Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/30/2000 03:07 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 30, 2000
3:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chairman
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Joe Green
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 373
"An Act relating to return of contributed capital, or payment of
a dividend, to the state by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 373 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act relating to reports of suspected child abuse or neglect,
and requiring that, as part of the investigation of the reports
of suspected child abuse or neglect, all official interviews with
children who are alleged to have been abused or neglected be
recorded."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 303
"An Act relating to the method of payment of fees and adoption of
regulations under AS 21; relating to orders under AS 21 regarding
risk based capital instructions; relating to accounting standards
for insurance companies; amending the definitions of 'creditable
coverage' and 'late enrollees' in AS 21.54; relating to
requirements for small employer insurers; relating to
requirements for issuance of new voting securities by an
insurance company; requiring health care insurance coverage for
reconstructive surgery following mastectomy; requiring guaranteed
renewability of and certification of coverage regarding certain
individual health insurance policies; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 303 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 301
"An Act relating to the education of exceptional children; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL POSTPONED TO 4/04/00
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 373
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT LOAN CORP PAYMENTS TO STATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/00 2207 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/16/00 2207 (H) HES, FIN
2/16/00 2207 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
2/16/00 2207 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
3/02/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/02/00 (H) Heard & Held
3/02/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
3/30/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS WITH CHILDREN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/10/00 1886 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/99
1/10/00 1886 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/10/00 1886 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
1/10/00 1886 (H) REFERRED TO HES
2/29/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/29/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/21/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/21/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/30/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 303
SHORT TITLE: MISC. INSURANCE PROVISIONS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/00 1967 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/21/00 1967 (H) L&C, HES
1/21/00 1967 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
1/21/00 1967 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
3/20/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/20/00 (H) Heard & Held
3/20/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/22/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/22/00 (H) Moved Out of Committee
3/22/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/23/00 2664 (H) L&C RPT 1DP 5NR
3/23/00 2665 (H) DP: ROKEBERG; NR: MURKOWSKI, HARRIS,
3/23/00 2665 (H) CISSNA, BRICE, HALCRO
3/23/00 2665 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 1/21/00
3/30/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Department of Education & Early Development
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 373.
SHEILA KING, Finance Officer
Division of Finance
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Department of Education & Early Development
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 373.
MARCI SCHMIDT
2040 Wasilla Fishhook Road
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 256, but noted her
disappointment that it is only a pilot project and not statewide.
CHRIS STOCKARD, Captain
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
130 Seward Street, Room 209
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
JANNA STEWART, Administrator
Central Office
Family Services
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
SARAH SHORT
5535 North Star
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 256.
LAUREL MURRAY
5535 North Star
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
ADASSA AMIN
PO Box 40855
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
HARRY NIEHAUS
Guardians for Family Rights
PO Box 55455
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
PAUL NELSON
(no address provided)
Haines, Alaska 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding HB 256.
BOB LOHR, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development
3601 C Street, Suite 124
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 303.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-38, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson,
Morgan, Kemplen and Coghill. Representatives Whitaker, Green,
Brice arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 373 - STUDENT LOAN CORP PAYMENTS TO STATE
Number 0031
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as House
Bill No. 373, "An Act relating to return of contributed capital,
or payment of a dividend, to the state by the Alaska Student Loan
Corporation; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0093
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education, Department of Education & Early
Development, came forward to testify. She explained she had sent
the committee members a letter dated March 6 which answered their
previous questions and a memo dated March 20 which responded on
the issue of garnishing Native corporation dividends for repaying
student loans. The Attorney General's office believes that the
Alaska Student Loan Corporation is unable to attach Native
corporation dividends mainly because of the Doyon decision which
prevented attachment of Native corporation dividends for child
support.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Barrans to review her responses in her
letter of March 6 for the committee.
Number 0224
MS. BARRANS referred to Representative Kemplen's question [in the
last hearing] about the use of current year net income to offset
the revenues expected from prior loans. She had indicated that
the corporation could not reduce expected income on the existing
loans by prior year income because of the bond indenture
covenants. She indicated in her letter that in the corporation's
official statement that could not be done without violating those
bonds.
MS. BARRANS indicated that the next issue was the ability to use
the funds that are being proposed to return to the state to
further reduce future interest. Due to the way in which interest
rates are calculated, recycling the small amount of capital
proposed for payment to the state would not measurably affect
that rate. It is a small amount of money in terms of the way the
interest rate is calculated. The interest rate is set based on
the cost of money on all outstanding bonds and the administrative
cost of the program. It is based on the recent history of what
is paid for the program which includes losses due to bankruptcy,
death and disability. Those costs are loaded into the formula to
determine the interest rates on new loans. The amount of money
in HB 373 would not materially affect that rate.
CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that the corporation's mission statement is
to continue reducing the interest rates to ensure affordable
education to residents.
Number 0393
MS. BARRANS responded that the corporation expects to continue to
reduce those rates. The rates have been reduced by .3 percent
for 2000-2001, and the corporation would expect to continue to
pass on future reductions of the cost of running the program and
reduce rates for borrowers.
MS. BARRANS pointed out in the balance of the response in her
letter, she gave a little bit of the context that the board's
discussion was in terms of why it wanted to do what HB 373
proposes to do. The corporation's fiscal standing has
effectively been stabilized, and its credit standing has been
upgraded from A to AA; interest rates have been reduced for the
past two years; the fund equity deficient has continued to be
reduced. The bill is the fourth step in the board's priorities
to begin to return some of the contributed capital to the state
who was the original financing source.
Number 0484
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Barrans to review what the total
payout and the time for payout would be on the fund equity
deficit.
Number 0501
MS. BARRANS referred to two charts that project the fund equity
deficit for five years into the future. Projections beyond that
have not been done. The first chart reflects the accumulated
deficit of fund equity. It starts with FY 1995 and shows the
balance of the original $306 million contributed of each fiscal
year. The fund equity dropped until FY 1997, leveled off and now
has started to grow back as net incomes are achieved on an annual
basis. In FY 1999, there was an appreciable net income of $6.4
million. The projected net income expects to show that the
accumulated net deficit will be cut in half by FY 2004 from what
it was in FY 1997. The second graph illustrates what the project
income is expected to be over the next several years.
MS. BARRANS reminded the committee these are projected numbers.
They are based on historical loss provisions that are
recalculated on an annual basis. These projections are quite
conservative. The corporation expects to experience better
numbers than these, but based on past experience, the corporation
has to take a conservative approach to estimating those numbers.
Number 0712
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the difference is between FY 1999
and FY 2000 and what is considered the purpose of the dramatic
projected decrease between FY 1999 and FY 2001 and then a steady
increase.
Number 0743
SHEILA KING, Finance Officer, Division of Finance, Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education, Department of Education &
Early Development, came forward to reply. She explained the
difference is in the interest income projections. The income
projections used in this scenario are calculated by Smith Barney
and use the latest cash flows. Smith Barney considers all the
defaults to happen in the first three years of those projections
so these numbers are much more conservative. In FY 1999 there
was actually $33 million of interest income and in FY 2000, $30
million is being projected. More than that is expected, but the
best estimate used for these projections were the Smith Barney
cash flows.
MS. BARRANS told Representative Brice that the $4.7 million is an
estimate.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered why there is the big spike in FY
1999 and then the leveling off and if there is an attributable
purpose to that.
MS. BARRANS replied the interest that is charged on the loans is
also being reduced. The interest earnings on those loans will go
down.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked where the $600,000 that is referred
to in the fiscal note is in the chart attached to Ms. Barrans
letter dated March 6.
MS. KING said the number used to calculate the impact on that
income was the higher number, $2.2 million and not the $600,000.
That money does not come out of net income; only the interest
effect of sending that money out affects net income.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked how big of a dividend could be
coming out of the student loan corporation into the general fund.
MS. KING replied that these projections are conservative, but she
doesn't have a number for what the dividend is going to be. The
parameters set by the legislation were set to allow the
corporation to work towards all of the goals.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Barrans if the board discussed
this dividend payment to the general fund and if the board
examined the tradeoff between giving the general fund a dividend
and putting in a loan program that would provide additional
incentives or make it easier for Alaskans to get an education.
Number 1233
MS. BARRANS noted that there was discussion about that; however,
the discussion really focused on the existing programs. She
explained that there are two boards that she reports to: the
corporation board, that has the fiduciary responsibility, and the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education board. Those boards
share two members in common. The corporation board was the one
who voted to recommend that HB 373 come forward. The commission
has been advised of it but has not taken a position on this bill.
The corporation set the priorities that she outlined in page 2 of
her March 6 letter. The discussion centered around the
priorities that were set; there was no material discussion about
using the net income of the corporation for other types of
programs. There was general discussion about what the
legislature and the administration might want to do with that
general fund money once it was returned to the state, but that is
really where the conversation ended. At the last meeting, the
Governor said he would like to use the returned contributed
capital to fund the Alaska Scholars program. The board felt that
was a policy call that it was not interested in becoming engaged
in.
MS. BARRANS further explained that the commission has a somewhat
different role; it authorizes schools to operate in the state and
it oversees the staff who manage the program. The commission has
not taken an official position on HB 373.
Number 1453
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HB 373 with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no
objection, HB 373 moved from the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee.
HB 256 - RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS WITH CHILDREN
Number 1484
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill
No. 256, "An Act relating to reports of suspected child abuse or
neglect, and requiring that, as part of the investigation of the
reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, all official
interviews with children who are alleged to have been abused or
neglected be recorded."
Number 1494
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
came forward to present HB 256. He told the committee that HB
256 is an effort between Representative Therriault and himself to
get a videotaping bill to bring accountability and to reduce the
number of interviews a child would face when taken into custody
for suspected child abuse [or neglect]. He presented a committee
substitute.
Number 1584
CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 256, version LS1049\M, Luckhaupt, 3/30/00,
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version M was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Section 1 is the purpose
and intent; Section 2 is a pilot project; and Section 3 has a
repealer date in it. The intent of the proposed CS for HB 256 is
to establish a pilot project of videotaping interviews with
children who are alleged to have been abused. He noted the
change in the beginning date, October 1, 2000, that would be
earlier since it is a localized project. The Department of
Health & Social Services would be required to submit an interim
report to the legislature in January 2002 [and a final report in]
January 2003. It would be a demonstration project to evaluate
the [efficacy] of requiring scheduled and planned interviews
conducted with children who have been alleged to have been
abused.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said HB 256 provides that the
admissibility of an interview that wasn't videotaped would not be
affected in civil or criminal proceedings. Furthermore,
provisions are included in the legislation regarding equipment
malfunctions as well as the child's health or psychological
condition, which could preclude or hinder an interview.
Representative Coghill noted his intention to provide a method of
recording the statements of children in order to avoid multiple
interviews.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that Version M includes a
change on page 3, line 14, where the following section is added:
(d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, videotaping of an
interview with a child is not required when the videotaping
would be detrimental to the child's health or impossible due
to the child's age or physical or psychological condition.
A decision not to videotape under this subsection shall be
documented in writing at the time the decision is made.
Unless detrimental or impossible in itself, an interview
with a child under this subsection shall be audiotaped.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted he is trying to achieve the highest
degree of accountability and the least amount of intrusion for
the children and families. He indicated that he wanted to have
some of the intent language from the original HB 256 in the pilot
project, which can be found in the outline of the intent on page
2; that language provides a framework for gauging what the pilot
project should be. However, the intent is not the entire
requirement. The requirement is the videotaping pilot project
found in Version M, page 2, beginning on line 24. He noted his
intention to have the interview not be permissive unless the
exceptions prevail. He remarked that this is the best he could
do in avoiding intrusive interviews such as those performed in
cars where a video camera would not be available. He assumed
that the child would be taken to a safe location for the
interview and thus his intention is to, at that time, videotape
[the interview]; he referred to that as a scheduled interview.
He also noted that the pilot project shall continue for no less
than 18 months. Representative Coghill expressed the desire to
implement the highest degree of accountability through this
system.
Number 1965
MARCI SCHMIDT testified via teleconference from the Matanuska-
Susitna (Mat-Su) Legislative Information Office (LIO). She
believes this [videotaping] is something that needs to be done
statewide. Furthermore, it should have been done when
Representative James proposed something similar. She asked if
there was any way to have videotaping around the state.
CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated there are some practical problems with
that such as obtaining the equipment, training the people,
handling logistics and the expense. He explained that the
details are trying to be worked [on by] taking one step at a
time.
MS. SCHMIDT asked if the tapes of the interviews can be viewed by
the judge and the attorneys on both sides.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said that others present were indicating that the
answer is yes.
Number 2046
MS. SCHMIDT expressed her support for HB 256, but noted her
disappointment that it is only a pilot project and not statewide.
CHAIRMAN DYSON noted his desire to eliminate multiple interviews
and the impact on the child. He asked Ms. Schmidt if she had
other concerns besides that.
MS. SCHMIDT agreed that is a high priority. She indicated that
the videotaping will be good for the department in that there
will be no question as to whether the child was coached or some
impropriety was done.
CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated that several people have expressed
concern about conflicting reports from children and children
being coached or coerced. He asked Ms. Schmidt if she believed
that the videotaping might help to preclude some of that.
MS. SCHMIDT indicated that she believed so. She felt that
videotaping is much better than audiotaping because an audiotape
can easily be turned off and on; however, with a videotape, there
is going to be some differential. If videotaping is stopped, it
will be noticed when it is turned back on.
Number 2135
CHRIS STOCKARD, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), came forward to testify. He
mentioned that Version M has addressed some of the concerns of
DPS. The Department of Public Safety, in general, believes that
videotaping children's interviews is not a bad idea and in many
cases around the state, the department does that. He stressed
that the concept of doing team interviews, one interview
satisfying the needs of several different agencies, is nothing
new and noted his past experience in Fairbanks where people from
different agencies would come together in one place. [Team
interviews] has been the standard of law enforcement for the most
part. Although it may not occur in every location or in every
case, it is the protocol/standard around the state for DPS which
he believes to be the case in other departments as well.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD pointed out some structural problems in the CS.
He understood Section 1 to apply to all interviews with children
at all times, everywhere in the state. [Section 1] doesn't
include any information about what a scheduled interview is and
it doesn't have any of the exceptions regarding when videotaping
might not happen or what alternatives there might be. He related
his understanding that the exceptions apply only to the
videotaping pilot project, but the general rule that
[videotaping] must be done in every case literally applies to
every case around the state.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Captain Stockard about the logistics
involved if a trooper had to fly to a remote village in order to
investigate an accusation of sexual abuse to a child.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD indicated there are several issues in that
circumstance. He said that it is not impractical for a trooper
who thought there might be an interview with a child to pack a
video recorder and take it along; there are several video cameras
out in the field now. However, one of the difficulties with [a
video camera versus a tape recorder] is that a tape recorder is a
fairly easy thing to turn on, set down at the side where nobody
really notices it. [A tape recorder] doesn't interfere with the
process of conducting an interview. Whereas a video camera is
typically much more intrusive. He commented that setting up the
video camera may create a psychological barrier for some people
[and prevent them] from being free and open; it is not like a
private conversation. Recording with a video camera creates a
very different dynamic than the one that occurs with a trooper
carrying his tape recorder.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD said that it is routine to record all victims'
statements, suspects' statements and many witnesses' statements.
He noted that sometimes the person is asked if he/she minds
[being recorded] and the tape recorder is put out [in view of the
person]. At other times, when someone may be intimidated by the
tape recorder, the trooper turns the tape recorder on without
saying anything about it. He reiterated that [a tape recorder]
is much less intrusive in the process of carrying on
communication between the interviewer and interviewee.
Therefore, he sees some problems with that from the standpoint of
an interviewer obtaining a good interview.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that HB 256 is geared toward a
pilot project in a particular locale and thus Chairman Dyson's
particular scenario wouldn't apply here. Although it would be
the intent of the legislature to figure out how to install it, at
this point the focus would be in regard to how to do this in the
particular locale.
TAPE 00-38, SIDE B
Number 2358
CAPTAIN STOCKARD said he understands that to be the intent. In
his conversations with the Department of Law, it appears to him
that the general rule applies everywhere and in some ways is more
restrictive than the pilot project rule. Although that may not
be how it was intended, it appears that way here. He referred to
page 2, lines 28-31, "The Department of Health and Social
Services shall coordinate the purchase of videotape equipment and
distribute it ...". That language raises some questions in the
mind of DPS: Does coordinate it mean maybe DHSS is going to
order the equipment or specify it?; Is DHSS going to distribute
it?; Is DHSS going to give it out?; Does this mean DHSS will send
a bill to DPS? He isn't sure what [that language] means, and
furthermore DPS has some minor concerns about how that actually
would work.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD referred to page 3, line 14, subsection (d),
which lists some exceptions to videotaping. Perhaps, a trooper
could make the argument for an exception to videotaping in a case
in which a child would be so intimidated by the camera; however,
the troopers are not experts in regard to what would be
detrimental to a child's psychological health. He expressed
concern that it is overly restrictive in that there may be
circumstances in which it may be possible and feasible to
[videotape the interview], but [videotaping the interview] may
just not be practical or a good idea in terms of getting a good
interview. In such a case, the department would still be
required to try to [videotape the interview]. Therefore, DPS has
some concerns there as well.
CHAIRMAN DYSON posed a situation in which a trooper doesn't
videotape [an interview] because it is "spooking" the child. He
asked Captain Stockard if he is concerned that if such a case
comes to court, the trooper would be criticized for not taping
the interview.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD agreed that may be an issue. Certainly
subsection (f) on page 3, line 23, does take care of the purely
evidentiary question, which was one of law enforcement's biggest
concerns before. Captain Stockard stated that DPS wants to
comply with the law; it wants to do what the law says to do.
However, it makes DPS very uncomfortable to be in positions where
the law says something "ought" to be done. Therefore, DPS
prefers that the law be clearly drafted while providing the
necessary flexibility to do it without having to sort of bend the
rules.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD referred to subsection (g) on page 3, line 26,
which addresses the scheduled interview. [The scheduled
interview] is a very difficult thing to define. He posed a
situation in which a trooper agrees to come by and speak with a
child at 2 p.m., after someone from a school calls and says this
child may have a problem and the troopers ought to come out and
talk to him/her. He indicated that would be kind of a scheduled
interview; certainly people are going to argue it's scheduled
since they knew an interview was going to happen. However,
whether the trooper knew that this child was actually going to
reveal anything is somewhat questionable. He reiterated that
defining a scheduled interview is difficult.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said he has noticed that some police cars around
the country have video cameras that are apparently turned on when
someone is pulled over. He assumes a part of that is self-
defense in that the video recording makes it clear what the
conduct of the public safety officer was in the case. He asked
if those tapes are ever used in evidence.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD specified that the primary purpose is the
gathering of evidence and the side effect is protecting the
officers. The cameras are especially useful in the DWI [driving
while intoxicated] situation because people frequently make
comments to the officer during the initial contact, jump out of
the car, drop their stuff or clearly wobble and bounce around the
highway before they have a chance to gather their wits about
them. The tapes are frequently used in evidence, in evidence of
assaults on police officers, and occasionally the tapes are used
to diffuse public complaints about officer behavior.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it is easy to detect if a videotape has
been altered.
CAPTAIN STOCKARD related his belief that with traditional
videotapes, it is not all that difficult [to detect if the
videotape has been altered]. There have been times when the FBI
[Federal Bureau of Investigation] and other forensic laboratories
have looked at tapes for DPS and have been able to say this
audiotape or this videotape has been cut and spliced or has been
manipulated in some way. He remarked that he doesn't know what
is going to happen when there is more digital recording mediums.
He believes that there are some additional problems in
determining what is an original recording and what has been
rerecorded.
Number 2107
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related his understanding that the general
citizenry believes that it is always the agency that is being
protected and not the individual. There have been many cases in
which the integrity of [DPS/the troopers] has been called into
question because of accusations. Therefore, this could certainly
be protection for that situation. However, DPS gets to say when
it's done or not done and the particular people being
interviewed, whether it's the child or even a family, doesn't get
that say. He explained that he has been trying to give the
people interviewed some say in what is brought forward.
Accountability is a needed part in society. Representative
Coghill recognized that flexibility in regard to when
[videotaping] is not appropriate is necessary as is the need to
for [DPS] to have some force to do it.
Number 2035
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), came forward to testify. She explained
to the committee that her organization has been involved in the
issue of videotaping for several years. When Representative
James brought forward legislation, the Network expressed concern.
The ANDVSA very much appreciates the position of having unified
interviewing of children with the police officer, the DFYS
[Division of Family and Youth Services] worker, the ICWA [Indian
Child Welfare Act] worker and whoever needs to be there for the
interview all at one time in order to reduce the trauma to the
child. The Network's primary interest is to make it easier for
the child to discuss these horrible situations and issues.
MS. HUGONIN explained that the concern is with "each" interview
being videotaped. For example, when a child is in a shelter and
the shelter workers suspects there has been child abuse and makes
contact with DFYS. Sometimes it is easier to have one DFYS
worker come to the program to be with the child, maybe with an
advocate, and have an initial conversation, not a taped formal
interview. Depending on the child's age and/or the trauma, it is
going to take more than one discussion for the child to be able
to articulate what has happened to him/her. The interviewers
need to be aware of and sensitive to that; one must not lose
sight that they are dealing with children.
MS. HUGONIN noted that ANDVSA was encouraged last time when the
state's child abuse agreement between state departments was
revised and expanded to include physical assault and neglect.
Therefore, there are hopefully better practices between law
enforcement and DFYS and any other state entity involved in these
cases. Another step forward was HB 375 and the revision of the
child abuse statutes. Part of that was making more of DFYS'
incidents and cases available to the public for review such as
the information DFYS is required to post on the Internet. There
has also been more work with training DFYS workers; however, this
is a fundamental area that needs more attention and time devoted
to it. She commented on the importance of the first
investigation being conducted by trained investigators. She
informed the committee that DFYS has set up a training center and
although she appreciated the fact that the legislature has
devoted some funding to [DFYS' training center], but more funding
is necessary. The Network is trying to help out with [funding]
and thus it applied for and received a federal grant to provide
training to DFYS and ICWA workers in the area of domestic
violence and child abuse so they can be better prepared to
appropriately question children and investigate.
Number 1869
MS. HUGONIN also shared the concern that Section 1 will apply all
the time, everywhere. Therefore, ANDVSA is much more comfortable
with the idea of a pilot study in which she understood the
importance of having a control group and thus not every child
would go through the videotaping every time. There would be a
group of children that would continue the normal practice so the
two groups could be compared and contrasted regarding whether or
not this would be an effective way to move forward. She referred
to page 3, lines 6-10, which says that the final report "must
include ... recommended draft legislation to put in place a
permanent statewide videotaping program for videotaping
interviews of children who are alleged to have been abused or
neglected." That language sounds biased because after the pilot
study, it may be proven that [a permanent statewide videotaping
program] is not the best way to proceed in every instance and
thus recommended legislation wouldn't be necessary.
MS. HUGONIN said ANDVSA is also concerned about how the
videotapes will be handled if allegations are not substantiated.
She inquired as to the mechanism for taking care of those
videotapes--are they always going to be at DFYS or are they going
to be destroyed? She noted the issue of confidentiality for the
children as well as the parents. She asked that those questions
be considered. She then turned to the issue of repeated
videotaping. With the current language, videotaping as part of
the investigation [would mean that] each videotape would be
evidence and would be discoverable. Therefore, there could be
situations when a child doesn't say the exact same thing every
time [he/she was videotaped], which could be used by a defense
attorney to question which [account] is really [true].
Therefore, ANDVSA is concerned about how [the videotape] would be
used as evidence in those kinds of situations.
Number 1712
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he understood that the language "each
interview" is a problem. He asked Ms. Hugonin if there was a way
to define interviews without saying "each" and without inserting
several paragraphs of exceptions.
MS. HUGONIN answered that she has been trying to come up with a
word but has not.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he is open to [suggestions].
Number 1668
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, came
forward to testify. She expressed concern about the way the bill
is drafted because it raises some questions that should be
answered. She said that she doesn't understand how the permanent
law and the temporary law interrelate in this bill. Alaska
Statute 47.17.010, which is the permanent law and permanent
intent language, provides that each interview with a child will
be videotaped and there are no exceptions except in the temporary
law, which will be repealed at a certain point. Therefore, all
the protections in the exceptions won't apply to what happens on
a permanent basis. She believes that is something that really
needs to be made clear. From DFYS she understood that if each
interview with a child is required [to be videotaped], it will be
a terrible burden on the investigative process and will not be
good for children in Alaska.
MS. CARPENETI echoed earlier comments that the definition of
scheduled interviews is problematic. The definition of scheduled
interviews isn't clear and would probably require the videotaping
of interviews that are partly spontaneous and partly not
spontaneous. Therefore, the meaning of scheduled interview needs
to be made clearer.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL affirmed that he also struggled with the
definition of a scheduled interview. At one point he thought it
would be better to describe what it is not rather than what it
is, but that list is almost as long. He asked the Department of
Law to help him with language; language that would describe the
case in which an interview happens that is significant to the
evidence of the key issue, although it may not be a spontaneous
interview.
MS. CARPENETI agreed to help work on the language.
CHAIRMAN DYSON remarked that this [type of interview] would
easily work if the videotaping took place at child advocacy
centers which are set up for a team to assemble with equipment
and trained people. He said that he personally knew that such a
situation has worked in those types of places.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE inquired as to the impact this will have on
prosecutors in making a determination whether to proceed with a
case of abuse and neglect if there is mandated videotaping.
Number 1417
MS. CARPENETI replied that is a tough question. Section 1 of the
bill currently provides that each interview has to be videotaped
and thus she would assume that a prosecutor, in preparing for
trial, would have to have a videotape set up in the office when
talking to the witness. She believes that it would be difficult
to prepare a witness for trial, specifically trying to make
him/her feel comfortable in really tough circumstances while a
video camera is on. She indicated that it could hamper [the
prosecutor].
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that he was basically trying to get to
the point Ms. Carpeneti articulated that this potentially can
cause some real problems and create a barrier in terms of making
sure that an abused or neglected child is taken care of.
MS. CARPENETI agreed, especially the way Section 1 is currently
written as it refers to every interview, which would include
interviews in preparation for trial and cross examination. She
remarked that these situations are difficult for adults [and thus
would be more so for] children.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that this is a burden. He related
his understanding that the social worker documents every
conversation with the child and the court only receives that
document, the document in regard to what that conversation was.
He said he is trying to bring some light to the conversation that
has the disinterested part, although he recognized that it may
not be practical in every case. He asked if his understand is
correct.
MS. CARPENETI replied that she believes Representative Coghill's
understanding is correct. However, she clarified that she was
talking about a prosecutor preparing for trial.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the prosecutor is only presented
with interviews that [the social worker] documented, wouldn't the
prosecutor only have their part of the story. He asked how the
court or prosecutor view that.
MS. CARPENETI answered it would be viewed the same way as a
police report or any other investigative report; it would be read
and used. Ms. Carpeneti said she doesn't understand the
juxtaposition. Although she understood Representative Coghill's
point of view, as a prosecutor preparing for trial, she would
view [the social worker's document] as any other investigative
report.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wasn't trying to leverage
anything. He stated that he just wanted to know how Ms.
Carpeneti viewed these reports because some people view them very
narrowly and think of them as very biased.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Carpeneti if she can picture in a CINA
[child in need of aid] 48-hour hearing, the judge sitting there
watching a video as part of the evidence or will he/she go on the
summaries of both parties.
MS. CARPENETI answered she has never participated in a 48-hour
hearing as it is a civil hearing and thus she deferred to a CINA
lawyer.
Number 1196
JANNA STEWART, Administrator, Central Office, Family Services,
Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Department of
Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forward to testify. She
pointed out that Jan Rutherdale is present if Chairman Dyson
wants an answer regarding the use of a videotape in the CINA
proceeding.
MS. STEWART noted she had spent some years on the bench in
Anchorage, and she would have never viewed a videotape in the
context of doing a 48-hour hearing or subsequent hearing. She
pointed out that for the most part, the critical evidence
regarding the case most often does not come from the child; the
stronger evidence frequently comes from other forms of
documentary evidence, medical evidence, photographs and the like.
The child's testimony is very rarely solely relied on to make a
decision, certainly not at those earlier stages. In response to
Chairman Dyson, Ms. Stewart specified that the aforementioned
comments were drawn from her experience as a judge. However, as
a representative of DFYS, she informed the committee that the
department would appreciate the ability of videotaping.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Stewart if she could ever foresee the
video being shown in court [in a CINA case].
MS. STEWART answered yes, although hardly ever at the 48-hour
hearing. In further response to Chairman Dyson, Ms. Stewart
replied in the context of a CINA case, it is conceivable that a
video would be shown in a custody hearing. Furthermore, there
may be many interviews that would end up being presented under
the situation that this bill presents with having to videotape
each subsequent interview.
CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that part of his enthusiasm for videotaping
has always been in regard to the criminal abuse cases,
particularly sexual abuse, in order to prevent the child from
having to go through multiple interviews. However, [videotaping]
in a CINA hearing probably is not going to keep the child from
more interviews.
MS. STEWART indicated her belief that Chairman Dyson is accurate
based on conversations she has had with Diana Weber from the
children's advocacy center. Ms. Stewart noted that she can't
speak for Ms. Weber. However, their extensive conversations
about this bill [have revealed] Ms. Weber's concern that the
videotape itself would very rarely reduce the need for subsequent
interviews because of the different nature of different
circumstances that each videotape would bring out. For example,
there would be a therapeutic interview and an investigative
interview and it doesn't always happen that everything gotten in
an individual interview will satisfy all subsequent purposes. As
has been pointed out, with children there are sequential
interviews in which more and more disclosure occurs. The more
uncomfortable the interview dynamic is, the harder it is to have
productive interviews because children will balk at unfamiliar
circumstances, video cameras, et cetera. Therefore, the concern
is that possibly this will not reduce the number of interviews
but rather, in certain circumstances, it may increase the number
of interviews that would have to be done.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there are there circumstances in which
carefully crafted and well-done video interviews could prevent
the child from having to testify against the perpetrator in
court, especially a sexual abuse victim.
MS. STEWART noted that there is a substantial body of law and
research on that question in other states that have made the
effort to do exactly that. Those are very carefully constructed
laws that are subject to a great deal of controversy and have
been the subject of supreme court cases. She clarified that she
did not research this bill that narrowly because it is not yet
attempting to get there.
Number 0899
MS. STEWART continued saying the department [DHSS] is generally
supportive of the concept of videotaping and audiotaping. As
DHSS has reviewed this bill, there are a number of concerns about
the breadth of the bill, the cost of implementation, the risks
broad implementation will bring for the children and how the
expense will not match the quality of what [the department] will
get. She specified the following concerns: the number of times
that the interview would have to happen; the number of interviews
that are done of children around the state; the number of
circumstances in which the interview itself is never really
intended to obtain evidence that, in and of itself, is critical
to the prosecution of the case in the CINA context. [The
department] supports the idea of developing multi-disciplinary
protocol and [DHSS] has made some suggestions about when a multi-
disciplinary team would assess a situation in regard to whether a
situation would be appropriate to videotape or audiotape and
likely provide a high quality of evidence and not adversely
impact the child and not require multiple interviews. However,
it is very critical that there not be such breadth to refer to
all interviews, all children, all the time.
MS. STEWART informed the committee that previous testimony has
pointed out the same problems [DHSS] is concerned about: the
problems of the two parts of the bill. [The department]
appreciates the exceptions in this video pilot as they are very
helpful, but they don't appear to apply to the bill as a whole.
Although DHSS would like to see videotaping done effectively,
cost effectively and in a quality multi-disciplinary environment,
DHSS cannot support the bill as it currently stands. Version M
is one of the most expensive versions of this legislation yet
because it not only requires the department to videotape whenever
possible, the department also has to have a backup to
videotaping, audiotaping. Therefore, an additional layer of
expense is created in addition to the cost of the pilot project.
She explained that although [this legislation] solves some
problems, it causes more expense and doesn't necessarily get to
the heart of the matter for [the department], which is to
videotape when appropriate and in a manner that will increase
child protection without inappropriately increasing costs.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Stewart when is it proper and
appropriate to videotape an interview.
MS. STEWART replied in the view of DHSS, videotaping would be
appropriate based on statutory factors. For example, videotaping
would be appropriate when proceeding with the possibility of a
CINA action for cases of risk of substantial physical harm,
sexual abuse, mental injury or neglect. However, there are
certain statutory provisions in the CINA law which do not lend
themselves to the information being effectively gathered from the
child's interview. She cited the following statutory provisions
that do not lend themselves to the evidence coming from the
children: abandonment, parental incarceration, custodians who
are unwilling or unable to provide care or need medical
treatment.
MS. STEWART said in addition to that, DHSS would like to propose
that a multi-disciplinary team could develop effective non-
statutorially based protocols that would be based on the facts
and circumstances of the case. For example, the age of the
child, the likelihood that the information obtained from the
child would be unavailable through other witnesses or would not
be available through other means such as medical records,
physical examinations, photographs or other kinds of documentary
evidence. Furthermore, DHSS would like to be able to consider
the likelihood that a child is going to be unavailable for
subsequent interviews. Perhaps, due to the child's present
condition, he/she is likely to be sent out of state to a
specialized treatment facility. The department would also like
to be able to assess whether or not it believes, under all the
facts and circumstances of a case, that it is likely that it'll
be able to reduce the need for subsequent interviews. She noted
that the department would also like to be able to assess whether
or not the child is going to offer nonverbal communication such
as gestures, movements or sexualized acting out that would be
appropriate to capture on a videotape. Furthermore, the
department would like to be able to videotape in circumstances
where the child's present emotional, physical or communicated
state is such that it would be evidence and visible on a
videotape. The department would also like to consider whether
the information being received from the interview of the child
would be the basis for multiple legal actions--not only a CINA
action but also criminal prosecution and potentially
administrative and licensing actions. The department would also
like to be able to consider whether specialized interview
equipment, techniques or services such as language, sign or relay
interpreters would be appropriate. It is the position of the
department that these kinds of criteria are not subjective. Ms.
Stewart stated that there are standards by which protocols could
be developed that would enable the department and other members
of the multi-disciplinary team to make an effective and
intelligent decision regarding when videotaping and audiotaping
is appropriate and thereby avoid hundreds of interviews in which
the videotaping or audiotaping would simply not be useful for any
member of the team.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL specified that he is looking to define
that critical time in HB 256. Representative Coghill remarked
that Ms. Stewart is [approaching this] from the department's
need, while he is [approaching this] from the family's need for
accountability from the department. Therefore, he clarified that
he is attempting to obtain not only the department's needs but
the need for accountability for the family's sake.
Number 0452
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if, in terms of the quality of the
evidence that social workers are trying to gather, there is a
differentiation between the type of evidence, the level of
evidence and the quality of evidence when a civil CINA case is
being pursued versus an actual criminal case.
MS. STEWART answered, "My general answer to that question would
be no that we don't ... try less hard if there's not to be a
criminal action."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted his assumption that the evidentiary
standards for a criminal case would be higher than for a civil
case.
MS. STEWART stated that the standard of proof in a criminal
matter is proof beyond reasonable doubt while the standard of
proof in a civil matter is a preponderance, and there are levels.
Although there is a lesser standard of proof [for civil matters],
that doesn't necessarily mean that there is going to be a
fundamental difference in the quality of the evidence gathered.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "But on the other hand, the evidence
you have presented might be able to get you to the preponderance
of evidence, but it would probably not withstand the cross
examination of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, in other
words, what I see DFYS doing is when they go in and take custody
of a child - that is a civil procedure - ... there may or may not
be criminal charges against the parents, and that determining
factor, I hope, is that they just cannot build beyond a
reasonable doubt standard because of lack of evidence."
MS. STEWART replied that is essentially correct, although it may
not be a lack of evidence situation. She explained that the
factors simply may not be there to find parents criminally
liable; it may be a question that the evidence simply does not
exist. She pointed out that it is very common for a case to be
prosecuted as a CINA case and not as a criminal case.
Number 0165
SARAH SHORT testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
expressed her support for HB 256 but noted her disappointment
that it is a pilot project because she believes it needs to be
statewide. She agreed with some of the concerns of the state and
the police. Every person who is involved in a CINA hearing or
the 48-hour hearing has some input that is very valuable to this
bill. In regard to unsubstantiated [charges], those videotapes
should be given to the parents to be used as defense in future
allegations. She said that time and time again unsubstantiated
reports of harm surface because the state is more aware of these
people and maybe the state should be more aware of these people.
However, it is very hard on a family to keep fighting
unsubstantiated allegations. Regarding whether videotapes should
be viewed in court, Ms. Short doesn't see any reason to keep
videotapes out of court because children deserve to have a voice,
and they deserve to be heard. She indicated that judges who
don't want to or don't have the time to watch these tapes are not
getting the whole picture. She stated, "The parents ... are
seeing, from their point of view, their words are getting twisted
around, that they know their child from one point of view, and
the state sees it from the other." Ms. Short commented that
videotapes would help the children, the parents and the foster
parents as well as the caseworker.
TAPE 00-39, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. SHORT said as a survivor of childhood molestation, she
informed the committee that she is very aware of the emotions
that a child would feel being videotaped. Being videotaped as a
child is very intimidating, but coercive interviewing is far
worse. Furthermore, the damage [coercive interviewing] does to
the family and the community as well as the cost far exceeds a
full-fledged videotaping bill. Therefore, Ms. Short likes the
original bill and supports the sponsor statement.
Number 0073
LAUREL MURRAY testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms.
Murray related her personal experience with this subject matter
in which her son, Steven Murray, was killed in the state's care
this past July. After many reports of harm, Steven ran away from
the foster home in April and filed his own complaint with the
police. The police took his statement of being hit with a belt
and took photos of six welts on his buttocks; that was physical
evidence of abuse. Ms. Murray charged that it would have not
been so easy for the state to coerce her son to recant the
allegations of abuse against Melissa Falgoust if the interview
had been videotaped. If her son had not been coerced [by DFYS],
he might not have been returned to that home and would probably
still be alive. Ms. Murray also charged, "If DFYS was not in
fear of exposure for their negligence, they'd spend the money not
only to protect children like Steven, but also to protect good
case workers and the state from abuse of discretion and wrongful
death lawsuits." Ms. Murray related her belief that a videotaped
interview would have helped save her son and would also help
wrongfully accused foster parents and parents protect the
children they love. She said that she believes videotaping
statewide is needed.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Murray what evidence she had that DFYS
coerced Steven into changing or recanting his testimony.
MS. MURRAY answered, "Part of it is in a police report that the
officer filed where it was betraying Melissa Falgoust and DFYS;
where they had gone to the police and told them that this was his
way of trying to get home with his mother."
Number 0256
ADASSA AMIN testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
said, "I don't think that there should be any dollar figure put
on the investigative skills or lack thereof when it comes to
implementing ... what is being applied by an officer or social
worker or other law enforcement agent while trying to investigate
or interview for prospective abuse and/or victimization of
children." She noted her agreement with Laurel Murray's
testimony.
Number 0334
HARRY NIEHAUS, Guardians of Family Rights, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He echoed Captain Stockard's
concern regarding what is "spontaneous." Mr. Niehaus also
expressed concern about "intake" techniques; the intent is to
ensure professional techniques. He believes that videotaping
will reveal a lot of inappropriate techniques and create a more
professional agency, and therefore increase accountability. He
also believes videotaping would reduce some travesties to
justice. Furthermore, ethics need to be upheld and could be
reviewed via a videotape. [Videotaping] is a great reviewing
tool, and he is 100 percent for it. Mr. Niehaus stated that he
would like to see [this videotaping program be implemented
statewide].
Number 0454
PAUL NELSON testified via teleconference from Haines. Mr. Nelson
read the following testimony:
I request the legislature to enact legislation for the
videotaping of all interviews of allegations of child
abuse and neglect. The taping of interviews will
prevent false allegations of abuse and neglect from
destroying families. I would also like to see felony
penalties for the failure to videotape and also felony
penalties for erasure or alteration of those tapes.
MR. NELSON related his personal experience in which he was
accused of child abuse in the 1980s. In his case, the child was
interviewed by the local police on videotape, but after about 20
minutes the videotape was turned off. The videotaping resumed
when the child did what the interviewers wanted her to do. Mr.
Nelson believes that video was part of the reason the charges
were dismissed against him when he refused to plea bargain.
MR. NELSON noted that the state troopers already have videotaping
equipment. He disagreed completely with DFYS about conducting
interviews before taping because the first interview can and will
result in indictments and arrests. He said if there are no
grounds, the first interview should give all parties a view of
that. He also disagreed completely with the person who said this
is difficult to do because the people who are accused could face
unclassified felonies and life in prison. People who are falsely
accused need to be protected. Mr. Nelson suggested eliminating
some of the people at DFYS if there is a need for money. If this
can only be a pilot project, he requested that all municipalities
be asked to voluntarily participate. In conclusion, Mr. Nelson
stated that he would like to see the enactment of the original AS
47.17.028, which [requires] that all interviews be videotaped.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that more work needs to be done
on HB 256. He noted that the intent language was not meant to go
beyond the pilot project and thus he'll have to return to the
drafter to [make that clear]. He said that he is open to
suggestions regarding the language, "each interview," as well as
how to get to that critical interview. Furthermore, he noted his
understanding [of the concerns surrounding] scheduled interviews.
Representative Coghill stated, "But I refuse to think that this
needs to be a department tool; it needs to be a citizen's tool.
So, I'm still ... want to go in that direction." In conclusion,
Representative Coghill said that this matter could be worked on
in a subcommittee or he could continue to work on it in his
office; he deferred to the chair's wisdom.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Russ Webb if he knew what the present
schedule is for getting the child advocacy center going in
Fairbanks. He understands there is some federal money to
continue the work.
Number 0770
RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health & Social
Services, came forward saying he didn't have the answer to that
question.
CHAIRMAN DYSON remarked that he saw [child advocacy centers] as
one way to pull together multi-disciplinary teams, videoing and
the like. Chairman Dyson then closed the hearing on HB 256. [HB
256 was held over.]
HB 303 - MISC. INSURANCE PROVISIONS
Number 799
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill
No. 303, "An Act relating to the method of payment of fees and
adoption of regulations under AS 21; relating to orders under AS
21 regarding risk based capital instructions; relating to
accounting standards for insurance companies; amending the
definitions of 'creditable coverage' and 'late enrollees' in AS
21.54; relating to requirements for small employer insurers;
relating to requirements for issuance of new voting securities by
an insurance company; requiring health care insurance coverage
for reconstructive surgery following mastectomy; requiring
guaranteed renewability of and certification of coverage
regarding certain individual health insurance policies; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0815
BOB LOHR, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Community & Economic Development, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. He told the committee that Representative
Rokeberg, Chairman, House Labor and Commerce Committee did a
search of representatives of each insurance related organization
in the state that might have concerns about the bill and
responded to questions, and there was no adverse testimony in
House Labor and Commerce Committee concerning this bill.
MR. LOHR explained what HB 303 does. It allows the Director of
the Division of Insurance to require electronic payment of fees.
That is not controversial at this stage and would put deposits
into the general fund. It updates and moves obsolete language
from the statutes related to the accounting procedures. When
insurance companies file their annual financial statements with
the division, there specific procedures that they follow. This
bill would conform the statutes to national model regulations
developed by the National Association of Insurance Commission.
These are regulations that most multi-national companies are
comfortable with and aware of and expect to go into force January
1, 2001. The division has already adopted regulations for that.
However, there are a few accounting provisions in state law that
are not consistent with those rules, and this bill will conform
them to the national model rules.
MR. LOHR explained the third major area involves HIPAA [Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996]. Most
state law changes that were required for conforming to HIPAA were
made in 1997 by the legislature. However, several provisions
have been identified that were not caught at the time. One has
led to the federal Health Care Financing Administration writing
to the Governor and asking what the intention of the state was
with respect to that provision, because if it were not enforced
by the state, then there would be the risk of preemption by this
federal agency. At this point, the division is enforcing those
provisions in policy language under current state authority.
However, there is a specific change there that would be required.
There are additional specific requirements there, but there are
no mandates beyond those required by federal law contained in
these changes.
Number 0998
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 8, line 24, and asked Mr.
Lohr explain "or other state high-risk pool."
MR. LOHR answered that there are two state high-risk pools. One
is the Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (CHIA), and the
other is the Small Employer Health Insurance Association.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HB 303 out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, HB 303 moved from the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|