03/22/2001 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2001
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 115
"An Act allowing a physician assistant or advanced nurse
practitioner to certify the need for emergency treatment as a
result of intoxication."
- MOVED CSHB 115(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 124
"An Act prohibiting nursing facilities and assisted living homes
from employing or allowing access by persons with certain
criminal backgrounds, with exceptions."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 19(HES)
"An Act relating to federal child support enforcement
requirements regarding social security number information,
employer reports about employees, and certain kinds of automated
data matching with financial institutions; repealing the
termination date of changes made by ch. 87, SLA 1997, and ch.
132, SLA 1998, regarding child support enforcement and related
programs; repealing the nonseverability provision of ch. 132,
SLA 1998; repealing uncodified laws relating to ch. 87, SLA
1997, and ch. 132, SLA 1998; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 19(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to the award of a high school diploma to
certain World War II veterans."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 115
SHORT TITLE:EMERGENCY COMMITMENT ORDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KAPSNER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/07/01 0263 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/07/01 0263 (H) HES
02/07/01 0263 (H) REFERRED TO HES
03/07/01 0501 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/20/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/20/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(HES)
03/22/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 124
SHORT TITLE:NURS.HOME/ASSISTED LIV.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HALCRO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/09/01 0282 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/09/01 0282 (H) HES, JUD
02/09/01 0282 (H) REFERRED TO HES
03/07/01 0501 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
03/15/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/15/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(HES)
03/19/01 0656 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS
03/20/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/20/01 (H) <Bill Canceled>
03/22/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE:AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/23/01 0414 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/23/01 0414 (H) HES, FIN
02/23/01 0414 (H) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
02/23/01 0414 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/23/01 0414 (H) REFERRED TO HES
03/22/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 19
SHORT TITLE:CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/SOC SEC. #
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/09/01 0028 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/09/01 0028 (S) RES, HES, FIN
01/09/01 0028 (S) FN1: ZERO(REV)
01/09/01 0028 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/24/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/24/01 (S) Moved CSSB 19(RES) Out of
Committee
01/24/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/25/01 0168 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1NR NEW TITLE
01/25/01 0169 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PEARCE,
LINCOLN, TAYLOR,
01/25/01 0169 (S) KELLY; NR: ELTON
01/25/01 0169 (S) FN1: ZERO(REV)
01/29/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/29/01 (S) Heard & Held
01/29/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/05/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/05/01 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
02/05/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/06/01 0287 (S) HES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/06/01 0288 (S) DP: GREEN, LEMAN, DAVIS;
02/06/01 0288 (S) NR: WARD, WILKEN
02/06/01 0288 (S) FN1: ZERO(REV)
02/14/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/14/01 (S) Heard & Held
02/14/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/15/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/15/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/15/01 0385 (S) FIN RPT CS(HES) 8DP
02/15/01 0385 (S) DP: KELLY, DONLEY, AUSTERMAN,
HOFFMAN,
02/15/01 0385 (S) OLSON, WILKEN, WARD, LEMAN
02/15/01 0385 (S) FN2: ZERO(REV)
02/15/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/20/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/20/01 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/22/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/22/01 0470 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/22/01
02/22/01 0478 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/22/01 0478 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/22/01 0479 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/22/01 0479 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
19(HES)
02/22/01 0479 (S) PASSED Y14 N4 E2
02/22/01 0479 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
02/22/01 0479 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
02/22/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/26/01 0508 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/26/01 0508 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/28/01 0451 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/28/01 0451 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
02/28/01 0451 (H) REFERRED TO HES
03/22/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 115.
ANNE HENRY, Special Projects Coordinator
Division of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110620
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 115, defined a
licensed clinical social worker.
DIANA WEBBER, Director
Yukon Koyukuk Mental Health & Alcohol Program
PO Box 17
Galena, Alaska 99741
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated support of HB 115.
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Counsel
Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding Amendment F.2
to HB 115.
KEVIN HAND, Staff
to Representative Andrew Halcro
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of
HB 124.
MELVIN RICHARDSON, Community Care Licensing Specialist
Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities
Department of Health & Social Services
701 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 124.
MONTA FAYE LANE, President
Alaska Caregivers Associations
109 East 5th Avenue
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 124.
LARAINE DERR, President
Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association
426 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 124.
JIM NORDLUND, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO BOX 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 142.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 142.
JERRY JACKSON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 142.
NICOLE NELSON, Staff Attorney
Alaska Legal Services Corporation
1016 West 6thStreet
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 142.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director
Central Office
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 West 7th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 19.
DENNY WEATHERS
(No address provided)
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 19.
ERIC WEATHERS
(No address provided)
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 19.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-33, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Representatives Dyson, Wilson, Coghill, Stevens, and Cissna were
present at the call to order. Representatives Kohring and Joule
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 115-EMERGENCY COMMITMENT ORDERS
CHAIR DYSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 115, "An Act allowing a physician assistant or
advanced nurse practitioner to certify the need for emergency
treatment as a result of intoxication."
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt CSHB 115, version 22-
LS0059\F, Ford, 2/15/01, as the working document before the
committee. There being no objection, Version F was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as sponsor of HB 115. She informed the committee that she had
three amendments to offer the committee. Amendment 1, 22-
LS0059\F.3, Ford, 3/22/01, read as follows:
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "master"
Insert "clinical"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Representative Kapsner to provide a
comparison of what a master social worker is versus a clinical
social worker.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER answered that the two are the same. This
[amendment] merely cleans up the language.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that there is
different training, licensure, and coursework.
ANNE HENRY, Special Projects Coordinator, Division of Mental
Health & Developmental Disabilities, Department of Health &
Social Services, explained that a licensed clinical social
worker means that the individual has a master's degree plus two
years of experience in order to receive the clinical license.
Number 0284
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR DYSON referred to his amendment labeled 22-LS0059\F.2,
Ford, 3/22/01. He explained that this amendment would allow a
person to be considered for an involuntary commitment if the
person is a danger to his or her own unborn child, specifically
in cases of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). He noted the need to
change the "on an" language throughout the amendment to "their
own". The amendment with the aforementioned change read as
follows:
Page 1, line 5, following "intoxication;":
Insert "relating to commitment based on
intoxication or alcohol or drug abuse;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 47.37.180(a) is amended to read:
(a) An intoxicated person who (1) has
threatened, attempted to inflict, or inflicted
physical harm on another or their own unborn child, or
is likely to inflict physical harm on another or their
own unborn child, unless committed, or (2) is
incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, may be committed to
an approved public treatment facility for emergency
treatment. A refusal to undergo treatment does not
constitute evidence of lack of judgment as to the need
for treatment."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 27, following "another":
Insert " or their own unborn child"
Page 2, line 28, following "another":
Insert " or their own unborn child"
The committee took a brief at-ease from 3:12 p.m. to 3:14 p.m.
Number 0540
DIANA WEBBER, Director, Yukon Koyukuk Mental Health Galena, said
that HB 115 is an excellent bill. She then turned to the issue
of delivering mental health services in rural Alaska. She
informed the committee that some of the highest levels of
alcohol abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome exist in her area. She
emphasized that community mental health centers in rural Alaska
face great difficulty in obtaining licensed master's [level]
clinical providers. Therefore, Ms. Webber suggested broadening
the list of providers to include the same level of master's
providers that Medicaid approves to bill for clinical work,
which would include some unlicensed master's-level providers,
such as master's in counseling psychology. She explained that
it is very difficult for master's-level providers in rural
Alaska to get licensed because they don't have the same face-to-
face access to psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers
who could supervise them.
CHAIR DYSON suggested to Ms. Webber that she discuss that with
Representative Kapsner after the meeting and perhaps an
amendment could be made in the Senate. Chair Dyson said he felt
it was too late in the process to do this now. Chair Dyson
requested that Ms. Webber speak to why this legislation is
valuable and how difficult it is to do involuntary commitments.
MS. WEBBER explained that currently, in her area, involuntary
commitments can only be authorized by a psychologist or a
psychiatrist, which her area does not have. Therefore, such
folks have to be convinced to go to Fairbanks in order to be
committed. Ms. Webber clarified that the current law does not
serve areas that are underserved by medical professionals. Ms.
Webber emphasized, "I wholeheartedly endorse adding master's-
level clinicians, in some form or other, to be able to make
those clinical decisions regarding commitment. It would be very
helpful to us."
Number 0772
CHAIR DYSON requested that Mr. Ford, the drafter of the
legislation, inform the committee of his reasoning for inserting
"relating to commitment based on intoxication or alcohol or drug
abuse;" on page 1, line 5.
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Counsel, Legal and Research
Services Division, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that
the problem was that the title wasn't broad enough. He said,
"We included a reference to allow including the language on
lines 6 through 12 [of the amendment labeled F.2]."
CHAIR DYSON said the decision to broaden the title to include
Section 2 [of the amendment labeled F.2] is Representative
Kapsner's decision.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said that although this is a worthy idea,
she felt her bill was becoming a "Christmas tree." Initially,
the bill was introduced to allow mid-level practitioners to sign
the commitment papers for involuntary commitment. Then [the
title] was broaden to include mental health professionals, and
now it is being linked with FAS. Therefore, Representative
Kapsner expressed the need to maintain the original intent of
the legislation. Perhaps [what is proposed in amendment F.2]
can be done at a later time, in another bill. Representative
Kapsner also expressed concern with the possibility of HB 115
dying with the inclusion of Chair Dyson's amendment [F.2].
CHAIR DYSON clarified that the committee has before it CSHB 115,
Version F, as amended by Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER informed the committee that she had one
other minor amendment. At the prior hearing on HB 115, the
committee had added the language "medical examiners" on page 3,
line 4. She related her understanding that a medical examiner
is a person who examines people after they have died.
Therefore, she suggested changing "medical examiners" to
"medical providers" on page 3, line 4.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment:
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "examiners"
Insert "providers"
[No objection was stated.]
Number 1042
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 115, version 22-
LS0059\F, Ford, 2/15/01, as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 115(HES) was reported from
the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
HB 124-NURS.HOME/ASSISTED LIV. EMPLOYEES/VISITOR
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear HOUSE BILL
NO. 124, "An Act prohibiting nursing facilities and assisted
living homes from employing or allowing access by persons with
certain criminal backgrounds, with exceptions."
Number 1092
KEVIN HAND, Staff to Representative Andrew Halcro, Alaska State
Legislature, came forth on behalf of the sponsor. He described
the changes made in the proposed committee substitute (CS) for
HB 124 [Version O, 22-LS0087\O, Lauterbach, 3/21/01]. He stated
that there is additional language for criminal background checks
for nursing homes in Sections 1, 2, and 3 that mirrors the
language already present in Sections 4 and 5 for assisted living
facilities. The second major point of contention was that there
were some class A misdemeanors that had no relevance to a
person's ability to serve as an aide in nursing homes. He
explained that [Version O] has removed the inclusion of all
class A misdemeanors, in Section 1, paragraph (5), page 3, line
7, and in Section 4, [paragraph (5)] page 5, line 28. Two
specific class A misdemeanors were included - the improper use
of a corpse and failure to register as a sex offender.
MR. HAND explained that the third change involves the emergency
involuntary termination of a contract. He indicated that the
new language is on page 9, line 20, and lengthens the minimum
time before revocation of a contract to 72 hours. Specific
language that the long-term ombudsman must receive notice of the
termination contract has also been included. He added that if
[a resident] requests a conference within 72 hours of receiving
notice of the termination, he or she must be granted one. The
language has been changed, on page 11, line 9, to strengthen
this by stating, "appropriate care providers who shall discuss
the justification for, and the appropriateness of, the proposed
contract termination."
Number 1537
MR. HAND noted that there is still one point of contention in
the bill that is being worked on, which refers to any offense
when the victim was a resident of a nursing home or receiving
long-term care. He stated that this is hard to implement
because of the difficulty in finding information regarding past
cases, and because of the burden of investigating those cases.
CHAIR DYSON asked if Mr. Hand is asking the committee to pass
this bill out without that being fixed.
MR. HAND responded that in the mind of the sponsor, that is an
integral part of the bill. For example, there is a nursing home
employee who was recently charged with heavy theft of a resident
of a nursing home. He explained that there is nothing banning
that person from working in a nursing facility.
CHAIR DYSON remarked that it is current practice for people to
have their state crime records checked, which is available
immediately, and then go to work. He asked whether [an
applicant] who "just got off the boat" and has an extensive
criminal record, but not in Alaska, could be hired by a nursing
home.
MR. HAND answered that it was the consensus of everyone [who is
involved in this legislation] that that was an acceptable
circumstance because of the current labor pool problems in the
state.
Number 1706
CHAIR DYSON suggested that language be added whereby somebody
new to the state could not be put to work or could not work
alone, pending the background check.
MR. HAND replied that it was irrelevant whether the person was
new to the state or not. The time it would take to get the
background check done would be the same.
Number 1779
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if it would legally be possible to
refuse someone work who had just come to the state.
CHAIR DYSON responded that it is his sense that a person can be
refused hire pending a background check, or there can be special
qualifications whereby the person must be supervised.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how long the background check takes.
MR. HAND answered that it generally takes about 90 days.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that when someone starts a new
job, he or she is usually placed with someone else until he or
she is familiar with the job.
Number 1918
MELVIN RICHARDSON, Community Care Licensing Specialist, Mental
Health & Developmental Disabilities, Department of Health &
Social Services, testified via teleconference. He stated that
he found some inconsistencies in the latest draft on page 10,
lines 10-17 and lines 28-31, and page 11, lines 1-10. He
clarified that he doesn't have a problem with what is being
attempted; however, long-term care ombudsmen are not responsible
for all the residents of the home. He suggested that the bill
be modified to say, "the long-term care ombudsman will be
notified if the resident is 60 years of age or older." He added
that in [subsection] (c) specific people are identified who
should be given written notice, who are different from those who
attend the conference in [subsection] (d). He said he thinks
there should be mirror language [in those two sections].
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Richardson if he thinks the language on
page 10, lines 10-17, should be the same as the language on page
10, line 28 through page 11, line 10.
MR. RICHARDSON responded yes, that the people at the conference
who are notified should be the ones who are identified and
receiving the written notice. He continued, stating that he
believes the issue on page 5, lines 8-18, which addresses an
individual who has committed a crime against a member of a
nursing home or assisted-living home, can be addressed
successfully in regulation if the language is adopted as-is by
putting the burden of proof on the applicant.
Number 2197
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Richardson whether or not a person who has
just arrived in the state for whom there is no in-state records
should be put to work pending the [background check].
MR. RICHARDSON responded that he understands the concern;
however, there could be a resident who has been in Alaska for
ten years or less who has a clean Alaska record but has
committed many crimes prior to coming to Alaska.
CHAIR DYSON asked how practical it is to have a person work
under supervision pending the [background check].
MR. RICHARDSON answered that with large agencies it would
probably be possible. However, in the smaller communities,
where the labor pool is a great deal less, [the nursing
facilities] probably would not be able to recruit a sufficient
amount of employees to perform the mission.
Number 2188
MONTA FAYE LANE, President, Alaska Caregivers Associations,
testified via teleconference. Referring to Sections 6 through
9, regarding termination of a residential contract, she stated
that it is necessary for homes to be safe in order to operate,
not only for the staff but for the other residents. She stated:
If this is taken away from the homes, they become
liable for the safety of others and cannot make
pertinent business decisions for themselves. No home
is going to arbitrarily remove a resident from their
home without seeking all remedies available. And
those who think otherwise are people who do not know
the home business and do not have the responsibility,
both physically and fiscally, for other people. This
amendment must not be changed.
MS. LANE stated that she sees a burden with some of the barrier
crimes because they are not clearly defined. She said she
thinks [all the crimes] should be looked at individually. She
remarked that if she were interviewing someone who "just got off
of the plane" and there was not a name check or a [background
check], she would [hire] the person on a temporary work basis
under supervision. She stated that Section 14 [in the older
version of the bill] is unacceptable since the majority of homes
in Alaska are small and private, and it would be unthinkable
that the state would come into a private home and take over
while an owner and administrator lives there. The state needs
to strengthen the statute and regulation, she said, rather than
impose receiverships on private homes. She remarked that this
bill addresses the possibility of administrators, staff, and
volunteers who bring harm to vulnerable adults; however, this
does not address the vulnerable adults who move into the home
and bring danger and harm to others.
TAPE 01-33, SIDE B
MS. LANE continued, stating:
Many of us have experienced residents who have had
unknown histories of violence and have committed
assault to a staff member and/or resident. This is
totally unacceptable, and our association would like
to see language included in this bill that would also
protect those serving and living in the home.
Number 2328
MS. LANE, in conclusion, stated:
Please be gentle with the requirements for employment
in assisted living [homes]. Excluding the Pioneers'
Home, we have limited resources and a limited work
pool (indisc.). Also consider that when we say "we,"
this is inclusive to the Bush. You must not lose
sight of the fact that the work pool is even more
limited outside of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
These homes must also operate on their community
resources, which are far more limited than ours. The
felonies and misdemeanors must be very directly
related to our industry and must give people
opportunities to be gainfully employed, even when they
have made a mistake. We're supposed to be Christian,
forgiving people, and there are people who make
mistakes. And if they have had treatment and they are
trying to do the right thing, we should give them a
chance.
Number 2220
LARAINE DERR, President, Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home
Association, came forth and stated that there are some concerns
on the part of their members. She said one [of the members of
the long-term care committee] is concerned about the inclusion
of contractors and volunteers in the language. She added that
in the smaller places there is a lack of supervisory staff. If
volunteers are going to have to be fingerprinted, the pool of
volunteers will start to disappear.
CHAIR DYSON asked where the balance is between what can be done
in statute to protect [vulnerable adults] and making the law too
cumbersome to employ people.
MS. DERR responded that the balance is excluding contractors and
volunteers and to not make it so cumbersome in the rural areas
that [the homes] can't operate. Plus, she said, this continues
to add cost.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that she has read stories on abuses
and sometimes it has been volunteers. She said there might be a
way to fix that.
Number 2026
MR. HAND pointed out that [the bill] specifically prohibits a
contractor, employee, or regular volunteer. In Section 2 it
provides specific exemptions such as the following:
(3) an individual who occasionally volunteers in
a nursing facility and who is supervised by and
performs these volunteer services in close physical
proximity to the staff of the nursing facility;
(4) a contractor who does not
(A) provide services directly to one or more
residents; and
(B) have unsupervised access to a part of
the facility where services are directly provided
to residents.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that it has been his experience
that the paid staff usually has direct say over who does and
does not volunteer. He said many times in [his] church, people
working with children, as volunteers, have to get background
checks because they work in unsupervised places. If someone was
volunteering occasionally, he said, [background checks] were not
done. He asked Ms. Derr if she finds her volunteers are under
this kind of scrutiny.
MS. DERR responded that [the volunteers] are under this kind of
scrutiny at a nursing home where there are 90 beds; however, in
a nursing home where there are ten people, with one or two
people on staff, [duties] are turned over to volunteers. She
noted that [the issue] comes down to what "occasional" means.
CHAIR DYSON remarked that although there is a smaller labor pool
in the smaller communities, everyone knows everybody. He said
it seems to him that local references could be very valuable
there; however, someone who "just gets off the boat" won't have
[local references]. He suggested that there be no unsupervised
contact with the residents until the long-term background checks
are done. [HB 124 was held over.]
HB 142-AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear HOUSE BILL
NO. 142, "An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance
program; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1760
JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forth and
stated that HB 142 makes amendments to the Alaska temporary
assistance program (ATAP), which was created under the welfare
reform law in 1996. He said the bill addresses four separate
issues related to the law. One of the provisions in the bill is
in response to a lawsuit that the state lost. The main
provision of the bill deals with the 60-month limit. He
explained that [ATAP] provides cash benefits to low-income
parents on behalf of their children. Under one of the
provisions of the welfare reform law those cash benefits are
limited for families to only 60 months, which is the lifetime
limit. Both the Congress and the legislature recognized that
not everybody who is on temporary assistance is going to be able
to get off.
MR. NORDLUND stated that Congress said 20 percent of the
caseload could be exempt from the five-year limit. It is up to
the states to decide who is eligible for the exemptions. When
[Alaska] passed ATAP in 1996, the 20 percent requirement was
replicated in the state law. He remarked that the real problem
is a math problem. The 20 percent applies to the caseload at
the time it is looked at. Neither Congress nor the legislature
anticipated how much the caseload was going to come down over
the course of the last five years. Alaska's caseload in 1994
was about 12,000, and it is anticipated to be around 5,000 for
fiscal year 2003. He explained that 20 percent of the 12,000 is
approximately 2,400, which is a good amount of people who should
get extended. Now the 20 percent has to be applied to the 5,000
figure, which is a 53 percent reduction in the number of people
who can be eligible for an exemption.
Number 1886
MR. NORDLUND stated that the original bill the governor
introduced asked the legislature to get rid of the 20 percent
arbitrary cap. [The Division of Public Assistance] thought the
best approach for the [Department of Health & Social Services]
would be, in regulation, to be able to define very strict,
objective criteria as to who could get an extension beyond the
60 months. If [a family] meets the hardship criteria to prevent
them from being able to go to work, then that family would get
an extension.
MR. NORDLUND explained that the bill was open-ended; therefore,
in the proposed committee substitute (CS) [Version C, 22-
GH1023\C, Lauterbach, 3/20/01] there is a different approach
that keeps the 20 percent, but it will be applied to the
caseload as it was in 1994, versus the caseload that it is
today. He stated that the 1994 figure is the figure that the
federal government uses to determine the block grant that
[Alaska] receives to run this program.
Number 1456
CHAIR DYSON summarized what Mr. Nordlund had explained of the
bill. He asked if [DHSS] is committed to putting into
regulation information about who can receive a waiver.
MR. NORDLUND stated that there is a provision in the bill that
allows the department to draft those regulations. He explained
that what would be put into regulation would address the
families that have barriers such as physical health problems,
disabled children or relatives in the home, victims of domestic
violence, people who have mental health or substance abuse
issues, people with learning disabilities or literacy issues,
and those with multiple challenges.
MR. NORDLUND continued, stating that under federal law, which is
addressed in Section 1, [Version C], people who live in Alaskan
Native villages with an unemployment rate of over 50 percent are
exempt from the five-year limit. He explained that this was and
amendment to the federal law, which Alaska law doesn't reflect;
therefore, this would allow Alaska law to come into conformance
with federal law. He stated that Section 4 [Version C] is a
small change to a section of the law that deals with the
requirements of a family's self-sufficiency plan. Every family
who receives temporary assistance has to have a family self-
sufficiency plan developed for them that charts their course for
eventually getting off of welfare. In the original law, people
with disabilities were exempt from this, but the [Division of
Public Assistance] thinks it is still a good idea to have a plan
that would address some of the issues associated with that
disability. [The Division of Public Assistance] would work with
other agencies that are working with that family to combine that
plan.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what Section 4 would eliminate.
MR. NORDLUND explained that currently in the law there is an
exemption for people who are on the caseload but have a
disability from having to have a family self-sufficiency plan.
[The Division of Public Assistance] no longer wants them to be
exempt.
Number 1125
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forth
to address Section 3 of the bill. She explained that this
refers to a decision that was made by the superior court that
invalidated a regulation of the department for administering
this section of statute. She said the original intent of AS
47.27.015(f) was that when there was higher employment
availability in the state for two-parent families, they should
be treated differently by reducing their benefits at a time when
they might be expected to find employment. The wording that was
selected when this was made was the wording that was taken to
qualify two-parent families under the AFDC (Aid to Families with
Dependent Children) language, which was "eligibility based on
the unemployment of the family's principal wage earner." She
stated that with the change in welfare reform, that language
disappeared from the federal statute.
MS. BOMENGEN stated that taking the discussions during the
welfare reform, the department generated a regulation that
provided for the exemption of families in which there was a
second needy parent who was mentally or physically unable to
perform gainful activity. The Jackson family appealed that
determination, and the department's hearing officer said that
because of the intent of the bill it wasn't necessary for the
department to make an evaluation of the unemployment status of a
wage earner. That was then appealed to the superior court,
which interpreted the language that appeared in the statute and
said the regulation that was in place was not adequate and that
there needed to be an analysis truer to the language of the law.
She stated that the proposal in Section 3 is an effort to
rectify the miscasting of language that occurred in the original
bill. This would refer to the qualifications for two-parent
families and make a consideration for families in which the
second needy parent is unable to work.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if, according to Section 3, both
parents are unemployed and one is disable in some way.
MS. BOMENGEN responded that in the proposed language there will
be no reference to unemployment status of either parent. She
said there may be a parent who is employed and earning income
but still is eligible to receive assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether a person who is physically
or mentally unable to perform gainful activity receives some
sort of check for assistance.
MR. NORDLUND answered that if a person was receiving SSI
(Supplemental Security Income), then he or she would not be
receiving temporary assistance and would not be covered by this
program. He added that if there is a two-parent family and one
of the parents is disabled, their benefits are not cut.
JERRY JACKSON testified via teleconference. He stated:
In 1997 we went down south knowing that we would have
problems with our child at birth. ... She was born
with a (indisc.), without a vagina, clubfoot, spina
bifida, (indisc.) at the base of her spine, and
associated medical conditions. My wife dealt with
these issues for two years and 23 surgeries. We got
popped with the cease order reduction in '98. We were
left with no choices. We either had to sell our only
means of making a living in rural Alaska, which was
our fishing permit to pay rent. When it came back in
'99 - I had two months before graduating college - we
protested this. If I had been able to take a job, I
would have. If I had [taken a job], we would have
lost medical [coverage] and our Alaska residency.
We were between a rock and a hard place. ... These
matters are gone for us now, but this piece of
legislation will not address those people with special
kids that have needs. ... It will put hardship and
burden on these parents. This issue was addressed by
the court system, and this is only a means of trying
to circumvent fixing the situation. ... What I'm
hearing is mostly in-state issues. We had to fight
for our residency for three years. It's been an
uphill battle. My wife was at the hospital more; she
was at home. I attended school full-time - graduated
with a 3.5 GPA (grade point average). I had no
choice. I wish I could have gone to work, I wish I
could have made it easier. But to do so would have
devastated my family, and we would have lost our
residency.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Jackson if this bill makes it any worse
for people in his situation.
MR. JACKSON responded that he would think so, if it is the same
as in the past, with individual cases not being addressed.
Number 0485
NICOLE NELSON, Staff Attorney, Alaska Legal Services
Corporation, testified via teleconference. She stated that
[Alaska Legal Services Corporation] sees two fundamental
problems with HB 142 that will have detrimental impacts on
disabled Alaskans. The first problem, she said, concerns
Section 1, which proposes to amend seasonal benefit reductions.
Alaska Legal Services Corporation represented the Jackson family
in the lawsuit, she noted. She explained:
The Jacksons are a two-parent family with three
children, the youngest of which was born with several
birth defects and is severely disabled. Both of the
Jackson parents are trying desperately to support
their family and still provide proper care for their
disabled child. Ms. Jackson was unable to work
because her child's disabling condition demanded
around-the-clock medical care and attention. These
parents realized their family would never become self-
sufficient unless Mr. Jackson was able to obtain a
higher-paying job. So they followed the family self-
sufficiency plan designed for them by the state. This
plan required Mr. Jackson to attend a full-time, two-
year welding program so that he could get a higher-
paying job and support his family. However, when Mr.
Jackson was within two months of completing this
program, his family received notice that their ATAP
benefits would be cut in half for the next three
months.
Since the family was barely making ends meet without
the cut, this reduction meant not only that the family
could not meet its most basic needs and face
homelessness, but it also jeopardized Mr. Jackson's
completion of the welding program and thus moved the
family further away from self-sufficiency. The
Jacksons asked the state for an exemption from the
seasonal benefit reduction, but were told that the
state did not have the flexibility to grant such an
exemption. Their tragic situation was the basis of
the superior court's decision in Jackson v. the State
of Alaska. In that case, the superior court held that
the regulation which prevented the state from granting
the Jacksons an exemption was inconsistent with the
seasonal benefit reduction statute, and remanded that
case back to the state.
With that regulation gone, the state was able to grant
the Jacksons an exemption from the seasonal benefit
reduction based on their compelling circumstances.
Now that the proposed amendment was due, it changed
the statute so that it mirrors the restrictive and
faulty regulation. And this would take away the
state's ability to exempt families with disabled
children from the seasonal benefit reduction. Any
legislation which would punish families like the
Jacksons, who are doing the right thing by both
working toward self-sufficiency and taking proper care
of their disabled child, simply isn't just. We are
asking that you oppose Section 1 of HB 142 [of the
original bill] ... or that you carve out an exemption
for parents that must provide home care for a disabled
child.
The second problem with HB 142 is that it mandates
that all disabled parents have a self-sufficiency plan
in order to get benefits. Currently, disabled persons
can and do participate in self-sufficiency planning;
however, they are not required to do so in order to
receive benefits. There's no evidence to suggest that
there has been a problem with this system, and nothing
indicates that disabled persons have been abusing it.
Without such evidence, there simply is no
justification for making it more difficult for people
with disabilities to access public benefits. ... We
are asking that AS 47.27.030(c)(2) cannot be repealed.
Number 0132
MR. NORDLUND explained that there had been a discussion relating
to the legislation about benefit cuts, which was an across-the-
board cut. Everybody's benefits were going to go down 15
percent from the benefit level established in the statute now.
He stated that there were three benefit cuts. One took into
consideration housing expenses; the second got rid of allowing
the second parent in a two-parent family to receive money; and
the third cut 50 percent of the benefits during the three months
in the summer because there are more jobs in Alaska then. Also
[there were cuts] for two-parent families because, presumably,
there is one person who can take care of the children and
another can work. He clarified if one of those parents is
disabled, then the two-parent benefit cut does not apply.
TAPE 01-34, SIDE A
Number 0054
MR. NORDLUND stated that from the standpoint of the
administration, they didn't like doing benefit cuts, but it was
part of the legislative process. The way that the law was
drafted was a mistake. Language borrowed from the old AFDC law
said [the Division of Public Assistance] had to determine
whether the family was unemployed and who the principal wage
earner was. That was never the intent; the intent of the
legislature was to simply say, "If you are a two-parent family
on the program, your benefits get cut in the summer." He said
if there is any change, he suggests that [the legislature] go
back and look at that policy.
CHAIR DYSON asked if [the Division of Public Assistance] is open
to fixing the problem that the Jacksons found themselves in.
MR. NORDLUND responded that they would consider a situation like
the Jackson case.
Number 0220
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that in rural Alaska there is no
medical attention, not much childcare, and little employment.
He stated that he is heartened to hear that people who find
themselves in those situations will be benefited.
CHAIR DYSON asked if it is impractical for language to be
drafted that includes, in the exemptions, a family that is
taking care of a child who requires that kind of care.
MR. NORDLUND replied that this is a discussion that would have
to involve the commissioner of [DHSS].
MS. BOMENGEN stated that this is simply proposed as a fix. The
way the statute reads right now is not workable, because the
department no longer makes the assessment of unemployment and
principal wage earner. This has been framed as a method to
restore a status quo.
CHAIR DYSON asked if adding a slight change to the law to take
care of situations like the Jacksons found themselves in would
be a policy shift.
MS. BOMENGEN answered yes, that it is a change in how the
program has been operated.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the title [of the bill] would have to be
expanded.
MS. BOMENGEN responded that it is a very broad title and she
doubts that it would be [changed].
Number 0435
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that she doesn't understand why, if
a self-sufficiency plan has already been approved, it would be
necessary to go back on it. She asked, if there is a waiver to
accept self-sufficiency plans that is fair, whether that is a
possible fix.
MR. NORDLUND answered that [the Division of Public Assistance]
probably made a mistake by not talking adequately with the
disability community about that provision. He said the intent
is to help [disabled families] move along toward a process of
improving their lives.
CHAIR DYSON asked if he would be correct in stating that this
bill helps get the department out of the 20 percent bind and
brings Alaska law into conformity with the federal law. And he
asked whether it doesn't do anything to help people who are in
the Jacksons' situation, but also doesn't do anything to make it
worse for them.
MR. NORDLUND stated that he was correct.
CHAIR DYSON announced that he was going to suspend the hearing
on this bill. He asked whether there could be a change so that
two-parent families - one parent of able body and one who has to
take care of a profoundly handicapped child - also qualify and
are considered as a one-parent family. [HB 142 was held over.]
SB 19-CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT/SOC SEC. #
CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 19(HES), "An Act relating to federal child
support enforcement requirements regarding social security
number information, employer reports about employees, and
certain kinds of automated data matching with financial
institutions; repealing the termination date of changes made by
ch. 87, SLA 1997, and ch. 132, SLA 1998, regarding child support
enforcement and related programs; repealing the nonseverability
provision of ch. 132, SLA 1998; repealing uncodified laws
relating to ch. 87, SLA 1997, and ch. 132, SLA 1998; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0667
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Central Office, Child Support
Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue, came forth in
support of SB 19. She said that this is a very similar bill to
HB 41, which was passed out of the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee. There are two major
differences. One is that SB 19 has a five-year sunset instead
of a two-year sunset. The second difference is that it does not
have the amendment allowing for a child support payment to be
held over if there are too many payments in one month.
CHAIR DYSON asked if it would bother her if those two amendments
were made.
MS. MIKLOS, referring to the two-year sunset, responded that in
those two years there is going to be a new governor, and there
is a chance that there won't be a child support director, or if
there is a new child support director, that person may not
understand these issues. She remarked that she would be happier
if it were a three-year sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that there will be a new
governor, which is a good reason why this should be up for
discussion.
Number 0829
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 19, Version P, 22-GS1002\P,
Lauterbach, 3/7/01, as the working draft.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected. She said she believes the
division has shown a great deal of effort and success in
cleaning up a lot of problems that had been present early on.
She said she has witnessed clients of hers get off of welfare
and change their lives around because their partners in
parenthood finally began to take personal responsibility. She
said she thinks it is a good idea to review the divisions and
departments to see if they are doing what they should be doing.
CHAIR DYSON asked Representative Cissna what she is objecting to
with the [adoption of Version P].
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA responded that her objection was to the
effective date. She removed her objection.
Number 1224
CHAIR DYSON announced that there being no further objection,
[Version P] was before the committee.
Number 1256
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt conceptual
Amendment 1, to change the effective date on page 6, line 16, to
2006.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Joule,
Wilson, and Dyson voted for the amendment. Representatives
Kohring, Coghill and Stevens voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
Number 1353
DENNY WEATHERS testified via teleconference. She stated:
In 1998, Alaska State Legislature and Governor Knowles
sold my rights, among other people's rights and
freedom, to the federal government under duress.
Those were the very words stated on HB 344, which
passed in 1998. During the testimony this year, and
the prior year it showed that the people of Alaska
were opposed to HB 344. In fact, the only people for
it [were] the government employers, two government
employees, and the legislature. And they forced the
use of a federal social security number on Alaska
documents.
Up until 1998 the social security number was not
required. Now persons renewing licenses are being
denied without the social security [number]. There
were several bills in Juneau, as well as Washington,
D.C. - HR 220, Identity Theft Protection Act, in
Washington, D.C. - to halt the use of social security
numbers on documents. House Bill 344 was set to
sunset this summer, ending many of the problems for
most of us refusing to use or divulge our social
security [numbers]. On February 6, 2001, Governor
Knowles passed that a requirement of social security
numbers be continued so the state could collect the
blackmail money. The Senate voted 14 to 4 to set out
the federal government. The will of the people was
ignored. Instead of America, Home of the Free, I now
live in Communist Alaska, where we are required to
(indisc.) paper to live or to believe. Oh, excuse me;
I forgot - you need a federal number in Alaska to die
now. It is stated in Section 4 of your bill there.
Maybe the people still have a chance, which I doubt
now, listening to you. I thought the House of
Representatives was willing to stand up to the federal
government. But I see you are willing to take the
blackmail money, too. ... I would ask that you vote no
on ... SB 19. The social security number is a federal
number and was not required to be used in Alaska until
1998. You could make that effective date on [SB] 19
and [HB] 41 immediate, because also if you say, "We're
going to get rid of the child support for social
security number, but not until we collected money and
used you people." I and my husband paid and arranged
for our own children, as all parents did and their
parents. Our sons do not owe child support; in fact,
I think the majority of Alaskans don't owe child
support. So, I say please don't punish us for someone
else's child support.
Number 1520
ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference. He stated that he
is opposed to SB 19 because he believes it is only another way
to require the use of social security numbers. He said:
I've been denied a driver's license for not providing
a social security number. And I have been arrested
for it and put in jail for eight hours - I just got
out - all because the social scientists want money,
supposedly for stopping dead-beat dads. I'm just
wondering how long I'll be put in jail next time I'm
stopped for driving, or hunting, or fishing. I think
your time would be much better spent disarming the
people. That way, you guys could all stay home and
let the federal government and social services run the
state.
Number 1580
CHAIR DYSON made a motion to rescind the committee's action in
adopting Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected.
A roll call vote was taken [again for conceptual Amendment 1].
Representatives Cissna, Joule, and Wilson voted in favor of
Amendment 1. Representatives Stevens, Kohring, Coghill, and
Dyson voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote
of 3-4.
Number 1710
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to move HCS for CSSB 19,
version 22-GS1002\P, Lauterbach, 3/7/01, from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There
being no objection, HCS CSSB 19(HES) 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 5:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|