Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/20/1997 03:45 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 1997
3:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Brian Porter
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act relating to competency testing requirements for secondary
students; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 146(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act repealing statutes that condition receipt of certain
occupational licenses on compliance with student loan repayment
provisions and compliance with support orders or payment schedules
related to support orders."
- FAILED TO MOVE HB 157 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to attendance at a public school on a part-time
basis."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 152
"An Act regulating hospice care."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 146
SHORT TITLE: PUPIL COMPETENCY TESTING
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/18/97 381 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/18/97 381 (H) HES
02/27/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/06/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/06/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/11/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/18/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/20/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL DENIAL OF OCC LIC FOR DEBTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/25/97 465 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/25/97 465 (H) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/13/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/18/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/20/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 158
SHORT TITLE: RIGHT TO ATTEND SCHOOL ON PART-TIME BASIS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DYSON, Austerman, Ogan, Kohring,
Vezey
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/25/97 465 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/25/97 465 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/10/97 618 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN
03/13/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/97 678 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN, KOHRING, VEZEY
03/18/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/20/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 152
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF HOSPICE CARE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RYAN
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/24/97 441 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/24/97 441 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/20/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 157
MIKE MAHER, Director
Student Financial Aid
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109
Telephone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 157
MACKENZIE SLATER, Student
430 Hermit Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3321
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 158
PETER PARTNOU, Lawyer
Anchorage school district
510 L Street, Number 500
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-8533
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 158
ED EARNHART
1043 West 74th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 349-1160
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 158
CAROL COMEAU, Representative
Anchorage School District
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 269-2290
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 158
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Number 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 158
SHARYLEE ZACHARY
P.O. Box 1531
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3681
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 158
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 152
JEAN HATFIELD, Founder
Hospice in Homer
President of the Board of Directors, Hospice in Homer
P.O. Box 4174
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-6899
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 152
SHELBY LARSEN, Administrator
Health Facilities Licensing and Certification
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
4730 Business Park Boulevard, Suite 18
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7117
Telephone: (907) 561-8081
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 152
TROY CARLOCK, Researcher
for Representative Ryan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 152
CHARLES QUARRE, President
Hospice in Central Peninsula
HC 1, BOX 3336
Sterling, Alaska 99672
Telephone: (907) 262-2115
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 152
CAROLYN SMITH, Home Health Care Coordinator
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
P.O. Box 130
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-9378
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 152
TINA KOCSIS, Director
Hospice in Tanana Valley
P.O. Box 82770
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 474-0311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 152
BARBARA RICH, Board Member
Hospice in Tanana Valley
P.O. Box 80482
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-2509
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 152
KAREN LAIRD, Board Member
Hospice in Tanana Valley
P.O. Box 80694
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 455-6496
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 152
PAULA McCARRON
Hospice of Anchorage
3305 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-5322
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 152
PATRICIA SENNER, Registered Nurse
Executive Director, Alaska Nurses Association
237 East Third Avenue, Number 3
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-0827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 152
MIKE SHIFFER, Board Member
Hospice of Anchorage
8561 Ridgeway
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 337-8029
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 152
RITCHIE SONNER, Executive Director
Hospice and Home Care of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 463-3113
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 152
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-21, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Green,
Vezey, Porter, Dyson, Kemplen and Brice. Representative Porter was
absent. This meeting was teleconferenced to Dillingham, Fairbanks,
Anchorage, Homer, Kenai and Petersburg.
HB 146 - PUPIL COMPETENCY TESTING
Number 0034
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the first item on the agenda as HB 146,
"An Act relating to competency testing requirements for secondary
students; and providing for an effective date." He referred to a
proposed committee substitute reflecting testimony given last week
by Dr. Nancy Buell. The committee substitute changes some
effective date standards. The competency test would first be given
in the ninth grade and until the student passed the test, it would
be given in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth grades. This would
allow time for remediation and a different exposure to the
material. These changes were suggested by the Department of
Education (DOE) because of possible legal challenges to the
legislation.
Number 0093
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE made a motion to adopt CSHB 146(HES),
version O-LSO515\E. There being no objections, CSHB 146(HES) was
before the committee.
Number 0160
REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1
to HB 146(HES).
Number 0165
CHAIRMAN BUNDE objected to the motion for purposes of discussion.
Number 0170
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said Amendment 1 would begin competency
testing at an earlier time in the educational process. Competency
testing would apply to secondary students as well as elementary
students. Children would be tested in the fourth, eighth and
eleventh grades. The examination used for the eleventh grade could
be considered the final competency exam. The DOE would determine
the form and content of the examinations and scores. A pupil who
fails to pass one of these examinations would receive remedial
instruction in the areas tested. This amendment would give
additional opportunity for the educational system to identify
weaknesses in the students at an earlier age and to address those
weaknesses with remedial education to affect a positive change.
Number 0330
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that there had been discussions on this
idea and there was currently nothing preventing the school district
from doing this testing. He referred to the California Achievement
Test (CAT) as an example where students are being measured at an
early age. He expressed concern about the size of the fiscal note
if we included this language in the bill. He stated that we would
basically pay schools twice to do what they should be doing now.
He continued his opposition to Amendment 1.
Number 0357
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed with the chair, even though there were
discussions that the younger students are tested the better.
Number 0386
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to testimony presented by
administrators, teachers, school board associations on this
subject. He thought Amendment 1 went a long way in addressing the
questions raised about the finality of a single exam. The
amendment recognized the need for remediation in the statute and
tracking students throughout the system, to avoid having them
slipping through the system. He felt the argument that districts
could already do this went against the concept of the legislation.
If districts could test, then why did the state have to mandate an
exit exam. He concluded that when it comes down to the last
semester of high school, the student should not be put into a
situation of having to pass a single test in order to receive a
diploma.
Number 0520
CHAIRMAN BUNDE clarified that the DOE's concept of this exam would
begin testing in the ninth grade. Students would be tested in the
ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth grades.
Number 0540
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the chair would accept Amendment 1 as
a friendly amendment if language was added specifying ninth, tenth
and twelfth grades.
Number 0563
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the elementary school component would have to
be deleted from Amendment 1. It was his intention to allow the DOE
to develop the test which would be taken, the first time, in the
ninth grade. Students who tested out in one of the areas wouldn't
take another test, those that didn't test out would then receive
some remediation and take the exam again in the tenth, the eleventh
and twelfth grades. The students have four attempts to pass the
test, it is not a one time only test.
Number 0603
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that unfortunately, the way the bill is
written, it is a one time only exam.
Number 0616
CHAIRMAN BUNDE disagreed because the competency exam, as he viewed
it, was this series of four tests.
Number 0630
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE felt this should be clarified within HB
146(HES). He suggested that Amendment 1 might not be the answer,
but that the intent should be clarified that it is a series of
tests given over the high school academic career of the student.
The legislature can have a certain level of expectation for the DOE
that they will introduce some type of program, but there is nothing
that says they need to do so in HB 146(HES). He felt that if the
bill was supposed to address the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth
grades, then it should have specific language.
Number 0694
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that if the legislature put
all of those things into the bill, were they over doctoring
something that legislators don't have expertise in doing. This
legislation establishes that there will be a competency exam given,
the school district will determine how to administer the exam and
there is this added suggestion that the exam would be administered
starting in the ninth grade. He felt that it was incumbent upon
the legislature to see that the DOE would perform these tasks. If
they don't, then you could legislate these specific functions.
This was better than to insist that the legislature put their own
recommendations in statute form. He felt the statutes were out of
the legislature's area of expertise.
Number 0770
CHAIRMAN BUNDE agreed that he wanted to leave as much flexibility
for the DOE as possible. He questioned if HB 146(HES) should
include intent language which spoke of a series of tests beginning
in the ninth grade.
Number 0781
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that the reasons why a lot of state
departments go off "willy nilly" on certain issues such as resource
issues, is that the legislature is not very clear. He was not sure
that he would want to leave a large degree of leverage for the DOE
to go off and start the process all over again. He felt the DOE
had good intentions, but he has seen too many times after the
legislators are gone where the DOE will go back, regardless of
legislative intent, and implement some other type of program.
Number 0855
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said that testing might have to change
significantly.
Number 0870
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that the content of the test is not
at issue. A much broader question is the application of the
process by which the test is required.
Number 0890
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to line 6 and suggested, "unless the pupil
passes a series of competency examinations."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed to that language.
Number 0918
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON agreed with Representative Green that the
committee began with good intentions, but is starting to micro-
manage this bill. He understood the original goal was to have a
way of asserting that Alaska high school graduates meet some
standard of excellence and provide, within the legislation, that
some flexibility for students from different social, economic, and
language barriers be allowed. He would not want the legislature to
dictate how each school and school district would do it. He had
great confidence in the education profession and it is inevitable,
if this legislation passes, that the schools are going to start
moving to structure and produce students who can pass the test.
The schools will figure out how to do it and figure out that the
school and district are going to be rated on the percentage of
students who pass. This rating will be looked at when it comes to
budgets. So schools will begin coaching their students and giving
them trial tests in third grade, ninth or eleventh grade. He did
not feel that we had to worry about getting students to pass the
test.
Number 1012
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to line 7 and suggested, "plural
examinations" and asked if this would indicate where the
legislature was going.
Number 1027
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY agreed with Representatives Green and
Dyson. The legislature is setting up a measurement, doing more
micro-managing than he would like, but he thought it had been
proven that the legislature needs to do some. The legislature is
giving the school districts flexibility as to how they get there,
there are no restrictions on them and he did not think there should
be any more than was absolutely necessary. He felt the legislative
mandate should be minimal.
Number 1040
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1. Representatives Kemplen
and Brice voted yea. Representatives Green, Vezey, Dyson and Bunde
voted nay. Representative Porter was absent for the vote.
Amendment 1 failed to be adopted.
Number 1083
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to page 1, line 8, and made a suggestion
for a conceptual amendment, "examination the Department shall
determine the form, contents of the examination and the grade
levels to be tested".
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON felt HB 146(HES) was wonderful and he
disagreed with the conceptual amendment.
Number 1135
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 to HB
146(HES).
Number 1140
CHAIRMAN BUNDE objected to the motion for purposes of discussion.
Number 1145
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said, during the testimony on this proposed
legislation, the issue of standards were repeatedly brought up. It
would be difficult to legally support the competency exam unless
there was some sort of standardized measures of performance
statewide. Otherwise someone moving from one school district to
another school district in the state would be at a disadvantage.
Amendment 2 seeks to address this concern. The matrix, presented
by DOE and titled, "Possible Implementation Table for Exit
Examination", contains a mandate to disseminate performance
standards in reading, writing and mathematics related to the exit
test in 1997 and 1998. Amendment 2 would put this language into
the HB 146(HES).
Number 1245
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if this language was needed in addition to
page 2, beginning at line 4, "the Department of Education shall
report to the legislature containing the standards used to prepare
the competency examination".
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN answered that, the way Section 2 is written,
it only calls for the production of a report. The proposed
amendment moves beyond the report to the actual implementation of
standards by the DOE.
Number 1284
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the language in Section 2 and
questioned how the amendment would improve the language, unless
Representative Kemplen felt that DOE would give a report, but not
actually do it.
Number 1313
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said the wording in Section 2, basically,
says that the DOE shall provide a report. It doesn't say that the
standards are uniform, it doesn't say that the standards apply
statewide, there is ambiguity as it is currently phrased in Section
2. The proposed amendment would clarify and outline what is to be
accomplished in a more specific fashion.
Number 1361
CHAIRMAN BUNDE understood the wish to put it in more solid
language, but he felt that the standards developed for this
statewide test would not also be implemented statewide.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2. Representatives Kemplen
and Brice voted yea. Representatives Vezey, Dyson, Green and Bunde
voted nay. Representative Porter was absent for the vote.
Amendment 2 failed to be adopted.
Number 1401
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to move Amendment 3 to HB
146(HES).
Number 1408
CHAIRMAN BUNDE objected to the motion for the purposes of
discussion.
Number 1410
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said Amendment 3 seeks to address a concern
about remediation. If an individual fails the examination they
would be given an opportunity and assistance to learn in the areas
they are deficient in. This amendment directs the institution,
providing the competency exam, to provide a method of remediation
in case of failure.
Number 1464
CHAIRMAN BUNDE felt the districts would work fervently for
remediation. As HB 146(HES) allows students to take the test up to
three years after high school, he felt the proposed amendment would
add significantly to the fiscal note.
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said Representative Kemplen was correct, but
agreed with the chair.
Number 1518
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that he felt the reason behind HB
146(HES) was to provide consistent measures to ensure that students
are learning what they are supposed to. He felt Amendment 3
allowed for consistent application. Those students who fail once
will get assistance to address their deficiencies. He said we
can't predict what all districts will do. He felt Amendment 3 was
a logical extension of the bill.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to students with test taking anxiety
and said if those students fail this test they might be thrown into
a remediation class when it is clear that they know the material.
Number 1620
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 3. Representatives Kemplen
and Brice voted yea. Representatives Green, Vezey and Bunde voted
nay. Representatives Porter and Dyson were absent for the vote.
Amendment 3 failed to be adopted.
Number 1651
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected for purposes of discussion. He
stated that social science, in his mind, included civics and asked
if civics would be included under this title.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that, in discussions with DOE, this
language addition would be challenging. He believed U.S. history
and Alaska history would connotate the civics component. Students
would certainly have to understand our democratic process if they
were to understand U.S. history. He said the DOE had a hard time
finding tests which would accomplish what the legislature wanted to
accomplish, this is the reason for excluding social science.
Number 1694
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY expressed concern about the need to know
Alaska history. He cited the difficulties in students who move
from out of state to Alaska.
Number 1714
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that it is important for students to
know about civics. He asked if it would be cumbersome to leave
social sciences in the bill with the additional requirement of U.S.
history and Alaska history.
Number 1731
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thought civics was covered in history classes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt it was a separate subject.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said civics is a study of governmental
processes.
Number 1748
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that when he took civics, they had
things that were not taught in U.S. or world history. It was
vocational, not historical.
Number 1781
CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that he had a different view.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 4. Representatives Dyson,
Kemplen, Brice, Green and Bunde voted yea. Representatives Vezey
voted nay. Representative Porter was absent for the vote.
Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 1834
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move HB 146(HES) with
individual recommendations.
Number 1840
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected in order to make an expectation that
the sponsor would look into the civics question at the next
committee of referral.
Number 1849
CHAIRMAN BUNDE felt this was a reasonable expectation.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated that the DOE did not feel there
should be a statewide test on science and social science due to the
lack of consensus on standards. He asked if it was the intent of
the drafters to address this concern of the DOE.
Number 1880
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said it is the intent of the bill sponsor to leave
science in there with the expectation that the DOE would find a
basic science test with which they will feel comfortable. He added
that the DOE would rather get involved in a lab situation which he
didn't feel was possible. There should be some basic science
information and knowledge in this competency exam.
Number 1890
A roll call vote was taken on HB 146(HES). Representatives Green,
Vezey, Dyson and Bunde voted yea. Representatives Kemplen and
Brice voted nay. Representative Porter was absent for the vote.
The committee moved HB 146(HES) from the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee with attached fiscal notes
and individual recommendations.
HB 157 - REPEAL DENIAL OF OCC LIC FOR DEBTS
Number 1926
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 157,
"An Act repealing statutes that condition receipt of certain
occupational licenses on compliance with student loan repayment
provisions and compliance with support orders or payment schedules
related to support orders." He said this is the second time the
committee has heard this bill and noted that the sponsor was here.
Number 1941
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Sponsor of HB 157, referred to the
committee substitute, CSHB 157(HES). She referred to testimony
about the individual's case which prompted this legislation and
presented new information about it. This person was given two
options; to pay the $5,900 or $539 a month. The commission would
not give him his occupational license until after he had made
several monthly payments in a row. This person paid a total of
$3,234 in a lump sum in order to get his license renewed. He owed
$30,000 total, but paid $3,234 in monthly payments to get his
license renewed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated her philosophy that a deal is a deal on
both sides of the issue. If a person has an obligation, they ought
to pay it. If they don't pay it, they need to face the
consequences. Changing the consequences after the deal has been
made is what she objected to. Even before this provision regarding
license renewal was entered into law, she believed that sufficient
amount of tools were available for the commission to collect money.
She referred to her experiences in this business and reiterated
that the ability to collect this money was there. She objected to
the fact that this was such an easy method to get someone's
attention.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that she did not know this person,
who prompted the bill, but was told of some of his extenuating
circumstances over the phone. She restated her philosophy that
only people who received their student loans after the time the law
was put into effect should be subject to license renewal.
TAPE 97-21, SIDE B
Number 0000
MIKE MAHER, Director, Student Financial Aid, Postsecondary
Education Commission, Department of Education, prefaced his
comments by saying that when people sign a promissory note the
financial aid advisors indicate that the agency or its
representatives, "may institute legal action to force repayment of
the loan." This indicates to any borrowers that the commission
would try to utilize any mechanism or tool that the legislature
would authorize them to use. A person could default on their
mortgage, their credit cards, get divorced, default on their car
and truck and then turn around and ask for a $9,500 loan and
receive it. The commission has no authority to withhold that loan,
there is no credit assessment up-front. Essentially it is an open
door policy. This up-front credit assessment is another tool which
the commission is in the process of seeking from the legislature
this year.
Number 0100
MR. MAHER mentioned that each of these borrowers has been contacted
repeatedly about their loan through automated letters and personal
contacts, it has not been easy for them to default on their loans.
He suggested that they have been contacted eight to ten times. The
commission has tried to help the borrowers work out some resolution
prior to the license renewal. There are contingency plans for a
number of emergencies; medical write-offs, a variety of deferments.
The commission tries to work with the borrowers. They understand
that there are extenuating circumstances. When all is said and
done, he felt this tool worked. The person, whose case was
mentioned, did come up with some money and is now on a repayment
schedule.
Number 0176
MR. MAHER stated that there have been 61 individuals who have
fallen into this default category, 48 of them have reached some
sort of payment arrangement with the commission. The amount
defaulted on, for the 61 individuals over the course of a 10 to 15
year repayment period, would be about $850,000. This amount of
money would be lost in their repayment stream to the loan fund over
the next 10 or 15 years, depending on the length of payment
schedule. The fiscal note showed that the commission benefited
from instituting the occupational licensing intervention program.
Roughly $63,000 was made in payments over that one year period.
Given the fact that licensing is on a two year renewal, the
commission estimated that half of the people have been impacted.
The other half would be impacted in the next year. The 61 person
figure would be doubled. The fiscal note says $126,000 would be
potentially lost yearly from the revenue stream over the next ten
or fifteen years.
Number 0261
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES did not agree that the money was lost, she
felt it was collectable with other tools available to the
commission. She referred to Chairman Bunde's previous testimony
that in the past these loans were seen as a gift. She felt this
new program was severe, particularly when the letter to this
borrower indicated the terms and gave him an opportunity to appeal,
but the only thing he was allowed to appeal was the claim that he
was in default. She expressed concern that there is no appeal.
She honestly believed that there were other ways to collect that
money if it is aggressively pursued.
Number 0366
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that if CSHB 157(HES) were to pass,
the agreements reached from three-fourths of those affected would
be nullified.
Number 0397
MR. MAHER assumed that the commission would not be in a situation
where they would refund money, but would potentially be in a
situation where the payment schedule would stop for those
individuals currently on a payment schedule.
Number 0411
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified on a 15 year note, or even on a 10
year note, the majority of outstanding debt would then be lost.
Number 0430
CHAIRMAN BUNDE closed public testimony.
Number 0437
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move CSHB 157(HES) with
individual recommendations.
Number 0448
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN objected to the motion.
A roll call vote was taken on CSHB 157(HES). Representatives
Green, Vezey and Dyson voted yea. Representatives Brice, Kemplen
and Bunde voted nay. Representative Porter was absent for the
vote. CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced that the vote was three to three
and CSHB 157(HES) did not advance.
HB 158 - RIGHT TO ATTEND SCHOOL ON PART-TIME BASIS
Number 0521
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on agenda was HB 158,"An Act
relating to attendance at a public school on a part-time basis."
He stated that there were people here to testify and referred to
additional letters of support included in the committee file as
well as a proposed amendment.
Number 0555
MACKENZIE SLATER, sixth grade student, stated she was home schooled
and enrolled in the correspondence program of the Juneau school
district. She attends the extended learning program, part time, at
Harborview Elementary School. She enjoys going to the extended
learning program because it is different from what she does at home
and lets her use the resources which otherwise wouldn't be
available to her. She felt that all children should be able to
have access to public school resources. Her parents told her that
part of their property taxes are used to run the schools.
Therefore she felt that she should be able to go part-time to a
public school whether or not she is enrolled in the Juneau school
district.
MS. SLATER stated that not only does she benefit from being able to
attend a public school part-time, but she felt she contributed to
the classes of which she was a part. She asked the committee to
support this bill so that all children in Alaska will be guaranteed
the right to access the best educational resources the state
provides.
Number 0623
PETER PARTNOU, Lawyer, Anchorage school district, testified next
via teleconference from Anchorage. He presented the most recent
ruling of the Alaska Supreme Court on this subject, Sheldon Jackson
College versus the state of Alaska. This ruling would make it seem
almost certain that HB 158 is unconstitutional. This case involved
a subsidy at the college level and clarified that the courts have
greater scrutiny for grades kindergarten through twelfth because it
is compulsory education.
MR. PARTNOU read a portion of the case, "The court knows that the
minutes of the constitutional convention show that there was an
effort to delete the provision of the constitution prohibiting
(Indisc.) to provide educational institution." This proposal was
rejected and the court noted that by rejecting the proposal, the
convention made it clear that it wished the constitution to support
and protect a strong system of public schools. The court noted
that one of the delegates stated that in order to keep a strong
public school we should not change money over to private schools.
Delegate Coghill expressed the thought that the amount of tax
dollars available to support public schools might be lessened if
public school funds were used to aid the great many private schools
in existence.
MR. PARTNOU said, specifically looking at the provision that
existed at that time, the court noted the class of people who
benefited from the tuition grant program consisted only of private
colleges and their students. He felt this would be the same
situation which would occur as a result of HB 158. Students
currently enrolled full-time in the public school system would not
benefit, they would not get to go to private schools tuition free.
The only people that would benefit would fall under those other
categories.
MR. PARTNOU added that the court went on to note that public funds,
expended under that program, constituted nothing less than the
subsidy of the education received by the students at his or her
private college. They implicated their core concern with this
direct benefit provision. The program may be motivated, as was
stated in the preface of the statute, by the desire to help retain
qualified students in Alaska. Such a laudable purpose cannot
escape the prohibition of the constitution. Ultimately the
program, which was almost indistinguishable from what this current
legislation proposes, was declared by the courts to be
unconstitutional. He stated the school district's concern about
litigation from this bill.
Number 0823
ED EARNHART testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He
stated his opposition to HB 158 for the same reasons presented by
Mr. Partnou, as well as other reasons. Our public schools are
confused enough as they accommodate every special group and
individual. He wanted to avoid the administrative confusion as
well as the violation of the intent of the state constitution. We
have enough to do with public schools without messing around with
odds and ends. Everyone who talks about this sort of thing has had
serious questions about making more complications in the public
schools.
Number 0916
CAROL COMEAU, Representative, Anchorage School District, testified
next via teleconference from Anchorage. She referred to
Representative Dyson's statement, "for students who have been
expelled from the public schools and are being home schooled in the
interim, this option will allow them to gradually make the
transition back into the public school system." She said this
statement is of serious concern to them, particularly when it comes
to student expulsion for weapons and firearms. The federal and
state law, as well as the Anchorage school board policy, requires
that a student who brings a firearm to school to be expelled for a
period of up to one year, unless the superintendent chooses to
mitigate that regulation or policy. Anchorage has been very
consistent with this policy. The statement by Representative Dyson
causes concern because they do not believe that students who have
been expelled for firearm violations should be allowed to access
the school's courses, even on a one or two course basis.
MS. COMEAU stated there is also the issue of an administrative
burden on a district the size of Anchorage when they are already
having large class sizes and a difficulty having enough sections of
the highest level courses. These are the courses, as well as labs
and technology courses, that most home and private school students,
they believed, would want to access. The district is trying to get
certain class sizes down, so that students can have more hands-on
experience. If three or four home or private school students or
there was an influx of enrollment, it would keep driving the class
size up and perhaps some of their very own students would not be
able to take those courses.
MS. COMEAU said the district likes the current regulation which
allows a district to participate and offer classes to home and
private school students, but they did not support the requirement
that the district would have to provide classes for all home and
private schools in the district.
Number 1026
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if it was the district's contention that if
someone was expelled and began home schooling, they could come into
the school through the back door and attend classes part-time even
though they have been expelled from full-time enrollment.
Number 1040
MS. COMEAU answered, in reading the information that Representative
Dyson distributed, this is a question that the district has about
the bill. The superintendent is the only person who can re-instate
a student who has been expelled. She felt HB 158 would cause some
difficulties in determining the intent based on the distributed
information.
Number 1058
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that, in discussions he had with 15
or 18 school districts around the state, they were the ones that
had told him they had used the part-time status as a transition
back, at their option, at their pleasure, for students expelled
because of inadequate deportment. All of those school districts he
talked with, except Anchorage and maybe Homer, are successfully
working with part-time students. His statement related districts
who use the part-time status to their advantage.
Number 1093
CHAIRMAN BUNDE verified that it was not Representative Dyson's
intent that a person who has been expelled and not accepted back
into the school system by that district or superintendent, would be
allowed to attend school part-time under this bill.
Number 1110
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, at the district's option, the school
could have the student back full-time, part-time or not at all.
Number 1114
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that HB 158 is specific in addressing
this issue. He did not feel there was a lot of ambiguity in
Section B(1) where it states, "A governing body is not required to
allow part-time enrollment if (1) the enrollment would be denied
even if the enrollee were a full-time student". It does allow a
little bit of flexibility for the governing body to use in bringing
students in, but does not require it. It gives clear direction
that the governing body can say no.
Number 1172
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 1195
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON objected for purposes of discussion.
Number 1204
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to page 1, line 6, after "who" the
amendment would delete "is also enrolled at a private school".
Number 1210
CHAIRMAN BUNDE clarified that it was only his intent to include
those students who are home schooled or are a correspondence
student.
Number 1236
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the intention was to allow
discrimination against those students or to get the state out of
the proposed constitutional binds.
Number 1245
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN answered it was to avoid the constitution
bind, this was a significant concern.
Number 1249
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, referred to the discussion on Sheldon
Jackson v. State of Alaska. This is the one case which illustrates
what the court means when they say direct benefit to a private
school. It is important to note that not everything the state
does, which benefits a private school, is prohibited even when it
is a direct benefit. The court used some examples. One of these
examples was where a private school catches fire. If this happens
then the fire department responds, this is a direct benefit to a
private school. It is a public service. The fact that it is a
direct benefit does not mean it is prohibited. It is benefit which
is available to everyone in that district.
MR. FORD said HB 158 is similar to the court's example in the sense
that our system of public schools are open to everyone. The fact
that you attend a private school does not mean that you lose your
status, under our constitutional provision providing public school
access to everyone. It was possible that the courts could find
this to be a direct benefit, but he thought that, if you look at
the criteria the court used, HB 158 would not violate the
constitutional provision.
Number 1317
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked for an explanation of the circumstances
and the reasoning behind the court case.
Number 1328
MR. FORD answered that this case is a good illustration of what a
direct benefit is; money going to people in the private sector. He
stated that HB 158 does not have money going to people in the
private sector. Sheldon Jackson had equalized the difference
between tuition at a private college and at a public college.
There was an argument that because it goes to the person and not to
the school, that it wasn't a direct benefit. The court disagreed
with this argument; it was a direct benefit, that the person was
just a conduit. This bill, HB 158, does not have money going to a
private student. There may be a benefit to the private school in
the sense that their programs are enhanced because they mesh with
the public programs. He thought this was the kind of indirect
benefit which is allowed under the constitution.
Number 1364
SHARYLEE ZACHARY testified next via teleconference from Petersburg.
She and her husband home school their daughters for a variety of
reasons; choice of curriculum, the class size in public schools,
and because of current situations facing children. Her tax dollars
go to help support the public school system so her family ends up
paying twice. When her family went in to use the elementary school
library, they were told that it was against policy for a home
schooler to check out books and that home schoolers were not even
allowed to sit in the library and read the public school materials.
For several years now, she has been told from other home schooling
families, that classes are not allowed to be taken at the schools
unless their children attend full-time. She mentioned that her
children are also barred from extracurricular activities, even when
they offered to pay an extra fees for them.
MS. ZACHARY contacted the school district office to request a copy
of the school board policies, regarding home schoolers, to find out
what was officially allowed and not allowed. She was told that
there are no written policies, yet the policy argument is used when
they ask to do something. She referred to an example where policy
was set aside in order to allow two boys to join the wrestling
team. The size of the community does not allow access to certain
things outside of the public schools such as chemistry labs,
foreign languages or band class. She questioned why her tax
dollars went to provide those things for other children, why her
children couldn't use them as well. Her family is doing their part
by not overloading the public school system and are trying not to
make waves.
Number 1508
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that it appeared that some public
schools were accommodating part-time students since the state
provided public education. He asked if Mr. Ford was aware of any
lawsuits brought against any of the districts for this activity.
MR. FORD was not aware of any litigation over the question of
public school districts allowing privately schooled students to
attend part-time. It was a practice that has gone on for a number
of years and is something that, under existing administrative code
regulation, is up to the school district. They do allow this in
Juneau. He thought Anchorage was the only district which didn't
allow it.
Number 1546
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked where anyone got the authority to write
a regulation that prohibits a citizen of the state from going to
public school. He did not feel we had a constitutional right to
write such a statute. He asked where they got the right to write
such an administrative code.
Number 1563
MR. FORD commented that this was an interesting legal question.
The regulation does not say that you can't go, it says that the
district may allow you to go. It doesn't actually say that
privately schooled students may not enroll part-time, it leaves it
up to the districts. He assumed that Anchorage has a policy that
says they do not allow them to attend. It surprised him that
someone in Anchorage has not challenged this regulation.
Number 1589
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN presented a scenario of a school and a small
private school which operates next door. The private school does
not have the resources for some major expense items and their
students are sent over to the larger school in order to take
advantage of the pool, the vocational lab, the physics lab and the
computer multi-media center. He asked if this public school was
providing a direct benefit to that smaller school.
Number 1657
MR. FORD did not believe, under the constitution as interpreted by
the court, that this would be a direct benefit.
Number 1674
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Partnou's interpretation.
Number 1676
MR. PARTNOU disagreed with Mr. Ford's interpretation. The Sheldon
Jackson case talks about some public money being spent which
directly benefits a private institution such as fire protection,
but what the court says, among other things, is that this direct
benefit is not something which adds to the educational function.
This is something where it doesn't matter whether it is your house
burning down, or a factory burning down or whatever, it is
available fire protection for everyone. The scenario is exactly
what the Sheldon Jackson case was talking about; allowing a private
institution to supplement its program by having those things which
it can't afford to offer or which it doesn't have a large enough
student body to offer. A private school could increase its
enrollment by being able to offer those opportunities through the
public schools. This is precisely what the supreme court
determined, in Sheldon Jackson, to be unconstitutional.
MR. PARTNOU explained that the bill creates an entanglement problem
in terms of trying to figure out why particular kids are coming to
the public school. Are they coming from the private school, from
home schools, how do you know if they have a full-time program
elsewhere and whether or not they are complying with the compulsory
education law. There are a whole rack of administrative problems
which would require the public schools to become directly and
deeply involved in the private schools to see if those things were
going on. This creates an entanglement problem and is also
unconstitutional under both state and federal law.
Number 1750
CHAIRMAN BUNDE did not feel this problem would be solved in this
committee and it would probably take more legal minds and the
courts to solve it.
Number 1769
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why the authority, to not let these
students in school, was not repealed.
Number 1781
MR. FORD felt it was the sponsor's intent to require governing
bodies to allow part-time enrollment. If we simply annulled the
regulation, then you are left with district policy which in
Anchorage would not allow this.
Number 1791
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that our constitution was very firm in
that all persons in the state of Alaska had right to access public
education.
Number 1800
CHAIRMAN BUNDE felt there was a difference between going to school
and education. You don't have to build a school for every two
students. They do have a right to home school.
Number 1808
CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that if a portion of a bill is declared
unconstitutional, that portion is deleted but the rest of the bill
is alright. He referred to paragraph (a) and asked, if by chance,
"enrolled at a private school" were found unconstitutional would
that negate that part or this whole section.
Number 1837
MR. FORD verified that Representative Green was referring is the
severability clause. This clause, if the court can sever the
unconstitutional portion of the legislation, will be omitted and
the other provisions will be left intact. In this case, he
suspected that the court could sever the private school portion.
This could be found to be unconstitutional without affecting the
correspondence or home school students.
Number 1856
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1. Representatives Dyson,
Kemplen, Brice and Bunde voted yea. Representatives Green and
Vezey voted nay. Representative Porter was absent for the vote.
Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1886
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move CSHB 158(HES) with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
Number 1912
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected to the motion. He felt the change in CSHB
158(HES) took away from the intent. He questioned changing the
bill because of constitutionality concerns and referred to Mr.
Ford's explanation of what would happen if it was found
unconstitutional. He felt this issue could be prejudiced.
Number 1941
CHAIRMAN BUNDE took the chair's prerogative and held CSHB 158(HES)
until Tuesday, March 25, 1997.
TAPE 97-22, SIDE A
HB 152 - REGULATION OF HOSPICE CARE
Number 0000
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda as HB 152, "An
Act regulating hospice care."
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN, Sponsor of HB 152, said the bill provides
for licensing of hospice care programs in Alaska, ensuring that
terminally ill persons receive comfort, support and care consistent
with hospice philosophy and concepts through a uniform level of
services. There are no federal regulations or licensing
requirements for hospice programs. As of January 1997, 40 states
are licensing or regulating hospice programs. Of the ten states
without hospice licensing, five have laws or regulations pending.
The licensing of hospice programs in Alaska will assure consumers
of consistent standards in the delivery of hospice services.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN continued, hospice is a unique component of the
health care delivery system, one that has evolved over the past 20
years in the United States. Hospice provides care and support for
people with terminal illness. The goal of hospice care is to
enable patients to live an alert, pain-free life and to manage
symptoms so that the last weeks and months of life may be spent in
dignity and peace. One out of every three people who die of cancer
or AIDS in this country is being served by a hospice program.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said the annual growth in hospice programs
averaged about 8 percent in the early 1990s. In the last five
years, growth has averaged 17 percent. Hospice services are
provided through a variety of means; independent community-based
organizations, divisions of hospitals or home-health services and
government agencies. Rapid growth of hospice programs is due to
increased demands for home care services, the trend towards
reimbursement for home-care services. Consumers need to be aware
of specific characteristics that differentiate hospice from other
health care providers. Hospice offers comfort and care, not
curative treatment. It addresses emotional, spiritual and social
needs in addition to physical needs. It considers the patient and
loved ones as the unit of care, affirms life and regards dying as
a normal process, seeking neither to hasten nor postpone death.
The care extends beyond a patient's death to include bereavement
care for grieving family members.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN added that fear of painful suffering, of
abandonment, and of losing control are primary concerns of people
experiencing terminal illness. Hospice care is designed to address
these concerns by providing support, care and needed services to
help the terminally ill live their lives in maximum comfort and
control. Passage of HB 152 will standardize hospice care and will
guarantee the Alaskan public the opportunity to access quality
hospice care.
JEAN HATFIELD, Founder, Hospice in Homer, President, Board of
Directors of Hospice in Homer, testified next via teleconference
from Homer. She requested that the licensing requirement for the
volunteer programs be deleted from the legislation. Due to limited
funding and the size of the community, there is only one part-time
director. Their concern is that services might be diminished if
requirements are placed on the program which would further stretch
the limited administrative resources. Her organization follows the
National Hospice Organization guidelines, but are concerned that if
the funding is reduced and administrative staff have to be cut,
then the volunteer administrative staff would not be able to keep
up with all the requirements. Since the major concern of hospice
is that relief be provided for the family members, her organization
wants to be sure they can provide services for those in need.
MS. HATFIELD stated that she founded her organization because of
positive personal experiences with hospice. Hospice is a wonderful
program and she would hate to see a reduction in services because
there was not enough funding or the agency couldn't meet just a few
of the guidelines that were required.
Number 0212
SHELBY LARSEN, Administrator, Health Facilities Licensing and
Certification, Division of Medical Assistance, Department of Health
and Social Services, testified next via teleconference from
Anchorage. He referred to Senator Kelly's bill and said his office
assured him that HB 152 has the same language as the senate bill.
Number 0261
TROY CARLOCK, Researcher for Representative Ryan, confirmed that
the committee substitute had the same language as the senate bill.
MR. LARSEN understood that this bill was being presented to
preserve the hospice philosophy and to ensure quality care. It is
written in a way which would meet those needs. There is no
objection to this bill from the department.
Number 0350
CHARLES QUARRE, President, Hospice in Central Peninsula, testified
next via teleconference from Kenai. His organization has been in
operation for the last ten years, has nine members and 50
volunteers who take 16 hours of training. The majority of their
clients are people who cannot afford free standing hospice. His
organization also provides a free loan closet which has beds,
wheelchairs and other things which can be needed in a hospital
room. Referrals are given from doctors, hospitals and family
members. They are a member and adhere to the guidelines of the
National Hospice Organization. Their organization is highly
esteemed in the local area and directed the committee to speak with
Representatives Davis and Hodgins to confirm this statement.
Grants have been given from the Rasmussen Foundation, UNOCAL and
ARCO, a main supporter is the United Way where they are required to
present their operations on a yearly basis.
MR. QUARRE said they have a part-time paid director, the rest of
the work is done by volunteers. His organization conforms to all
the requirements in Article 2. However it would place an
additional burden on them in terms of time and resources. The
proponents in this bill claim that they are not interested in
hindering the efforts of the volunteer organizations or volunteer
hospices and questioned why there was a law in this proposal. This
law would require additional paperwork which might take away from
efforts to take care of their clients. "We also question (Indisc.)
it may be they're not our laws or regulations a way in effect that
would preclude any, any, any, a problems with good hospices that
are in effect now." They requested that hospice providers like his
organization be deleted from this bill.
Number 0536
CAROLYN SMITH, Home Health Care Coordinator, Bristol Bay Area
Health Corporation, testified next via teleconference from
Dillingham. She spoke in favor of HB 152 because, as a community,
they are trying to put together a hospice. The guidelines listed
in the bill will help a lot in the planning process such as
creating training guidelines. Her organization is not sure whether
or not they will become a direct service provider or a volunteer
group, but she liked the guidelines that were set out.
Number 0584
TINA KOCSIS, Director, Hospice in Tanana Valley, testified next via
teleconference from Fairbanks. Her organization is a volunteer
hospice which served 16 terminally ill patients and over 700
bereavement clients last year. All of the proposed regulations in
HB 152 are already being adhered to in her organization. In
theory, hospice is in favor of this type of criteria. The problem,
that many of the board members see with HB 152, is that a small
hospice has a limited budget, they don't get any enumeration for
any services and so fund-raising and limited time is a big factor.
The board is concerned that any kind of regulation, although it
might help with quality control and protecting consumers, might
also create hardships. They would urge, at the very least, that
the licensing process be kept simple, inexpensive and would take
into consideration the volunteer status. If these things can't be
done, her organization would have serious concerns about including
volunteer hospices in this bill. Volunteer hospices and certified
hospices are quite different from each other.
Number 0709
BARBARA RICH, Board Member, Hospice in Tanana Valley, testified
next via teleconference from Fairbanks. She stated that she was
speaking for herself and not as a board member. She would like to
see HB 152 passed because she felt it was something that was
necessary. Currently her hospice program performs all the issues
that the bill addresses, in fact the requirements they have are
more strict and require more hours of training in addition to
everything else. Some members of the board were hesitant to
support HB 152 for fear that it will be expensive and hard for the
hospice to pay for the license as well as maintaining the records
for the regulation. The organization might have to hire someone
just to do this. She hoped the legislature would instruct the
Department of Health and Social Services to make the reports for
volunteer hospices simple to produce in order to alleviate this
problem.
MS. RICH feared that her hospice had clients who were very
vulnerable. Her hospice deals with clients who are ill and
families who are under a lot of stress. It is an area which can be
easily exploited. She would like to see that someone doesn't take
patients into their home and call it a hospice, which they can now.
It hasn't happened, but it certainly could.
Number 0789
KAREN LAIRD, Board Member, Hospice in Tanana Valley, testified next
via teleconference from Fairbanks. She stated her support for HB
152 for the reasons given by Ms. Rich.
PAULA McCARRON, Hospice of Anchorage, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. Until recently the hospice where
she works operated in a similar fashion to a volunteer hospice so
she shares some of the concerns expressed. She shared comments
from a network of hospices across the country which addressed the
concerns from the Commonwealth of Virginia who enacted hospice
licensure in 1989. This licensure limited the definition of
hospice so greatly that it prohibited a volunteer hospice
organization to operate in Virginia. Now Virginia is trying to go
backwards, to try and find a way to get a mechanism that
legitimizes the work which a volunteer hospice performs. She hoped
that volunteer hospices could see this bill as a protection, so
there is a standardization of services for consumers and a way for
the state of Alaska to insure that there is compassion and care for
people being sent home who do not have adequate support services in
their communities.
Number 0900
PATRICIA SENNER, Registered Nurse, Executive Director, Alaska
Nurses Association, testified next via teleconference from
Anchorage. Her organization voiced their support for this bill,
the committee substitute. They feel it is important to regulate
both those hospices who receive prior reimbursements and those that
are volunteer so there is consumer protection. Her organization is
happy with the emphasis placed in the bill and the role played by
registered nurses. She said she would fax any further comments to
the committee.
Number 0939
MIKE SHIFFER, Board Member, Hospice of Anchorage, testified next
via teleconference from Anchorage. He was one of the people who
first approached Senator Kelly about proposing this legislation.
He was in full support of HB 152 and hoped that the amendments that
have been added, as the bill works its way through the system, will
support the volunteer hospices as well.
Number 0966
RITCHIE SONNER, Executive Director, Hospice and Home Care of
Juneau, said she was in support of HB 152. Although she recognized
and understood the concerns that were voiced by the other voluntary
hospices, she did not agree with them. She felt these standards
were minimum, clean, straightforward and the very least that we can
expect of anybody that calls themselves a hospice in the state of
Alaska. This bill would protect the consumers and the people who
would wish to utilize the services.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN BUNDE
adjourned the meeting of the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee at 5:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|