Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/02/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB268 | |
| HB221 | |
| HB400 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 221 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 2, 2018
3:00 p.m.
3:00:01 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Claire Gross, Staff, Representative Gara; Representative
Harriet Drummond, Sponsor; George Ascott, Staff,
Representative Harriet Drummond; Representative Jonathan
Kreiss-Tomkins, Sponsor; Cathy Schlingheyde, Staff,
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins; Stephanie Butler,
Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education and Early Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Doug Walrath, Director, Northwestern Alaska Career and
Technical Center, Nome; David Tyler, Division of Fire and
Line Safety, Department of Public Safety, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 221 WORKFORCE & ED RELATED STATISTICS PROGRAM
HB 221 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 268 OPIOID PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 400 FEES FOR FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES
HB 400 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published indeterminate fiscal note: FN1(DPS).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day.
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to the prescription of opioids;
relating to the Department of Health and Social
Services; relating to the practice of dentistry;
relating to the practice of medicine; relating to the
practice of podiatry; relating to the practice of
osteopathy; relating to the practice of nursing; and
relating to the practice of optometry."
3:01:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
CLAIRE GROSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GARA, introduced
herself.
Representative Gara explained that the difference between
the proposed Committee substitute (CS) and the original
bill was the transfer of requirements that were consistent
with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for
informing patients about the dangers of opioid addiction
and reasonable drug alternatives. The change moved from the
legislature prescribing rules to allowing the board to
adopt their own regulations that were consistent with CDC
guidelines. The bill proposed to provide nine months for
the boards to adopt regulations.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SSHB 268, Work Draft 30-LS1081\E (Radford,
3/30/18).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Gara began the PowerPoint presentation: "HB
268 - Opioid Prescription Warnings." He referenced HB 159
[legislation pertaining to the prescription of opioids
passed in 2017], a bill sponsored by the governor. The
legislature since had learned about the addictive nature of
opioids, that 80 percent of those using heroin started on a
pain-killing drug, and that the longer a person used an
opioid the more likely one was to become addicted. He
relayed that the death rate from prescribed opioid overdose
in Alaska was about twice the national level. There was
still a gap between prescribers either being informed or
informing their patients of the dangers of opioids. He
shared that a number of states were adopting similar bills.
3:05:00 PM
Representative Gara moved to slide 2: "The Nationwide
Opioid Epidemic." Representative Gara continued discussing
the bill. He detailed that roughly 91 people died per day
from opioid overdoses.
Representative Gara scrolled to slide 3: "The Alaskan
Opioid Epidemic." He reported that heroin-associated deaths
in Alaska were 50 percent higher than the national average,
and there was a link between opioid addiction and heroin
use.
Representative Gara moved to slide 4: "Extended Opioid Use
Raises Risk of Addiction." The chart on the slide showed
that the longer a person was on an opioid prescription, the
more likely they would become addicted.
Representative Gara advanced to slide 5: "Link Between
Opioid Abuse and Heroin Addiction." He specified that
roughly 80 percent of those using heroine started out
misusing prescription opioids such as hydrocodone.
Representative Gara turned to slide 6: "HB 268":
Is a patient information bill which seeks to provide
new regulations for prescribing:
Dentists
Doctors
Podiatrists
Osteopaths
Nurses
Optometrists
Representative Gara reported that the bill was a patient
information bill. He considered that if patients were
informed about the dangers and addictive qualities of
opioids, it would be possible to find less dangerous
alternative treatments.
Representative Gara discussed the language from the bill on
slide 7: "HB 268 con't":
Requires the state Board of Dental examiners, the
State Medical Board, the Board of Nursing, and the
Board of Examiners in Optometry to adopt
regulations....
Representative Gara advanced to slide 8: "HB 268
Regulations":
Requiring prescribers to:
"Advise patients, using oral and written information,
before prescribing an opioid, of the potential dangers
of opioid addiction, and alternatives to the opioid
prescription the provider considers reasonable"
Representative Gara qualified that the bill would not
interfere with the provider-patient relationship. The
intent was to make the bill as simple as possible so that
it was useful for providers. The bill aimed to give boards
leeway to make exceptions to the requirement. The
requirement would generally apply to outpatients, and
providers could exempt classes of patients. He discussed
prescriptions of opioids for cancer patients and suggested
some thought that cancer patients did not need the same
information on the dangers of opioids. He thought a board
might determine that it was not sensible to have to provide
information in certain circumstances such as for Hospice
care patients. He discussed extenuating circumstances and
asserted that boards should have leeway.
Representative Gara discussed slide 9: "HB 268
Regulations":
The boards may:
"Determine which classes of patients may be reasonably
exempted from the information requirement and may
allow an exemption from the requirement for violations
the board considers to be unintentional, periodic
accidental violations, and for good cause, including
when a licensee needs to attend to the perceived
immediate health care of another patient."
Representative Gara scrolled to slide 10: "HB 268 DHSS":
HB 268 also requires that the Department of Health and
Social Services
"Post on the department's Internet website, and
provide access to a printable version of, a written
statement, which may include graphics, that provides
easily understandable information on opioids,
including the potentially addictive and harmful
qualities of opioids."
This written statement will assist prescribers in
complying with the patient information regulations
adopted by the state boards under this bill
3:09:30 PM
Representative Gara reviewed slide 11: "Making HB 268
Effective Without Hurting Doctor-Patient Relationship":
No civil liability for violating bill requirements
Prescribers given broad leeway to make honest mistakes
Representative Gara expressed that he did not want there to
be interference in the doctor-patient relationship by the
threat of lawsuits. He reiterated that the intent was to
give boards the ability to allow practitioners the leeway
to make honest mistakes.
Representative Gara explained how the idea for the
legislation was brought to his attention on slide 12: "CDC
Checklist for Prescribing Opioids: Bill Implements CDC
Opioid Crisis Voluntary Recommendations":
Bill Implements CDC Opioid Crisis Voluntary
Recommendations
The CDC recommends that prescribers discuss the risks,
benefits, and alternatives to opioid medication with
their patients when they prescribe ... and much more.
Representative Gara thought that many providers were
providing the opioid information, but many were not.
Representative Gara showed slide 13: "CDC Checklist for
Prescribing Opioids: Checklist for prescribing opioids for
chronic pain." He noted that the CDC guidelines were much
more comprehensive than what was proposed in the bill; and
boards could adopt more if desired.
Representative Gara reported on slide 14: "Why Inform
Patients?" He read the bubbles from the slide:
We know of no other medication routinely used for a
nonfatal condition that kills patients so frequently?"
Only about 5 percent of patients being prescribed
opioid painkillers are receiving them for chronic
pain. But that small group accounts for nearly three-
quarters of opioid prescriptions. 1
More than 70 percent of patients who die of opioid-
related overdoses became addicted while being treated
for chronic pain. 1
The CDC found that "many patients lack information
about opioids and identified concerns that some
clinicians miss opportunities to effectively
communicate about safety."
1.The Washington Post, CDC Warns Doctors About
the Dangers of Prescribing Opioid Painkillers,
(March 15 2016)
2.Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC Guideline
for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain United
States, 2016. MMWR RecommRep 2016;65(No. RR-1):1
49. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1
Representative Gara lamented that expanded opioid
information was not being communicated to patients in a
uniform way. The bill proposed to require providers to get
training to understand the dangers of opioids and
addiction.
Representative Gara looked at slide 15: "CDC Guidelines":
This first national guidance on the subject is
nonbinding, and doctors cannot be punished for failing
to comply.
...the head of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, which issued the guidelines, said the
effort was critical to bringing about "a culture shift
for patients and doctors."
"Starting a patient on opiates is a momentous
decision, and it should only be done if the patient
and doctor have a full understanding of the
substantial risks involved."
--CDC Director Tom Frieden
Source: The Washington Post, CDC Warns Doctors About
the Dangers of Prescribing Opioid Painkillers, (March
15 2016)
Representative Gara stated that while there was not
conclusive proof, it was known that not all doctors were
providing the opioid information, and therefore the CDC had
issued the guidelines.
3:13:13 PM
Representative Gara advanced to slide 16: "Recognition that
Prescribers Don't Always Inform Patients about the Dangers
of Opioids." He read a portion of the slide:
This problem of overprescribing opioidsand, according
to other research, failing to warn patients about the
risks of dependence and overdoseisn't unique to
emergency doctors. Physicians in other specialties,
like internal medicine and primary care, prescribe
even more opioids, Barnett says. "The whole medical
community has a responsibility for this."
--TIME Health, How Doctors Are Fueling the Opioid
Epidemic (Feb 17, 2017)
Representative Gara relayed that other states had followed
the same approach as proposed in the bill. It was found
that emergency room doctors understood the need for greater
information as they witnessed the ill effects of opioids.
He referenced similar legislation in the states of Michigan
and Maine. He felt that the medical community was still
catching up to the body of information about opioids.
Representative Gara wanted to go through the presentation
quickly, and to provide additional information. There had
been progress with the bill. The Dental Society (a
prescribing authority) had testified as to the necessity of
the bill. Optometrists had a board and had not communicated
a position on the bill. Nurse practitioners had a board. A
board covering doctors and osteopaths had initially
objected to the bill and had referenced informed consent
from patients for any treatment from a physician. Most
recently the board for physicians had advised it was
considering regulations to comply with CDC guidelines. The
regulations of doctors would not govern dentists,
optometrists, and advanced nurse practitioners; who would
be governed by the bill. He considered that when the
physicians and osteopaths came onboard it would solve over
90 percent of the problem.
Representative Gara thought the bill was a matter of life
and death. He stated that the bill had addressed the opioid
issue in as non-intrusive a way as possible for medical
practitioners by giving them help and leeway to formulate
exceptions to the rules. He made himself available for
questions.
Co-Chair Foster relayed the available testifiers on the
bill.
3:17:34 PM
Co-Chair Seaton referred to slide 4 and asked about the
probability of using opioids for one year versus three
years. He wondered if it meant that only half as many were
continuing to use.
Representative Gara responded that the 1-year probability
was maintaining and overusing opioids for one year. The
number of people that used for 3 years was smaller. A
number of people that used for one year did not continue
for three years. The information was provided by the CDC
and was in the governor's packet from 2016.
Representative Wilson asked whether each board had a chance
to look at the bill and determine the outcomes.
Representative Gara responded that the Medical Board had
originally opposed the bill but was now coming onboard with
the legislation. He had no other information from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) that other boards had adopted the regulations.
Representative Wilson asked if the boards had the chance to
discuss the legislation. She wondered if the bill had been
on any of their agendas, so it could be a full discussion.
Representative Gara responded that he had communicated with
boards through DCCED and had only heard a response from the
Medical Board. He stated there were some practitioners that
were supportive, and some that were not. For those who were
already providing the information would not be impacted. He
thought boards should be aware of the bill, which was pre-
filed. The current version of the bill was more relaxed in
terms of adoption of regulations.
3:21:30 PM
Representative Wilson asked how the bill would be policed.
She looked at page 3 of the "E" draft of the bill and
wondered how classes of patients would be reasonably
exempted. She asked about the term "good cause."
Representative Gara responded that "good cause" was a
commonly understood term, and a board could come up with
additional exemptions that it determined reasonable. He
used hospice patients and certain cancer patients as
reasonable examples of exemptions that would be under the
purview of boards. He reiterated the desire to leave boards
with leeway to make exceptions and interfere with the
patient-provider relationship as little as possible. He
stated that the term "reasonable" was also well defined in
law.
Representative Wilson asked about quantifying the
percentage of providers that did not provide expanded
opioid information.
Representative Gara argued that any providers not sharing
the information were too many. The CDC had decided that
enough providers were not providing information that it
necessitated the adoption of national guidelines, and a
number of states had addressed the issue as well. He
relayed that the head of the CDC had been very clear that
the evidence showed providers were not routinely giving out
the information.
Representative Wilson asked if the invited testifiers were
available.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that none of the invited
testifiers were not online.
Representative Gara argued that the bill was a policy call.
He continued that a number of practitioners had contacted
his office with support as well as opposition. He was
willing to listen to other medical board input and stated
that the Medical Board had already impacted the bill. He
was not interested in a response that included not wanting
to be regulated. He emphasized the need to mitigate the
deaths from opioid abuse and addiction.
3:26:41 PM
Representative Wilson agreed that the bill was a policy
call. However, she thought an invitation to testify should
be extended for boards. She questioned how to make a policy
call without input from medical boards.
Co-Chair Foster conveyed the names of others available to
testify on the bill.
Representative Gara responded that he had sat down with the
deputy director at DCCED that worked with boards. He had
authored letters requesting boards to comment and hoped for
a response by the time the bill moved to the other body. He
hoped the bill would not get held in committee. He believed
that having proactive legislation such as HB 268, would
result in boards examining the CDC guidelines and deciding
to make them mandatory.
Representative Wilson did not want to hold the bill in
committee. She wanted to understand what boards currently
required. She did not want to duplicate efforts that were
already in place.
3:29:17 PM
Co-Chair Seaton referred to slide 11 of the presentation.
He asked about the provision of no civil liability for
violation of bill requirements and wondered if it applied
to providers or boards.
Representative Gara informed that the former bill was a
requirement enforced in statute. The current bill simply
asked boards to adopt regulations, and the boards would
decide on punishment and the adoption of rules. There was
no civil liability attached to the bill.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to make sure that the terms would
not prevent the boards from having sanctions on providers.
He discussed statistics associated with Medicare Part B
prescriptions. There were large areas of the state where
9.5 percent of all prescriptions for seniors were for
opioids; which was more than twice the national average. He
was very concerned that the problem was much greater than
was known. He agreed with the bill. He thought it was much
better for boards to be more involved in the process.
3:33:19 PM
Representative Guttenberg had no doubt that therapeutic and
behavioral health providers recognized that there was a
huge opioid epidemic. He did not believe that the medical
community thought it was their problem. He asked where the
doctors considered the problem came from, when a
significant part of the problem came from prescribing and
over-prescribing. He asked if doctors understood their role
in the matter.
Representative Gara thought many doctors and prescribers
had a good idea of the problem. However, he thought it was
true for every profession that some people did stronger
work than others. He was impressed with an emergency room
physician from Mat-Su that understood the problem and had
recommended passing a bill with a sunset. He chose to leave
the regulation to the boards instead. He referenced the
opioid addiction training required by HB 159, which had a
deadline in the following two months.
3:37:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg was concerned with the fact that
the boards had not come up with a policy to address the
problem.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Seaton was confused regarding the effective dates
of the bill. He referred to page 7 of the bill. He read
from Section 7 and Section 8. He asked if there was some
contradiction in the language. He wondered if the dates for
implementing regulation was a long enough time period. He
thought it was important to raise the question earlier
rather than later.
Representative Gara stated he would provide greater detail
at the next hearing of the bill. He offered that the
department could put the information up on a website for
doctors to access. He wanted the bill to provide boards the
time to give public notice and perhaps retract and redo
regulations. The regulations would not have to be in place
until February 1, 2019.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that amendments were due on
Wednesday, April 4th at 5:00pm.
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 221
"An Act relating to the duties of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education; relating to a
statewide workforce and education-related statistics
program; relating to information obtained by the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development; and
providing for an effective date."
3:41:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, SPONSOR, introduced
herself. She read from a prepared statement:
Thank you, Finance Committee Co-Chairs, members of the
House Finance Committee
For the record, my name is Harriet Drummond, Chair of
the House Education Committee, and with me are my
aide, George Ascott, and Stephanie Butler, Executive
Director of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education.
I am honored to sponsor HB 221 as part of ongoing
efforts in the legislature to take a detailed look at
ways to improve how we as a state spend money on
education and job training in Alaska.
HB 221 will help the Legislature to best allocate and
utilize increasingly scarce resources available for
education and workforce training by clarifying the
authority of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education (ACPE) to receive and analyze existing data
from state entities through a statewide workforce and
education related statistics program.
HB 221 also changes the law to permit the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development to share
Unemployment Insurance data for the purposes of the
statistics program, as permitted in federal
regulation, and contingent upon a written agreement
with ACPE.
HB 221 is not at all about tracking or collecting data
on individuals. It is about statistical outcomes. It
is about taking a bird's eye view of spending results
based on analyzing and aggregating data we already
have to create outcomes statistics.
HB 221 will help policy makers in the following ways:
It provides a more secure method to transport
data between agencies
It lowers costs to access and analyze information
It combines multiple processes into a highly
secure, automated, and cost-effective process
It provides greater access to longitudinal
information
It reduces the time and cost required to perform
program outcomes reporting
Alaska spends more than $2 billion annually on
education and workforce training, but we do not know
which programs produce trained Alaskans who are more
like to remain in Alaska and contribute to our
economy.
What is the return we receive on these huge
investments?
HB 221 will allow for more meaningful assessment of
program outcomes across K-12, postsecondary programs,
and into the workforce.
And it has no additional cost to the state.
I would note that we will have invited testimony from
Stephanie Butler, Executive Director of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education, who will
provide more detailed technical information about HB
221.
At this time, if it pleases the committee, my aide,
George Ascott will provide a brief sectional analysis
of the bill.
3:44:46 PM
GEORGE ASCOTT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND,
introduced himself and read the sectional Analysis:
Hello and good afternoon Chairs Seaton and Foster,
members of the House Finance Committee.
For the record, my name is George Ascott, staff to
Representative Harriet Drummond. I am here to provide
a brief sectional analysis to describe what actual
changes will occur to state law under HB 221.
If you take a look at the bill you will notice it has
five sections.
Section 1:
The first section of the bill is mostly existing
statute and goes to the beginning of the third page.
Under existing law, the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education is allowed to adopt
regulations to administer financial aid programs,
institutional authorization functions, and
interstate compacts - which includes the
collection and confidentiality of data.
HB 221 creates additional authority for the
Commission to adopt regulations. These are:
Regulations relating to the collection and
analysis of K-12 data, as approved by the
Department of Education and Early Development,
under its current authority to collect that
information (Page 2, Line 2)
AND regulations for a new purpose: Administering
a statewide workforce and education related
statistics program (Page 3, Line 4)
Section 2: (All new statutory language)
Beginning Page 3, line 6 - is all new statutory
language. Currently the law allows the Commission to
collect data and share it with the governor, the
legislature and other state and federal agencies, but
they don't have clear authority to maintain and
analyze the data.
Section 2 of HB 221 changes the law by adding three
new subsections so that:
(b) The commission can maintain a database for
the purposes of administering a statewide
workforce and education related statistics
program and enter into cooperative agreements
regarding education and employment, with other
agencies
(c) The Commission is required to remove
personally identifiable information before it is
entered into the database, and it may not provide
personally identifiable information to the
Federal Government
(d) A "unit record" is defined as information
pertaining to an individual
Section 3: (All new statutory language)
Currently the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development is not allowed to share data regarding
unemployment insurance with other agencies.
Beginning on page 3 line 22, Section 3 changes the law
to permit the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development to share such data for the purposes of the
statewide workforce and education related statistics
program, as permitted in federal regulation, and
contingent upon a written agreement with ACPE
Section 4:
Beginning on page four, line five. This makes it clear
that the department of Labor and workforce development
can share data obtained before the effective date of
HB 221.
Section 5:
The section is just an immediate effective date.
With that, I will turn the microphone over to
Stephanie Butler, Executive Director of ACPE. Thank
you, Representatives Seaton and Foster, members of the
committee.
3:48:12 PM
STEPHANIE BUTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, read a prepared statement:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Ascott.
For the record, this is Stephanie Butler, Executive
Director at ACPE. With me in the audience is Kerry
Thomas, Operations Director at ACPE.
Some very brief background information: ACPE is
charged with providing Alaska's citizens with tools
and resources to access and experience success in
college and career training. Some of the ways we
accomplish that are by managing the Alaska Performance
Scholarship and Alaska Education Grant programs (APS
and AEG), offering low-cost student loans, among other
activities.
But are these the most effective ways to increase
access and success? In this time of severely
constrained resources, are we using the state's
increasingly limited resources in ways that produce
the best return for our students and for the Alaska
public to whom we are responsible?
What is the return on investment in programs like the
APS and the AEG?
The things that we can currently easily measure, like
the number of program participants or even the numbers
of program completers, cannot answer that return on
the public investment question. To answer that ROI
question, we need to know the long-term outcomes
across different public sectors, such as:
Alaska spends approximately $5 million annually on the
Alaska Education Grant program. Do recipients graduate
at higher rates than non-recipients? Does it help
recipients enter the workforce sooner than similarly
situated non-recipients? Do they earn more?
Or earlier in this session we had questions about
whether loan forgiveness was successful, given the
costs of that forgiveness. If we had a cross-sector
outcomes database back then, we could know: Did
students who took forgivable loans complete their
degrees and return to Alaska at rates higher than
other students? And did they work in Alaska? Did they
stay in Alaska at higher rates than others?
In other words, are we spending public money in smart
ways that make the most difference for students, and
for the Alaska economy? The University and DEED
indicate they want to answer similar questions about
their programs.
The challenge to answering questions like this is not
that we don't have the data: we do have it. The
challenge is that the data is currently housed in
separate transactional databases. Each time we have a
question like this, about long-term outcomes, agencies
have to put together a data-sharing MOU, extract the
relevant data from our various systems, match it and
link it up, and then get the answers to the questions.
And in accordance with federal law, once we have those
answers to our questions, we have to destroy the
linked data to protect individual privacy, which means
if we have a follow-up question, the process has to
start again. This process can be inefficient and
expensive, and it can result in the need to duplicate
identifiable citizen data.
HB 221 streamlines this process by allowing the
Department of Labor to share unit-level employment and
wage records with the Outcomes database, which is
maintained by ACPE. This database securely houses de-
identified linked statistics from ACPE, from UA, from
DEED, and from Labor, but right now only training and
GED data form Labor. With HB 221, it would also house
the employment and wage record statistics. Once data
is linked, personally identifiable information (PII)
is stripped off, and that PII is never stored with the
resulting statistics.
What this Outcomes database offers us is a faster,
more cost-efficient way to do longitudinal outcomes
assessments, and a key part of doing this is
minimizing the proliferation of personally
identifiable data. Also, it allows us to retain the
de-identified linked statistics, so we can respond to
follow-up questions or efficiently perform future
analyses.
As previously noted, Alaska currently spends more than
$2 billion dollars annually on our K-12,
postsecondary, and technical/workforce training, but
we don't currently have a database that can fully
provide efficient, cost-effective and secure
statistics to the Legislature and the Administration
on the value received from these public investments.
HB 221 enhances Alaska's ability to provide that
feedback in several ways:
It allows the Department of Labor to provide
unit-level employment and wage data to the
Outcomes database for longitudinal analysis,
something 28 other states already do,
It prohibits sharing of any unit-level data from
the Outcomes database with the federal
government,
It codifies in law that data in the database must
be de-identified and sets out what that means,
and
It clarifies ACPE's authority to maintain
longitudinal statistics of this nature.
HB 221 does not commit any funding for these purposes;
it just allows for the inclusion of these additional
statistics in the Outcomes longitudinal database,
which was created a few years ago under a federal
grant.
Specific to funding, you will note that this bill has
a zero fiscal note. The Outcomes database was created
to accept the workforce data, so there is no new cost
there.
Longer term, it is our intent to seek resources,
potentially through another federal grant, to provide
outcomes reports once these additional statistics are
available in the Outcomes database. In this time of
such severely constrained resources, we believe there
is significant opportunity to attract grant dollars to
this project, recognizing that tough budget times make
it even more important than ever that policy-makers be
able to access the cross-sector statistics needed to
be able to evaluate program outcomes.
I would also like to be clear for the record that we
do not anticipate that we would be able to produce
these reports and outcomes analyses immediately upon
passage of HB 221 since we would need funding to use
the data and do those analyses; however, HB 221 does
get us a step closer a very important step closer,
and a step without additional cost to being able to
provide you with those kinds of outcomes analyses, as
we seek grant or other funds.
In summary, the long-term goal is to have the ability
to quickly and easily and inexpensively produce
reports like the APS outcomes report to look at the
outcomes of other programs, K-12 programs as well as
collegiate and career training programs and provide
you with the information to know not just how much the
program costs, but what the return is on that cost
investment.
Thank you for this opportunity to present this
information. I hope it has been useful to you, and I
would be happy to respond to any questions.
3:55:13 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked about additional testifiers.
Ms. Butler responded that she would engage additional
testifiers if there were technical questions from the
members.
Vice-Chair Gara liked the bill. He had a couple of
concerns. He wanted to make sure the data was not misused.
He relayed that folks from broken homes tended to get
financial aid or needs-based loans and suggested that
first-generation college students were not as successful as
those students whose parents had gone to college. He was
concerned that the statistics would be used in a way where
it was determined that students with less resources
wouldn't get help after not doing as well as those from
traditionally college-bound homes.
Ms. Butler responded stated that the statistical process
compared "apples to apples," and compared high needs
students with other high-needs students in the program.
Vice-Chair Gara appreciated Ms. Butler's answer. He
provided a hypothetical scenario, and considered the lower
wages for those pursuing careers in writing or art. He
wondered about the intrinsic value in education that was
not related to money and wages. He reiterated that he
wanted to make sure the data was not misused.
Ms. Butler anticipated the comparison of groups at fairly
high levels, looking at college graduates compared to other
college graduates. She pondered that the more granular the
data was at the college major level; the better the data
would show greater earning power of certain majors. She
stated it would be difficult to not consider the question
of one's college major being a personal choice.
Representative Thompson had talked with several people in
labor and carpentry jobs from his district over the
previous weekend. He was curious about the numbers of
people in the state that graduated from colleges versus
technical schools and apprenticeship programs. He noted the
wage differences for various pathways. He wondered how to
encourage more kids to go to vocational programs. He stated
that the carpenters union was looking for young people to
join its apprenticeship program.
Ms. Butler thought the proposed database could aid in
answering Representative Thompson's question. She
referenced a counselor that wanted wage statistics from
different occupations, but there was no such information
specific for Alaskans. She spoke of using the database to
provide to counselors and teachers with additional tools.
4:00:31 PM
Representative Wilson stated she had been on the ACPE board
and asked about the Answers Program that had been funded
with $4 million in 2012.
Ms. Butler responded that there was a 2012 grant used to
create the Answers Program, but there had not been
additional funding, so the program did not take off. She
relayed that the proposed database had been created under
the program.
Representative Wilson asked how the proposed database would
be different than the Answers Program.
Ms. Butler stated that the Answers Program had bee a much
broader scoped proposal that would have included research
and analysis, as well as online databases with dashboards
and informational products for parents. The bill proposed a
much smaller scope database.
Representative Wilson thought the proposal was talking
about adults that might be receiving unemployment. She
wondered about permission to use the data, and if there was
an opt-out provision.
Ms. Butler answered there was not currently an opt-out box
on any paperwork. She elaborated that a provision to opt-
out would require identification of individuals, and the
primary premise of the database was that the information
was de-identified.
Representative Wilson suggested that if there was an opt-
out box, the data would not be present in the first place.
Ms. Butler replied in the affirmative. She added that
individuals would need to be identified in order to be
opted out of the database.
Representative Wilson noted that there was a zero fiscal
note. She asked about potential funding for utilization of
the proposed database.
Ms. Butler did not have exact figures but relayed that the
department had been encouraged to apply for federal grants.
Representative Wilson asked for approximate numbers. She
noted the state had spent $4 million on a program that had
been discontinued due to a lack of funding. She asked if
there was a target amount for funding the program.
Ms. Butler would follow up with the information.
Representative Kawasaki asked about what information would
be received from the Unemployment Insurance Division in the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD).
4:04:00 PM
Ms. Butler responded that information on wage records
(through the unemployment database) would be gathered in
order to identify the amount being earned in various
categories.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification the only
additional information from DLWD would be wage and hour
information.
Ms. Butler responded in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki asked for the reason the department
needed the information up front. He wanted to reduce the
number of places the personal information was seen.
Ms. Butler answered that the proposed database would reduce
the number of times the information needed to be passed
around. For research related to workforce outcomes,
currently the information had to be extracted from various
systems and matched. One goal would be a long-term database
free from personally identifiable information. She noted
that there were a number of reports that could be produced
in future years if the bill passed - at a lower cost and
without having to link personally identifiable information.
Representative Guttenberg shared that he was a retired
laborer. He was always amazed that people who could not do
math problems were able to do complex practical field work.
He spoke about merging databases. He asked how much data
was mergeable. He thought merging databases was problematic
if everyone was not aligned and could create a huge cost.
He asked for greater detail.
Ms. Butler answered that the commission would only link
select elements that would be relevant to measuring
outcomes from each data systems. She stated that all the
work to make the databases communicate had been done by the
grant mentioned by Representative Wilson. A grant used in
the future would be to do the research and analysis to use
the data to develop the statistics to provide outcomes
information.
4:08:08 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered why the state had not
been doing the analysis before.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
DOUG WALRATH, DIRECTOR, NORTHWESTERN ALASKA CAREER AND
TECHNICAL CENTER, NOME (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation. He discussed data reporting
that neglected to account for the impact of teaching
students engaged and in school. He detailed that 75 percent
to 80 percent of his organization's high school training
population were students enrolled in grades 9, 10, and 11.
Employment measures that were taken months after the
training could present a skewed view of success as the data
was missing one-third of the subjects. He reported that
rural Alaska graduation rates tended to track lower. He
considered that the bill was a tool for measurement
purposes tracking employment. He thought the database could
provide tracking from exploration-level training leading to
certificated courses leading directly to employment. The
bill protected identifiable student information and would
be valuable.
Representative Wilson asked if the program kept statistics
of students in the Northwestern Alaska Career and Technical
Center.
Mr. Walrath answered that the center kept records for
purposes of programming. The program had a small staff and
it was difficult to follow up on all former trainees. The
bill would provide a tool to extend beyond the capability
of the center.
Representative Wilson thanked Mr. Walrath for his work.
4:12:54 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson asked what information unions used to
follow students.
Ms. Butler answered that generally unions engaged in
tracking but did not know what specific elements were
considered.
Representative Wilson would appreciate the information. She
referenced statistics from DLWD. She wondered about the
data unions gathered to show success of apprenticeships.
She asked about other issues unions might have finding
students to do apprenticeships.
Co-Chair Seaton appreciated the bill and the Alaska
Performance Scholarship report in the packets (copy on
file). He thought the information could be helpful in
identifying effective programs. He referenced page 3 of the
bill and asked about the removal of personal information
from the database. He wanted to know if the bill was
proposing to look at key elements. He asked about the
meaning of "unit data."
Ms. Butler responded that "unit data" simply meant data
that referred to a specific individual.
Co-Chair Seaton tried to understand how unit data would be
organized.
4:16:31 PM
Ms. Butler explained that as the unit data was received,
the personally identifiable information would be stripped
off, and the remaining statistics that would be used would
be assigned a random number and moved into a separate
database. She confirmed that an individual's personally
identifiable information would never be stored in the same
database as the statistics being used for outcomes
reporting.
Representative Guttenberg reiterated what he thought Ms.
Butler was saying. He wondered about the assignment of an
identifiable number. He wondered how new data would be
identified to merge with existing data.
Ms. Butler indicated that Representative Guttenberg had the
right idea. She indicated that there was staff available to
provide additional detail.
Representative Guttenberg was fine.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to report HB 221 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She would be offering an
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that amendments were due
Wednesday, April 2nd by 5:00 PM.
Vice-Chair Gara WITHDREW his motion.
Co-Chair Foster thanked the bill sponsor.
HB 221 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act relating to the collection of fees by the
Department of Public Safety for fire and explosion
prevention and safety services."
4:20:17 PM
Co-Chair Foster informed that if it was the will of the
members, it would pass HB 200 out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, introduced
himself.
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-
TOMKINS, introduced herself.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins indicated the bill was one
page and was simple. There had been a statutory change
recommendation in a House Finance Subcommittee under the
auspices of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee. The recommendation would try to help the
Department of Public Safety streamline its operations,
operate more efficiently, and cut down on Unrestricted
General Fund (UGF) spending. The UGF would be replaced with
user fees or Designated General Funds (DGF). The state Fire
Marshal's Office had identified the opportunity, and the
subcommittee unanimously agreed the idea merited
exploration. The bill had passed the House State Affairs
committee in four hearings, after consideration of multiple
amendments that had not passed.
Representative Wilson read from page 2 of the fiscal note:
Fire Inspections - $50 per hour with a one-hour minimum. DFLS
anticipates the average inspection to take two hours. The
goal is to accomplish 1,500 inspections per year; but
currently 500 is more likely. Considering 500 two-hour
inspections per year at $50 per hour, the estimated annual
revenue would be $50,000.
Representative Wilson asked what happened to the additional
1,000 properties that would not receive an inspection. She
wondered if properties on the road system were more likely
to receive inspections.
Representative Kreiss-Tompkins deferred to the state fire
marshal.
4:23:56 PM
DAVID TYLER, DIVISION OF FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), explained
that the $50 per hour charge was arrived at after
considering potential outcomes. He discussed inspection
rates and size of properties. He acknowledged that
properties on the road system received inspection more
frequently as there was easier access. Increased funding
would allow the inspectors to reach more communities so
that inspections would be more equitable across the state.
Representative Wilson asked about properties not on the
road system that needed inspection.
Mr. Tyler responded that the properties not being inspected
and would not be charged a fee.
Representative Wilson asked him to tell her about the
places that were not currently being inspected and would be
subject to a $50 per hour fee.
Mr. Tyler replied that hotels, lodges, and large assembly
areas such as auction houses and schools would be in the
category.
4:26:34 PM
Representative Wilson supported the bill but was concerned
with justifying the charging of fees. She wondered how the
state would keep up with the demand. She thought it would
be difficult to justifying the fees.
Mr. Tyler indicated that by charging the fees the
department would be better able to reach the outlying areas
to do additional inspections and hit the goal of 1,500
structures per year.
Representative Wilson asked if $50 per hour would provide
enough money for the travel to outlying areas.
Representative Wilson did not want to charge more to the
communities in rural area. She discussed fees. She asked if
the bill was governed by square footage rather than by
hour.
Mr. Tyler thought a flat rate for square footage was a much
fairer way of billing for the service.
4:29:30 PM
Representative Thompson noted that the City of Fairbanks
had its own building department, codes, and fire department
which completed inspections. He noted that the fire
department certified building plans. He suggested that
there were private companies in Fairbanks that could
inspect fire extinguishers and fire extinguisher systems.
He asked if the state was adding another layer of charges
to cities that had existing codes and departments.
Mr. Tyler explained that the City of Fairbanks was a
deferred jurisdiction and did all the work itself; as did
the cities of Juneau and Anchorage. It was his goal for any
community (that was able) to do the inspection work itself.
He thought a local community could do a much better job of
accomplishing the work. He relayed that the private
companies that did the inspections mentioned by
Representative Thompson were certified by the division.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the ability to waive
fees for non-profits such as churches.
Mr. Tyler believed bill was worded so that it was possible
to waive the fees.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the bill would allow
the director the ability to waive the fees.
4:33:16 PM
Representative Guttenberg did not believe the state should
simply do inspections because it could charge for it. He
asked if there was a statistical analysis on prevention. He
mentioned non-conforming properties in rural Alaska.
Mr. Tyler reported that from 2001 to 2007 there had been 76
uncontained fires in public schools with a total monetary
loss in excess of $50 million. Fires in Hooper Bay and
Talkeetna schools had resulted in total losses. In FY 08,
the division had requested and received a $105,000
increment to get the fire inspections current. From 2008 to
2012, there was 47 uncontained fires in school with a total
monetary loss of $1.4 million. Since 2012 there had been
staffing issues and a reduction in travel funding. Since
2013 the total fire loss had added up to $7 million. He
emphasized that the inspections made a difference through
education and elimination of hazards.
Representative Tilton asked about the permit period for
fire systems technician permits and fire extinguisher
technician permits. She wondered if the building
inspections only required in an initial inspection or a
longer term.
Mr. Tyler responded that the division's goal was to do
inspections every 2 years. He elaborated that the industry
standard was to do inspections every year but did not think
it was realistic for Alaska.
Representative Tilton asked how many inspections were done
in the previous year.
Mr. Tyler reported that the division had done about 213
inspections the previous year, but his department had been
short by 2 deputy fire marshals. He expected to complete
close to 500 inspections in FY 18.
Representative Tilton wondered how many buildings there
were that needed inspection, not including new
construction.
Mr. Tyler estimated there was a little more than 3,000
structures the division was statutorily responsible to
inspect.
Representative Wilson asked if the regulations were new.
Mr. Tyler replied that the statute that required the
inspections was existing.
4:37:42 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Vice-Chair Gara read FN 1 from the Department of Public
Safety, OMB Component number 3051. The note was
indeterminate. It was estimated that the bill would raise
about $84,000 of DGF through fees.
Representative Wilson indicated that for her it was not
about the fees; but rather the amount of money spent after
inspections were not done, resulting in fires and damage to
schools. She hoped for further inspections to prevent
fires.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HB 400 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 400 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published
indeterminate fiscal note: FN1(DPS).
ADJOURNMENT
4:40:33 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.