Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/14/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB108 | |
| SB127 | |
| SB169 | |
| HB287 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 14, 2014
1:42 p.m.
1:42:48 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-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
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Fred Dyson, Sponsor; Chuck Kopp, Staff, Senator
Fred Dyson; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Taylor Winston, Director, Alaska Office of Victims'
Rights, Anchorage; Forrest Wolfe, Staff, Senator Cathy
Giessel; Senator Cathy Giessel, Sponsor; Steven Allwine,
Alaska Auto Dealers Association, Juneau; Amy Erickson,
Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of
Administration; Jane Conway, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel;
James Matteucci, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers Association, and the
Biotechnology Industry Organization; William Streur,
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services;
Anna Latham, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Catherine Stone, Director, Public Housing Division, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation; James Mooney, Self, Anchorage;
Jamie Rogers-Jenkins, Self, Two Rivers; Rick Allen,
Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Palmer; Deanna Smith,
Self, Anchorage; Carmen Gutierrez, Self, Anchorage; Quinlan
Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration; Mary Geddes, Self, Anchorage; James Noble,
Self, Prudhoe Bay; Melissa Cucullu, General Manager, Alaska
Tags and Titles, Anchorage; Aves Thompson, Executive
Director, Alaska Trucking Association, Anchorage; Jana
Shockman, President, Alaska Nurses Association, Anchorage;
Patricia Senner, Alaska Nurses Association, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 287 APPROVE TESORO ROYALTY OIL SALE
[Note: CSHB 287(FIN) was reported out of
committee during the 4/14/2014 8:30 a.m. meeting.
The bill was held to discuss one new forthcoming
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of
Natural Resources and one new indeterminate
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue. See
below for detail. For additional information see
4/14/2014 8:30 a.m. minutes.]
HB 316 WORKERS' COMPENSATION MEDICAL FEES
HB 316 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 64(FIN)
OMNIBUS CRIME/CORRECTIONS/RECIDIVISM BILL
CSSB 64(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 108(JUD)
CONFIDENTIALITY OF CRIMINAL CASE RECORDS
CSSB 108(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 127 VEHICLE TRANSACTION AGENTS
SB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 129(FIN)
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
CSSB 129(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSSB 169(FIN)
IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM; VACCINE ASSESSMENTS
CSSB 169(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 178(FIN)
PASSENGER & REC. VEHICLE RENTAL TAX
CSSB 178(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 108(JUD)
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain
records of criminal cases; and providing for an
effective date."
1:43:36 PM
SENATOR FRED DYSON, SPONSOR, remarked that the legislature
infrequently dealt with civil liberties topics. He believed
many members had handled Second Amendment issues well and
that First Amendment items would be addressed on a more
frequent basis. He relayed that the bill pertained to the
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He
discussed that in comparison to other states Alaska had the
most complete CourtView system [the Alaska Trial Court's
online and publicly accessible database]. He detailed that
most states had the equivalent of CourtView in their city
or county, but not statewide. The bill would strengthen the
privacy and liberty interests of persons when charges were
dismissed or acquitted by removing records from CourtView.
He acknowledged that some individuals who were arrested
were guilty, but were released due to insufficient
evidence. He relayed that over 9,000 of the 29,000 arrests
for misdemeanor offences the prior year had resulted in
dismissal. He believed there had been around 7,000 felony
arrests, with 1,700 dismissals.
Senator Dyson continued that under the current system, the
dismissed cases remained on CourtView in perpetuity. The
CourtView system had been implemented in 2004 and he
guessed there were approximately 60,000 people listed in
the database. He noted that despite the clear notification
that an arrest was not a guarantee of a person's guilt, the
listing of a person's name on the website made it more
difficult to obtain employment and to rent a home. He
stated that the process of removing a person's name from
the site was structurally defective. He detailed that a
police chief or equivalent were required to approve the
removal of a name from the website. He believed that
requiring the arresting department to remove the name was
counterintuitive and exposed the department to potential
liability. He relayed that if the first attempt to have a
person's name removed was unsuccessful, their next option
was to take the issue to court. He stated that Alaska's
statutes were clear that it was incumbent upon the accused
to prove they had been wrongly arrested.
1:47:49 PM
Senator Dyson stressed that the practice was contrary to a
person's constitutional right to innocence before proven
guilty. He believed there would always be pragmatic reasons
to trample on civil and human rights; however, legislators
had taken an oath to preserve the constitutional
provisions. He opined that the default should land on the
side of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. He asked
his staff to address the bill's sectional analysis.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that there had previously been some
public testimony on the subject matter in a hearing on a
separate crime bill. The subject matter had subsequently
been removed from the other bill to be dealt with as a
single issue.
CHUCK KOPP, STAFF, SENATOR FRED DYSON, read from the
sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
Provides legislative intent directing the Court, to
the extent practicable, to treat as confidential
records of criminal cases disposed of before the
effective date of the Act by acquittal of all charges,
dismissal of all charges, or acquittal of some charges
and dismissal of remaining charges, to the same extent
that records are held confidential by this bill, under
AS 22.35.030.
Section 2
Amends AS 22.35 by adding a new section, AS 22.35.030.
Records concerning criminal cases resulting in
acquittal or dismissal confidential.
This section establishes that a court record of a
criminal case is confidential if 120 days have elapsed
from the date of acquittal or dismissal and (1) the
person was acquitted of all charges filed in the case;
(2) all charges against the person have been dismissed
by the prosecuting authority; or (3) the person was
acquitted of some of the charges in the case, and the
remaining charges were dismissed.
Provide exceptions for access to information made
confidential for state agency employees responsible
for health, safety, welfare, or placement of a child,
a person with a physical or intellectual disability,
or a person with a mental illness; employees that
protect other vulnerable citizens, and state criminal
justice information network users. The Department of
Health and Social Services will adopt regulations to
administer these exceptions.
Section 3
Establishes the Applicability of the Act to criminal
charges concluded on or after the effective date of
the Act by dismissal or by acquittal of the defendant.
Section 4
Establishes the effective date of the Act as October
1, 2014.
Senator Dyson communicated that the information would
remain available to police, the state, and the national
record; the bill would remove public records of dismissed
or acquitted cases after 120 days.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for detail about the law related to
the police chief. Mr. Kopp pointed to the sealing of
criminal justice information under AS 12.62.180. He relayed
that a criminal justice agency may seal only the
information that the agency was responsible for
maintaining. A person may submit a written request to the
head of the agency responsible for maintaining past
conviction or current offender information. The two issues
required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt were
mistaken identity or false accusation; the decision of the
agency head was the final administrative decision on the
request. The appellant bore the burden of proof and if they
did not agree with the agency decision their next option
was to appeal to the court. He read from the statute that
"a person about whom information is sealed under this
section may deny the existence of the information if it is
in fact sealed."
Co-Chair Stoltze asked a question related to a current
court case [specifics on the case were not provided]. Mr.
Kopp replied in the affirmative. Co-Chair Stoltze surmised
that the Municipality of Anchorage had made the decision to
litigate. He stated that the municipality had the ability
to correct an action, but chose to litigate instead. Mr.
Kopp agreed.
1:54:29 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman referred to a prior request from the
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to seal files related to
decreasing workload. He wondered if the bill addressed the
issue. Mr. Kopp replied that the bill did not pertain to
lowering the OPA workload.
Vice-Chair Neuman clarified his interest in the sealing of
cases. Mr. Kopp answered that the bill was strictly focused
on individuals with acquitted or dismissed charges who
remain on CourtView.
Senator Dyson believed it would be helpful to hear from the
courts. He noted that the court system was taking some
action on its own related to the records under discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that many individuals did not
want to advertise their efforts to have a charge removed
from their record.
1:57:00 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, relayed
that the court system was neutral on the bill, but she
appreciated the sponsor's willingness to work with the
agency. She communicated that the bill would make dismissed
or acquitted cases confidential in electronic and paper
form (the bill did not include plea bargained cases). The
cases would remain in the state's public safety database
and would be accessible to arresting officers and the
district attorney's office. The legislative intent asked
the department to make the change retroactively; the court
system could achieve the goal without a fiscal impact note.
She stated that it was possible for the court system to
take records off of CourtView retroactively; it would be
significantly more burdensome to make archived hardcopy
files confidential.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked hypothetically if the bill would
remove O.J. Simpson case records from CourtView had the
events surrounding the case occurred in Anchorage. Ms.
Meade replied that the case would be covered by the
legislation given that all charges had been acquitted; the
criminal case would be removed from CourtView 120 days
after acquittal under the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze thought extreme examples could help frame
an issue. He mentioned an example related to a false
stalking accusation.
Ms. Meade replied that stalking was typically a civil
protective order and would not be covered under the bill.
She noted that the court was separately looking at a court
rule that would impact civil actions where the court found
no probable cause at an initial hearing. The bill before
the committee only covered criminal cases.
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to the conviction and later
exoneration of Mechele Linehan and asked if the case would
apply under the legislation. Ms. Meade replied that because
the case had not been dismissed by the prosecutor it would
not be covered under the bill and would not be
confidential.
2:00:48 PM
Representative Gara asked for verification that plea
bargained cases would remain on CourtView. Ms. Meade
replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the bill
only dismissed records for cases when the prosecution fully
dismissed the charges. Ms. Meade responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Gara asked for verification that a person
would end up on CourtView if they continued to commit
crimes and were convicted like O.J. Simpson. Ms. Meade
replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for a description of the
administrative process. He asked about a process under
deliberation by the court system. Ms. Meade referred to a
proposed court rule that was underway. She discussed that
the court maintained the Alaska Rules of Court; there were
committees responsible for recommending changes and the
Alaska Supreme Court was ultimately in charge of making
changes to the rules. She elaborated that currently the
Supreme Court was considering (and would go out for public
comment) an amendment to its existing rule about items that
did not appear on CourtView. She detailed an administrative
rule designated items that could not be on CourtView, which
was slightly different than designating a case as
confidential. Anything the legislature deemed confidential
did not appear on CourtView including child in need of aid
cases, protective proceedings such as guardianships, and
juvenile delinquency cases.
Ms. Meade communicated that additional categories not
posted on CourtView included the names of children in
domestic relations cases (these were not confidential in
paper form), social security numbers, and victim addresses.
The court was amending the administrative rule to include
other items it found problematic when listed on CourtView.
She pointed to a case where a woman was arrested but no
charging document was filed; the case was not covered by
the bill, but it would be covered by the forthcoming court
rule that would remove anything where an arrest had taken
place but no charging document had been filed. She
explained that the situations were not covered by the rule
because they had not yet become a criminal case. The court
was also considering adding situations where no probable
cause had been found at an initial hearing, which sometimes
happened with stalking protective orders or other
protective order applications. The rule was going out for
public comment for wide circulation and the court was
expected to act within the next 45 days.
2:04:32 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for verification that his
constituents who had testified in the past would be covered
under the administrative protective order, but not under
the bill. Ms. Meade referred to testimony related to Nancy
Means and replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze speculated that when an out-of-state
settlement was won against the municipality it would be
sealed as well. Ms. Meade clarified that people could ask
to have a confidential case made public. She elaborated
that the court system's case records were not considered
criminal justice information. Currently, the only way to
remove something from CourtView was through the court
system. She detailed that there was a court rule to seek to
have cases made confidential that otherwise were not and to
have confidential cases made public; it was the mechanism
required to remove something from CourtView.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the process was initiated by the
person wishing to have their name removed from the site.
Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative.
2:06:21 PM
CATHERINE STONE, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC HOUSING DIVISION, ALASKA
HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She relayed that the corporation
initially had concerns about the bill related to its
ability to use CourtView to research applicants' criminal
records; however, it ultimately supported the legislation
due to the way it would affect people participating in the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Housing Choice
voucher program. She detailed that the corporation provided
approximately 4,600 vouchers per month to families in 16
locations throughout the state. The recipients passed a
federally required screening process and were subsequently
issued a voucher in order to find a landlord and home to
rent; the voucher paid a portion of the rent and the
corporation provided the additional payment. She
communicated that sometimes people who had an old arrest
that had never resulted in a conviction experienced a
barrier to renting because CourtView was used as a
screening tool. She elaborated that even though the arrest
had not resulted in a conviction, the record on CourtView
many times prevented individuals from renting. Program
recipients were given an initial 60 days to find a unit,
which could be extended to a maximum of 120 days per
federal law. She remarked that it was a shame when
qualified individuals were not able to locate a rental
based on prior history or behavior that may not have
resulted in a conviction. She believed the bill would allow
people who may have made a mistake in the past to have a
better opportunity to find housing.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that it would help the AHFC
clientele to secure housing if landlords did not know about
prior activity. Ms. Stone replied in the affirmative. She
elaborated that individuals on the sex offender list or
with violent or drug related convictions did not qualify
for the AHFC program. Once the individual was approved in
the program screening process they should be able to find a
home; however, sometimes an old arrest was used as a
screening tool by landlords which prevented them from
finding a rental.
2:10:05 PM
JAMES MOONEY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He spoke about how a
false sexual assault accusation in 2009 had impacted his
life. He stated that his ex-fiancé had moved from the state
with their daughter and had not seen his daughter since. He
had lost his job as a result of the experience. He had been
acquitted, but had never been able to obtain another
management job due to the records on CourtView. He spoke to
challenges securing work. He stated that he deserved to
have his life back, had never hurt anyone, and had not done
anything wrong. He pleaded with the committee to help
provide him with a fighting chance. He wanted his daughter
to know he loved her.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Mr. Mooney's testimony.
2:14:03 PM
JAMIE ROGERS-JENKINS, SELF, TWO RIVERS (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She
believed the bill represented a civil liberties issue and
could not thank the sponsor enough for carrying the bill.
She opined that the bill did not go far enough. She
believed people used CourtView as a screening tool for jobs
and housing and that people did not follow through to
determine what had actually happened. She stated that
people had a "where there's smoke there's fire" mentality
that could not be avoided. She used AHFC testimony as an
example and stated that the testimony had assumed an
individual may have done something wrong in the past, but
had not been convicted of a crime. Although she supported
the bill she believed it should include expungement. She
opined that the bill should include plea bargained cases.
Ms. Rogers-Jenkins stressed that the only cases that should
appear on CourtView should be those that resulted in a
conviction. She stated that many people had pled to
something they had not done or to a lesser charge because
it was closer to something that actually happened. Reasons
for taking a plea bargain could include fear, time, and
expense. She believed extreme examples like O.J. Simpson
should be avoided. Additionally, she felt that restraining
orders were abused and should not be listed on CourtView.
She spoke to a case she had taken a plea to; she stated she
had not committed the crime and there had been no
investigation. She believed the preferable remedy was
adequate investigation and no overcharging with the intent
to instill fear and gain conviction. She would support a
state funded campaign to let people know of the
occurrences. She stated that police were not always
truthful. She stated that the Office of Victims' Rights was
the primary opponent of the bill and that it did not
acknowledge various abuses. She asked the committee to pass
the bill.
2:22:13 PM
RICK ALLEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, PALMER
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He
addressed an earlier question by Vice-Chair Neuman. He
discussed that several years earlier the Public Defender
Agency had changed its policy related to sealing files
internally; the change had taken place in effort to reduce
the number of conflicts and the number of criminal cases
that went to OPA. He spoke to his experience as an
attorney. He had seen many examples of individuals charged
with theft or robbery; the cases had been appropriately
dismissed by a prosecutor when the defendant had been able
to prove their innocence. He stated that the allegation was
currently recorded on CourtView indefinitely regardless of
a person's innocence. He believed there was an unintended
consequence where the government was punishing individuals
without having proved them guilty of anything. He
understood that it had never been the intent of CourtView.
He stated that the presumption of innocence and the burden
of proof were important bedrocks in the American system. He
believed the bill would strike a good balance between a
person's right to privacy and liberty and the public's
right to important information.
2:25:26 PM
DEANNA SMITH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. She spoke to her
personal experience. She was currently staying in a safe
house. She stated that if she had known about the ability
to look on CourtView it would likely have prevented her
current situation. She stated that public access to the
records would provide the public with information about a
person and would inform them about a possible behavioral
pattern. She had used CourtView to determine that the
person her daughter had begun dating had an unlawful past.
She implored the committee not to pass the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Ms. Smith's courage in her
testimony.
2:28:29 PM
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in strong support of the bill. She spoke to her
extensive work history with the criminal justice system and
as former deputy commissioner for the Department of
Corrections. She stated that currently every person charged
with an offense had a permanent public record of the arrest
and charge. She detailed that in felony cases there was
also a statement of the alleged factual details
accompanying the charging document. The person's name and
the facts of the charge remained public even when charges
were dismissed or after a jury decided on an acquittal. An
arrest often became synonymous with conviction in the minds
of those doing an inspection when the arrest continued to
remain public information. She stressed that the records
greatly impeded a person's ability to find employment, to
rent an apartment, and to live a life free from
stigmatization for a crime they were never convicted of.
Ms. Gutierrez relayed that police officers tasked with a
tremendous amount of work were required to make snap
decisions when deciding it was more likely than not that a
crime had occurred. The soundness of an officer's decision
often depended on the experience of the officer and their
perceived need to diffuse a difficult situation. She
elaborated that after a person was arrested and charged a
prosecutor had more time to review the merits of the case;
in some cases upon more careful review and with the benefit
of additional facts, the prosecutor determined that a
charge did not merit prosecution and that it should be
dismissed. However, the individual arrested was forever
stigmatized by the arrest. She noted that close to 1,300
state felony cases and 9,500 misdemeanor cases had been
dismissed in FY 13. She communicated that cases were
dismissed for many reasons, but often due to lack of
evidence, misidentification, no crime committed, and other.
She stressed that many people were arrested even though
they never committed a criminal offence. The constitutional
right to due process of law was intended to protect
individuals from being treated as convicted persons without
first being afforded certain procedural safeguards. She
believed it was the way it should be. She submitted that it
was the state's responsibility to uphold the criminal
justice system.
Ms. Gutierrez spoke to her prior work as an attorney and
her oath to uphold the constitution. She had concerns about
the underlying premise of a letter addressed from Office of
Victims' Rights to the legislature (copy on file). She
believed that the premise was that something less than
innocence should be insinuated each time an Alaskan was
arrested even when the charge was later dismissed. She
detailed that every day judges were required to tell every
jury convened to hear a criminal case that the mere fact of
an arrest and charge could not be used as any kind of
evidence of guilt; however, CourtView information was
causing people to be judged by an arrest. The system
required criminal conviction. She stressed that an arrest
and charge should not tarnish the reputation of an Alaskan
citizen. She thanked the sponsor for introducing the
legislation.
2:35:04 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), spoke
about the legal analysis involved in charging an individual
and sustaining a charge. He mentioned the idea that the
probable cause standard and a grand jury indictment was
sufficient to conclude when a person was guilty. However,
he stated that the probable cause and grand jury indictment
standard was only about concluding when unexplained or
uncontradicted items merited going forward on a case. He
stated that an important part of the legal analysis was
that once an investigation continued, the initial facts
were explained or contradicted in some cases. He relayed
that the screening process of probable cause was not
sufficient evidence for conviction, but was about providing
sufficient evidence to move forward on a case. He stated
that "not guilty" meant not guilty in the criminal trial
process. He remarked that there were many cases where
charges were dismissed and collateral consequences were
significant and life-long.
2:37:42 PM
Representative Gara asked for verification that only a
prosecutor presents evidence before a grand jury. Mr.
Steiner concurred. He added that a grand jury was a secret
and sealed proceeding in which only a prosecutor presents
evidence; defense attorneys were not permitted to enter the
proceedings.
2:38:40 PM
MARY GEDDES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. She remarked on her 28 years of
criminal law experience in Alaska. She read from a prepared
statement (copy on file):
Senate Bill 108, introduced by Senator Dyson, provides
a simple and sensible answer to an important question.
What should happen with the record of a state court
criminal case when no convictions were obtained and
the case is now closed?
Under the current language of SB 108, the approach is
straightforward. Four months after such a case is
closed, the court record is designated as
confidential. This means, simply, that the court
record is no longer offered for general public
viewing.
Many of you have heard the term, expungement. In the
majority of states, expungement is an available remedy
for arrests and other nonconviction records.
Expungement typically means the destruction of a
record. But Alaska does not have an expungement
statute. SB 108 provides a less drastic remedy than
expungement. SB 108 would not require the destruction
of court records. Nor does it impede or unnecessarily
burden law enforcement.
How often does it happen that a criminal case filing
ends with a dismissal and no conviction? More
frequently than you might imagine. In the last fiscal
year alone, approximately 7,563 misdemeanor and 945
felony cases were closed because of dismissals by
state prosecutors. In addition, approximately 100
felony and misdemeanor cases were closed as a result
of acquittals.
The reason for making nonconviction court records
confidential is a good one. It avoids an unnecessary
risk of harm to a person. Even though we all know it
should not make any difference, just the information
that there once was a criminal accusation can limit a
person's economic opportunity and severely damage a
reputation. Life, subsequent to an arrest, is
permanently altered. Making such records confidential,
by contrast, provides a meaningful end to a criminal
process.
Perhaps there is no better illustration of the
personal impact of criminal litigation for us Alaskans
than the case of Senator Ted Stevens. After 41 years
of faithful service, he was charged with crimes and
convicted. He was convicted. But his conviction was
later thrown out because of prosecutorial misconduct,
and his case was entirely dismissed by the government.
Let's suppose for a moment that Sen. Stevens had been
charged in state court. Even after a dismissal of all
charges, public court records would forever list him -
really, brand him - as a "criminal defendant." Why is
that fair? Why should any citizen be treated that way
for all time when the government has closely evaluated
the evidence and seen fit to dismiss the charges, or
when a defendant has been acquitted?
Taylor Winston, an employee of the state Office of
Victims' Rights, recently wrote this Committee
concerning SB 108. Ms. Winston opposes the idea of
making closed nonconviction records confidential for
reasons stated in her column on April 10, 2014. Under
such a theory of justice, however, a person once
charged of a crime should be forever considered "not
innocent," even though the courts lack any legal
authority to make such a determination. Neither
prosecutors acting alone nor a grand jury has a 'good
enough' fact-finding process such that their
indictments should forever stand as public monuments.
Let's remember that a grand jury meets in secret with
the prosecutor, and that the accused and his lawyer
aren't allowed in. Not only did the Founding Fathers
reject the grand jury as the means of determining
criminal responsibility, they also decided that there
would be no continuing penalty, no loss of privilege
and certainly no lifetime loss of privacy for those
who had been once charged but not convicted of a
crime.
Ms. Winston argues that the information provided on
the court's electronic website (showing information on
open and closed criminal cases) is "objective" and
provides information the public can use to protect
itself. In a letter she submitted to the Legislature,
she provided an example: she said she would check the
website to help make a decision on a babysitter. This
is a great example as to why SB 108 should be enacted.
The website warns the reader as to its unreliability
and prejudicial effect and yet people still rely on
it, presumptively, for divining someone's
trustworthiness.
A zealous advocate, Ms. Winston seems genuinely
concerned, but her dire prediction that "victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and child sexual
abuse, and our communities will suffer" under SB 108
is certainly not justified by the very modest reach of
this bill.
Senate Bill 108 would not block any police, prosecutor
or judge from access to closed nonconviction court
records. Any party to a closed case still has
automatic access. Because Alaska's statutes and its
constitution now also require the criminal justice
system to accommodate the rights of crime victims, it
is almost certain that a complaining witness would
also have automatic access. Access by any other
individuals can be obtained with the written
permission of the court if the court finds that the
requestor's interest outweighs the potential harm to
the person or interests being protected. In making
this call, the court will consider the (1) risk of
injury to individuals; (2) individual privacy rights
and interests; (3) proprietary business information;
(4) the deliberative process; or (5) public safety.
Finally, it should be noted that SB 108 does not
impose any burdens of secrecy or non-publication on
persons or companies who obtain the record.
Senate Bill 108 is a neat, nifty way to be fair to
defendants whose cases are entirely dismissed - like
Sen. Stevens- without undermining law enforcement or
prosecutorial functions. Let your state representative
know that SB 108 should pass.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for written testimony. Ms. Geddes
agreed to provide her testimony to the committee.
2:47:02 PM
TAYLOR WINSTON, DIRECTOR, ALASKA OFFICE OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS
(OVR), ANCHORAGE, testified in strong opposition to the
legislation. She believed the bill was of grave concerns,
particularly to victims in Alaska. In reference to previous
testimony she stressed that the bill was not a "nifty"
service to victims of the state. She emphasized that the
victims had a constitutional right to be treated with
fairness, dignity, and respect; the bill did not treat them
with those things. She spoke to her professional experience
working in the Alaska legal system. She had spent over 12
years working on sexual assault cases. She stressed that
the path of a victim of sexual assault was arduous. She
spoke about the difficulty victims faced when reporting a
crime including feelings of guilt and shame. She discussed
that everyone wanted to encourage victims to report because
when victims reported the process should be able to act and
should make communities safer. She highlighted the bravery
victims showed when reporting a crime. She stated that the
process did not restore a victim's sense of well-being; it
was humiliating and constituted a re-victimization. She
stated that the individuals had to relive the trauma of
past events in front of a grand jury. She discussed that it
was up to a jury to determine whether there was sufficient
evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. She
stated that an acquittal was like a knife through the heart
for the victim.
Ms. Winston testified that the legislation was contrary to
a victim's constitutional right to be treated with dignity,
fairness, and respect. She asked for verification that the
bill had been amended to only include dismissals by the
prosecution, not by the court.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that there was an affirmation, but
he had not looked at the minutia of the bill.
Ms. Winston stated that the bill put the decision and fate
of the victims in the hands of prosecutors. She mentioned
her former work as a prosecutor and the dismissal of cases
that occurred for various reasons. She wondered what
justice the removal of records related to dismissed cases
provided for victims of various crimes. She stressed
justice for all and not just the defendant. She believed an
accurate account of information and a definitive source was
important. She mentioned the O.J. Simpson case; she
believed it was important for the public to have the
ability to see what happens in its institutions. She was
glad some of the supporters had brought forward their
convictions. She stated that certain things would not be
known if the record was not open.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that supporters had brought
forward their arrests, not convictions.
Ms. Winston agreed and restated that the record was clear
regarding the testifier's arrests. She pointed to
supportive testimony and noted that the bill would not
address some specific concerns mentioned. She spoke to the
testimony of Mr. Mooney and stated it was one of the
reasons transparency of government was important. She had
prosecuted the case he spoke about. She provided details of
the case. She stated that the evidence against him had been
strong, but the jury had acquitted him.
2:59:08 PM
Ms. Winston stressed the importance of the court record.
She pointed to the Mechele Linehan case, which had been
dismissed by the prosecution and would not stay in the
court record if the bill passed. She mentioned the John
Carlin case and communicated that there was going to be
voiding of his conviction; OVR had submitted that his death
in prison did not mean his conviction should be voided and
the decision had been reversed related to the specific
point. She spoke to the national George Zimmerman case and
believed it deserved to have public scrutiny and review.
She opined that prosecutors should be scrutinized for what
they dismissed. She stressed that the organization was not
opposed to the concept presented by SB 108, but it was
opposed to the language the bill used. She believed there
should be a surgical approach because the bill would affect
many people. The organization had proposed amendments to
the committee to help protect victims.
Ms. Winston referred to an earlier question by
Representative Gara related to a grand jury and relayed
that a prosecutor was under obligation to present
exculpatory evidence (any evidence that tended to negate a
defendant's guilt). She discussed grand jury procedures.
She spoke to the Joshua Wade cases related to murder
convictions. She mentioned that in cases of concurrent
state and federal jurisdiction, the state would dismiss a
case to allow it to move through the federal process; the
detail would be removed from the public's view under the
legislation. She did not believe it was fair to the
citizens of the state. She believed the bill was contrary
to the First Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act, and
the transparency of government. She reiterated that the
bill was divergent from the constitutional right to
fairness, dignity, and respect. She urged the committee to
think about the victims. She referred to statute and the
sealing of the process and expressed her belief that a
better process should be devised to address people trying
to seal their records.
3:05:25 PM
Representative Thompson noted his compassion for victims
and understood their constitutional rights; however, people
who were falsely accused also had constitutional rights. He
noted that under the legislation the records would be
removed from CourtView after 120 days. He wondered what
timeframe Ms. Winston would be comfortable with.
Ms. Winston replied that there was a difference between a
case where a person was falsely accused with no evidence to
support the charge and a case where a plea agreement to
dismiss had been agreed upon. She noted that a case was
sometimes dismissed if a defendant died. She relayed that
the 120-day time period was not the issue. She opined that
CourtView had been a problem. She did not want individuals
wrongfully accused of crimes to be punished by the system;
however, she did want the public record to remain on
CourtView for other situations. She believed the
legislation needed to be further defined.
3:08:44 PM
Representative Gara spoke from the perspective of a victim
and shared that his father had been murdered when he was a
child; however, he would not feel comfortable to have a
person who was wrongfully accused listed as a criminal for
the rest of their life even if the record showed that
charges had been dismissed. He stated that it was not
possible to have a perfect system. He would never feel
comfortable having a murder charge listed for an innocent
person.
JAMES NOBLE, SELF, PRUDHOE BAY (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He stated that charges had been
dismissed after he had been falsely accused of stalking and
domestic violence by an ex-girlfriend. He had been
surprised and upset by a letter of opposition written by
Ms. Winston. After listening to her prior testimony he
agreed with much of what Ms. Winston had said; however, he
personally related to her description of the various
process of humility and shame that victims went through. He
stated that he was the guilty party according to Ms.
Winston's letter and beliefs. He addressed the idea that
predators got away with crimes; he believed the system was
working hard to bring guilty persons to justice. He relayed
that the dismissed charges against him were on the
CourtView record. The charges had been brought over five
years earlier, but they remained visible. He stressed that
people looked at CourtView; it was useful, but also
harmful. He emphasized that the current system did not
work. He agreed that there were a few cases where the
guilty went free due to the system, but that the system
would never be perfect. He noted the high case dismissal
rate of 60 to 70 percent. He asked about the rights to due
process, innocence until proven guilty, about his right to
privacy, and his right after proving his innocence. He
reiterated his support for the legislation and thanked the
sponsor.
3:14:38 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
CSSB 108(JUD) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:15:18 PM
AT EASE
3:17:09 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 127
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of administration
to enter into agreements with agents to perform for
compensation certain transactions related to vehicles;
relating to the duties of those agents; and providing
for an effective date."
3:17:48 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed his intent to hear the bill
presentation and public testimony.
FORREST WOLFE, STAFF, SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, discussed the
bill. He spoke to long lines and high wait times at the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He stated that limited
hours caused people to sacrifice time out of their workday.
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, SPONSOR, communicated that the bill
supported a strong existing public/private partnership that
had been in place for over 10 years. The partnership
provided available, convenient, and responsive services
from DMV. She detailed that about 10 years earlier the
advanced business partnerships began to do contract work
for DMV; contractors provided vehicle titles and renewals,
registration renewals, duplicate registrations, lost
licenses, etc. There were approximately 37 car dealerships
and 11 private companies providing the service statewide.
She relayed that the template was also used by the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) for hunting and fishing
licenses; however, DFG allowed its business partners to
retain a small portion of the fee to cover administrative
services, whereas DMV did not. She shared that auto dealers
and business partners were presently performing more than
25 percent of the DMV workload. She discussed a graph
showing DMV services; DMV services were shown in orange and
the business partners were shown in yellow (copy not on
file). She reiterated that the business partners were
currently doing 25 percent of the DMV workload; however,
none of the costs for facilities, utilities, printers,
credit card systems, credit card fees, and personnel were
reimbursed by DMV. She relayed that a major part of the
contractor services were conducted over the phone when
people were unable to get through to the DMV.
Senator Giessel communicated that the bill would allow
business partners to retain 15 percent of the DMV fee to
cover overhead costs. Currently business partners were
charging an additional administrative fee in an effort to
cover costs. She noted that out of convenience, citizens
were still choosing to utilize the businesses despite the
fee. She asked why citizens and the private sector should
be funding a state agency's work. She added that DMV
charged a $10 administrative fee for services rendered in
person. Additionally, DMV collected local taxes for 16
communities around the state including Juneau, Anchorage,
Kenai, Bristol Bay, Bethel, and others; DMV retained 8
percent of the taxes to cover its administrative costs. The
workload for private vendors amounted to 336,527
transactions annually. The fiscal note estimated that costs
would be just under $2 million to allow the business
partners to retain 15 percent. She spoke to potential costs
that would occur if the business partnerships went away.
She detailed that DMV would be required to pick up the
transactions that had previously been handled by the
business partners. She pointed to an estimate that 23
additional state employees would be needed; if the
employees were a range 10 on the state pay schedule, the
cost would be slightly under $2 million. She stated that
the fiscal note was essentially zero.
Senator Giessel relayed that the calculations did not
include the additional office space and the three state
employee managers that would be required to supervise the
new employees. She summarized that DMV took in an 8 percent
administrative fee to cover tax collection for local
governments and charged a $10 fee for services rendered in
its office locations. She was compelled by testimony that
DMV had taken in $48 million in surplus revenues the prior
year. She believed $2 million of the figure belonged to the
private sector. She stated that the bill was basically
fiscally neutral, provided convenient government services,
and was a small step towards reducing the size of state
government.
3:25:10 PM
Representative Munoz asked if businesses had the ability to
charge a fee for walk-ins. Senator Giessel replied in the
affirmative. She elaborated that the 11 private companies
currently charged a walk-in fee; however, the auto dealers
did not. She added that the dealers were considering
dropping the service as it was costing them significantly.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the DMV was required by
statute (passed in the 1990s) to charge a fee. Senator
Giessel agreed; AS 28.10.421 related to the $10 service fee
and AS 28.10.431(e) pertained to the retention of 8 percent
from local governments' taxes.
Representative Munoz asked if the auto businesses could
collect the $10 fee. Senator Giessel replied in the
affirmative. She recommended speaking to the auto dealers
about the subject as well. She noted that auto dealers
faced "grumbling" about additional fees that were tacked on
when purchasing a car, which made them reluctant to charge
for the service.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the business was just the
agent. Senator Giessel agreed and added that $10 would not
cover the cost.
Representative Thompson did not see the comparison between
fishing licenses and the one at hand. He elaborated that a
vendor such as Fred Meyer did not receive any additional
money above the cost of a [fishing or hunting] license. He
noted that the state would refund a portion of the fee back
to Fred Meyers. He discussed that he used the vendors to
avoid standing in line for vehicle license renewals. He
paid the extra fees and believed the vendors provided a
great service; however, the vendors charged an extra fee
for convenience. He surmised that the vendors would not be
providing the service if they were not making a profit. He
wondered why they should be given an additional $2 million
out of state funds that could be used for something else.
He questioned why the vendors should receive additional
money when they were already charging close to what the
state was charging. He did not understand the purpose of
the bill and why it would be beneficial to the public.
3:28:35 PM
Senator Giessel replied that the private sector was doing
the work of a government agency at no cost. She stated that
it was a question of fairness. She expounded that DFG
allowed vendors (e.g. Fred Meyer) to keep a portion of the
fee to cover personnel costs. She stressed that work done
by DMV vendors was more complex and abundant. Additionally,
the fee charged by vendors did not cover the work done. She
restated that it was a question of fairness.
Representative Thompson believed the vendors would close
their doors immediately if they were not making a profit.
He felt uncomfortable with the bill.
Representative Holmes was concerned by the $2 million loss
in revenue. She spoke about the various types of vendors
providing the service including auto dealers that had the
ability to charge more, groups providing the service to
members, and vendors operating the service as a business.
She wondered how the 15 percent figure had been determined
in the bill. She noted that Representative Thompson had
relayed that DFG provided vendors with 5 percent [of the
license cost]. She wondered what other states did.
Senator Giessel did not know what other states did. She
recommended asking the Alaska Trucker's Association and the
auto dealers. She stressed that DMV was collecting from the
private sector (what was analogous to a tax) for doing work
for DMV. The cost was being passed on by some of the
businesses as a user fee to citizens. She stated that it
was truly a question of fairness and of being consumer
friendly to Alaska's citizens. She questioned how the
agency was able to bring in a surplus of $48 million and
stated that part of the reason was because 25 percent of
its workload was being done by citizens.
3:33:13 PM
MELISSA CUCULLU, GENERAL MANAGER, ALASKA TAGS AND TITLES,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. She read from a prepared statement:
The private sector provides the staffing, the
facilities, required technology, and office supplies
to process the transactions that create millions in
revenue for the State of Alaska. This legislation
allows Alaskan owned businesses to hire additional
employees, open new facilities, provide extended
hours, and create more options for Alaskan residents.
Senate Bill 127 is about fairness and is a win for
Alaskan residents, a win for the private sector, and a
win for the state government by reducing overhead
costs while still generating income. I'd like to thank
you for your time and consideration of Senate Bill
127.
3:34:19 PM
AVES THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION (ATA), ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the bill. He read from a prepared statement:
ATA was approached in late December 2006 to see if the
association was interested in becoming a DMV business
partner and as we evaluated the proposal the ATA felt
that this could be a good member benefit for our
trucking members to facilitate the handling of our
members' DMV transactions. Our members have benefited
from our partnership as has the general public that
walks into our office each and every day. Our
customers are about half commercial vehicle operators
and half are walk-in personal vehicle operators. Our
association member companies enjoy the prompt service
that we can give them. Our walk-in customers are a
cross section of the Anchorage population. Our service
is generally prompt, friendly, supportive, and
helpful. Our customers appreciate the extra effort we
put into these transactions to make the DMV experience
a little more user friendly.
In order for the ATA to better serve its customers we
feel that a modest 15 percent commission on the work
done for the state DMV is a small price to pay for the
work that is currently being done by these business
partners. Every workday since 2006 we have processed
transactions for the State of Alaska with no
compensation other than the nominal service fee that
we charge our customers. DMV provides some supplies
such as title and registration forms, tags for the
license plates, and the license plates themselves. It
has been our business partner responsibility to
provide and pay for personnel, reception space, secure
office space, dedicated computer systems and related
technical support, copiers, paper, postage, and credit
card fees. In 2013 we processed more than 11,000
transactions for the State of Alaska and generated
revenue of more than $1.6 million in fees and local
taxes. The local taxes as you've heard are passed
through DMV to the local governments. So not only do
we generate revenue for the State of Alaska, we are a
tax collector for local governments. Our calculations
indicate that of the $1.6 million, we generated a
total of more than $1.1 million in fee revenue for
DMV.
The changes made in the committee substitute in House
State Affairs allows the DMV to honor these current
agreements during the time it takes for the department
to promulgate and adopt regulations covering the
agreement prerequisites and provisions set out in the
statute. It will allow the department to begin the 15
percent retained commissions at the effective date of
the bill. The bill language is clear in that all
proceeds with the exception of municipal taxes are
eligible for the 15 percent retained commissions and
these changes also provide the 15 percent retained
commission rather than the sliding scale from zero to
15 percent. We believe that the business partners are
providing a valuable service that supplements DMV
capabilities without increasing DMV's operating costs.
We also believe that as a matter of fairness DMV
business partners should be compensated for the
service that they provide for the state. It boils down
to sharing the revenue with the partners that generate
the revenue. Business partners have become a way of
delivering DMV services and the partners need to share
in the revenue for the work that is being done to
enable the partners to grow their business and improve
service to our fellow citizens. We urge the committee
to look favorably on Senate Bill 127.
3:38:41 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked what the current service
fee was. Mr. Thompson replied that transaction fees
involving a title were $15 and fees for other items were
$12.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that the
cost exceeded the cost of a title. Mr. Thompson replied in
the affirmative. Representative Guttenberg remarked that
the Alaska Trucking Association had conducted 11,000 of the
transactions.
Mr. Thompson replied that the association collected the
registration fees and the local taxes according to the
schedule provided by DMV. The association remitted the
money to the DMV on the following business day to the DMV.
He reiterated that the association's service fees were
between $12 and $15.
Representative Thompson asked how many locations the
business operated. Mr. Thompson answered that the
association operated one location in Anchorage.
Representative Thompson asked for verification that the
business was not losing money. Mr. Thompson replied that
the business was not losing money given that it owned its
facility. He relayed that the association made a small
amount on the services annually, but it was hoping for
increased revenues to add additional staff and expand
business hours.
Representative Thompson asked if there was a maximum fee
the business could charge above state costs. Mr. Thompson
replied in the negative.
Representative Wilson asked if any of the savings would be
passed on to the people of Alaska. Mr. Thompson replied
that fees would not be increased.
Representative Wilson asked how much additional money the
association would receive if the bill passed. Mr. Thompson
replied that in 2013 the association had turned over
slightly over $1 million to DMV; 15 percent of the total
equaled approximately $150,000.
3:42:49 PM
STEVEN ALLWINE, ALASKA AUTO DEALERS ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU,
spoke in support of the legislation. He communicated that
for over a decade a number of auto dealers in Alaska
provided licensing for customer's vehicles. The association
had taken on the responsibility to ease the load for DMV.
He detailed that the association had taken on the
responsibility because the titling had not been getting
done promptly. He furthered that a number of dealers in
Alaska provided the service free-of-charge. The dealers had
absorbed the associated costs (e.g. paper, credit card
fees, computers, and other). He was no longer willing to
provide the service without a fee because of its
cumbersome, expensive, and complicated nature. He stressed
that making a mistake on DMV related services had negative
consequences. He pointed to items such as mileage and VIN
numbers and explained that the work was an exact science;
therefore, it was necessary to have employees who were
qualified and proficient at the work. He added that in
larger stores the work required a full-time position. He
explained that the dealerships had never charged customers
for the service beyond the license fee; the cost was
absorbed as a cost of doing business. He relayed that the
bill would provide some income to offset a portion of the
expense. He would consider hiring an employee to provide
the service within his store if the bill passed. He
believed the tool could be wonderful for DMV if it was used
in locations with high demand for services. He discussed
that DMV services in Washington State were either provided
online or by a non-governmental agency. He reiterated his
support for the legislation.
3:46:26 PM
Representative Gara asked for verification that the service
to customers was voluntary. Mr. Allwine answered in the
affirmative.
Representative Gara surmised that dealerships were able to
pass on any absorbed costs to consumers. He referred to an
Alaska dealer price markup. He asked for verification that
the big three American auto manufacturers charged all
dealers the price for a vehicle regardless of the state.
Mr. Allwine replied that auto manufacturers charged all car
dealers the same price. He relayed that there were some
slight differences in destination charges for import
models. He stressed that the freight charge for a Chrysler
was the same anywhere in the United States (including
Alaska). He communicated that a dealer could choose to
charge more for a vehicle; however, he and many other
association members did not conduct business that way.
3:48:10 PM
Representative Guttenberg used the purchase of a new car as
an example and asked why providing a vehicle registration
required anything beyond the standard use of a warranty
clerk and financing officer. He observed that accuracy was
critical for basic services associated with the purchase of
a car.
Mr. Allwine answered that the fields were unrelated. He
explained that the finance officer was essentially a
banker, responsible for handling all of the financial
paperwork after an automotive transaction was completed. He
detailed that the finance officer was primarily responsible
for the completion of all legal documents (e.g. financing
contracts, trade-in documents, payoffs, or other). A
warranty clerk had nothing to do with the sale of a new
vehicle. The clerk was involved with the processing of
warranty repairs and for bringing in payment (like an
insurance clerk in a doctor's office). The business finance
officer provided the initial paperwork for DMV. He did not
participate in DMV's program; therefore, the paperwork was
delivered to DMV every three days. The titling of the
vehicle was specialized and was done by DMV.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the finance and
warranty employees handled difficult work where accuracy
was required. He had used a vendor to renew his vehicle
registration and had been amazed at the quick turnaround
time. He did not believe the difficulty or technical aspect
of the work was problematic.
Mr. Allwine noted that Representative Guttenberg was
referring to the renewal a currently owned vehicle. He
agreed that the transaction was relatively simple and did
not include a transfer of ownership, verification of VIN
numbers, or other. He was specifically discussing paperwork
related to new vehicles including the VIN, proper titling,
and other items. For used out-of-state vehicles the
dealership had to do extensive paperwork to create an in-
state title. Additionally, paperwork became more
complicated when a transaction involved two lien holders.
He provided other examples of various paperwork required in
different transactions.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that he had three
dealerships in his family. He shared that he received all
of the paperwork when he made a transaction.
3:52:28 PM
Representative Munoz wondered if the dealership could
charge a $10 fee for providing DMV related services in
person (similar to the $10 fee charged for in person DMV
services). Mr. Allwine replied in the negative.
Representative Munoz wondered if the 15 percent would cover
employee costs. Mr. Allwine believed the number was
reasonable and fair.
Vice-Chair Neuman referred to language in the bill that
would require a new business to wait one year before
entering into a vendor agreement with the department [DMV].
He wondered if the provision created an unfair business
practice.
Mr. Allwine did not believe so. He commented on the
importance of discretion and ensuring a business had a
positive track record. He thought that at least one year
was a good idea.
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked on the State of Alaska offering
an advantage to one company over another. Mr. Allwine
opined that discretion was required. He did not believe it
was a question of fairness. He noted that too often
businesses "set up shop and leave." He believed caution was
not necessarily a bad thing.
Representative Thompson expressed confusion on the issue.
He had been in two business locations where registration
renewals were the sole service. The one-year requirement
shut out others from entering into the business. He
compared it to telling a business they could have a license
to sell cars, but limiting them to selling only Fords. He
stressed that the provision restricted a person from going
into business. He believed it constituted an unfair
business practice.
Mr. Allwine deferred the question to the bill sponsor. He
felt that the issue was outside his purview.
3:56:42 PM
AMY ERICKSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, shared that the DMV had been
in partnerships with businesses since early 2000. The DMV
provided all supplies businesses needed to conduct
registrations, title transactions, license plates, tabs,
forms, motorcycle manuals, and placards free of charge.
Additionally, the DMV trained business partners on how to
conduct transactions and provided free access to its
database. She communicated that while the business partners
accounted for 26 percent of DMV's revenues, DMV still
touched each transaction conducted by the partners.
Information gathered by the partners was sent to DMV each
night for reconciliation to ensure all documentation and
auditing was done and that transactions were completed
accurately.
Representative Thompson wondered if there was a set fee
that a vendor could charge above the cost of a renewal or
title change. Ms. Erickson replied that the DMV did not
regulate any fees charged by partners. She added that auto
dealerships could charge a fee, but did not currently do
so.
Representative Thompson asked for verification that a
dealership could charge a fee. Ms. Erickson answered in the
affirmative.
Representative Thompson was troubled by the bill's
requirement that a business could not enter into an
agreement with the department until they had been in
business for a minimum of one year. He noted that vendors
were required to receive training from DMV prior to
offering the services. He thought the requirement was
unfair and would shut out any new vendors from entering the
business.
Ms. Erickson could not speak to the sponsor's intent
related to the bill provision.
Representative Costello asked if the department or division
had a position on the bill. Ms. Erickson replied in the
negative.
Co-Chair Austerman asked if the division agreed with the
$1.9 million fiscal note. Ms. Erickson agreed that paying
15 percent to business partners would mean [a reduction in
revenue to the division] in the amount listed on the fiscal
note.
Co-Chair Austerman wondered how valuable the service
provided by vendors was to the division. Ms. Erickson
replied that she could not quantify the service with a
number, but it was a great service to customers and kept
the lines at DMV locations shorter.
Representative Munoz asked about the annual surplus
generated by the division. Ms. Erickson answered that the
division collected approximately $70 million in revenue;
its own budget was approximately $17 million.
Representative Munoz asked if the excess revenues were
deposited into the general fund. Ms. Erickson replied in
the affirmative. Representative Munoz surmised that a
reduction of $2 million would not impact DMV. Ms. Erickson
hoped that the loss would not impact DMV. She noted that
the funds were deposited into the state general fund.
Representative Wilson asked if the DMV could choose to
discontinue partnership with vendors to prevent the loss of
revenue. Ms. Erickson replied in the affirmative. The DMV
could choose to end a contract within 30 days.
Representative Wilson asked if DMV was forcing vendors to
do the work. Ms. Erickson answered that dealerships had
opted into the program to provide a service to customers.
She detailed that many dealerships did not participate. The
division had a specific dealer unit in Anchorage that
processed paperwork dropped off by vendors.
Representative Wilson asked if dealerships could charge a
fee to customers.
4:03:21 PM
Ms. Erickson replied that there was nothing preventing
dealerships from charging a fee.
Senator Giessel addressed the bill's one-year requirement
for business partners. She stated that there were 11
private business partners and 37 auto dealers providing the
services. Many of the companies provided more than one DMV
service. She agreed that DMV trained business partner
employees funded by the business partners. She stressed
that the primary emphasis of the bill was fairness. She
stated that the companies were conducting over 25 percent
of DMV's work and were receiving no compensation. She
believed it was another form of tax. The bill's purpose was
to support the private sector and the convenience provided
to the state's citizens.
Co-Chair Austerman CLOSED public testimony.
SB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 169(FIN)
"An Act establishing in the Department of Health and
Social Services a statewide immunization program and
the State Vaccine Assessment Council; creating a
vaccine assessment account; requiring a vaccine
assessment from assessable entities and other program
participants for statewide immunization purchases;
repealing the temporary child and adult immunization
program; and providing for an effective date."
4:05:48 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, SPONSOR, addressed the legislation.
She spoke as a proponent of the private sector. She stated
that the bill represented a public/private solution for
expensive and preventable health issues seen in Alaska. She
shared that a few years earlier, federal funds had been
provided for a universal vaccine program that had existed
for 40 years. She relayed that a former Alaskan U.S.
Senator [Senator Ted Stevens] had made sure health issues
were addressed the state. The state had received $4.3
million annually until 2010 to cover vaccines; however, the
number had fallen to approximately $700,000. She had
sponsored legislation two years ago using state money to
restore the funding. She explained that the bill's activity
was set to last three years. She noted that other states
were finding a public/private partnership solution to
funding universal vaccines. The three-year period provided
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) time to
formulate a solution. She stated that the current bill was
the solution. The bill would adopt a vaccine council (pages
2 and 3 of the legislation) and outlined that the council
would be comprised of State of Alaska insurers, private
providers, a tribal entity, and other healthcare
participants. Participation in the program would be
optional; it would provide insurers with the option to pool
funding with the state to purchase vaccines at the lowest
possible price. She noted that the state had the ability to
purchase vaccines at the lowest price through the Centers
for Disease Control as well as state buying pools.
Senator Giessel explained that the bill she had sponsored
in the past only provided a limited number of vaccines. She
expounded that uninsured healthcare providers had to buy
small quantities of the vaccine themselves because of the
short-term shelf life. She emphasized that money was wasted
when vaccines expired. Many clinics had opted to
discontinue providing vaccines because of the expense and
risk of expiration. The large purchasing option had been
used under Senator Steven's funding for many years. She
detailed that vaccines were stored in a depot and were
distributed to healthcare providers across the state based
on the providers' request. She noted that the providers had
an idea how many vaccines their clinic would need;
therefore, they did not run the risk of vaccines expiring
or being incorrectly stored. The plan would allow insurers
to buy in to the program; insurers would be assessed based
on the number of insured individuals and what the expected
vaccine need would be. Insurers would likely pay the
assessment upfront and the state would purchase the
vaccine. She explained that there were many ways the
process could work, which would be determined in the first
year after the bill passage. She furthered that DHSS would
work with the council to formulate the plan going forward.
She emphasized that the council was not a board or
commission; it would operate under DHSS at no additional
cost.
Senator Giessel continued that the program would use
volunteers and would not have travel or per diem expenses.
She pointed to a bubble chart titled "SB 169 Statewide
Immunization Program" in members' packets (copy on file).
The legislation had received letters of support from over
30 healthcare providers, clinics, and senior centers
statewide. She stressed that seniors were interested in
various vaccines including shingles, pneumonia, influenza,
diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the interest was evident
based on the number of health fairs and immunization
clinics held in senior centers.
Senator Giessel agreed. She referred to a letter in
members' packets from a New Hampshire pediatrician serving
on the state's vaccine association; the association had
documented $45 million in savings over the past 11 years.
She noted that nine other states had similar programs. She
reiterated that seniors would also have access to the
vaccines. She noted that the bill had undergone amendments
in the House Health and Social Services Committee.
JANE CONWAY, STAFF, SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, spoke to the
changes made in the House Health and Social Services
Committee (bill version B). The following language was
added on page 2, line 3:
(1) establish a procedure to phase in the program over
a three-year period that provides for participation by
an assessable entity;
Ms. Conway pointed to page 2, line 28 where the language
"or the chief medical officer's designee" was added to the
council membership. Page 2, line 29 required that one of
the two licensed healthcare providers on the council would
be a pediatrician. Page 3, line 31 added the legislature as
a recipient of the council's annual financial report. Page
4, lines 13 through 14 added the language "after being
phased into the program under procedures approved by the
commissioner." Page 5, lines 4 and 5 added the following
language:
(e) An assessable entity may opt out of the program
during the three-year phase-in period under procedures
approved by the commissioner.
Ms. Conway elaborated that the model was used to allow
providers to choose whether to opt into the program. She
detailed that a timeframe would be designated similar to
the open enrollment system used for state healthcare
benefits.
4:15:05 PM
Ms. Conway continued to discuss changes in the legislation.
Page 5, lines 9 through 12 added the following provisions:
(b) An assessable entity may not deny a claim for
coverage by a health care provider of vaccines not
distributed under the program.
(c) A health care provider may not bill a payor for or
resell a vaccine distributed under the program.
She elaborated that a provider not in the program may not
deny a claim. She explained that healthcare providers would
be required to ensure that the program vaccines were kept
separately from others.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the mandate related to vaccine
coverage was new. Ms. Conway replied that it had always
been the case that state vaccines could not be given to
another person or resold.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that he was interested in the
coverage mandate. Senator Giessel replied that some
insurance policies had provided coverage for vaccines and
had been doing so for some time. The provision prevented
double assessment. She explained that if an entity had paid
for the vaccines upfront through the state purchasing
program, they would not be billed by the provider a second
time for giving the vaccine.
Ms. Conway moved to page 7, lines 2 through 5; the section
would repeal statutes pertaining to the adult vaccination
program on January 1, 2021. The provision necessitated an
act by the legislature (prior to 2021) to continue the
adult portion of the immunization program set out under the
legislation. Page 7, line 6 repealed Chapter 24, the
current temporary program; the funds would be deposited to
begin the vaccine assessment account. Page 7, line 13
changed the bill's effective date to January 1, 2015. She
added that throughout the bill the term "recommended
vaccine" had been changed to "included vaccine" in
reference to the list of vaccine selections the council
would compile.
Representative Munoz asked the sponsor to address any
resistance to including adults in the vaccine program.
Senator Giessel answered that she had been surprised that
the Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association had come out
in opposition to the bill. She pointed to its initial
opposition to including adults in the program and its
subsequent opposition to the bill in its entirety. She
deferred the question to the association for further
detail. She was concerned that many of the diseases
affecting children such as pertussis were carried by
adults. She detailed that pertussis manifested in adults as
a severe cough, but could be deadly for children. She
pointed to multiple cases in Ohio the prior year when
newborns had died after contracting the illness from
adults. She stressed the importance of making vaccines
available to adults in addition to children. She added that
seniors were supportive of the bill and were glad the
shingles vaccine would be available to them. She believed
including seniors in the program was critically important.
Representative Munoz wondered what the legislation would
take away. She was interested in the cost benefit of the
program, its impacts, and why there was opposition to the
bill.
Senator Giessel answered that currently there were many
healthcare providers who were no longer offering vaccines
due to the financial expense. She elaborated that vaccines
bought in small quantities for small clinics were
prohibitively expensive; vaccines typically expired in six
months and had to be discarded if they were not used in
time. She explained that for over 30 years the state had
purchased a large vaccine quantity and had kept the stock
moving to prevent expiration issues. Currently various
providers had some children who qualified for the federally
funded Vaccines for Children program; approximately 50
percent of the state's children qualified. She elaborated
that the program vaccines were kept separately from
vaccines for insured children; vaccinations for insured
children could not be traded out for recipients of the
Vaccines for Children. Many clinics were not currently
offering vaccines due to the complex administrative
function and potential loss in revenue that occurred when
vaccines expired.
Representative Wilson referenced a bubble chart ["SB 169
Statewide Immunization Program" pyramid chart]. She asked
for verification that the mandate only applied to private
payors under the bill; it would be up to the other entities
to decide whether they wanted to participate.
4:23:00 PM
Senator Giessel replied that participation for private
payors and small clinics would be voluntary. She pointed to
the "SB 169 Statewide Immunization Program" pyramid chart
(copy on file). She recommended hearing from the
department's program manager Jill Lewis for details.
Representative Wilson asked whether Tricare, Medicare, and
Medicaid would be forced to participate in the program. She
thought private payors equated to private insurance. She
wanted to ensure that the program included more than
private insurance.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
4:24:45 PM
JAMES MATTEUCCI, MERCK SHARP AND DOHME, PHARMACEUTICAL
RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE
BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION, testified in
opposition to the bill. The organizations were committed to
growing the vaccine market and ensuring that vaccines were
widely distributed and used. He stated that vaccines
provided an enormous value to healthcare in terms of
quality of a patient's experience in lessening the burden
of disease and in lowering overall healthcare costs. He
stressed that the organizations were not discrediting or
undermining the value of an adult vaccine market. He
complimented Senator Giessel for taking up the issue
several years earlier when the federal Vaccine for Children
program funding was significantly reduced. The
organizations were specifically opposed to the creation of
an adult vaccine program using an assessment on to a
private plan. The organizations believed that the proposed
program was precedent setting; other states had attempted
unsuccessfully to implement a similar program. He detailed
that the states using a format of an adult vaccine program
using private dollars had been intermittent and
unsuccessful overall.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected and relayed that SB 64 would
not be heard during that day.
Mr. Matteucci focused on problems the bill solved, problems
it created, and problems it ignored. He stated that the
bill did not solve a problem. He communicated that the
federal Affordable Care Act required private plans
participating in the market to provide a full vaccine
benefit for enrollees. He explained that SB 169 was for
private plans and benefitting people with private
insurance. He stressed that the benefit already existed and
that with or without the bill the patient's experience
would be unchanged.
Mr. Matteucci looked at problems created by the
legislation. The organizations believed the bill threatened
the adult market for vaccines. The market was growing and
an increasing number of diseases were being successfully
treated by more vaccines from companies such as Merck,
GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, and other; the companies
had dedicated enormous amounts of research and resources to
bringing the vaccines to market and commercializing. He
stated that under the legislation the state took over the
negotiating authority of a plan such as Premera with
another private company (e.g. Merck) for the benefit of the
plan. He explained that the plan's premium retained would
be increased because the state would be negotiating on its
behalf. The organizations believed that the precedent
established under the bill would negatively impact the
adult vaccine market nationwide. He believed that the
bill's underlying funding structure was in question. He
detailed that the assessment or tax on private plans was
clear; the plans would participate based on market share
and utilization. However, the bill also relied on the
participation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) third-party plans, Medicaid, and Medicare; it was
not possible to proactively assess monies for these plans
for the purpose of providing care at a future time. He
stated that if the past was prologue the ERISA plans would
not participate; Tricare in the states of Washington and
Idaho had elected not to participate in similar programs.
In Idaho the state had been responsible for picking up
unanticipated costs of approximately $600,000 annually to
pay for the backfill of non-participating ERISA plans. He
discussed that Medicaid was a federal program that
reimbursed for services delivered; it was not possible to
proactively assess Medicaid for a healthcare service to be
delivered in the future unless it was petitioned for a plan
amendment to the Medicaid plan.
Mr. Matteucci emphasized that while universal coverage of
vaccines was a goal at Merck, universal purchase programs
had not been demonstrated to be a silver bullet. The CDC
had done a recent study showing that three of the top ten
utilization states were universal purchase states; however,
there were universal purchase states in the bottom ten as
well. He agreed that promoting vaccines, conducting
educational outreach, and incentivizing patients or
providers to properly vaccinate themselves was the way to
go; however, universal purchase states as a mechanism were
not rate increasers.
Mr. Matteucci addressed the problem ignored by the bill. He
stated that the bill ignored the uninsured population; the
population needing help the most. The bill had the intent
to get to the uninsured through the regulatory process, but
the bill contained nothing that benefited the uninsured. He
noted that the number would dwindle over time as the
Affordable Care Act was rolled out, but the uninsured would
either be too wealthy for Medicaid or would lack a private
insurance through a partner or other. He detailed that the
uninsured individuals may lose work if they get sick and
miss work; the economic impact to families could be
staggering. He summarized that the bill did not solve a
problem in the adult market; the problem had been solved by
the Affordable Care Act. He stressed that the bill
significantly threatened the adult private market in Alaska
by positioning the state as a negotiator for one private
entity against another for the benefit of one private
entity. He stated that the patient experience would remain
unchanged regardless of the bill. Finally, the uninsured
were ignored by the legislation. The organizations
recommended the removal of the adult portion of the bill.
He pointed to the vagary of the phased in program and the
potentially negative implications. Merck was committed to
working with the sponsor and department to find a solution
over the course of the next year that specifically
identified and addressed the adult uninsured portion of the
population. The solution could be an appropriation from the
state or another mechanism.
4:35:14 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that Mr.
Matteucci's primary objection was to the idea of the state
exerting its buying power by pooling its needs. He thanked
Senator Giessel for bringing the bill forward. He had asked
the commissioner in the past about what the state was doing
to increase its bargaining power by enlarging the pools of
healthcare industry components. He observed that the
pharmaceutical manufacturers always had the ability to
choose not to sell a drug at a certain price. He stated
that a larger pool would drive the cost down, which would
be a direct benefit to the state and programs.
Mr. Matteucci replied that his argument was not related to
pooling. He elaborated that pooling took place on a variety
of levels; the state currently pooled pharmaceutical
benefits under Medicaid with other states. He contended
that the action under the bill was different; the bill was
for people in the private marketplace who receive a private
benefit from a private plan. He detailed that it was not
the traditional concept of a state pooling its resources;
it was the exercise of the state interceding between two
private entities negotiating price and volume in the
private marketplace for the benefit of one of the private
parties.
Representative Guttenberg believed the purpose was the
same, but that the organizations objected to the structure
of the proposal. He addressed testimony that a patient
would not see any cost differences as a result of the bill.
He opined that part of the problem was that there was no
transparency on the cost of vaccines when they were covered
by insurance. He remarked that people would be unhappy to
learn about price differentials between various healthcare
facilities. He discussed that the bill was in line with the
state's goal to get a handle on healthcare costs. Part of
the solution was to make healthcare recipients more aware
of the costs of services. He believed plan administrators
also saw the issue as a problem.
Mr. Matteucci answered that transparency was a key issue
included in the Affordable Care Act and in a number of
bills nationwide. He asserted that the bill would not
necessarily make any costs transparent to patients; it was
simply negotiating on behalf of a particular health plan
against another commercial enterprise. The balance of the
discount would likely be retained in the premium for the
health plan; there was no mechanism that passed on the
savings to patients. The bill benefitted the plan itself
because a greater portion of the premium value would be
retained given the state's negotiated vendor discount.
Representative Munoz asked whether providers currently
purchased vaccines directly from the pharmaceutical
associations. She wondered whether under the bill the state
would purchase the vaccines and would act as the
distributor.
Mr. Matteucci answered that he was not an expert on the
distribution channels. He explained that individual
providers had several sources of vaccines for Medicare,
Medicaid, Tricare, and private plans; the providers reached
individual agreements with private plans. He addressed cost
and relayed that the companies he worked for would
negotiate agreements with each plan in each state; the
agreements would be different because it was a private
marketplace. Cost was based on sales volume and expected
return on investment. He added that in the private market
it was unusual to have the state step in and negotiate on
behalf of a plan alongside his companies. The companies
recommended that the state pursue a separate program for
uninsured adults that would not be captured under Medicaid
or the Affordable Care Act. He would follow up on how
vaccines were obtained.
4:42:29 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked for Mr. Matteucci's contact
information. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the information
would be provided.
JANA SHOCKMAN, PRESIDENT, ALASKA NURSES ASSOCIATION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
legislation. She spoke to the bill's inclusion of
immunizations for adults. She relayed that every year
adults ended up in hospital critical care units as a result
of illnesses such as flu and pneumonia; both would be
covered under the bill's vaccination program. The majority
of the patients were young and previously healthy; however,
they had not received vaccinations. She stressed that the
illnesses could be life threatening and could have life
altering consequences. She emphasized the importance of
making the vaccinations easily accessible at a reasonable
cost to providers. She stated that the bill provided a
means for the state to protect its residents with
affordable vaccines. She urged the committee's support for
the legislation.
4:45:11 PM
PATRICIA SENNER, ALASKA NURSES ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the legislation. She
discussed the vaccine supply chain. She communicated that
Alaska had many small providers which meant that it was
necessary to pool together to purchase vaccines at the
cheapest rate possible. She had run a small clinic and
pointed to the considerable difference in vaccine prices
between the clinic and the hospital. As a private provider,
she paid upfront for vaccines and was reimbursed once
vaccines were given. She stressed that it put an enormous
burden on private providers, particularly family practice
doctors and pediatricians. She addressed the importance of
providing vaccines to young adults. She explained that the
flu was likely to be much more severe for pregnant women.
She spoke to the goal of vaccinating young women and
families to prevent the spread of whooping cough to
infants. She relayed that it made a difference to patients
how the vaccines were made available. She detailed that if
a private provider could not pay to bring the vaccines into
their clinic, they could not provide their patients with
vaccines on normal visits; requiring patients to go
elsewhere for vaccines increased the probability that they
would not follow through. She urged the committee to pass
the bill.
4:48:18 PM
WILLIAM STREUR, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, spoke in support of the legislation. He
stated that the bill would help the state in the long run
and would help to reduce costs. He noted that the bill was
not a magic bullet, but it would improve access and
quality. He understood that challenges would exist,
including how to work the adult population in. He believed
the three-year phase-in would provide an opportunity to
address any kinks such as determining funding partners,
covered population, and covered vaccines. He believed the
bill presented an opportunity to address increasing
healthcare costs and to look at the state's vulnerable
population that had no other coverage.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked how the legislation would not cost
the state money. He had been told that the bill would not
result in costs to the state; he wondered if that factored
in savings in medical costs that would occur if more
individuals received vaccinations.
Commissioner Streur replied that part of the savings would
be related to downstream healthcare cost reductions. The
initial savings would be in the cost of the vaccine and the
state's ability to pool resources to purchase vaccines.
Vice-Chair Neuman pointed to the $28 million fiscal note
and wondered how the bill cost nothing.
Commissioner Streur replied that the bill was an assessment
to insurance carriers (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Premera
Blue Cross, and other). The goal was to bring on as many
people as possible at a lower vaccine cost, to provide an
incentive to reduce provider costs within the system, and
ideally to return the investment to the purchaser.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if the assessment was a fee that
would be charged to insurance carriers. Commissioner Streur
replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that there was currently $700,000
in general funds in the department's base budget. He
wondered what would happen if the legislative finance
subcommittee chose to reduce the department's budget.
Commissioner Streur answered that was experienced with
budget reductions.
4:52:12 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
CSSB 169(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 287
"An Act approving and ratifying the sale of royalty
oil by the State of Alaska to Tesoro Corporation and
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC; and
providing for an effective date."
4:52:56 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that HB 287 had reported out of
committee during the morning meeting, but had been held
until the fiscal note had been received.
Representative Costello spoke to the fiscal notes including
one new indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of
Natural Resources and one new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Revenue.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted a significant cost potential for the
tax credits. He believed the fiscal notes were accurate,
but not reflective of the future cost. He noted that the
fiscal notes would accompany the bill.
[Note: CSHB 287(FIN) was reported out of committee during
the 4/14/2014 8:30 a.m. meeting. The bill was held to
discuss one new forthcoming indeterminate fiscal note from
the Department of Natural Resources and one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.
For additional information see 4/14/2014 8:30 a.m.
minutes.]
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to workers' compensation fees for
medical treatment and services; relating to workers'
compensation regulations; and providing for an
effective date."
4:55:50 PM
AT EASE
4:57:27 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed intent to introduce and hold the
amendments.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file):
Insert "(4) The fee schedules of (A) - (C) of this
subsection shall not be used for any procedure or
service without modification unless those fees are
adequate as written to meet the service charge of
providers in an area so that patient access to quality
medical care is not compromised."
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara pointed to a concern that the workers'
compensation rate would be the Medicare or Medicaid rate.
He understood that it was not the sponsor's intention;
therefore, Amendment 1 clarified that the workers'
compensation rate would not be the Medicare or Medicaid
rates unless they were adequate to ensure patient access to
quality medical care. He stated that the sponsor's
intention was that there would be a multiplier at some
point in time.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Gara to withdraw the
amendment to be reoffered and heard at a later time.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that the amendment would be
taken up at a later time and the sponsor would have a
chance to comment.
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (28-
LS1362\P.l Wallace, 4/8/14) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "board and adopted by reference"
Insert "medical services review committee [BOARD] and
adopted by the board
[REFERENCE]"
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "(1)"
Delete "board"
Insert "medical services review committee"
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "board"
Insert "medical services review committee"
Page 2, line 23, following "adopted":
Insert "by the board"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete ";"
Insert "."
Page 2, lines 24 - 29:
Delete all material.
Page 3, following line 23:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(p) The medical services review committee shall
formulate a conversion factor and submit the
conversion factor to the commissioner of labor and
workforce development. If the commissioner does not
approve the conversion factor, the medical services
review committee shall revise the conversion factor
and submit the revised conversion factor to the
commissioner for approval."
Page 4, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 23.30.395 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(42) "medical services review committee" means the
committee established under AS 23.30.0950)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 16:
Delete "AS 23.30.097(j) - (o)"
Insert "AS 23.30.097(j) - (p)"
Page 4, line 18:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 5"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson relayed that the amendment came at
the sponsor's request. He explained that in the bill
version P [CSHB 316 (L&C)] the conversion factors were set
by the workers' compensation board with the recommendation
of the medical services review board. Under the amendment
the medical services review committee would directly set
the conversion factor for the new fee schedule, which would
then be submitted to the commissioner of the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD). He detailed that
the workers' compensation board was comprised of 18 people.
He stated that it was simpler to use the board that was
already responsible for oversight of the workers'
compensation system, regulation review, and serving on the
hearing panels. The medical services review committee was
made up of 9 people including members of the state medical
association, chiropractic society, nursing home
association, and a healthcare provider.
ANNA LATHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, confirmed
the sponsor's support of Amendment 2. She stated that the
amendment would clean up the current bill so that the
medical services review committee would directly set the
conversion factor instead of an 18 person board tasked with
other duties. The amendment would allow the DLWD
commissioner to approve or deny the conversion factor set
by the medical services review committee before the board
adopted it into regulation. The intent was to have a person
at the commissioner level approving the conversion factor
to ensure that it was set at a fair and reasonable price.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked what would happen to the fee
schedule when a new commissioner was appointed. Ms. Latham
replied that the conversion factors would continue to be
set by the medical services review committee on an annual
basis. The commissioner would approve the rates annually.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about sending a patient outside of
the state for services. Ms. Latham referred to other
legislation sponsored by Representative Olson that would
require that any workers' compensation treatment out-of-
state would be billed at the jurisdiction in which the
patient was treated.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that it was a different bill. Ms.
Latham replied that currently when a person was treated
out-of-state for workers' compensation claims they could be
billed at Alaska's rates.
Representative Holmes asked about the intent related to
Amendment 2. She wanted more information about the members
on the medical services review committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that no action would be taken on
the amendments during the current meeting.
HB 316 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 64(FIN)
"An Act relating to theft and property offenses;
relating to the definition of 'prior convictions' for
certain theft offenses; establishing the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission and providing an
expiration date; relating to the crime of custodial
interference; relating to the duties of the Alaska
Judicial Council; relating to jail-time credit for
offenders in court-ordered treatment programs;
relating to conditions of release, probation, and
parole; relating to duties of the commissioner of
corrections and board of parole; establishing a fund
for reducing recidivism in the Department of Health
and Social Services; requiring the commissioner of
health and social services to establish programs for
persons on conditions of release or probation that
require testing for controlled substances and
alcoholic beverages; requiring the board of parole to
establish programs for persons on parole that require
testing for controlled substances and alcoholic
beverages; relating to the duties of the Department of
Health and Social Services; and providing for an
effective date."
CSSB 64(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 129(FIN)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers; relating to real
estate appraisers; and providing for an effective
date."
CSSB 129(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 178(FIN)
"An Act relating to the passenger and recreational
vehicle rental taxes; and providing for an effective
date."
CSSB 178(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed future meeting schedules.
ADJOURNMENT
5:04:29 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.