought that
that was correct.
2:45:15 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked how many dentists in Alaska had
graduated from schools participating in the WICHE program.
Dr. Partor did not know. He shared that he had not
graduated from a WICHE school, although he had been
presented with the opportunity to attend one. He returned
to Alaska because he was born and raised here.
2:46:19 PM
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, provided a
historical perspective on the Professional Student Exchange
Program, which was the program HB 235 attempted to amend.
The Professional Student Exchange Program (PSEP) was a
consortia approach to reducing the state's need to develop
high cost graduate education programs. From 1955 to 1992,
the legislature annually appropriated general funds to
support Alaskans going into any one of 14 graduate fields of
study. The program was phased out in the mid-90s because of
the cost associated with it. In late 1990s the legislature
approved a bill that allowed the student loan corporation to
begin to lend the support fee to Alaska participants, under
certain circumstance. Under the current terms of the program
the commission identified which of the fields of study would
be included under the loan through a 3 prong test: the
program of study is not available in Alaska, there is a
workforce need for the profession in Alaska, and that the
income associated with entering the profession is sufficient
to cover the debt. There were a larger number of fields in
the student exchange program than Alaska participated in
including; dentistry, medicine, occupational therapy,
optometry, osteopathy, pharmacy, physical therapy, physician
assistant, podiatry, and veterinary medicine. The fields
that were listed in the legislation met all three criteria.
2:49:58 PM
Representative Gara asked if the benefit of paying in-state
tuition; at an out of state school, under the WICHE
program, did not apply to the graduate professional
degrees. Ms. Barrans replied that there were three student
exchange programs administered by WICHE. One was the
Professional Student Exchange program, which had a per
student fee associated with it. Two others; the Western
Undergraduate Exchange Program, for which the state paid a
membership fee, and the Western Regional Graduate Exchange
Program, for which there were no separate fees.
Representative Gara asked if the students identified in the
bill would receive any discounts without the loan
forgiveness program. Ms. Barrans said only if the student
borrowed the additional PSEP loan, which paid a support
fee.
Representative Gara understood that this bill would help a
student attending a WICHE school repay the loan if they
returned to practice in Alaska. Ms. Barrans replied that
that was correct.
2:52:13 PM
Co-Chair Hawker mentioned the section of statute being
amended was basically state participation in the compact
for the WICHE schools. He said that the PSEP program had
been funded through general funds. He asked if the
authority to make loans of state money for the purpose of
the program was general authority under the postsecondary
education commission, or was there a niche in statute.
Ms. Barrans replied that there was a niche in statue. She
furthered that in the corporations statute there was a
provision that said that the student loan corporation could
fund the loans.
Co-Chair Hawker summarized that the intent of the bill was
to override the student loan corporation repayment interest
rates with the same interest rates that were paid by WWAMI
students. Ms. Barrans replied in the affirmative.
2:55:04 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if the initiation of the bill would
impact bonds authorized in the previous fiscal year. Ms.
Barrans said no. She said that care had been taken to
indicate when a program that the commission was
administering as a state agency was not a student loan
corporation obligation.
Vice-Chair Thomas understood that money would need to be
appropriated for the loan forgiveness program on an annual
basis. Ms. Barrans replied yes.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked how much money the state currently
had loaned out to students. Ms. Barrans said approximately
$724 million. Vice-Chair Thomas asked how much of that
total was in default. Ms. Barrans replied that he
cumulative default rate was approximately 11 to 12 percent.
The default rate after the first year of repayment was
roughly 6 percent.
Vice-Chair Thomas if a student under the WICHE program was
to drop out of school in the first year how would the money
be reconciled by the state. Ms. Barrans stated that loan
programs were carefully crafted to incorporate all the
tools needed to collect on the loan; permanent fund
dividends could be garnished and administrative judgments
could be issues against property. She added that loan
applicants were subject to a credit report review.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if parental guarantees were
required for applicants under 21 years of age. Ms. Barrans
replied that a credit worthy co-signer was required by any
applicant that had not met the credit writing standard,
which is a minimum FICO score of 680.
2:58:56 PM
Representative Austerman revisited the language concerns on
Page 1, Line 7 of the bill. Ms. Barrans relayed that she
had been operating under the assumption that the language
intended that there would be five students, per category,
per year. She said that the assumption was reflected in the
fiscal note.
Representative Austerman noted that "not fewer than", could
mean more than five. Ms. Barrans replied that the number
was subject to appropriated funds.
Representative Austerman requested information pertaining
to other loan programs for medical professions, and to the
WICHE program. Ms. Barrans said she would provide the
information to the committee.
3:01:21 PM
Representative Joule requested information detailing the
benefits to the state from other programs that offered loan
forgiveness to professionals committed to returning to the
state. He wondered if there were any similar loan
forgiveness programs for students seeking trade
professions.
Ms. Barrans replied that there were two career specific
loan programs which had forgiveness benefits. The A.W. Win-
Brindle Memorial Scholarship Loan, which was available for
individuals studying fisheries, and was funded by donations
from the fishery industry, was not funded by the student
loan corporation or the state. Under the program students
could receive up to 50 percent off of their loan. The
Teacher Education Loan Program pre-existed the student loan
corporation and was funded by the state for a number of
years from the general fund. The program 20 year-old
program was designed to take graduates from Alaska high
schools who intended to be teachers, and give them up to
100 percent forgiveness for teaching in rural schools. She
divulged that the program had not been particularly
successful as the default rates for the program had been
high, and the students drive to teach in a qualifying
community had diminished. She believed that fewer than 30
percent of the participants in the program went on to
receive the benefits.
Representative Gara reiterated his understanding of the
legislation. He suggested altering the program proposed in
the bill altogether.
3:06:04 PM
Ms. Barrans replied that the sponsor had intended to offer
a program that would help Alaskan students that were
interested in entering the three identified professions by
providing debt relief to them in return for returning to
the state.
3:07:17 PM
Co-Chair Hawker hoped Ms. Barrans would be available for
future discussion concerning the legislation.
3:08:02 PM
DAVID LOGAN, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, testified in support of
the legislation. He shared that under the WICHE program, he
was able to graduate without a large amount of debt. He
said that dental students currently faced staggering amount
of debt after graduation. Undergraduate and dental school
could cost $200,000 to $350,000. He reminded the committee
that dentistry programs were not offered in the state,
consequently, non-resident tuition is the reality for
students training out-of-state. While the proposed program
would not make the non-resident tuition disappear, it would
be a great help. He relayed that there was a huge health
care issue in the state, multiple professions faced
shortages. The dental school graduates were not returning
to the state to fill the void left by retired
practitioners. He felt that by providing incentives for in-
state residents
3:13:14 PM
NANCY DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PHARMACY
ASSOCIATION, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), urged
support for the bill. She stated that Alaska had a shortage
of pharmacists, with a 25 percent vacancy rate in 2007. She
said that the shortage would continue as the population
aged and medication use increased as more state residents
decided to retire in-state. Alaska is the only WICHE state
without a pharmacy school, and one of five states without a
loan repayment program for pharmacy students. She shared
that pharmacy was the third largest health profession in
the United States. The WICHE web-site could be visited for
further information on workforce needs in the country. The
pharmacy association was working with the university to
establish prerequisite classes in pharmacy within the state
to assist student in the pursuit of pharmacy school.
3:16:53 PM
BARRY CHRISTENSEN, ALASKA PHARMACY ASSOCIATION, KETCHIKAN
(via teleconference), testified in supported of the
legislation. As a former WICHE student, he stressed the
importance of the program incentives for students choosing
to return to Alaska after graduation. He felt that the bill
would address the critical shortage of pharmacists in the
state.
3:18:10 PM
TRACY OMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OPTOMETRIC
ASSOCIATION, testified in support of the legislation. She
stated that there were 119 practicing optometrists in the
state, 27 would soon be reaching retirement age. For
example, the two practicing optometrists in Kodiak were 63
and 66 years old, one of which had been searching for five
years for someone to take over his practice. The tow
optometrists in Ketchikan were in their late 50s. The more
remote areas of Alaska do not have optometrists.
Optometrists from Anchorage and Fairbanks traveled to the
under-served areas, but as the practitioners aged, travel
became more burdensome. She added that residents of the
under-served areas often waited months for appointments.
The optometric association provided a web-site to assist
doctors in finding assistants to share the work, there were
14 doctors on the site that had been searching for
assistance for over a year. She concluded that the bill was
a good tool to incentivize doctors to return to the state.
Co-Chair Stoltze acknowledged Ms. Oman's work with the
Lions Club.
3:23:08 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
3:23:25 PM
Representative Munoz revisited the provision that had been
highlighted by Representative Hawker concerning state
appropriation for the loan forgiveness. She hoped to have
deeper discussions of the concerns with the section in
order to rework the language to create the clarity sought
by the committee.
Co-Chair Hawker thought that the discussions would be
better done offline and not during committee time.
Representative Munoz added that she would revisit the
language on Page 1, Line 7 to clear up the concerns raised
by Representative Austerman.
Representative Kelly also requested that the language of
the bill be revisited with a focus on clarity.
Representative Austerman voiced that he was reserving
support for the legislation until he had reviewed the
information requested of Ms. Barrans.
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted to hear all the additional
information before making any decisions as well.
HB 235 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:27 PM