Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/05/1996 02:04 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 5, 1996
2:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 452
"An Act relating to state foundation aid and supplementary state
aid for education; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 451
"An Act prohibiting persons from receiving or attempting to receive
duplicate assistance; directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to establish a pilot project relating to identification of
recipients of public assistance; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 535
"An Act relating to postsecondary education."
- SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED
HOUSE BILL NO. 512
"An Act establishing English as the common language and related to
the use of English in public records and at public meetings of
state agencies."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 480
"An Act relating to physician assistants, including the treatment
of their services under group health insurance policies."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to the duty-free mealtime for teachers in certain
school facilities."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 452
SHORT TITLE: CALCULATION OF STATE AID TO EDUCATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/96 2541 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/96 2541 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/26/96 2541 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
01/26/96 2541 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 451
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT DUPLICATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/96 2541 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/96 2541 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/29/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/29/96 (H) MINUTES(HES)
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 535
SHORT TITLE: POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/29/96 2962 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/29/96 2962 (H) HES
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 512
SHORT TITLE: ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Barnes
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2729 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/27/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/96 (H) MINUTES(HES)
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 480
SHORT TITLE: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2686 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2686 (H) HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/05/96 (H) HES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 452
JAMES ELLIOTT, Director
School Finance
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2891
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 452
WANDA COOKSEY, Lobbyist
Small Single Site School
District Consortium
P.O. Box 240052
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 586-9073
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 452
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
Telephone: (907) 586-1083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 452
DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Eldon Mulder
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 451
LIZ DODD, Board Member
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska;
and National Board Member of the
American Civil Liberties Union
100 Parks Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-2601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 451
JIM NORDLUND, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 451
ROGER POPPE, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-6882
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 512
ROY IUTZI-MITCHELL
P.O. Box 749
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-3145
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
MARY SATTLER, Intern
to Representative Irene Nicholia
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4527
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 512
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 480
JOHN RILEY, Chairman
Legislative Affairs Committee
Alaska Academy of Physician Assistants
6411 Italy Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99605
Telephone: (907) 345-2029
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480
JEANNE CLARK, President
Alaska Academy of Physician Assistants
Fairbanks, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 452-6610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 480
REED STOOPS, Lobbyist
Aetna Life & Casualty
240 Main Street, No. 600
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3223
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 480
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-20, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
was called to order by Co-Chair Bunde at 2:04 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Robinson
and Brice. Members absent were Representative Davis, Rokeberg and
Vezey. A quorum was present to conduct business. Co-Chair Bunde
announced the calendar was HB 452, HB 451, HB 535, HB 480 and HB
512. House Bill 93 had been rescheduled.
HB 452 - CALCULATION OF STATE AID TO EDUCATION
Number 098
SHIRLEY HOLLOWAY, Commissioner, Department of Education, introduced
Richard Cross, Deputy Commissioner, Jim Elliott, Director of School
Finance, and Eddy Jeans, the department's expert on PL-874.
Commissioner Holloway said there were two main reasons that HB 452
was before the committee. First, Governor Knowles made a
commitment at the beginning of his Administration to ensure that
the school funding formula is fair, equitable and accountable and
protects the partnership between the state, federal and local
dollars. The second reason had to do with the changes in the
federal impact aid law, lowering the allowable disparity standard
from 25 percent to 20 percent. She stated in order to continue to
consider impact aid when calculating the state's portion of school
funding, Alaska would have to meet the 20 percent federal disparity
test in FY 96. In order to meet the disparity in FY 96, the
department had requested supplemental funding of $1.2 million in
aid to the Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAA) who are at the
bottom of the disparity table. This would provide $500 per
instructional unit. Failure to meet this disparity will cost the
state $30 million to $35 million. The other option would be to
prorate the instructional unit down by $2,850 in FY 98, or the
state would have to fill that gap with state general fund money.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY remarked that the State Board of Education is
committed to revising the Alaska Foundation Program. They
appointed a task force last year which struggled with this issue
and ultimately made the recommendation to the State Board of
Education that there be a minimalist fix and to then encourage the
State Board to continue working on a more creative funding formula
for the state. The State Board of Education took that under
consideration and the legislation before the committee was the
result of the State Board of Education's recommendation to the
Governor. She commented the State Board of Education is now
meeting as a committee of the whole to work on the foundation
formula and have a time line set to introduce a new foundation
formula during the next legislative session. She emphasized this
request is a short-term fix; it buys time to develop long-term
solutions and it addresses the disparity test by providing for the
supplementary aid to REAAs. It offsets the cost of supplementary
aid by increasing the amount of impact aid deductible from REAAs
from 90 percent to 95 percent, and it incorporates the single site
funding into the formula which has been an issue since the current
formula went into effect in FY 88.
Number 345
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said the department is concerned about the
quality of public education in the state of Alaska and feels that
funding is the mechanism for developing quality schools.
Consequently, the department believes that a funding strategy,
which she hopes to bring to the legislature next session, will
reflect a well-articulated and strongly driven instructional
philosophy about what they hope to achieve. She noted that over
the years, funding has been approached from "let's just re-
distribute the dollars" versus "what are we trying to achieve."
She often hears the comment "just re-write the formula" as if it is
some simple task, when indeed it is a very difficult and complex
task and one that needs thoughtful design. She added that many
people have tried and not been successful. The department feels
that one of the things that has been lacking in the past is the
strong philosophical premise involving all the stakeholders. The
State Board of Education's plan is to take their proposed
foundation formula to the public and have lots of public engagement
over the summer so there can be a good understanding of what they
are trying to achieve.
Number 435
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said the department is really focused on what
she called a "standards-driven change effort." That is high
standards for kids with an assessment to make sure they are being
reached. Also, high standards for professionals are being worked
on through the State Board of Education/Board of Regents
partnership to make sure that teachers coming out of the
preparation institutions meet those standards, and they are looking
at licensing and re-licensing people based on standards. The third
area of focus is parent, family and community involvement in
student learning and how that can be promoted. The fourth area is
school standards. The State Board of Education is looking at a
school accreditation process based on the research of what makes a
quality school, so the kids are most apt to achieve those high
standards set for them.
Number 498
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY concluded that even though the discussion
today was a short-term fix for funding, she wanted to put it in the
framework of having high standards for kids and having the money to
make it happen for them.
Number 523
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the state of Alaska was going to fashion
their education system after any other state that has already tried
it? She is fearful that with the downturn in finances, the state
will jump into a system that has never been tried before or will go
into a system that cannot be achieved. She noted there have been
trials across the country on what makes a good school, and it has
been determined that it has absolutely nothing to do with money.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY responded that the concepts being discussed
have been used in other states. For example, one of the concepts
being considered by the State Board of Education is rolling capital
improvement dollars into the foundation formula. That is being
done in 14 other states where there is a per pupil dollar amount
allocated for capital improvement projects. She didn't think the
State Board of Education was currently considering anything that
was so far out of the norm that would jeopardize the system. They
are trying to simplify the formula so it can be understood by
average folks and can be communicated to parents. The Board of
Education is very interested in looking at it from a per pupil
cost, so discussions can take place on how much it costs to educate
a child in a specific place versus the present convoluted
instructional unit calculation. She believed the effort was to
simplify it so it is understandable and most of all, make sure that
it is fair.
Number 708
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he was heartened by Commissioner Holloway's
willingness to grasp the reality of the state's educational system,
the dollars that are available for education and the fact that we
need to streamline, consolidate or even close small schools that
aren't educationally or economically viable. Those are difficult
decisions. He noted that Commissioner Holloway had remarked that
if the impact aid is lost, the state could either accommodate the
impact aid or reduce the formula by close to $3,000. There is
concern the federal government is in the process of weaning us and
they will keep making this disparity more and more difficult to
achieve so eventually the state will have to reduce the amount of
funding or take whatever action needs to be done. Co-Chair Bunde
asked if Commissioner Holloway shared that concern, if this would
be taken into the formula re-write and if she could anticipate a
time frame in which that may occur.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said it was her impression that it wouldn't
happen real soon, but there is a perception that the federal
government is trying to wean the state every time the disparity is
moved down. She said she didn't have a sense for the time table.
Number 816
JAMES ELLIOTT, Acting Director, School Finance, Department of
Education, testified the current program is authorized through FY
99. He felt is was safe to say that every President since
President Truman has tried to get rid of the program, so the best
guess is that it is going to be around for some time.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that one of the challenges has been single
site schools and asked Mr. Elliott if he had any idea of how that
challenge would be addressed in the re-write.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY responded that as far as she knew, it was not
being discussed as a separate issue, so it would not be identified
as outside the general formula. She believed one thing being
looked at by the State Board of Education is generally streamlining
dollars and trying to give the dollars to the local level for them
to make decisions about what to do. She said if the concept of
having capital improvement dollars as part of the foundation
formula is successful, there has been some general discussion that
if a school district had met their major maintenance and
construction issues and there was some assurance of that, there
would be no reason why those dollars couldn't be used to reduce
class size for example in urban areas. The general direction the
State Board of Education is currently discussing has to do with
putting the money in more of a block grant kind of fashion and
allowing the local people to make decisions about where they need
to spend their money.
Number 837
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if he could interpret that to mean there would
still be a superintendent for a school district which is one
school.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said the State Board of Eduction will be
holding an all-day workshop on governance on April 18. She
commented that some of the board members are interested in looking
at alternative governance models for the state. A whole day will
be devoted to working on Native student learning issues and there
is a steering committee working on framing those issues.
Number 974
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the single site schools were brought up in
the discussions on the foundation formula?
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY asked Co-Chair Toohey to repeat her question.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if the one superintendent/one school/one
school district issue had been brought up in discussions on the
foundation formula?
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY replied that it had been discussed at the
committee level, particularly as it related to the tiny schools.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was any consensus.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY responded it is still being discussed and no
decisions have been reached.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY remarked those were going to be hard decisions and
she didn't feel the decisions were going to be made by a group of
individuals like those meeting in April. She added nobody would
make those decisions unless they were being paid to and even then,
it would be a difficult decision to make. In her opinion the buck
was being passed when those decisions were left to public
discussion groups.
Number 1067
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE expressed his appreciation to Commissioner
Holloway for the work she was doing. He felt is was important to
recognize that HB 452 was not a substantial rewrite of the
foundation formula. He felt the current issues were compliance
with the disparity test and the single site question. He
acknowledged that a rewrite of the foundation formula would be a
major undertaking, but hoped it would be the goal of this
Administration to put policy over politics and that major issues
would start being addressed. He mentioned he was fairly happy and
satisfied with the educational system in the Fairbanks area,
considering the high level of national merits and high SAT scores
coming from the Fairbanks schools. Representative Brice requested
a more detailed explanation on Section 4.
Number 1218
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that the fiscal note addressed funding for
single sites and funding needed to meet the disparity requirements
of the federal government. He referenced the $223.8 reflected on
the fiscal note and asked if that money would be deducted from
funding for education, or would it be in addition to what the
legislature is expected to fund for education this year.
MR. ELLIOTT responded it is in addition to.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the department wanted to add $223.8
to the existing formula.
MR. ELLIOTT said that portion goes to the REAAs. He said, "It's
the difference of what is deducted and then the $500 per
instructional unit that they're given. There is about a quarter of
a million dollars difference."
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said what he was trying to get at in round numbers
was the amount of the total educational budget for this year
assuming flat funding.
MR. ELLIOTT said about $650 million.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE questioned if the $223.8 would not be in addition to
that amount.
MR. ELLIOTT said it is in addition to the current budget.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted the budget actually would be about $800
million then.
MR. ELLIOTT informed Co-Chair Bunde it was $223.8 thousand, not
million.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE verified that it was $223,800 in addition to the
$650 million.
Number 1329
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the comments on fairness and balance and
asked Commissioner Holloway if she had an idea of how to balance
the disparity where there are REAAs with little or no local
contribution versus places like Kenai, where they are up to the
maximum local contribution.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said that was a real issue for them. First
of all people often say that REAAs don't contribute, but in fact,
the $35 million received for offsetting the cost is mostly
generated off the backs of REAAs. So, in some sense, that is their
contribution. The State Board of Education, under the direction of
the Governor, is aware of the difference in the perception of
fairness and the board is dealing with that. Also, the board is
talking about raising the cap because it is real important for some
communities. She added that is all part of the current discussion
of the State Board of Education, and she thought they were ready to
take the difficult step of making the decision after there had been
public engagement. She didn't believe the State Board of Education
was expecting any other group to make a recommendation.
Number 1410
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the $61,000 foundation formula and asked
Commissioner Holloway if she thought the impact aid was about $500
of that $61,000.
MR. ELLIOTT said that is the supplemental required for the state to
meet disparity at the new federal standard.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE verified it would be $61,500, which actually raises
the foundation.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY interjected it would raise for the REAAs,
because they are at the bottom, and have to be brought up in order
to meet the 20 percent disparity test.
Number 1450
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the $35 million impact aid and asked
Commissioner Holloway how that would be prorated out in the
$61,000.
MR. ELLIOTT indicated the department had a schedule prepared and he
would be happy to furnish that information to the committee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referenced Commissioner Holloway's comments on good
education policy and research as it related to the quality of
schools and asked if she had some idea as to what direction the
research was leading them in trying to develop quality schools.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY advised there is about 25 years of research
that demonstrates the kind of things that need to happen in schools
in order to increase the probability of students learning and
learning well. For example, one of the quality indicators that
might be used in a school assessment or accreditation model would
be that that school or district had determined what they want their
kids to know and be able to do, had identified the desired results,
and had an assessment system in place to measure that. She said
knowing what is trying to be reached is one of the key quality
indicators that makes a difference. Another high quality indicator
is a planned systematic instructional approach throughout the
system, so kids move well between schools and feeder schools. She
said that principals play a key role if they are instructional
leaders and keep the focus in the school on instruction, not on
other issues. She offered to provide the committee with a general
list of quality indicators.
Number 1614
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that he had read the series of articles in the
Daily News Miner on rural schools and had heard from people in
rural areas who felt they were, in some cases, ill-treated or
mischaracterized. From an urban educator's point of view, he
thought it was fairly balanced and asked if Commissioner Holloway
would care to share her reaction to the articles.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said that a lot of her years in Alaska had
been spent in rural Alaska, and it was her opinion that rural
Alaska was doing a far better job than those articles indicated.
One of the reasons she believed that was true was because when
standardized tests scores were used to determine whether children
had learned, it's necessary to know where the children were at when
they started. For instance, if a child came into the school and
achieved at the 5th percentile on the first standard achievement
test, but achieved at the 35th percentile three years later, that
indicates lots of new learning and skills had been achieved. But
many times children will come into a school program and will be at
the 50th percentile the first time they are tested and five years
later, they still score at the 50th percentile. If that's the
measure, did that child need to go to school - there wasn't a whole
lot of value added. She would say there is a lot of value added
through the public education system in rural Alaska, but point out
that's only one measure. Broader measures need to be looked at
and that's why the assessment is so important. Does that mean
there aren't any problems in rural Alaska? The answer is no, there
are a lot of problems, but there are problems in urban Alaska, as
well. She said when looking at schools that are not producing kids
who are achieving well academically, we can identify schools in
Fairbanks, Kenai and Anchorage who have the same kind of academic
profiles as students in rural Alaska. It's not a rural/urban
issue; it's much more complex than that.
Number 1738
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented there is a lot of frustration on the part
of the public that high school graduates are being certified to do
things they are not capable of doing. His recommendation is a two-
tiered system of a high school diploma and a certificate of
attendance. Students who have occupied a chair and kept it warm
for three years, get a certificate of attendance. The students who
can actually read and write get a high school diploma. He asked
Commissioner Holloway for her reaction to such a system.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY responded that if a system identifies what
kids should know and be able to do and then measure that, there
shouldn't be kids who just sit in seats.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted every time he goes to a high school, he sees
kids sleeping.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY acknowledged she does too, and said it
bothers her a great deal. She said there is some discussion about
different certificates of mastery but that is an issue the State
Board of Education has not taken on yet. Her hope would be that
communities would come together and determine what they expect
their students to know when they leave the 12th grade. She added
that needs to be assessed along the way so when students at the 3rd
grade are not meeting the bench marks, something will happen. She
said that has not traditionally been done in education. The kids
are just sent to school, the chairs are counted and the room has
been determined large enough, but we've not held ourselves
accountable for whether kids are learning.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE added that the input may have to come from parents.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said it was her hope that parents would be
involved in all the processes.
Number 1846
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said she was trying to get an idea of
when Commissioner Holloway was hoping to have legislation ready.
It was her understanding that a subgroup would hold public hearings
during the interim and bring their recommendations to the State
Board of Education. The State Board would then bring the proposal
to the Governor, who would then bring it to the legislature. She
asked if that was the plan?
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said the State Board of Education is
designing conceptually, the foundation formula. The board wants to
take that to the public and hopes to have it solidified to
recommendations for the Governor in time for introduction next
legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the State Board of Education would
be looking at the cap. She mentioned that Juneau is another area
that has reached the cap, which means no additional city dollars
can be put into education.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY assured Representative Robinson that was an
area that would be looked at. There are several other areas in
addition to Juneau where that is a problem. The board is aware of
the problem and will be addressing it.
Number 1943
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY referred to an article from Newsweek Magazine and
commented that if a child isn't given the proper track setting at
an early age, the child will never learn. She asked Commissioner
Holloway if she was aware of any program, other than Headstart,
that would help these children.
COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY said one of the initiatives of the Children's
Cabinet is the 0 to 6 age group, and there is an attempt to
identify across departments what kind of services families are
receiving to address the issue. Also, the department has recently
formed a partnership with the PTA, after a review of the Utah model
which has a center for family learning so good parenting and
stimulation can be addressed early on. The Department of Education
is trying to form a partnership with the Department of Health &
Social Services to work with primarily teen-age mothers. She
announced the department had just received a Danforth Grant, for
the Department of Health and Social Services and schools to develop
a plan to provide integrated services to families at the local
level. Legislators, Governor's staff and local people will be
involved. She said it is recognized that a lot more family support
is needed early on if those kids are going to have a chance at
learning.
Number 2088
WANDA COOKSEY, Lobbyist, Small Single Site School District
Consortium, testified that Section 4 of HB 452 covers the issue the
consortium was concerned about. It places in the formula, the
equation that's been used to compute the grant amount appropriated
for the 21 school districts for the last several years. The Small
Single Site School District Consortium supports HB 452 for that
section.
Number 2148
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards,
said his comments were directed to Sections 1, 2 and 4 dealing with
disparity. He advised that the rules have changed on the issue of
disparity. The state of Alaska has at stake in FY 98, about $35
million and in order to qualify for that, the disparity test needs
to be met in FY 96. He presented figures, in round numbers for the
committee to state his point. He said, "If you take a look at the
REAA supplemental, that $500, you have to have a supplemental
appropriation of $1.2 million. The 90 percent to 95 percent deduct
will get back from REAAs about $1 million, the net investment to
the state is about $200,000 in FY 96 to qualify for $35 million in
FY 98." In other words, a net investment this year supplementally
of $200,000 qualifies the state for $30 million to $35 million in
FY 98. He referred to the discussion regarding the possibility of
federal impact aid going away sometime in the future and said the
fact is this year Alaska can qualify for $35 million in FY 98 which
shouldn't be overlooked because to prorate the instructional unit
by that amount of money is roughly $3,000. The impact of that
would be borne by the districts who have the most instructional
units; Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Kenai and Juneau. The largest
school districts would take the largest hit of that proration.
MR. ROSE said the second area of support is for the single site
school districts. As everyone is aware, a formula is currently
used to calculate the amount of money that's appropriated for the
single site schools. For many of these schools, 10 percent to 15
percent of their annual budget is wrapped up in a single site
supplemental appropriation, and they are simply asking to be inside
a foundation unit.
Number 2242
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if it would be fair to say this would add a
level of comfort for the single site school districts because these
funds would be wrapped in other funding and would not be a separate
budgetary item.
MR. ROSE said all the single site school districts budget that
money contingent on a supplemental, where all the other districts
receive their funding up front.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there are really two choices: This bill or
reduce the foundation formula by about $3,000.
MR. ROSE responded yes, in FY 98.
Number 2279
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said that Commissioner Holloway had mentioned they
were looking at a per student application rather than a unit as
they move toward rewriting the foundation formula, and asked Mr.
Rose if he would care to comment.
MR. ROSE said the Association of Alaska School Boards' position is
adequacy and equity in funding. He said the concern is that as
their responsibilities to provide public education continue to
grow, more and more mandates are made and the money gets less and
less. The majority of their money is generated through regular
instruction, K-12, and that source is tapped for every other
mandate that is passed. The association is open to addressing the
foundation unit for a whole host of reasons. If in fact the PL-874
impact funds should go away, the measure used to provide equity is
the federal disparity test. If federal funding leaves, the state
will have to devise their own standard, because he felt it would go
to court. Currently, the federal government decides whether the
state satisfies an equity standard because the state receives
federal aid. Without federal aid, there would have to be an
Alaskan standard. It will have to be looked at through the
foundation process.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would hold HB 452 in committee and schedule
it for another hearing.
TAPE 96-20, SIDE B
Number 001
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the next bill on the agenda was HB 451.
HB 451 - PROHIBIT DUPLICATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Eldon
Mulder, presented the following sponsor statement: "House Bill 451
requires the use of fingerprints for identification of welfare
recipients, just as the federal government requires fingerprinting
of its employees. Today, we require teachers, substitute teachers,
bank employees and many other workers to be fingerprinted.
Fingerprinting has long been established as a valid method of
identification. Electronic fingerprinting avoids the mess of ink
used in the traditional fingerprinting. It is also much easier and
quicker to perform. House Bill 451 also adds two new sections to
our laws that makes it a violation to seek or receive duplicate
benefits under the General Relief program and the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children program.
"House Bill 451 would establish a pilot program to use electronic
fingerprinting to identify applicants for General Relief Assistance
and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This will allow the
state to be certain that no one is able to enroll under multiple
names, using fingerprints for absolute identification. As state
and federal programs limit duration of benefits, this will enable
Alaska to keep accurate track of recipients and to work with other
states to determine if applicants have received federal funded
benefits outside Alaska.
"Electronic fingerprinting is a simple procedure, both for the
applicant and the individual taking the fingerprint. The process
requires a person put their index finger and thumb on a glass
screen. A computer takes a picture creating an accurate and
permanent record. There is no messy ink usually associated with
fingerprinting. The fingerprint can be saved in a data bank and
used to compare with current and future applicants.
"Electronic fingerprinting of welfare recipients is not a new idea.
The states of California, New York and Pennsylvania are currently
using this system. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Arizona and
Washington are all in the process of moving toward this system.
"While New York and California are certainly larger than our state,
the notion of how much they've been able to save is an important
issue to consider, and relatively, we think we can save similar
kinds of dollars.
"New York saved $500,000 in a two county pilot program and has
expanded the program statewide. New York City alone will save $35
million with this program.
"California began its pilot program in Los Angeles County in 1991
with its general assistance program. It was so successful that in
1994 they expanded it to the AFDC program. The independent
consulting firm of Ernst & Young evaluated this program in Los
Angeles and recommended it for implementation statewide.
"House Bill 451 gives Alaska the opportunity to take the lead in
preventing welfare fraud by developing a system that can identify
our applicants and compare them to those who have received benefits
in other states."
MR. DeWITT mentioned that Washington State has legislation
currently to investigate a pilot program that uses the driver
license as the key for identification. It requires a thumb print
on the driver license and then requires the driver license as proof
of identification for any state benefit.
Number 105
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he assumed there was a fair amount of fraud, so
this type of system would save the state money in avoiding
duplicate benefits. He noted however, the fiscal note does not
reflect any savings.
MR. DeWITT noted he had reviewed the fiscal notes and felt the
costs were a little excessive, but he thought it was something that
could be addressed in the Finance Committee. In terms of the
amount of fraud, he thought the department should be and has been
commended by the federal government for its handling of fraud. The
process has been changed from a paper process into a computer
generated age where changing documents and forging driver licenses
for example, which have pictures on them is fairly easy. He cited
a personal experience with his 13-year-old daughter who had her
identification stolen and approximately a month ago, she got a
letter a collection company stating she needed to pay up on the
check she had cashed using her driver license as identification and
verified by a bank teller, and the check had bounced. He said
first off, his 13-year-old daughter doesn't have a driver license
and second, he believed that most bank tellers were fairly well
trained to look at a picture on a driver license, when accepting it
as identification. He concluded that the ability to forge the
documents used today for identification is improving substantially,
which is one of the reasons Washington is moving toward one
identification card using fingerprints for all benefit
applications. The idea behind this legislation is to get on the
front edge of fraud being seen in a lot of other places, and to
begin to build a data base so as the limitation of benefits is
being considered at both the state and federal level, Alaska has a
data base against which future applications can be compared.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented he had been at a restaurant one time
having lunch, paid with a credit card and got the wrong credit card
back. He used that credit card for three weeks with no problem and
didn't realize the mistake until he received a billing statement.
He encouraged Mr. DeWitt to follow up on the fiscal impact and the
savings through increased efficiency.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. DeWitt how many people the
Department of Health & Social Services thought were double-dipping
in this manner.
MR. DeWITT replied there was no absolute way of identifying it. He
explained the legislation sets up a small pilot project to find out
if administratively it could be carried out. One of the problems
in terms of specific identification is, for example in Anchorage
there is only one enrollment office. They had considered having a
project in both Anchorage and Fairbanks to compare the two and gain
a lot more information, but the cost reflected on the fiscal note
made it difficult to push for both locations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the current fraud rate was in the
Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE indicated the Director of Public Assistance was in
the audience and would be testifying.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Mr. DeWitt had looked into other
types of identification such as retinal scanning.
MR. DeWITT replied they had not, but added that Representative
Mulder met with state house members from Pennsylvania who shared
with him the success they have had with this concept.
Representative Mulder had contacted other states, but this process
seemed to be a simple, nonintrusive methodology of developing an
accurate data base. A factor in selecting the electronic
fingerprinting process was that a number of other large states were
moving in this direction.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY surmised the expense of retinal identification
would far exceed other identification systems.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said not necessarily; it does the same thing
as a fingerprint.
Number 433
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked who would be doing the fingerprinting
and if the idea was for the divisions to have the equipment?
MR. DeWITT said the equipment is very simple to operate. It's
basically a matter of punching bottoms on a computer screen.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the main thrust for setting this
up was to deal with fraud. She asked if the fraud rate of the
other states had been compared to Alaska's.
MR. DeWITT responded the fraud rates had not been compared, but
they did look at the savings other jurisdictions gained, which were
substantial compared to the money spent.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if he was correct in assuming there were two
areas of savings - the prevention of fraud and the prevention of
paperwork, since this would be done electronically.
MR. DeWITT said it was his belief that would be the case over time.
Initially, in the pilot program no savings is expected. However,
one of the questions that remains open regarding a limitation of
benefits is what the federal penalties will be for not being able
to identify an individual who has exceeded the benefit period.
This system gives an absolute way to identify the person. He noted
there were several bills contemplating a limitation of benefit time
in this legislature. The real issue is how to keep track of an
individual between this benefit period and a new benefit period
three or four years downstream and how to aggregate those. This
system has the ability to do that.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE questioned the error rate.
MR. DeWITT responded that of the individuals he has talked with,
none of them have raised that as an issue. He noted that
electronic fingerprinting is used in Alaska. The correctional
system, state troopers and court system all find it to be very
effective; none of them have indicated a problem with error rate.
As a matter of fact, the error rate on electronic fingerprinting is
substantially less than with the ink fingerprints because it is
much more difficult to distort the print by moving the finger on a
computer-driven system as opposed to ink and paper.
Number 601
LIZ DODD, Board Member, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska;
and National Board Member, American Civil Liberties Union,
testified that she had learned about HB 451 just a few days ago and
hadn't had a lot of time to involve the national experts who were
well versed in this issue. She said that most places where
fingerprinting is used have survived court challenges in order to
make sure that the legal threshold for the violation of privacy has
been met before fingerprinting is allowed. That's why it is not
really proliferated throughout society, but in very specific
places. Generally, before a person's privacy is violated, there
has to be a real concrete need for gathering the information. This
bill represents a speculative need. It speculates there might be
legislation that limits welfare benefits to a certain period time,
whether that be in the state of Alaska or in certain states, so
there would be a need to determine when a person got off benefits,
when the benefits expired and in what state that happened. At
this point, however, that is speculative. To be fingerprinting
people, violating their rights to privacy, on the chance that this
information will be needed in this state to work with other states
to make sure this type of fraud doesn't happen, is a speculative
harm weighed against a concrete constitutional right of privacy.
Number 726
MS. DODD further explained that if the federal government passes
welfare reform that limits the benefit time, she was certain there
would be enforcement provisions. Various measures will be
discussed by individuals who have a high level of expertise and a
good understanding of what electronic fingerprinting means in terms
of constitutional rights. Also, no one has been able to say there
is a huge problem in Alaska. The potential for fraud is much
greater in the states that border each other, thus the need is
greater in those states. If someone in the state of Alaska wants
to duplicate benefits, they have to fly to Washington State, for
example, and they certainly won't reap much of a profit. She felt
there was not a lot of fraud within in the state and that's the
reason why no one has been able to quantify it. She stated she
would like to have additional time to research the issue, to talk
with the national experts and get back to the committee with some
comprehensive information as to the threshold as to where
fingerprinting becomes permissible.
Number 840
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he failed to understand why Ms. Dodd
thought there was a constitutional issue in that no individual is
forced to sign up for a benefit program; it's a voluntary request
for service.
MS. DODD responded that because people are compelled to request
public assistance by virtue of their neediness, there are going to
be people trying to get these benefits. If a constitutional right
is being waived for just people who interface with the system in
one area, then that is discriminatory. In other words, as long as
a person is not in need of public assistance, then that person's
privacy rights are protected; nobody is going to fingerprint that
person. To the question of whether or not public assistance is
voluntary, she thought that was the difference in perspective
between her organization and Representative Vezey.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that she had recently been fingerprinted
while applying for a concealed weapon permit and asked if Ms. Dodd
was indicating that Co-Chair Toohey had given up her rights by
being fingerprinted?
MS. DODD responded that society has determined there is a concrete
risk that a violent crime will be committed with a firearm, which
is just one risk.
Number 953
JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department
of Health & Social Services, testified the department was opposed
to the legislation for three reasons: 1) It addresses a problem
that doesn't exist; 2) it has a cost to the state without any
anticipated savings; and 3) it sets up an information tracking
system that is virtually useless. He advised that he would address
each of these issues in detail.
MR. NORDLUND referenced Ms. Dodd's testimony regarding the
differences between California, New York and the state of Alaska.
In Alaska, there are small communities and even in Anchorage, the
largest community in the state, there is one public assistance
office. He commented it would be virtually impossible to apply for
benefits one day under one name and the following day apply for
benefits under another name. It would be impossible to apply for
assistance under two different names. He said for the most part,
he didn't see that any duplicate benefits were issued in the state
of Alaska. However, that's not to say there isn't welfare fraud in
the state - there is welfare fraud and there is a fraud unit that
tracks down fraud. This is not the type of fraud the state is
faced with, however.
MR. NORDLUND said secondly, if the state doesn't pay duplicate
benefits in Alaska, there really is no savings to be achieved
through this measure. It would simply be a cost as reflected in
the fiscal note, to implement something that doesn't do any good.
He said Curt Lomas was available to answer any questions regarding
the fiscal note.
MR. NORDLUND said his last point was that HB 451 sets up a tracking
system that is virtually useless. Even if there was a problem with
duplicate benefits in the state and the fingerprints were taken,
there is no place to send those fingerprints. There is no other
state that has a systematic information identification system like
this. He noted there are a few states that have projects like
this as Mr. DeWitt mentioned, and there is some sporadic
application of this program, but for the most part any systematic
tracking system is nonexistent. He felt the state would be
premature to set up a fingerprinting system in the state when there
is no place to send those fingerprints.
MR. NORDLUND said because of welfare reform and it appears there is
going to be a lifetime limit on benefits, there is a need to track.
He pointed out there is a problem in the federal welfare
legislation in that there is no system set up for tracking benefits
across state lines. From what he has seen, there is nothing
anticipated in terms of a federal set up in creating this tracking
system that is going to use fingerprints as a method of
identification. That's not to say there couldn't be in the future;
it's possible, but at this point he said we'd be way out in front
with a fingerprinting system that doesn't do the state any good.
Even with a pilot program, if there was a problem with duplicate
benefits, he asked what good is it just to take fingerprints in
Anchorage when those prints can't be compared with someone who
might be trying to apply for duplicate benefits in any other city
in the state. He commented this is one instance where a pilot
program really doesn't make any sense.
MR. NORDLUND pointed out the provision in the legislation which
says to apply for duplicate benefits is fraudulent is unnecessary
because the current statutes already consider applying for
duplicate benefits as welfare fraud. He informed the committee of
an individual in Anchorage who attempted to do that under an alias,
and she is currently serving time in jail.
Number 1173
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he remembered reading about a case in Anchorage
where an individual had accumulated quite a bit of money and asked
if having the fingerprints would have assisted in tracking the
person down when the department became suspicious. He felt there
were two kinds of fraud: 1) when the same person applies for
duplicate benefits; and 2) a person applies for benefits they are
not entitled to.
MR. NORDLUND explained the two most common kinds of fraud
encountered by the department. The first is when an individual's
living circumstance has changed. The income of the entire
household is looked at when determining if an individual is
eligible, and if the person moved in with someone who is providing
for them and it is not reported, that is fraud. The other kind of
fraud is failure to report earned income or failure to report an
increase in assets, which would make a person ineligible.
Number 1257
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON clarified that the type of fraud in Alaska
is different from the kind of fraud that can be detected with
fingerprinting. In other words, all fraud cases won't fit under
the fingerprinting process.
MR. NORDLUND said that was correct. He added there are two motives
behind this legislation; one is the possibility of someone
falsifying their identification and secondly, the need to track
people to ensure the five year limit, if imposed, had not been
exceeded. The second need is a real need. He explained that
Alaska needs to have a system in place which will be able to track
benefits beyond the 60-month limit that is anticipated will be
imposed on recipients. Alaska does not have the mechanism to
compare that information with other states, but whatever mechanism
is determined, has to be in place in all states and has to be
applied uniformly. At this point, there is no indication that
fingerprinting is going to be that mechanism. It is known that
each state's eligibility information system will be able to track
people from one state to the next under their true identity. Mr.
Nordlund said the department is working on a proposal to accomplish
that. In fact, part of the information systems request was
included in the supplemental budget approved by the House of
Representatives last week.
Number 1355
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to Mr. Nordlund's intuitive opinion
that there is very little fraud of duplicate benefits and asked if
there was any audit information available to actually quantify the
presence or absence of this kind of fraud.
MR. NORDLUND responded yes. He explained that a big part of their
program is quality control, which is required under federal
regulation. A random sampling of the caseload is taken
periodically and reviewed for variations or problems in the
eligibility determination process. It is partly through this
quality control process that other kinds of fraud are discovered,
but duplicate benefits have not been a problem.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced this was the first hearing on HB 451 and
it would be held in the HESS Committee for further discussion.
HB 535 - POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
Number 1400
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced HB 535 was an act to reconfigure the
Postsecondary Education Commission. He appointed a working
subcommittee of Co-Chair Toohey, Co-Chair Bunde and Senator Green.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there would be any minority
members on the subcommittee.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE explained that minority members were welcome to
participate.
HB 512 - ENGLISH AS THE COMMON LANGUAGE
Number 1503
ROGER POPPE, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative
Pete Kott, said he would be addressing the amendments in the latest
committee substitute.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE responded he would first like to take testimony on
teleconference.
Number 1665
ROY IUTZI-MITCHELL testified via teleconference from Barrow and
greeted the committee in Inupiat and Yupik. He strongly urged the
committee to defeat HB 512 for several reasons. Even though
English is his first language, he speaks German, Inupiat and Yupik
also. Since he is an employee of a college, which is part of an
Alaskan municipality, if this bill had been enacted he would have
been forbidden to greet the committee in the two Alaskan languages.
He felt that was a direct violation of Amendment I of the Bill of
Rights. Specifically, HB 512 would abridge Alaskans freedom of
speech and diminish the right to petition the government. Second,
HB 512 suggests that English is an endangered language in need of
legislative protection. Section 01.10.210 suggests that Alaskans
are currently being denied employment by state agencies, based
solely on their lack of facility with languages other than English,
even when facility in another language is not a bona fide job
qualification. He would like to know if there are examples of this
having happened in Alaska; he suspected not. Third, he questioned
the bill's finding that "the use of an official language or common
language as the language of public record in no way infringes upon
the rights of people to exercise the use of a primary language of
their choice for private conduct". Based on his own research of
Alaska Native languages and other sociolinguists, he said that
simply is not true. It is not more true than, for example a law
which makes one religion the official religion of the state of
Alaska, and then claiming that it in no way infringes upon an
individual's religious choice. Fourth, he believed that HB 512
would encourage disharmony among Alaskan residents. The United
States has always been a nation of many people through many
languages. Until this century, many regions of the U.S. were home
to Americans with languages other than English. For example,
German/American communities which have used their own languages for
local commerce, church, local government and public schooling.
Language differences are not the causes of divisiveness. As an
example, Switzerland which is officially trilingual and Finland,
which is officially bilingual, clearly illustrate that modern
industrial countries can consist of groups, each speaking their own
languages while simultaneously enjoying high standards of living
and a low level of civil strife. Fifth, he urged the committee to
consider that the state of Alaska has a moral obligation not to
discourage the survival of Alaska's 28 Native languages and to
please remember that in this context, English is an immigrant
language in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Mitchell if he was by chance a pilot.
MR. MITCHELL replied no.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked Mr. Mitchell if he had any problem with
English being used as the universal language for the aviation
industry and if he could see the reasoning behind it.
MR. MITCHELL said yes, because the pilots operate in situations
where split-second decisions are made.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY understood that, but added that people coming from
any other country in the world must use English as the language in
the aviation industry.
MT. MITCHELL said that was true, and in fact there is a simplified
version of English of only a few hundred words, that is taught to
pilots of international airlines.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY commented this bill shouldn't be taken personally,
but as a help for everyone.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called a recess at 3:35 p.m.
TAPE 96-21, SIDE A
Number 004
CO-CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting back to order at 3:42 p.m.
Number 036
MARY SATTLER, Intern to Representative Irene Nicholia, greeted the
committee in Yupik and testified that she is a Yupik Eskimo from
Bethel, Alaska. She is currently serving as the 1995-96 youth
representative for the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
and was testifying in the capacity of Miss NCAI for the National
Congress of American Indians, which is the oldest, largest and most
representative Indian tribal organization in the nation. She is
opposed to HB 512. She said that we all need a common language to
communicate in, however, she believes that English already serves
as the lingua franca and this bill would only undermine the other
languages of Alaska. She remarked that implementing legislation
which deems English as the official language would only add to the
devaluation, depreciation and denigration of extremely important
mother tongues. It has been the purpose for the last hundred years
or more of the Anglo American school system to destroy the Native
American cultures through a concerted attack on traditional Native
American languages. The establishment of an official language
would further that attack. She felt this legislation was being
initiated by a national interest group that did not have Alaska's
best interest in mind. She could understand how legislation such
as this would have bearing in California or Texas; however, in
Alaska nothing has indicated that communication in public meetings
of state agencies is hindered in any way by any other language.
She does not believe there should be further undermining of the
emotional and psychological foundations of the young people in
Alaska. The preservation of culture primarily through the medium
of language was one of NCAI's founding principals and remains a top
priority. She concluded that their linguistic heritage is vital
for the continuation of their cultures, which have historically
undergone major assaults. Native nations across the country have
expressed deep concern about the potential impact of such
legislation.
Number 213
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that a request had been made at the last
hearing for information as to how other states that have
Indian/Native cultures have dealt with this.
MS. SATTLER added that as the intern for Representative Nicholia,
she is the staff member to HB 167, a bill that would include Native
language and history in the curriculum at schools. She referred to
Section 01.10.210 (a)(3) which states, "does not apply to bilingual
education or activities if the education or activities are
authorized under state or federal law;". This was a concern for
her because it has passed in several other states. She noted that
a Congressman from New York introduced a bill on February 21, 1995,
that would make English the national language and all federal
programs that promote bilingualism. Therefore, this would directly
impact legislation promoting bilingualism in the state of Alaska.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE didn't believe that HB 512 would have an impact, but
the federal legislation may. HB 512 specifically exempts
bilingual, but whether the state should be funding bilingual
education or if it should be taking place in the home is another
discussion.
MS. SATTLER felt that deeming English as the official language and
establishing it in state agencies, which in a way a school is a
state agency, would be justification to further downplay the role
of bilingualism.
Number 466
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Sattler how many documents she was
aware of that were written in Yupik.
MS. SATTLER said Yupik isn't traditionally a literate language.
Number 493
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Sattler how many school board
members she knew of who may, on occasion, respond in their Native
language to a question from the public in a public school board
meeting.
MS. SATTLER's response was inaudible.
Number 570
MR. POPPE said at the last meeting the committee had adopted a
committee substitute, but the proposed committee substitute Work
Draft 9-LS1700\F, dated 3/5/96, before the committee had at least
two additional changes. He noted the title had been changed from
"English as the common language" in the original version of the
bill, to "English as the official language" in the committee
substitute to make it clear this legislation deals with public and
official documents, and does not attempt to change the speech
patterns of anyone in the state. That change from common language
to official language is reflected throughout the bill. Language
was inserted on page 1 under the Findings Section which reads, "(2)
Native people were the first to establish a richness and variety of
languages in this state;" to give recognition to that fact. He
said language had been added to page 2, line 2, to make it clear
the legislation wasn't trying to stop people from speaking in their
Native language. Even though the bill drafter had indicated this
bill was not an attempt to infringe upon the rights of free speech
of the people, the sponsor had inserted "or for speaking in public
buildings or other public or private places." He added that in the
case of formal public meetings, a translator would have to be
provided by the speaker if he/she wished to be understood.
MR. POPPE said the real heart of the bill is lines 5-10 on page 2.
He noted the word "orally" had been inserted on page 2, line 8, at
the request of a committee member, so a public employee of a state
agency trying to perform his duty under this bill would be required
to provide a summary or statement in English in the written record,
but could speak in another language when it was called for. At the
suggestion of another committee member "written" was inserted on
page 2, line 9, to refer just to written records. Records is
defined differently in many instances, so the sponsor was trying to
focus on just written records. He referred to page 2, line 16,
"under state or federal law" and said the sponsor was not trying to
exclude anyone, but it was an oversight that "state" had been
omitted. Mr. Poppe remarked that the sponsor had been in touch
with Senator Stevens office, and at the request of the AFN, amended
language was being inserted in the federal bill so bilingual
programs wouldn't be touched. When that language was given to the
bill drafter for HB 512, Representative Kott's office was informed
that because there were so many updates to the federal bill, it was
made generic federal law. The sponsor was trying to meet the
federal concerns regarding bilingual education, while still trying
to protect those programs. He reiterated it was not the intent of
the sponsor to prevent Native communities or their school districts
from having kids taught in the Native languages or developing
curriculums in the Native language.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to page 2, line 25, Section 6, subsection
(b) which states, "A person may not be denied employment by a state
agency based solely on that individual's lack of facility in a
language other than English" and said in California and Florida
there are situations where a person need not even apply for the job
unless the person is able to speak a specific language. He asked
if that was what the sponsor was trying to address.
MR. POPPE thought that was the intent, so if there was a specific
job requirement which required some facility in another language,
that would be taken into account.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that in order to work in his office, an
individual needs a high level of proficiency with English, which is
discriminatory against individuals who are not proficient in
English.
MR. POPPE said that would not be covered under this bill, but it is
a related issue.
Number 1107
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY didn't think there was any statutory
definition that defines a school district as an agency.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out it was defined in the Definitions
Section of the committee substitute.
MR. POPPE said the Native villages had expressed some concern with
the school district being included. He added the bill drafter
thought this would not be a problem but because of the concern, the
sponsor is willing to consider and draft a friendly amendment that
would define municipality, which could include second class cities
and villages, and redefine school district in some way to take
those concerns into account. He didn't have proposed language for
the amendment, but emphasized the sponsor was willing to consider
it.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE questioned that as more people are accommodated, how
many dialects of a particular language would be allowed to be used
by school board members. He recognized what the sponsor was trying
to do, but wondered if there was an end to the process.
MR. POPPE said part of what needed to be focused on is that nothing
is broken yet, but the sponsor views it as keeping it maintained so
something doesn't break down in the future. He pointed out there
are no statutes dealing with this issue and other states are
receiving requests for printed documents in other languages. In an
attempt to meet those requests, the city of Los Angeles for
example, in the last municipal election spent $900,000 for ballots
printed in Spanish. Also in response to requests, the Internal
Revenue Service printed 500,000 tax forms in Spanish and received
318 responses back in Spanish. Mr. Poppe said it's getting into an
area of public cost which could start looming on the horizon
because there is nothing to prevent a citizen from requesting a
public document in any of the 54 languages spoken in this state.
Between 1980 and 1990, Canada, because of its dual language
requirement with French, spent nationally $6.7 billion on public
documents in French as well as English, and their population is
one-tenth of Alaska's. The Division of Elections estimated their
costs to be $11,500 if they were to receive such a request. That
would be for just one language and would not include translation
costs.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced that HB 512 would held in committee until
the next meeting.
HB 480 - PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS
Number 1422
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, Sponsor, read the following sponsor
statement: "House Bill 480 is intended to clarify the process that
is currently in place for granting physician assistants the
authority to practice in the state, and to prohibit unfair
insurance discrimination against physician assistants.
"The bill would change current language in AS 08.64.107, dealing
with the regulations for physician assistants, from `The board
shall adopt regulations regarding the registration of physician
assistants...' to `The board shall adopt regulations regarding the
licensure of physician assistants...' This would more accurately
reflect the actual requirements a physician assistant must meet
before he or she can practice in the state under AS 08.64.170.
Under AS 08.64.170, a physician assistant must be licensed to
practice medicine under the supervision of a licensed physician.
Because state regulations require this credentialed process that is
in essence licensure, references in state statute should be changed
to more accurately reflect the high standards that must be met to
practice as a physician assistant in Alaska.
"In addition, this bill would prohibit unfair discrimination
against physician assistants under group health insurance policies.
It states that if an insurance policy covers the type of services
that a physician assistant is licensed to perform, then the policy
must cover those services when they are performed by a physician
assistant, and may not discriminate against physician assistants by
excluding their services, while covering other providers who
perform the same services."
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said he had been in contact with
physician assistants (PAs) in his area for the last year or two
over a number of issues. Some of the issues have been dealt with
through regulations, however, this particular issue of licensure
cannot be dealt with through regulation. There is an inconsistency
in the statutes that can only be cleared up by legislation. With
regard to the nondiscrimination, he was requesting that the
physician assistants be added to the existing list of providers.
He said that representatives from the major health insurance
providers had indicated that for the most part that coverage is
provided and those payments are made.
Number 1574
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he didn't understand the motivation for
this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained that the process physician
assistants go through is more akin to a licensure, rather than a
registration. He referred to a letter from the Medical Board in
which they recommend the change in statute to more accurately
reflect the process that physician assistants go through to
practice in the state of Alaska. That change in wording means
something to the health care providers and the insurance providers.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he understood the physician assistants
wanted the wording change from registration to licensure, but he
failed to understand the importance of that. He asked if
Representative Therriault was saying that insurance companies won't
pay a registered health care provider, only a licensed health care
provider.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded there had been instances where
a health care provider was denied payment because they were in a
registered classification rather than a licensured classification,
by the strict wording of the statute. However, the process by
which they go through to perform the services in the state is more
akin to licensure.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Representative Therriault could
identify who was denying payment.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said there were people signed up to
testify who could speak to specific instances.
Number 1666
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if this portion of the bill would be more or
less a semantic change in that nurses, doctors and dentists are
licensed, but physician assistants are registered.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that was his understanding.
Number 1690
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she thought it was semantics. She is a
registered nurse, but holds a nursing license.
Number 1724
JOHN RILEY, Chairman, Legislative Affairs Committee, Alaska Academy
of Physician Assistants, testified from Anchorage that the Academy
was supporting HB 480 to reserve access to the primary health care
services that are provided by physician assistants throughout the
state of Alaska. He said in the past, PAs were in general
reimbursed by insurance carriers for services provided. However,
recently some federal insurance carriers have denied reimbursement
for PA-provided services because PAs weren't considered to be
licensed in the state. Section 1 of HB 480 is an attempt to
address that problem. If private insurance companies followed
suit, PAs would be unable to provide many services to the Alaskan
public in (indisc.) instances. Section 4 is an attempt to ensure
that private carriers will continue to reimburse for PA provided
services. He emphasized that is the only intent of this bill; it
is only an attempt to ensure that the positive impact of PAs have
had in Alaskan's health care in the last 20 years will continue.
Number 1795
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said there were two major sections; Section 1 would
bring the description of the certification process in line with
other medical professionals in that PAs would then be licensed.
MR. RILEY said that even though it is just a semantic change, that
wording has been used by some federal carriers to deny
reimbursement for PA services.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE verified that the purpose of Section 4 was because
the Academy wanted the statute to indicate physician assistant fees
would be covered by insurance.
MR. RILEY concurred and said the reason that both these sections
were included is because simply changing Section 4 would not have
the effect on the federal carriers due to federal waivers from
state law.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY offered to give the committee an update on federal
Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who insures the federal employees in the
Park Service. She had talked with the Washington, D.C. Branch of
the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Office just that morning and they hoped
to have a change in their policy by the end of the week. She said
they realized it was just a very small section of the employees in
Alaska that were not being covered by PAs and they were willing to
look into that issue.
MR. RILEY interjected there was another federal carrier; the
government employees health association had the same issue.
Additionally, there are some concerns because other companies who
are not federal rely on the use of the term "licensed provider," so
the problem may not be solely confined to the federal carriers.
Number 1932
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that federal agencies are exempt
from any statute written by the Alaska Legislature and do not have
to accept medical care in Alaska.
Number 1960
JEANNE CLARK, President, Alaska Academy of Physician Assistants,
said that HB 480 would change the language in current statute from
registration to licensure. This change would accurately reflect
the stringent credentialing process that currently a physician
assistant goes through to become authorized to provide medical
services in the state. The State Medical Board has supported this
change and this request for legislation. She noted this will in no
way change the collaborative plan that is required with a physician
who supervises the physician assistant to provide these services.
In addition, HB 480 would prevent insurance companies from not
reimbursing services provided by physician assistants as a class of
providers. Currently, many companies reimburse for services
provided by a physician assistant that do not specify the term
"physician assistant" in their policy. Experience in other states
has shown that because the language is not specified, companies
have stopped reimbursement or have refused to recognize PAs as
providers of medical services. She stated that recently, several
companies had refused to reimburse for services provided by PAs in
Alaska. Section 4 of HB 480 would prevent discrimination against
reimbursement of physician assistants as a class who provides
medical services in this state.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE referred to the previous question regarding the
insurance companies who specifically refused to reimburse for
physician assistant services and asked if she was aware of who
those companies were.
MS. CLARK responded there have been some federal programs that have
not reimbursed, but she knew they were exempt from the state.
There have been other carriers, specifically in her practice that
have refused to reimburse for services that she provided to a
patient. She had copies of other examples with her. Physician
assistants who provide medical services under physician supervision
continue to work to improve access and provide cost effective
medical care. She believes the changes in HB 480 would continue to
achieve these objectives, especially with the changes that are
occurring with different carriers coming in to the state and with
the development of managed care plans.
Number 2095
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY expressed her concern with Section 4 of HB 480.
She felt it was particularly important that the medical society be
given a chance to respond whenever any medical problem is discussed
involving nurses, doctors, chiropractors, etc. She added the
society was given the opportunity to provide feedback on Sections
1-3, but they had no knowledge of Section 4. Co-Chair Toohey asked
the medical society for their thoughts regarding Section 4 and
apparently they are split down the middle on whether it should be
allowed or shouldn't be allowed. The reason for PAs is to give a
cheaper cost to the community that is paying the bill, either the
patient or the insurance company and that's why the insurance
companies are involved in this. It is her belief that if a person
sees a physician assistant at the doctor's office, the charge
should be less than if the patient had been seen by the doctor.
She asked what is to prevent a physician from having 15 physician
assistants throughout a city, not involved with the patients at
all and charging for a physician's visit for each of the PAs? She
questioned if the insurance company is obligated to pay a doctor's
visit fee when the patient was seen by a physician assistant. She
thought it was not and said she would not pay a physician's rate
when she had been seen by a physician assistant. Co-Chair Toohey
thought the bill needed to be amended until the medical community
had an opportunity to discuss the issue. She had no problem with
Sections 1-3 of the bill. There is no difference in the education
of a licensed PA and a registered PA, but she thought Section 4
should be brought before the medical community, who are responsible
for physician assistants.
MS. CLARK remarked that the language regarding the licensure is
cited in the federal register and in the Health Care Finance
Administration's regulations. She said that is one of the biggest
reasons for the change in wording because that's where the
insurance industry is getting their direction to make policy. With
regard to Section 4, she said the medical society had not indicated
to the Alaska Academy of Physician Assistants that they were not in
agreement with that section. She said there hadn't been an
objection raised in the past, and didn't see any problem with
getting their feedback.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY reiterated that she had checked with the medical
community and they are split right down the middle. They have some
major concerns with Section 4 because they are ones responsible for
physician assistants. She read from a letter from Leslie Haywood
as follows: "The medical board had not taken a position on the
entire bill, just the registered licensed portion." Ms. Haywood
also indicated there was no limit to the number of PAs a physician
can sponsor. Co-Chair Toohey added the medical society also takes
that position.
Number 2316
MS. CLARK remarked that John Riley had spoken with a member of the
Alaska State Medical Association who said the association could not
make a statement positive or negative on this bill until it was
discussed with their delegates the following weekend. Mr. Riley
indicated the physician member he spoke with understood what the
intentions were of HB 480.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that further information was anticipated
from the medical community.
TAPE 96-21, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterated that he failed to see that the
difference between registered and licensed was anything more than
semantics. He remarked the problem was so small, was it really
worth the risk of changing the statute. Often times, additional
problems are created when the statute is changed. He asked if Ms.
Clark was aware of any private providers of medical coverage who
are not recognizing physician assistants as health care providers,
especially in the context of the absence of a physician in the
community.
MS. CLARK replied yes, she personally had an experience and she had
letters from other physician assistants who had been denied in the
past.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked which companies were involved?
MS. CLARK responded private, small insurance companies.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted there were two from Aetna.
MS. CLARK said it may seem like a small problem now, but other
states are having major problems. The Academy wants to do
something about it before it becomes a major problem involving
access to health care for certain individuals in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY again asked Ms. Clark for the name of the
entity that is causing the problem.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE interjected there were two from Aetna, one from Met
Life and one from the Government Employees Hospital Association
(GHEA).
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY clarified that GHEA was exempt from state
statutes and regulations.
MR. CLARK said this was really not controlled by Blue Cross/Blue
Shield. Based on their research on the national level, it is
controlled by the government employees' benefits committee which is
headed by Senator Stevens. It is the government employees'
regulations that state it has to be a licensed practitioner.
Number 156
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce & Economic Development, testified that the
department supports the change from registration to licensure and
had submitted a zero fiscal note. She thought the Division of
Insurance could more appropriately address the questions regarding
Section 4. She said it is true that we can't regulate the federal
government; therefore, this is basically adapting to their
terminology. Within the occupational licensing statutes, licensure
is the most common term, but there are some programs where
certification or registration are used. The medical board has
voted to support the change from registration to licensure and she
hoped the committee would see fit to do so, also.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if Ms. Reardon was going to address Section
4?
MS. REARDON referenced the previous concerns that had been
expressed regarding the number of PAs a doctor could have working
under his/her supervision and the billed rates and said this is the
case currently. Section 4 does not permit that to happen in a way
that can't occur at the present time. In other words if a doctor
wants several PAs working under his/her supervision or charges a
physician's rate, that currently is the doctor's right. The
Division of Occupational Licensing doesn't regulate fees. She
pointed out that SB 100, which was introduced last year, contained
the same wording as in Section 4, so the medical community would
have been aware that the proposal existed previous to HB 480 being
introduced.
Number 299
REED STOOPS, Lobbyist, Aetna Life & Casualty, said the letter
distributed to committee members which indicated that Aetna didn't
pay a physician assistant claim actually says the only reason the
claim wasn't paid was because the bill was submitted directly by
the physician assistant and not through the supervising physician.
He stated Aetna does pay those bills when submitted through the
supervising physicians. He asked if this bill was enacted would it
obligate Aetna or any other insurance company to change the
procedure to make payment directly to a physician assistant or is
the licensing statute, which places the physician assistant under
the supervision of a physician, the guiding statute? While it may
not be a major issue, he thought it was one that needed to be
clarified.
Number 347
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY cited a hypothetical situation where she as a
stockholder of Aetna is very concerned that Aetna is paying the
proper fee for the proper services. She is also a recipient of a
state contract. She asked if her insurance company would pay the
same rate for services provided by a PA as services provided by an
MD?
MR. STOOPS said it was his understanding the physician assistant is
billed at a lower rate; therefore, that is the rate that is being
paid. He did not know if the supervising physician gets some
payment for the supervisory capacity. He added that he would
discuss the issue with representatives from Aetna who were due in
town the following day.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted that Ms. Clark indicated she is on a salary
and the insurance company is billed by the physician. The issue
raised is there is nothing in law that states a physician assistant
should be paid less than a doctor. Physician assistants don't
require the education of a doctor, but they do perform a vital
function in the state. Co-Chair Toohey thought it would be
detrimental if they charge physician fees for physician assistant
services.
Number 455
MS. CLARK said with regard to payment for services, "If services
are provided - I take care of you, I charge a fee for the service
I provide to you. I am given the authority to take care of you
through the statutes currently. That bill is sent in to the
insurance company with the name of the provider who provided that
service, the physician assistant. Then it goes to your insurance
company. Now, if your insurance company has negotiated with your
employer and the employee to give a lower rate, I mean that's
between those three entities." She commented that is not what they
are looking for in this bill; they want physician assistants to be
recognized as a provider of medical services.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if she, as a physician assistant who provides
treatment, bills the insurance company directly?
MS. CLARK said her services are billed through the physician or
through the clinic she works for.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE clarified that the clinic bills under the doctor's
name and then whatever the doctor bills the physician assistant's
time out at, the doctor has the right to bill the physician
assistant's rate according to the group policy at either a PA rate
or an MD rate.
MS. CLARK said that was right. For example, in her current
practice in Fairbanks, the physician is a participating provider in
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Washington/Alaska and accepts whatever
Blue Cross/Blue Shield pays for services. If she provides the
service, the rate billed is discount. That has been negotiated
with the people who bought the service of the insurance company.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if a group policy doesn't address physician
assistants, is it possible that a physician could bill a PA's work
at the MD rate.
MS. CLARK said it's a fee for service; it's the service that's
being provided and that's what is being billed.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE gave an example of Group Policy A which says that an
insurance company will pay for physician assistants at a certain
rate and for physicians at a certain rate. The physician assistant
provides service and the clinic employing the physician assistant
bills out the PA's time at the agreed upon rate. On the other
hand, Group Policy B does not address physician assistants, it only
addresses physicians. The physician employs the physician
assistant and the service is provided by the physician assistant,
but the physician bills at the physician rate, not at a lesser
rate.
MS. CLARK emphasized that would be based on what the policy pays.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said but if there is only one rate to bill, that is
the rate billed.
MS. CLARK said it depends on what the terms are of the policy.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE interjected that when an employer is negotiating a
group policy, it is incumbent upon that employer to negotiate a
policy that addresses a rate differential between services provides
by an MD and services provided by a PA.
MS. CLARK commented that is done a lot in the industry.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE noted that if it isn't done, then the physician has
a right to bill at the physician rate according to the policy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to the term "service provided" and
said if she went to a physician assistant or a physician and had a
throat culture, that would be the service that was provided and
that is what would be charged for.
MS. CLARK said national statistics indicate that charges provided
by a physician assistant are less than a physician's rate.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY questioned what rate she would be charged if she
went in for a throat culture and paid cash?
MS. CLARK said it's the price for the service provided.
CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said that is what is being addressed under Section
4 and that is what she objects to because there is no delineation.
CO-CHAIR BUNDE said HB 480 would be held in committee for another
hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR BUNDE announced the adjournment of the House HESS
Committee at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|