Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/22/2016 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB315 | |
| HB334 | |
| HB328 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 328 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2016
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Talerico
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to an electronic visit verification system for
providers of certain medical assistance services."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 334
"An Act relating to visitation and child custody."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 328
"An Act prohibiting smoking in certain places; relating to
education on the smoking prohibition; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC VISIT VERIFICATION: MEDICAID
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) VAZQUEZ
02/17/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/16 (H) HSS
03/22/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 334
SHORT TITLE: CHILD CUSTODY;DOM. VIOLENCE;CHILD ABUSE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MUNOZ
02/22/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/16 (H) HSS, JUD
03/22/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 328
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SMOKING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TALERICO
02/22/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/16 (H) HSS, JUD, FIN
03/22/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ANITA HALTERMAN, Staff
Representative Liz Vazquez
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 315 for the bill sponsor,
Representative Vazquez.
ALLISON LEE, State Director; Chair
Rescare Alaska
Alaska PCA Providers Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 315.
DENISE TOCCO
Sandata Technologies
Port Washington, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 315.
GREY MITCHELL, Director
Division of Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of HB
315.
CONNIE SIPE, Executive Director; Co-Chair
Center for Community
Alaska PCA Providers Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 315.
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 334 as the sponsor of the
bill.
AL LEVY, Chair
Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 334.
DEBBIE HOLBROOK, Attorney
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 334.
ANDY HARRINGTON
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 334.
JOHN HOAG, Attorney
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 334.
KATHRYN SODEN, Senior Staff Attorney
Legal Program
Alaska Network of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 334.
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director
AWARE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 334.
KIRSTEN SWANSON, Attorney
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 334.
FRED VALDEZ, Attorney
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 334.
JOSEPH COULTER-KHAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 334.
CATHY COULTER-KHAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 334.
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff
Representative Dave Talerico
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 328 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, Representative Talerico.
MICHAEL PATTERSON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 328.
DALE FOX, President/CEO
Alaska CHARR
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 328.
KAREN PERDUE
American Cancer Society
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 328.
EDY RODEWALD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 328.
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 328.
GARY FERGUSON, M.D.
Senior Director of Community Health Services
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 328.
ALEX MCDONALD, Owner
Ice Fog Vapor
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 328.
SHARON WOLKOFF
Kodiak Area Native Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 328.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:12:55 PM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.
Representatives Seaton, Stutes, Vazquez, Foster, and Wool were
present at the call to order. Representative Tarr arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
[Chair Seaton passed the gavel to Vice Chair Vazquez.]
HB 315-ELECTRONIC VISIT VERIFICATION: MEDICAID
3:14:18 PM
VICE CHAIR LIZ VAZQUEZ announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to an
electronic visit verification system for providers of certain
medical assistance services."
3:14:37 PM
ANITA HALTERMAN, Staff, Representative Liz Vazquez, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement [included in
members' packets], which read, in part:
This bill requires the implementation and use of EVV
systems for PCA services in Alaska. The EVV systems
monitor and verify home health services delivered by
PCAs by tracking whether home visits occurred and the
time spent in the home. The EVV system will verify in
real time the physical location of the provider (PCA)
and the recipient after they both "sign in" and "sign
out" of the EVV system. The "sign in" and "sign out"
is usually done by land-line or cell phone and the
location is verified by the EVV program. Thus, the EVV
system reduces waste, abuse and fraud by capturing and
reporting actual time worked by the PCA or home care
provider. The goal of HB 315 is to ensure the State
only pays providers for approved services rendered by
appropriate home health agency personnel while within
the recipients' home or other authorized setting. This
ensures that Medicaid recipients receive services as
authorized. It is anticipated that billing errors,
fraud, and abuse will be reduced significantly through
verification of home visits through these efforts.
As Alaska's population is aging, the demand for PCA
and home care services will increase. Accordingly, it
is will become increasingly more important to ensure
that home care is delivered properly and that publicly
funded resources are being managed and spent
appropriately. It is anticipated that Alaska has the
potential to realize savings of between $15 million
and $37 million dollar.
MS. HALTERMAN relayed that some of the major benefits of the
proposed HB 315 included that the technology could potentially
provide early identification for adult protective service issues
by identifying neglect situations and triggering alerts to the
agencies when a care giver did not show up at the home, which
would also realize savings for reducing payment of services not
rendered. She directed attention to supportive documents which
addressed the return on investment [included in members'
packets].
3:17:02
MS. HALTERMAN paraphrased from some proposed changes [included
in members' packets] from the original bill to a not yet
introduced committee substitute (CS) for HB 315, labeled 29-
LS1287\W, Glover, 2/18/16 [included in members' packets], which
read:
Upon reviewing the bill as it had been written, I'd
realized that home and community based and personal
care attendant services are NOT always provided in the
home but that sometimes they are provided in other
settings. The language change on version W addresses
the need for more flexibility with language to
accommodate the various settings where services may be
provided. The addition of language to allow for "other
approved settings" addressed that issue.
3:17:50
MS. HALTERMAN moved on to paraphrase proposed changes [included
in members' packets] from the not yet introduced Version W to a
not yet introduced committee substitute (CS) for HB 315, labeled
29-LS1287\E, Glover, 3/21/16 [included in members' packets],
which read:
Version E keeps the change made in version W and adds
a few others as follows:
1. Prior to requesting a hearing over this bill, SDS
inquired of our office about the development of the
new system they appear to have thought they were to
develop in light of language used in versions A and W
of this bill. The changes to version H make it clear
that the Department shall procure an electronic visit
verification system and not develop one of their own.
The development of a system would be costly and the
Department alerted me on March 16, 2016 that this bill
would likely have a $5 million dollar fiscal note,
this lead us to understand that they had not
understood the intent of this bill. In addition, the
changes in version H also add a stipulation that the
system must allow providers to electronically document
the service in near real-time where it is technically
feasible. This will allow us to address allowing more
flexibility in remote areas with no telephone, cell
phone or computer access. It has been discovered that
vendors appear to offer another solution for those
settings that actually is entered after the visit
occurs. These vendors offer a unique number to assure
that the above information is collected and stored
when technology solutions are not feasible. The bill
ensures that any vendor must be capable of meeting
these requirements.
2. The PCA providers have raised issues with a third
party employment relationship concern that has been
addressed by the Federal Department of Labor and our
office felt the need to place assurances in the bill
that address this issue. We do not intend to replace
the role of the PCA provider or Home and Community
based provider agencies in the role of employer. In
order to address that concern, we changed the language
of the bill in order to ensure the providers still
have the ability to be alerted to concerns that need
to be managed by the agency. Therefore it seems
advisable to add language that requires the vendor to
alert the provider agency of any gaps or missed
appointments in order for them to remediate the issue.
The state also should have the option to receive these
alerts and the new CS addresses that issue.
3. The final change addresses integration concerns
that agencies raised. Some claim to have proprietary
systems that they feel will no longer be usable with a
vendor based EVV system. The final version E adds a
new section that addresses this by requiring the
vendor to integrate any existing EVV systems into the
vendor solution.
4. We had leg legal define "real time" as "within a
couple of minutes of the occurrence". This was done in
order to identify any gaps in service or to allow
adult protective service issues to be identified as
early as possible for the most vulnerable
beneficiaries.
3:21:34 PM
MS. HALTERMAN summarized that the bill "is easy to use, it
doesn't require hardware or software, and it does assure that
the services that are paid for by state government are actually
being rendered within those homes."
3:21:50 PM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ opened public testimony.
3:22:15 PM
ALLISON LEE, State Director; Chair, Rescare Alaska, Alaska PCA
Providers Association, stated support for electronic visit
verification (EVV) systems for PCA (personal care attendant)
services, and pointed to some issues with the not yet proposed
committee substitute. She directed attention to a white paper
stating general support for the proposed bill [included in
members' packets], and she noted that the Department of Health
and Social Services had the authority to establish requirements
for EVV without any legislation.
3:23:55 PM
DENISE TOCCO, Sandata Technologies, stated support for proposed
HB 315, and reported that Sandata Technologies was a vendor
currently which offered EVV systems in seven states, and had
been providing this EVV technology to payers and providers for
the past 36 years. She stated that the EVV systems had proven
to remove fraud and improve quality by ensuring that only visits
that were properly verified were allowed to be submitted as
claims. She declared that the third party outcomes showed that
EVV programs could reduce claims costs by as much as 50 percent
without changing the benefit structure or care delivery model,
as the savings were a result of the removal of fraud. She
estimated that EVV systems could provide a "minimum claims
reduction of 5 percent," which represented an estimated $50
million savings in the first year prior to any Federal Medical
Assistance Percentages (FMAP). She relayed that Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) had recently approved
enhanced FMAP rates at 90 percent for one time fees and 75
percent for recurring fees for two states with EVV programs.
She declared that proposed HB 315 was an important first step
toward improving efficiency and insuring care, after which the
Department of Health and Social Services could evaluate and
procure an EVV solution that works best for Alaska. She
suggested that Sandata Technologies recommended a single vendor
solution in order to maximize program savings, and increase
quality of care with consistent monitoring and alerts. She also
recommended that an EVV solution be required to integrate with
existing provider software systems, to help maintain the
investments made by local providers. She shared that the
majority of home care providers in most states had not made an
investment in technology and would welcome solutions to help
automate their businesses. She reported that EVV solutions were
sold as a software service, and that there was not any software
or hardware to buy. She relayed that it would take four to six
months to implement a statewide program. She reiterated support
for the proposed HB 315.
3:26:32 PM
MS. TOCCO, in response to Representative Tarr, said that she was
affiliated with Sandata Technologies, a vendor providing EVV
software to state programs.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if Sandata anticipated an interest in
providing the services, should the proposed bill pass.
MS. TOCCO replied that Sandata would like to bid on any public
procurement as a result of the proposed bill.
3:28:52 PM
GREY MITCHELL, Director, Division of Labor Standards & Safety,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, in response to
Representative Tarr, explained that he did not have any specific
information about the services, as his involvement was for the
potential impacts on labor laws and any EVV requirement issues
that may impact the state.
3:29:42 PM
MS. TOCCO, in response to Representative Tarr, offered an
explanation as an industry vendor, and not specifically as a
representative from her company. She explained that non-urban
visits could be verified through a variety of ways, including
telephonic verification of visits, cellular GPS solutions, home-
based device solutions, and she acknowledged that the geography
of Alaska offered some unique challenges. She shared that her
company had operated in many large states with rural areas,
where connectivity could be a challenge, and the company, and
other vendors, had found multiple solutions for verification of
visits.
3:30:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about the changes in technology over
the past 36 years that Sandata Technologies had been in
business.
MS. TOCCO replied that her company had used telephones, and had
held the original patents on electronic visit verification (EVV)
although that had since expired.
3:31:16 PM
CONNIE SIPE, Executive Director; Co-Chair, Center for Community,
Alaska PCA Providers Association, reported that Alaska PCA
Providers Association represented the largest provider companies
in Alaska. She stated support of the proposed bill, in concept,
and directed attention to the aforementioned white paper
[included in members' packets]. She expressed desire to work on
the not yet introduced committee substitutes. She relayed that
the Medicaid expenditures for PCAs in the last year had been
about $89 million in Alaska, pointing out that the provider
agencies were "economic engines in the communities where we
provide many, many hours of jobs and work." She reported that
the white paper had urged a standards based method, used by
Washington and other states, which had set a standard for the
kind of EVV systems to be used statewide, so that the providers
could use an integrated software system. She noted that the
State of Alaska was still requiring hard copy time sheets signed
by the worker and the client. She offered belief that one
uniform state system could be very inefficient as there were
large providers from multiple states with different systems.
She expressed concern with a real time window as it imposed an
implied monitoring obligation that could be difficult to staff.
She relayed information from a CMS seminar during which some
states had been told they were "joint employers" of personal
care attendants, as indicated by an EVV system with real time
access by the state. She stated that, as there were not any
clear federal regulations, this was currently based on
interpretation by the U.S. Department of Justice. She pointed
out that this could affect the state's liability for overtime
pay to a personal care attendant. She pointed out that,
although the aggregate cost of Medicaid spent on personal care
attendants seemed large, this was so much less per client than
the cost of nursing homes. She reported that the personal care
attendants were the lowest paid per unit service in the Alaska
Medicaid system.
3:37:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that this issue had arisen in the
past, as there had been a re-evaluation of the time allotted for
personal care services (PCAs). She relayed that some services
had been re-scheduled into 15 minute increments, which she
opined had scaled back the amount of time allocated to patients.
She asked if this was putting a lot of strain on the system to
provide the services in the allotted time, and possibly taking
away from provider time with the client.
MS. SIPE reported that Medicaid costs for the PCAs had come down
from over $100 million annually, partially as an effort by the
Department of Health and Social Services to become more
prescriptive about the amount of time and service. She noted
that, in other states, many consumers did not have land line
phones, and not all PCAs had a cell phone or availability of a
land line. She expressed concern for this, sharing that
sometimes workers were met by a crisis immediately upon arrival
at a job, and were not able to sign-in right away. She reminded
that the agencies were in a constant back and forth with workers
and clients, so were much more aware of the goings-on, and that
this provider information and data were kept available to the
state upon request.
3:41:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how frequently the association was
audited.
MS. SIPE relayed that the state would draw 50 of the higher risk
service providers each year, of which a number were PCA agencies
and home and community based providers. She shared that her
agency included 10 providers and had been audited three times,
although never found to have any problems. She noted that, as
they were subject to audit for seven years, they kept the
records for that far back.
3:42:30 PM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked about the periods of time for the three
audits.
MS. SIPE offered her belief that the state audits were for
service in 2006, then again for services in 2010 and in 2011.
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked about the compensation received from
the Department of Health and Social Services for every 15
minutes of service.
MS. SIPE stated that the Medicaid base rate for personal care in
Anchorage, although there were some regional adjustments because
of cost, was $6.10 for each 15 minute unit. She reported that
many PCAs in this area had Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)
certificates, and asked to be paid $15 - $16 per hour. She
added that all the unpaid costs, support costs, and supervisory
costs were also paid out of this, as they only billed for the
actual services delivered. She pointed out that the agency paid
the travel time, as it was not billed to Medicaid.
MS. SIPE, in response to Vice Chair Vazquez, said that the
regional cost in SE Alaska was 9 percent higher, adding about $2
per hour. She relayed that the PCAs started at $14.58 or
$15.02, and, dependent on prior experience, could start higher,
up to $16 per hour. She said that it was difficult to pay less
than $16 per hour in Anchorage, although in smaller communities
in SE Alaska PCAs were sometimes paid $14.50 - $15 per hour.
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked if the agency offered health insurance.
MS. SIPE replied that the agency would be obligated to start
providing health insurance for people with variable hours,
fluctuating around 30 hours per week, on July 1. She stated
that it was likely they would not be able to provide this, and
would then also have to drop the health insurance for 40 hour
per week workers as the agency could not afford to pay the
insurance premiums. She acknowledged that this would result in
the payment of penalties. She reported that the monthly
insurance premium for a worker with no dependents was $950 per
month, with a fairly high deductible. She stated that it was
not possible to pay these premiums for those only working 30
hours per week. She shared that the agency was looking at lower
cost policies with higher deductibles that would still meet the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requirements.
She said that part time workers received the required benefits
of unemployment insurance, a small Christmas bonus, and an
occasional paid holiday each year. She reported that the
[profit] margin was very low as there was a lot of paid time for
training, no-shows, supervisors, billing clerks, compliance
staff, and "other things."
[HB 315 was held over.]
HB 334-CHILD CUSTODY;DOM. VIOLENCE;CHILD ABUSE
3:47:10 PM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 334, "An Act relating to visitation and
child custody."
3:47:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that she had given a lot of thought to AS 25.24.150, and its
judgements for custody. She relayed that she had met several
individuals who had experienced significantly damaged
relationships with their children due to the application of this
law. She paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement, which read:
HB 334 was introduced to give judges more discretion
in determining the best interest of the child in
custody cases. Currently, AS 25.24.150 includes a
provision that if a parent has been accused of
domestic violence that parent may not be awarded sole
or joint physical or legal custody of the child.
Although there is a rebuttable presumption in place to
overcome this provision, it is a lengthy process
involving the requirement to complete a one year
batterer's intervention program. Domestic violence is
broadly defined to include an ex-parte domestic
violence order, a violation of an order, misdemeanor
assault, or allegations of abuse. In 2004, HB 385 was
signed into law which established the rebuttable
presumption. The intent of this legislation was to
ensure those with a criminal history of domestic
violence were held accountable for their actions and
that the children in question were protected. At times
the provisions of AS 25.24.150 are used for custodial
advantage. In these instances, the discretion of the
court is limited and the best interest of the child is
affected. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services states, "Fatherless children are at a
dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse."
Additionally, they state "Fatherless children living
in homes without contact with their biological father
are twice as likely to drop out of school." HB 334
seeks to give flexibility to judges, while maintaining
the presumption for those with criminal domestic
violence convictions while ensuring that the well-
being of children remains our primary priority.
REP. MUNOZ read from the proposed bill, page 4, line 29:
The willingness and ability of each parent to
facilitate and encourage a close and continuing
relationship between the other parent and the child
except that the court may not consider this
willingness and ability if one parent shows that the
other parent has sexually assaulted or engaged in
domestic violence...
REP. MUNOZ expressed her concern with the "engaged in domestic
violence" language. She declared that there was a rebuttable
presumption in which the parents accused or convicted of
domestic violence on one or more occasions could complete a one
year batters' intervention program, although the parent could
only see the child under supervised conditions on a very limited
basis during this year. She reported that Alaska had some of
the toughest domestic violence laws in the U.S. She stated that
the changes proposed in the bill would not weaken the laws, and
the domestic violence orders or the process for filing would not
change. She shared that the proposed changes to the law would
require a conviction of domestic violence for those provisions
of AS 25.24.150 to apply in custodial decisions, and would
result in more equity, due process, and the best interest of the
child to be the first priority in determining custodial
arrangements. She shared an anecdote for the problems with the
statute.
3:54:43 PM
[Vice Chair Vazquez returned the gavel to Chair Seaton]
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to Representative Tarr,
explained that the current law could be used for custodial
advantage, as it was as ex-parte filing which did not require
both parties to be present. She shared that any contact during
this time could result in a violation of the ex-parte order, and
be considered a domestic violence incident.
3:56:35 PM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
3:56:47 PM
AL LEVY, Chair, Board of Psychologist and Psychological
Associate Examiners, stated that he was representing himself and
the interests of his clients. He declared that he was opposed
to HB 334. He shared that he was a therapist in private
practice in Anchorage, he worked with children and families many
of which were families going through divorce, and that he had
been addressing domestic violence and its effects for almost 30
years. He emphasized that passage of proposed HB 334 would
"roll back the clock 30 years in terms of protecting children
and victim parents to a time when there was little recourse for
victims and children." He declared that children and victim
parents had the right to live free of abuse and the threat of
violence, they deserved safety. He stated that the proposed
bill would cost too much money at a time when the state could
least afford it, as it would dramatically increase costs to the
State of Alaska. He explained that raising the bar from a
finding of domestic violence by the preponderance of evidence to
the conviction of a crime of domestic violence, which was beyond
a reasonable doubt, would lead to increased demands on the state
attorney general, as well as municipal prosecutors to prosecute
every case of domestic violence. He stated that there would
also be increased demands on the state troopers, police
departments, the public defender's office, the Office of Public
Advocacy, the courts, and the Office of Children's Services. He
emphasized that the rebuttable presumption worked, it required
the judge to find the domestic violence, and the current law did
a good job protecting vulnerable children and victim parents.
He acknowledged that errors for finding domestic violence when
none had occurred could happen, although these cases were the
exception, and not the rule. He declared that due process
rights were currently observed, as parents facing accusations of
domestic violence were afforded the opportunity to face their
accuser, hear and see the evidence, and offer evidence in
return. He stressed that the proposed bill was not restoring
any lost rights to accused parents, but was, instead, denying
the right to safety for vulnerable children and victim parents.
He declared that raising the standard to a criminal conviction
beyond a reasonable doubt was unreasonable and unrealistic to
the victims of domestic violence. He said that education and
better training for judges, custody investigators, attorneys,
and social workers was needed, as this would increase knowledge,
accuracy, and understanding about domestic violence. He relayed
that safety was the highest priority, not parents' rights.
4:04:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR mused that the challenge was that "human
relationships are so complex." She pointed to the potential to
behave in damaging ways during custody battles and the
dissolving of relationships. She asked if there was a way to
address these circumstances for who was telling the truth.
MR. LEVY offered his belief that the primary need was for better
training in education, as every dollar invested would bring ten
times the return in dividends for savings in cost, heartache,
and damage to people. He suggested to not cut the budget for
the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and
instead, to provide the resources necessary for education and
training. He suggested required training on domestic violence
to police officers, social workers, judges, and other key
players. He relayed that 10 percent of divorce and custody
cases take up 90 percent of the court time. He acknowledged
that these cases typically involved serious questions of harm,
substance abuse, and domestic violence, and required close
scrutiny by trained experts who knew what to look for. He
suggested that more resources be provided to state custody
investigators, as currently there was an income cut-off which
made it difficult for many people, with income above that
amount, to afford a private custody investigator. He reminded
the committee that every dollar spent on prevention would "reap
huge benefits down the road."
4:08:15 PM
DEBBIE HOLBROOK, Attorney, relayed that she had practiced
domestic relations and family law, as well as civil law over the
past 40 years. She shared that she had been a mediator for the
court system, as well as a guardian ad litem, and that she was
aware that all the sociological studies on the adjustment of
children after divorce was to make sure that the children had
frequent and open access to both parents. She reported that the
changes in the custody statute since 2004 had included
references to domestic violence which did not require a
conviction, so consequently there were now attempts to litigate
domestic violence crime in the midst of civil divorce cases
without affording the accused any of the criminal safeguards and
protections afforded someone if they were charged with a crime.
She opined that this had led to serious problems, and she stated
her support of the proposed bill. She offered her belief that
"the pendulum has swung too far on this domestic violence issue
at least with regards to private custody cases. I have seen
that allegations alone have become a bludgeon to be used against
fathers in custody cases." She stated that once the allegation
was made there was no longer a presumption of innocence. She
explained that the issuance of an ex parte restraining order was
the start of the difficulties for fathers, as this could result
in no contact or only supervised visits with the children. She
offered her belief that young fathers were not in the financial
position to afford an attorney and were often quite naïve and
unaware about the custody statutes, the repercussions, and the
breadth of the definition for domestic violence. She relayed
that her experience indicated that many women were encouraged to
use this as a "weapon." She said that many judges were worried
about looking soft on domestic violence, and often cited that
their hands were tied by the statute. She opined that most
people were not aware of how very broad the definition for
domestic violence had become, and could now include texting,
yelling, and telephone conversations. She declared that she was
not trying to minimize domestic violence, but that requirement
of conviction allowed the accused some protections when accused
of something this serious. She opined that the legislature
needed to be aware when removing obstacles, and that children
needed access to both parents.
4:16:02 PM
ANDY HARRINGTON said that he had done a lot of pro bono work
over the years. He offered six points supporting his
understanding that the approach of the proposed bill was not a
good idea. He offered his first point that the history of
domestic violence proven by a preponderance of the evidence
before a civil court was an appropriate basis to apply the
presumption that was currently in the statute. He stated that
the requirement for a conviction proved before another court by
a reasonable doubt would run the risk of erasing some of the
progress that had been made over the last several years on the
overwhelming domestic violence problem. He noted that the
Alaska Supreme Court had already given the statute an
appropriately narrowed interpretation which prevented it from
being abused and misused in many situations, and that this
should be taken into account. He suggested that the proposed
bill could expand application of the presumption, as the history
of domestic violence meant two incidences, or one incident that
caused serious physical injury. He offered his belief that this
needed to be thought through quite carefully, as it could
broaden the application.
4:17:46 PM
[Chair Seaton passed the gavel to Vice Chair Vazquez]
4:18:06 PM
MR. HARRINGTON stated that there many reasons why there were
more incidents of domestic violence than there were convictions,
including under reporting, lack of law enforcement, and courts
that needed to decrease hours. He suggested that, should the
legislature couple this change with a significant increase in
law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and courts, it
might then make some sense. He stated his concern with the
disparate impact on rural and urban areas, as there was "an
unfortunate reality that criminal law enforcement cannot be as
responsive to Alaska's rural areas as it is in urban areas. We
can't afford to achieve that equality." He offered his belief
that this was another reason why the requirement for a
conviction before the presumption of guilt was applied was not a
good idea. He asked that the legislators not make up their
minds based on hearing one side of an anecdote that may or may
not be representative of what was happening on a larger scale.
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked for him to cite the Supreme Court
decision regarding this statute.
MR. HARRINGTON, in response, relayed that, in 270 P.3d 737
(2012), the court had held that completion of a batterer's
intervention program was not the only way to rebut the
presumption, and that the Superior Court was not prevented from
completing a best interest analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about earlier testimony that the
definition of domestic violence had expanded to include texting,
phone calls, and yelling, and whether this broader definition
had now included more people "under the umbrella of domestic
violence." He asked if this could preclude someone from having
any visitation with their child.
MR. HARRINGTON opined that these and similar incidences could be
a violation of the domestic violence statute if committed in
violation of an existing protective order. He expressed
agreement that it was appropriate to be held accountable. He
shared that, if the point was made that the definition of
domestic violence was too broad, then perhaps it should be
reviewed to determine if it encompasses items that it should
not, and then adjust the definition. He offered his belief that
the approach of the proposed bill was not the right solution to
that particular problem.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that this may be a case by case
situation.
4:23:13 PM
JOHN HOAG, Attorney, said that he had sent in comments [included
in members' packets]. He reported that he had volunteered and
handled about 90 domestic violence cases pro bono over the past
9 years. He stated that rarely had he seen a case with one
incident of domestic violence, as most cases had patterns of
domestic violence that usually occurred over time. He expressed
agreement with earlier testimony that it was "the most un-
reported crime probably there is." He said that requiring a
conviction was a bad idea, and he testified against the
amendments. He clarified that attorneys were appointed if a
person could not afford them in a custody case if there had been
issues of domestic violence. He offered his opinion that judges
were very reluctant to order supervised visitation, and that it
was usually arranged through family or friends, and it was not a
cost factor. He reported that the Supreme Court had deemed
there must be a pathway for unsupervised visitation. He stated
that the cases where this supervision remained in place were
most often when the party did not follow the court directives.
He urged the committee not to pass this bill, as it was his
experience that most women did not use this as a weapon. He
suggested that the definition of domestic violence be expanded
to cover abusive relationships and the terrible effect on
children.
4:27:01 PM
KATHRYN SODEN, Senior Staff Attorney, Legal Program, Alaska
Network of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), stated
that she was speaking in opposition to proposed HB 334. She
shared that she had worked with ANDVSA for more than five years,
and had represented men and women who had experienced domestic
violence in family law cases. She expressed her concern that
there were many reasons for a lack of criminal conviction for
domestic violence, although the victims and the children still
needed the protections of the law. She said that the rebuttable
presumption law had protected children in many cases where there
were not any criminal convictions. She shared two anecdotes,
the first of which included four to five criminal charges for
domestic violence being filed against the abusive mother, but
subsequently being dismissed. She relayed that the domestic
violence rebuttable presumption had then been applied and the
custody of the children was awarded to the father. She stated
that this made the children safer. In the second case, the
mother had endured years of abuse from the father, but had never
sought help from the police because she did not speak English
and was isolated within an ethnic community. Again, although
there were no convictions against the father, the court applied
the rebuttable presumption law and awarded custody of the
children to the mother. She stated that in both cases, when the
presumption was applied, the abusive parent still had frequent
regular and open contact with the children while that parent was
required to get services to address the problem. She declared
that the rebuttable presumption law was working as it should to
keep Alaskan kids safe. She reiterated her opposition to the
proposed bill.
MS. SODEN, in response to Representative Tarr, said that, in her
experience, an ex parte protective order alone was not
considered as an incident of domestic violence, in order for the
court to apply the presumption law. She said that the
presumption law required a preponderance of evidence, which was
not the standard for an ex parte that domestic violence had
occurred. She relayed that the system could make the finding of
domestic violence upon further litigation, as then both sides
would have the opportunity to be heard. She said that it was
not her experience that the courts would cut off kids from their
parents for a year, and that the courts were very hesitant to
take away visitation even in extremely abusive situations. She
declared that it was important to keep the presumption law in
its current state as it allowed the victim's parent the safety
of having sole legal and primary physical custody until the
abuser gets treatment for the issues. She stated that it was an
extremely rare circumstance for the court to cut off all contact
with the children.
4:33:18 PM
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director, AWARE, stated that the
proposed bill was going in the wrong direction for supporting
victims of domestic violence, particularly children. She
pointed out that not every victim of domestic violence even
reported to law enforcement. She shared that her experience at
AWARE was for children who had been ordered by courts to spend
unsupervised time with an abusive parent, one that had been
hurtful to their mother, a parent they were afraid of, and a
parent who may be directly abusive to the child, as well. She
stated that much more often at AWARE it was mothers who were
trying to protect their children.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:35:55 PM
MS. TABACHNICK continued her testimony, stating that often the
children were sent to be with a parent who terrified them. She
reported that often this was a regular repetitive pattern. She
pointed out that unless a child could articulate what was
terrifying for them, there was not any protection for them, and
that they could not tell until they felt safe. She continued
and stated that children will not feel safe until they were free
from harm and fear. She relayed that children were being raised
learning that their needs and feelings did not matter, their
boundaries were not respected or important, and they did not
have rights to boundaries. She stressed that this set up the
most vulnerable children to be harmed. She declared that she
found proposed HB 334 "to be one of the most disheartening bills
I've ever spoken to in my nearly 30 years at AWARE. If
anything, we need laws that further protect children; not laws
that make it more difficult to keep them safe." She reported
that research had indicated that children were most helped and
healed after divorce when both parents got along. She addressed
the fear induced by domestic violence, and pointed out that
texting and telephone calls by a person who has committed
domestic violence were another source of fear. She stated that
"we all deserve to live without fear and without concern for
fear particularly in our intimate partner relationships and in
our parenting relationships."
4:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR relayed that there could be hundreds of
phone calls and texts harassing an individual and creating a
feeling of being in real danger.
MS. TABACHNICK stated that these were power and control tactics
which was what domestic violence was about, the control of
another person by keeping them in fear.
4:39:30 PM
KIRSTEN SWANSON, Attorney, paraphrased from a letter she had
submitted to the committee, which read: [included in members'
packets.]
I am writing this letter in support of HB 334. This
bill will address some of the unintended consequences
in the domestic violence statutes. No one should be
the victim of violence from a domestic partner, but
the current statutes are encouraging unnecessary
litigation and hurting children. Domestic violence
restraining orders are civil cases, not criminal cases
so the burden of proof is minimal. This makes it much
easier for someone to now use the court system as a
weapon against the other parent. Frequently, people
will file a restraining order before they file for
divorce or custody of their children. This allows the
person who makes the allegation to kick the other
parent out of the home, restrict all access to the
children, freeze the bank accounts and change the
locks. Once the parties are involved in the custody
case any allegations of domestic violence have a
tendency to severely curtail access of the parent
being accused of abuse to their children. It also
makes the case more litigious and hostile so that it
is unlikely that the parents will be able to mediate
their differences and successfully co-parent their
children. The presumption in custody cases is that the
non-abuser is the better parent. Therefore, a person
who can convince the court that they are victims of
past domestic violence will get full custody of the
children. Unfortunately, the presumption advantage has
encouraged people to exaggerate and make up stories to
get the other parent labeled as a perpetrator of
domestic violence. Even if the domestic violence
allegation is more than ten years ago, has nothing to
do with the children, does not include violence and
was never previously reported to anyone the allegation
is enough to immediately deny access of the other
parent to the children. Children are then left
confused and hurt as to why a parent they love has
suddenly and without warning disappeared from their
life. The increase in domestic violence restraining
order hearings and domestic violence allegations in
custody cases clogs the court system with unnecessary
litigation. It costs the judicial system resources
better used in prosecuting criminal cases of domestic
violence. It encourages custody hearings to be
contentious, winner take all affairs that make it
difficult for parents to put aside their differences,
put the best interests of their children first and
learn to co-parent their children. HB 334 will
actually protect victims of domestic violence and
children in custody cases by removing the impetus for
exaggerating and lying about prior arguments and
disagreements. When the court system is inundated with
questionable claims of domestic violence it has an
impact of making domestic violence seem less serious.
This hurts people who truly are victims in need of
help as their cases end up delayed due to an
overburdened court system.
4:44:17 PM
FRED VALDEZ, Attorney, stated that he had primarily practiced
family law for the past 35 years, and had been a prosecutor of
domestic violence for 1.5 years. He said that he was against
the proposed bill. He reported that the crime being charged was
often not the first instance of domestic violence, as often it
was not until after many incidences that the victim took the
initiative and called for help. Hence, a standard of conviction
of a domestic violence crime was not a good standard for change.
He suggested other changes to guard against the use of domestic
violence as a tool to gain advantage in the battle over custody.
He stated that the judges had a very good grasp for these
situations. He shared court room presentations of some texts,
stating that they were "too vile to even repeat in this
testimony. They threaten, they coerce, they call names..." He
expressed agreement that these texts were about power and
control, emphasizing that, as Alaska had a huge domestic
violence problem, the proposed bill was a step backwards.
4:47:12 PM
JOSEPH COULTER-KHAN read from a prepared statement, which read:
My name is Joseph Coulter-Khan. I am fourteen years
old. I am here to tell you why I think HB 334 is a
step in the wrong direction. My father has not been
convicted of domestic violence, but I am legitimately
terrified of him. When I lived with him, I saw him
yell constantly. I saw him beat up my sister and shove
her down the stairs. I saw him constantly threaten my
mother, my sisters, and me. He embarrasses me in
public with his yelling and anger. I'm afraid of being
with him. Every time I get a phone call my stomach
drops, I start to sweat, to panic, pace, and go into a
whole anxiety attack. I start hyperventilating. I
don't want to live with that kind of pressure and
anxiety. It is a negative energy and distracts me from
my schoolwork and from doing the things that I love.
Because my father has not been convicted of domestic
violence, if HB 334 passes I would have to go with
someone who has abused me for 10-12 years. Why should
I be with him? Why should he have the right to me when
he is the one who abused me? If he has a say in
everything I do, he may make decisions that are not
the best for me. He told me that if he gets full
custody he will take me to Arizona and not let me
contact my mother at all. He says bad things to me
about my mother. Some mothers are too afraid to call
the police because they are afraid of what the abusers
will do to them when they get out. So then there are
abusers who get custody because they aren't held
accountable for their abuse. My childhood was
stressful and now that I'm away from my father I'm
feeling better. If I have to spend more time with him,
it will waste the rest of the childhood that I have. I
won't have a regular childhood. You don't know my
father. You don't know what he's done. But there is no
conviction of domestic violence. HB 334 violates my
rights as a minor to safety from my abusive father.
4:50:54 PM
CATHY COULTER-KHAN said that she was also a victim of domestic
violence, and shared her educational background, including that
she was a Fulbright Scholar and a PhD. She stated that she had
spent more than 20 years in an abusive marriage in which she was
physically and emotionally abused. She shared an incident of
violence in which her husband was subsequently arrested. She
stated that she did not leave simply because she did not have
the means to leave and she could not see an escape route. She
did not know where she would go and how would she support
herself and her children. As a result, she denied everything
and the charges were dropped, and there was not a conviction for
domestic violence. She pointed out that the proposed bill would
not have allowed that instance of domestic violence to be
consequential in a current hearing, as it had happened more than
five years prior. She explained that abusers would isolate,
denigrate, and cut their victims off from any source of
independence. Life was a series of crises and day to day
survival. She relayed instances of abuse, shame, and mockery
her husband had heaped on her children until one of her
daughters had entered the crisis center during her junior year
in high school. She pointed out that there had never been a
conviction of domestic violence. She reported that it was not
until after more than 20 years of abuse that she was able to
leave, because she had a job that would support her, and she had
family and friends who supported her. She stated that this was
her fourth year of divorce litigation, and that her husband had
not paid any child support for almost three years, even as he
left her with marital debt and froze their assets. She declared
that he was using the legal system to perpetuate power and
control, and that custody of the children was a means to exert
control. She acknowledged that her evidence was flimsy, as
there were not any convictions, and it was difficult to put
together sufficient evidence to protect her children. She asked
how women without an education, a job, or a family to support
them could get a conviction. She stated that requiring the
conviction was to support the abusers, perpetuate the abuse, and
endanger the children. She stated her opposition to the
proposed bill.
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ noted the committee was running out of time
and "we're going to have to cut off testimony on this particular
bill. I apologize."
[HB 334 was held over.]
HB 328-REGULATION OF SMOKING
4:57:40 PM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 328, "An Act prohibiting smoking in
certain places; relating to education on the smoking
prohibition; and providing for an effective date."
4:58:21 PM
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, said that they had a committee substitute that
mirrored the Senate version of the proposed bill. He
paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement [included in members'
packets], which read:
Current Alaska law prohibits smoking in many areas of
the state, including healthcare facilities, schools,
childcare facilities, and public meeting rooms in
government buildings. Many communities and businesses
have voluntarily created smoke-free workplaces
allowing over one-half of Alaskans to live and work in
smoke-free buildings. There are however many
businesses and smaller communities who have chosen
not, or are not able to take similar action in their
buildings, leading to exposure to second-hand smoke
and the resulting negative health effects. House Bill
328 seeks to safeguard working Alaskans and their
children from the adverse effects of secondhand smoke
by providing a statewide smoke-free workplace law for
businesses and public places. Certain boroughs,
cities, and the unorganized borough who do not have
the ability to create and enforce smoke-free workplace
laws will be covered under HB 328. State level
Medicaid expenditures that can be attributed to
smoking is about $67 Million per year, which can be
reduced as we limit unwanted exposure to second-hand
smoke. HB 328 does not make smoking in Alaska illegal,
but rather puts reasonable limitations for where
someone can smoke. This bill does not prohibit outdoor
smoking, except within certain areas near building
entrances/exits, air intakes, and other specifically
designated public gathering places. It does not
legislate who a business can hire and free standing
tobacco and e-cigarette shops are excluded from HB
328.
5:01:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked about the reasonable standards he
referenced, and questioned where smoking would be allowed in
Alaska if the proposed bill passed.
MR. BANKS replied that smoking would be allowable in your home
and outside as long as it was not within a certain distance to
buildings.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked where currently it was possible to
smoke in the State of Alaska.
MR. BANKS offered to list the places.
5:04:11 PM
MICHAEL PATTERSON offered his personal experience with smoking
and breathing in various areas around the state, depending on
local rules for smoking in public places. He declared that he
did not have the right to put his smoke on other people. He
shared that he had COPD, and that second hand smoke from
tobacco, as well as dust and chemicals could set it off. He
said that e-cigarettes had carcinogens, and that they were not
safe, comparing them to "a biological weapon" because of their
particle size and its ability to travel through most objects.
He stated that he would be exposed and have no warning because
the smell was like many other things. He testified in support
of the proposed bill.
5:09:00 PM
DALE FOX, President and CEO, Alaska CHARR, stated that CHARR
opposed smoking bans in bars, as the proposed bill expanded the
smoking ban in bars across Alaska. He declared that CHARR
supported freedom of choice. He said that every community with
this freedom of choice had many smoking and non-smoking venues.
He stated that the public allowed freedom of choice, and that
this proposed bill would invalidate the actions of these local
communities. He challenged the concept that this action was
good for business, reporting that many businesses experienced 30
percent loss of business the first year, with subsequent
declines in business until the fourth year, when business was
back to even. He stated that the average bar was not happy to
lose money. He declared that the anti-smoking league would not
stop with this message to take smoking outside, but would return
with bans in other places such as sidewalks, docks, parks,
wilderness trails, and other places. He said that it was up to
the elected officials to decide the amount of freedom allowed in
America.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked about those members of CHARR who
advocated opposite positions.
MR. FOX replied that the board and the government affairs
committee had taken a unanimous position in opposition to
government edicts on smoking. He said that many businesses in
the industry had gone smoke free whether for economics or
personal choice.
5:13:24 PM
KAREN PERDUE, American Cancer Society, shared her background in
public health and tobacco control policy, which included 8 years
as the Commissioner and 10 years as the Deputy Commissioner of
the Department of Health and Social Services. She reported that
she had also been the CEO and President of the Alaska State
Hospital and Nursing Home Association, and that virtually all of
the hospitals in the state, as well as the employees and
patients, were tobacco-free. She explained that the proposed
bill simply asked people to take smoking outside. She stated
that the culture expectation set by the hospitals was for an
understanding of the importance of public health intervention.
She declared that second hand smoke was real and documented,
sharing that all the women in her family had been medically
compromised from smoking, even though some had never smoked.
There was a higher correlated risk from exposure to second hand
smoke. She shared that the Fairbanks Borough had not passed an
ordinance similar to Anchorage and Juneau, as the borough did
not have health powers. However, the proposed bill would make
the regulation of smoking consistent between the city and the
borough. She shared that the city ordinance did not include
private facilities. She expressed her concern for workers
exposed to second hand smoke. She supported that the proposed
bill included e-cigarettes and, as the science had not yet
caught up with the technology, it could not be said that e-
cigarettes were healthy. She pointed out that it was not often
that a bill had no cost to the state, and yet saved the state
money in health costs. She stated her support for the proposed
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked where someone could smoke in
Fairbanks.
MS. PERDUE offered her belief that the city ordinance did not
allow smoking in private businesses except for bars and
restaurants. She opined that there was not any regulation
beyond state law outside the city.
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked for clarification that the borough did
not have any health authority.
MS. PERDUE said that the borough had very limited health powers,
and that was also the case in other boroughs in Alaska.
5:19:10 PM
EDY RODEWALD stated that second hand smoke was "the cloud that
threatens the health and the well-being of Alaskans," people who
have chosen not to smoke but cannot escape the harmful effects
of smoke. She shared that she had worked in a bar as she worked
through college, and that her father, a heavy smoker, died at 37
years of age from lung cancer. She stated that this
differentially impacted people at the lower economic levels,
reporting that Alaska Natives smoked at twice the rate and that
second hand smoke impacted children, who had no choice. She
declared that the majority of people don't smoke, and don't
allow smoking in their homes, but smoking was allowed in public
places. She opined that smoking was reckless behavior, and that
most smokers agreed. She said it was time to remove smoke from
indoor work places, and declared her support of the proposed
bill.
5:21:09 PM
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director, American
Cancer Society, stated that she had been working on the issue of
smoke free workplaces in Alaska for the past 15 years at the
local level and reported that significant areas of the state
don't have local health controls to adopt regulations. She
pointed out that there were areas in Fairbanks where the city
ordinance did not prohibit smoking inside all workplaces. She
maintained that the organization's position was to take smoking
outside and to provide equal protection for all workers in the
workplace.
5:23:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if all the municipalities with health
powers had enacted smoking bans.
MS. NENON replied "for the most part, yes," and that she would
provide the list to the committee. She relayed that all the
major population centers with that power at the borough level
had already taken action, with Bethel being the first area to
pass this in 1998.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how many of the major population areas
would be affected by the proposed bill.
MS. NENON replied that this proposed bill would provide
protections for about half of the state population that was not
yet covered. She directed attention to a chart listing the
borough powers [included in members' packets]. She stated that
public education was a key to the ease of enforcement, as the
laws were largely self-enforcing. She opined that Alaska was
ready to take the step to protect all workers.
5:25:36 PM
GARY FERGUSON, M.D., Senior Director of Community Health
Services, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, reported that
there was strong support for smoke-free workplace laws in
Alaska, and he offered an anecdote of a restaurant in Unalaska.
He pointed to a recent poll which reported that 69 percent of
Alaskans across subgroups including geographic location, age,
and political party, strongly supported the proposed bill. He
shared that 72 percent of Alaskans supported the inclusion of e-
cigarettes in a smoke-free workplace law, and that a majority of
Alaska Native adults supported smoke-free restaurants and
believed that smoking should not be allowed in in-door work
areas. He acknowledged that tobacco use was still high among
Alaska Natives. He stated that the proposed bill would provide
comprehensive protection from second-hand smoke and e-cigarette
aerosol for employees and customers in all workplaces and public
places. He explained that the proposed bill simply asked that
those who choose to smoke or use e-cigarettes to take it outside
in order to protect the health and safety of all Alaskans.
5:28:21 PM
ALEX MCDONALD, Owner, Ice Fog Vapor, stated his opposition to HB
328, as he had many issues with the bill as currently written.
He said it was "a huge invasion in the privacy of people's
homes." He stated that many homes would have to become smoke-
free places to allow health care providers to come and help with
care. He declared that Alaska had a long history of respecting
people's privacy, which the proposed bill went against. He said
that the proposed bill also stripped a business owner of the
choice to run the business as they wished, and would take away
local choice for communities to regulate these products as they
saw fit. He pointed out that, as Alaska was a huge state,
something that worked in one area of the state may not work in
another area. He declared that every other controlled substance
was given local option in Alaska. He expressed concern with the
inclusion of vaporizers in the proposed bill, as these products
did not produce combustion or any combustion by-products. He
referenced an English report which said that e-cigarettes
released negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no
identified health risk to by-standers. He shared one study
which concluded that it could be unhealthier to breathe air in
big cities compared to standing in a room with someone who was
vaping. He said the technology was being embraced in England to
help smokers stop the use of tobacco products, and had concluded
that e-cigarettes could save lives and long term health care
costs, and were not a gateway to smoking.
5:31:08 PM
SHARON WOLKOFF, Kodiak Area Native Association, stated that she
had done tobacco cessation work, and was now working in tobacco
prevention. She offered anecdotes about her family and its
history around smoking. She testified in support of smoke free
workplaces, so not to worry about the health of loved ones. She
expressed agreement with the freedom of choice for everyone to
enjoy the establishments.
5:34:41 PM
VICE CHAIR VAZQUEZ closed public testimony on HB 328.
[HB 328 was held over.]
5:35:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:35 p.m.