Legislature(2021 - 2022)DAVIS 106
04/27/2021 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 | |
| HB116 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB184 | |
| HB106 | |
| SB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2021
3:02 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Liz Snyder, Co-Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Co-Chair
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Ken McCarty
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Christopher Kurka
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to care of juveniles and to juvenile justice;
relating to employment of juvenile probation officers by the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to terms used
in juvenile justice; relating to mandatory reporters of child
abuse or neglect; relating to sexual assault in the third
degree; relating to sexual assault in the fourth degree;
repealing a requirement for administrative revocation of a
minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to drive, or
privilege to obtain a license for consumption or possession of
alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; relating to the detention of minors; relating to
minors subject to adult courts; relating to the placement of
minors in adult correctional facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 184
"An Act requiring state participation in a tribal child welfare
compact."
- MOVED HB 184 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to missing persons under 21 years of age."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 65(JUD)
"An Act relating to immunity for consulting physicians,
podiatrists, osteopaths, advanced practice registered nurses,
physician assistants, chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, and
pharmacists."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
02/24/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/21 (H) HSS, JUD
04/09/21 (H) HSS REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER JUD
04/09/21 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/12/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/16/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/16/21 (H) Moved HB 116 Out of Committee
04/16/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/21 (H) JUD RPT 3DP 3AM
04/19/21 (H) DP: DRUMMOND, SNYDER, CLAMAN
04/19/21 (H) AM: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
04/27/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: DETENTION OF MINORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/19/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/21 (H) JUD, HSS
03/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/08/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/21 (H) Moved CSHB 105(JUD) Out of Committee
03/10/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/21 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 3NR
03/12/21 (H) DP: DRUMMOND, SNYDER, KREISS-TOMKINS,
CLAMAN
03/12/21 (H) NR: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
04/15/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
04/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/21 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/27/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 184
SHORT TITLE: REQUIRE TRIBAL CHILD WELFARE COMPACT
SPONSOR(s): ZULKOSKY
04/21/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/21 (H) HSS, FIN
04/22/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
04/22/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/22/21 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/27/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: MISSING PERSONS UNDER 21 YEARS OLD
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/19/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/21 (H) STA, HSS
03/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/16/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/25/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/25/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/01/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/01/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/08/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/08/21 (H) Moved HB 106 Out of Committee
04/08/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/21 (H) STA RPT 5DP 2NR
04/09/21 (H) DP: CLAMAN, STORY, VANCE, TARR, KREISS-
TOMKINS
04/09/21 (H) NR: EASTMAN, KAUFMAN
04/22/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
04/22/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/22/21 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/27/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
BILL: SB 65
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY CONSULTING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
SPONSOR(s): KIEHL
02/03/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/21 (S) HSS, JUD
02/16/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/21 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/18/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/21 (S) OPIOID OVERDOSE DRUGS
02/19/21 (S) HSS RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/19/21 (S) DP: WILSON, BEGICH, HUGHES
02/19/21 (S) NR: REINBOLD
03/05/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/05/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/08/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/21 (S) Moved CSSB 65(JUD) Out of Committee
03/31/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/21 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/03/21 (S) DP: KIEHL, HUGHES, MYERS
04/03/21 (S) NR: REINBOLD, SHOWER
04/12/21 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/21 (S) VERSION: CSSB 65(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/14/21 (H) HSS, JUD
04/27/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Spohnholz,
prime sponsor of HB 116, provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "HB 116: Division of Juvenile Justice Clean-Up Bill."
TRACY DOMPELING, Director
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 116, answered
questions and provided testimony in support of the bill.
NANCY MEAD, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 116, answered
questions.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 116, answered
questions.
TREVOR STORRS, President & CEO
Alaska Children's Trust (ACT)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 184, provided
invited testimony in support of the bill.
BRITANY MADROS, Director
Tribal Government & Justice Division
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 184, provided
invited testimony in support of the bill.
KIM GUAY, Director
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 184, answered
questions.
KATY GIORGIO, Staff
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 184, answered
questions on behalf of Representative Zulkosky, prime sponsor.
LISA PURINTON, Chief
Criminal Records and Identification Bureau
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 106, answered
questions.
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced CSSB 65(JUD).
CJ HARRELL, Intern
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 65(JUD) on behalf of Senator
Kiehl, prime sponsor.
ROBERT CRAIG, CEO
Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSSB 65(JUD),
provided invited testimony in support of the bill.
JACOB KELLY, MD, MHS, FACC
Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSSB 65(JUD),
provided invited testimony in support of the bill.
PAM VENTGEN, Executive Director
Alaska State Medical Association (ASMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSSB 65(JUD),
answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:02:03 PM
CO-CHAIR LIZ SNYDER called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
Representatives Fields, Spohnholz, McCarty, Prax, Zulkosky, and
Snyder were present at the call to order. Representative Kurka
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 116-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
3:03:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to care of juveniles and
to juvenile justice; relating to employment of juvenile
probation officers by the Department of Health and Social
Services; relating to terms used in juvenile justice; relating
to mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect; relating to
sexual assault in the third degree; relating to sexual assault
in the fourth degree; repealing a requirement for administrative
revocation of a minor's driver's license, permit, privilege to
drive, or privilege to obtain a license for consumption or
possession of alcohol or drugs; and providing for an effective
date."
3:04:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ introduced HB 116, as prime sponsor. She
said HB 116 would do three things: close a loophole for sexual
abuse of minors; update definitions that reference the Division
of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities and staff; and codify best
practices. She explained that the loophole was found in 2017
when a DJJ staff member was acquitted after sustaining an
inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor who had
previously been under his supervision. The bill would close the
loophole by adding DJJ staff to the list of individuals in a
position of authority over DJJ youth. She related that the bulk
of HB 116 would update the outdated, inaccurate, and obsolete
terminology used to describe DJJ facilities in current statute
and would update statute to reflect the authorities and
responsibilities of the division more accurately. She advised
that these portions of the bill would not substantively modify
the way DJJ operates but would improve DJJ's ability to complete
its mission and would codify best practices to ensure safe and
secure treatment of juveniles in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ further conveyed that HB 116 would codify
best practices at the division and clarify the division's
authority. She said these changes would resolve issues that
have come to light over time or simply reflect the standard
operations at the division. For example, HB 116 would add DJJ
staff and probation officers to the list of mandatory reporters
of child abuse and neglect. This is something that DJJ staff
already does, she continued, but the bill would codify this in
statute to ensure that DJJ probation officers have the authority
to file amended petitions. The bill would correct language
authorizing the department to disclose confidential information
related to the offense when a minor has received an adjudication
rather than the offense the minor was alleged to have committed.
In summary, she stated, HB 116 would improve DJJ's ability to
complete its mission by codifying best practices, ensuring
juveniles are safe and secure, and closing the loophole
regarding sexual abuse of a minor supervised by DJJ staff.
3:07:00 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime
sponsor of HB 116, provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"HB 116: Division of Juvenile Justice Clean-Up Bill." She began
with slide 2 titled, "1. Closes a loophole for sexual abuse of
minors," which read [original punctuation provided but
formatting changed]:
? Daniel Carey case in 2017
DJJ staff sustained an inappropriate sexual
relationship with a juvenile under DJJ supervision.
Carey was acquitted because a judge found that
sexual abuse of a minor statute does not explicitly
list DJJ staff as "being in a position of authority"
over DJJ youth.
? Section 6
Clarifies that DJJ staff are in a position of
authority over minors in their custody.
MS. HOLLAND moved to slide 3, "2. Updates Definitions," which
read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
? Repeals
Youth Counselors
Juvenile Detention Home
Youth Detention Facility
Correctional School
Juvenile Work Camp
Juvenile Probation Officers
Correctional School
? Amends
Juvenile Detention Facility
Minor
? New Definitions
Juvenile Treatment Facility
Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area
Juvenile Probation Officers
MS. HOLLAND spoke to slide 4, "Repeals," which read [original
punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
?"Youth Counselors," Section 26
The position of "Youth Counselors" has not existed
within DJJ since 2003. The duties described under
this section do not apply to facility staff but to
probation officers.
? "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 3
Inaccurate definition limiting to officers with
individuals 18 or 19 years of age in their custody
Corrected with new definition in Section 26.
? "Juvenile Detention Home," "Youth Detention
Facility," "Correctional School," "An Institution" and
"Juvenile Work Camp," Sections 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19,
20, 32 and 34
All are repealed and replaced with "juvenile
detention facility" and "juvenile treatment
facility" for accuracy and consistency.
3:09:34 PM
MS. HOLLAND proceeded to slide 5, "Amended Definitions," which
read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
? "Minor," Section 30
Amends the definition of minor to include a person
who was under 18 at the time they committed an
offense and is subject to the jurisdiction of DJJ.
If a minor commits an offense then turns 18 after,
they will remain in DJJ's custody.
? "Juvenile Detention Facility," Sections 29 and 37
Corrects the definition to be a secure facility
for the detention of delinquent minors under DJJ
custody.
The current definition limits it to separate
quarters within a city jail, some communities do not
have such a jail suitable for juveniles and use
other facilities.
MS. HOLLAND addressed slide 6, "New Definitions," which read
[original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
? "Juvenile Treatment Facility," Section 31
Current statute refers to "juvenile treatment
institutions", however DJJ has expressed that this
terminology is not reflective of the facilities they
currently operate.
? "Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area," Section
31
DJJ has been operating with a list of temporary
secure holding areas in various communities
throughout the state.
? "Juvenile Probation Officers," Section 26
There is no accurate definition for "juvenile
probation officers" under current statute. Section
24 repeals the definition for "youth counselors" and
replaces it with an updated definition for "juvenile
probation officers", affording them powers of a
probation officer and describing their duties.
MS. HOLLAND turned to slide 7, "3. Codified Best Practices,"
which read [original punctuation provided but formatting
changed]:
? Section 5: Clarifies that employees of juvenile
treatment institutions and juvenile and adult
probation officers qualify as legal guardians.
? Sections 16 and 18: Provides juvenile probation
officers with the authority to file amended and
supplemental petitions, and clarifies that for
juveniles this duty falls upon juvenile probation
officers, not adult probation officers.
? Sections 24-25: Clarifies that the authority to
arrest and detain minors rests with juvenile, not
adult, probation officers.
3:12:30 PM
MS. HOLLAND continued with slide 8, "3. Codified Best
Practices," which read [original punctuation provided but
formatting changed]:
? Section 27: Adds "secure residential psychiatric
treatment centers" to the list of facilities from
which, when a juvenile is released, victims will
receive notification.
? Section 28: Corrects language authorizing the
department to disclose confidential information
related to an adjudicated offense, rather than the
offense the minor was "alleged to have committed."
? Section 40: Adds juvenile probation officers, DJJ
office staff, and staff of juvenile facilities to the
list of mandatory reporters of child abuse or neglect.
? Section 41: Repeals revocation of juvenile driver
licenses for offenses involving a controlled substance
that were handled informally by the division.
MS. HOLLAND concluded with slide 9, "In Summary, HB 116:" which
read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:
1. Closes a loophole of the sexual abuse of minors
2. Updates terms and definitions pertaining to DJJ
facilities and staff
3. Codifies best practices to improve the division's
ability to complete their mission
3:16:20 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY commented that she doesn't see a need for the
sectional analysis because the committee saw this bill last
year. She asked whether she is correct in understanding that
the bill's purpose is largely to clean up outdated language.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ confirmed that the bulk of HB 116 is a
routine statutory cleanup. She said the bill passed the House
last year and probably would have made it "across the finish
line" had it not been for COVID-19 forcing the legislature to
recess six or seven weeks ahead of schedule.
3:17:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA drew attention to slide 8 which states that
Section 41 would repeal revocation of juvenile driver's licenses
for offenses involving a controlled substance that were handled
informally by the division. He asked whether current law
mandates the penalty of juveniles losing their driver's licenses
should an instance described in the section occur.
3:18:48 PM
TRACY DOMPELING, Director, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ),
responded that several years ago there were two sections within
the division's statutes that required the mandatory revocation
of a license for certain types of offenses under Title 28. She
explained that one of these sections was for those youth who had
been formally adjudicated through the Superior Court for those
charges and the other referenced youth whose cases were adjusted
informally through DJJ. Adjudicated offenses have gone through
the Superior Court and the youth have been provided with due
process, whereas informally adjusted cases are instances where
the youth doesn't have an attorney and agreements are worked out
between youth parents and victims. About six years ago, she
recounted, the piece which required the mandatory revocation for
adjudicated offenses was repealed from DJJ's statutes, but
inadvertently left the section of statute for informally
adjusted cases, thereby mandating DJJ to take a harsher stance
for informally adjusted cases than for adjudicated cases. There
are still sections under Title 28 that allow the court to revoke
for those adjudicated cases, Ms. Dompeling said, it just took it
out of DJJ's responsibility to do so. She highlighted the
importance of ensuring that similar penalties or sanctions for
youth are applied to informally adjusted cases as to formally
adjudicated cases.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA requested confirmation that a process will
remain in statute in adjudicated cases where a judge could
decide to revoke a driver's license as a penalty for an offense.
MS. DOMPELING answered, "That is correct, it's only for those
offenses that are listed out under Title 28," which pertain to
drugs and weapons.
3:22:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether more severe substance-
related issues, such as driving under the influence (DUI), would
be considered by the court.
MS. DOMPELING deferred to Ms. Nancy Mead of the Alaska Court
System to answer the question.
3:22:56 PM
NANCY MEAD, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, answered that
the court does not revoke driver's licenses for cases of minors
consuming alcohol. She said that in about 2016 or 2017 those
offenses began being treated as "straight violations" like a
traffic ticket, no matter how many a minor may receive; so, for
minor consuming alcohol straight violations the court may not
revoke the driver's license. Under AS Title 28, she continued,
the court has the ability to revoke driver's licenses for minors
in possession of drugs or for other violations of AS 11.41, the
"drug statutes," as well as for minors in possession of weapons
or minors misusing weapons.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that Ms. Mead clearly described
current statute. However, she explained, HB 116 attempts to
create parity by clarifying that there not be a stricter
enforcement penalty for "less serious" cases that are informally
resolved outside of the court system and cases that go through
the formal court system.
3:24:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether a juvenile youth could have
one or more DUI [offenses] and the court would not be able to
revoke that youth's license even though that is an [offense]
that could result in someone's death.
MS. MEAD responded that HB 116 would not affect DUI laws. The
laws about DUI, she explained, are wholly separated from the
laws for minors consuming alcohol. Prior to October 2016, a
minor consuming alcohol on a park bench could have his or her
license revoked, and because revoking a license is considered a
quasi-criminal proceeding that minor was entitled to a jury
trial and a defense attorney. Driving under the influence is a
wholly separate statute, she continued, which has mandatory
license revocations no matter the age of the individual
involved. This bill would not touch DUI whatsoever, nor would
it touch minor consuming alcohol. Ms. Mead related that a few
years ago a standard was in place that allowed for minors
consuming alcohol to be given lower types of penalties in
courts, meaning that these minors' licenses couldn't be taken
away. She said the repealers in HB 116 would create a symmetry
to allow for minors who are prosecuted through DJJ to not have
their licenses revoked either. She noted that minors prosecuted
through DJJ usually means the minor behaved less egregiously.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered clarification that HB 116 would
only impact minors who had engaged in poor behavior that was not
related to a vehicle.
MS. MEAD agreed.
3:27:38 PM
MS. DOMPELING provided testimony in support of HB 116. She
explained the bill was introduced at the division's request to
address long identified and newly emerging statutory issues
related to juvenile justice. She noted that this legislation
passed from the House Health and Social Services Standing
Committee [in 2020]. She said the original statutes, AS 47.12,
were passed when DJJ became its own division approximately 20
years ago, and the proposed updates to definitions and statutes
mirror the efforts to improve the success of the youth who are
engaged in the juvenile justice system through best practice and
innovative approaches to address youth delinquency. These
definitions, she added, have a real impact on the work of the
division's staff and on youth safety, the most dramatic change
being the criminal case against the former DJJ employee who was
acquitted of sexual abuse due to the lack of an updated
definition of DJJ staff in position of authority.
3:30:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened public testimony on HB 116. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, she closed public
testimony.
3:30:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about Mr. Matt Davidson's role
in HB 116.
3:30:39 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), stated he has worked with the sponsor
over the last three legislatures to develop this legislation,
and therefore he is familiar with the bill's provisions and why
individual components are termed the way they are.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about the term "legal guardian"
found on page 2 of HB 116.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that Section 5 is the definition of "legal
guardian" for the crimes related to sexual abuse of a minor. He
explained that when developing the bill, a look was taken at the
current definitions in statute that referred to juvenile justice
facilities operated by DJJ; terms were sprinkled throughout
statute that were very similar terms to the department's
facilities. So, throughout the bill where those statutes are
touched, an attempt is made to provide specificity as to which
facilities and staff are being talked about. Section 5 is the
definition of the crime of engaging in sexual contact or sexual
relations with a minor who is under the custody or supervision
of DHSS, he noted, so that relates to youth in facilities
operated by the department as well as the division. The Office
of Children's Services (OCS), he continued, places children in
treatment institutions, and because these children are under
state custody while placed in treatment institutions operated by
nonprofits and other agencies, this same provision, the same
offenses, apply to staff of those facilities as well as to
department staff.
3:33:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that in his 30 years of experience
there is a separation of legal guardian being that of a parent
or someone who is a custodial guardian and a ward of the court.
He said it appears that wards of the court are being referred to
in this situation rather than legal guardians because these
individuals have been placed in institutions by the court or
court systems.
MR. DAVIDSON answered that the terms would have the same meaning
in this specific statute. He said it is not creating the
definition of a legal guardian that was existing in the sexual
abuse of a minor statute, rather it is just updating the terms
relating to those positions that qualify as legal guardians. In
Division of Juvenile Justice statute and in OCS child protection
statute, the term legal guardian or legal custody are used and
sometimes interchangeably, and ward of the court is probably
similar to that or could be replacing that, but in this case in
statute the term is legal guardian.
3:35:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that AS 13.06.050 defines a legal
guardian and doesn't include all these categories. He said it
seems AS 47 is expanding on that or using the exact same
terminology but in a different way, making it confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that the section of law being
addressed by HB 116 applies to the Division of Juvenile Justice
only and another category of employees is being added to which
this applies. She said it already applies to group homes and
youth facilities, and the bill would add employees of treatment
institutions and juvenile probation officers. [Current] law is
probation officers, and HB 116 clarifies it means both adult and
juvenile probation officers, which would close the loophole that
was identified in the 2017 case.
3:37:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA observed Section 41 would repeal multiple
statutes. He asked whether all these statutes deal with the
same subject of juvenile justice.
MS. HOLLAND pointed out that AS 47.12.990 and AS 47.14.990 in
Section 41 relate to repealed definitions, which includes
detention homes and juvenile work camp. She said AS 28.15.176
and AS 47.12.060 are the revocations related to the driver's
license. Responding further to Representative Kurka, she said
anything ending in 990 is a definition, and AS 28.15.176 and AS
47.121.060 are the revocations related to the driver's license.
3:40:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY noted that the bill's intent is to clean
up different language pieces. He suggested alternate wording
regarding "legal guardian."
CO-CHAIR SNYDER stated that the definition within a statute is
exceptionally important because there is a limited range of
vocabulary.
MS. HOLLAND noted that Title 11 relates to the sexual abuse of a
minor and page 2, lines 30-31, apply "when those persons are
exercising custodial control over a minor or other person". She
said that if additional clarification is needed to that
definition, it would be appropriate to ask the division.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that when drafting the bill, the attempt
was not to fix everything but rather to ensure that the
loopholes in criminal statute were fixed to relate to actions by
DJJ staff and to update terms that referred to DJJ staff. He
allowed there might be misalignments elsewhere in statute that
weren't considered as part of this bill and offered to talk
about that with Representative McCarty.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ suggested there are probably many parts
of statute that intersect but pointed out that when drafting the
bill, the intent was not necessarily to be expansive and apply
to every section of law that could relate to children. Rather,
the intent was to focus on the specific elements related to the
Division of Juvenile Justice in the definitions and solve the
problems that are on the books. She encouraged Representative
McCarty to talk with Mr. Davidson about the sections of law that
were chosen. She noted that last year the House unanimously
passed the legislation, and she would like to protect that
progress and get this done this year because the division has
been waiting a long time to have this done.
[CO-CHAIR SNYDER held over HB 116.]
HB 105-DETENTION OF MINORS
3:45:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; relating to the detention of
minors; relating to minors subject to adult courts; relating to
the placement of minors in adult correctional facilities; and
providing for an effective date."
3:46:32 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:47:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER, responding to Representative McCarty, confirmed
that last week the committee heard [CSHB 105(JUD)].
3:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA suggested merging HB 105 and HB 116 given
the two bills overlap significantly and the desire for timely
passage of both bills.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER concurred and stated that HB 105 was slowed down
for this reason. She said conversations are still ongoing about
what a merge might look like. The intention in hearing both
bills separately today but taking no action, she explained, is
to allow for questions to be answered given they would still be
pertinent should the bills be combined.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA inquired about a memo that listed the
duplicative changes or similarities proposed in both bills.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER replied that "the crosswalk" was sent to the
committee on [4/23/21]. She held over HB 105.
HB 184-REQUIRE TRIBAL CHILD WELFARE COMPACT
3:52:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 184, "An Act requiring state participation in
a tribal child welfare compact."
3:53:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened invited testimony on HB 184.
3:53:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:53 p.m. to 3:56 p.m.
3:56:20 PM
TREVOR STORRS, President and CEO, Alaska Children's Trust (ACT),
provided invited testimony in support of HB 184. He said ACT is
in strong support of an Alaska tribal child welfare compact, a
government-to-government partnership between the State of Alaska
and Alaska's 18 federally recognized Native tribes and tribal
organizations that would share the tasks of funding negotiated
child welfare services and supports. He pointed out that Alaska
Native children make up 15 percent of the state's general
population but represent about 65 percent of the kids in state
custody. These numbers, he stated, are a direct result of
colonization, historical trauma, and racism.
MR. STORRS said there is no question that the intervention from
state government may be well-meaning, but without consultation
or coordination with tribal entities it is at best the "white
savior complex" and at worst "reinforcing colonization." When
historically white institutions impose their practices and
policies as the right way even when they are doing harm, they
are sending the message of colonization, the message that Alaska
Native people can't be trusted to do or know what is best for
themselves. A compact, he continued, would be a first step in
addressing and changing the systemic racism in the system and
taking the long overdue steps towards acknowledgement,
accountability, and healing. Coming together to combat child
abuse and neglect across sectors works when local and state
governments have strong trust and partnership, he stated. Trust
is built by acknowledging harm that has been done to communities
and taking ownership of the ways colonization has shaped
operation of the child welfare system prior to the Alaska Tribal
Child Welfare Compact.
3:58:21 PM
MR. STORRS explained that taking children from their families,
cultures, and communities to place in foster care and adoption
outside their culture has caused multiple generations of
historical trauma. He said poor outcomes are seen for Alaska
Native children in the child protective system due to complex
chronic trauma reinforced by systems that are not built for, or
by, them. The impact of institutionalized child abuse and
neglect is a cycle of historical trauma that started with the
trauma of colonization and continues with personal family
trauma, removal of children from families, mental health issues,
collective trauma, and more. The basic principles of state
child protection, he continued, are that when a family fails to
ensure safety and well-being of the child, the state steps in,
possibly removes the child, and assumes the system is better
than the parent. This model does not work, he charged,
especially for Alaska Native children and families. When these
situations are identified, who better than the communities
themselves to work with the families and the tribe to identify
needs and resolve the issues? A key step in healing the
historical traumas caused over time, Mr. Storrs stated, is to
return power to the tribes to care for their own children in
ways that center tribal community knowledge, customs, and
values. He pointed out that identified at-risk families receive
very few services for poverty reduction, housing, mental health,
health, or substance misuse. He stressed the need to reframe
how child welfare services are thought about and urged that
these services be addressed when talking about child welfare.
MR. STORRS stated that now is the time to give self-
determination and sovereignty to the communities to determine
how best to care for their children and families by giving power
back to the tribes. He said a tribal child welfare compact
would be a huge step towards ensuring that Native children grow
up in safe, stable, and nurturing relationships and
environments. He related ACT's wholehearted support for HB 184.
4:01:36 PM
BRITANY MADROS, Director, Tribal Government & Justice Division,
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), provided invited testimony in
support of HB 184. She noted that TCC is one of twelve Alaska
Native regional nonprofit corporations and provides a unified
voice in advancing sovereign tribal governments. She further
noted that TCC services all tribal members of the 37 federally
recognized tribes within its 235,000-square-mile region, as well
as all eligible Alaska Native and American Indians residing
within the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
MS. MADROS stated that since the early 1980s TCC has assisted
the tribes within its region with developing tribal courts, and
TCC supports this development through training, technical
assistance, and legal support. She said Alaska tribes are
confirmed to have clear civil jurisdiction, particularly in
domestic relations over children, even in the absence of Indian
Country or tribal reservations. In 2020, she conveyed, the TCC
region had 191 children in tribal court custody; intervened on
92 state Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) cases; had 23 children
transferred from state to tribal court custody; reunified 21
children with one or both parents, resulting in family
preservation; had four youth age out of the foster care system;
had 10 children granted guardianships with family or extended
relatives; had 32 youth still in long-term guardianships; and
facilitated over 280 tribal court hearings for child welfare
cases.
4:04:43 PM
MS. MADROS said solutions are now emerging for multiple ways for
tribes and states to work together, including the tribal-state
welfare compact being discussed today. She related that TCC has
provided services through the diligent relative search scope
within the compact, has assisted with approximately 30 cases for
ensuring ICWA-preference placements for families, and assisted
about seven families with submitting a petition so they could be
considered a foster care placement for one of their family
members. She shared that TCC is looking to extend its scopes
and assist with safety evaluations, safe visitations, and
licensing given TCC also has its own tribal care licensing
program. However, Ms. Madros continued, due to staff shortages
and the amount of time needed to cover so many scopes, TCC is
hoping the state continues to work together on negotiations to
ensure the provision of these services, whether working with
tribal or state workers depending on the needs of those
families.
MS. MADROS expressed TCC's support for this compact agreement
and added that TCC is thankful the state is working with the
tribes regarding child welfare. She said it is important to the
tribes that the safety and well-being of their children is
protected, whether by the state or tribe, because without their
children the tribes will not continue to exist. She thanked the
committee for considering HB 184.
4:07:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his understanding that the state was
going to be talking with the tribes and reach an agreement.
However, he continued, the previous speaker made it sound like
somebody was going to dictate something to the state, and [the
legislature] had to go along with it. He asked whether there
are examples of what is being talked about in HB 184.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY answered that the intent of HB 184 is not to
dictate but to provide a collaborative partnership to address
issues. She said the intention behind a tribal child welfare
compact, as highlighted by the testimony of Mr. Storrs, is that
it is a collaborative partnership to address the issues of child
welfare across Alaska, particularly given that a significant
disproportionate percentage of the children in foster care in
Alaska are Alaska Native youth. As heard in the testimony of
Ms. Madros, tribes are willing, able, and standing to negotiate
with the state every year to provide these programs in alignment
with the State of Alaska. The bill, she continued, merely says
that the state shall participate in a tribal child welfare
compact. The particulars related to the negotiations of the
scopes of work and the annual funding agreement are negotiated
between the tribes and the state every year, she explained.
Nothing is dictated in HB 184 beyond that this compact and
agreement will be enshrined and protected in statute.
4:09:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA stated that while he is excited about the
progress being made here on the child welfare compact, he is
concerned about the requirement that the state participate. He
requested further explanation regarding the annual renegotiation
process.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY responded that the current Alaska Tribal Child
Welfare Compact is an executive initiative within the governor's
office and administration. She related that it began under the
Walker Administration and has been continued under the Dunleavy
Administration. The compact itself is a legal document and
agreement that is outlined between the tribes and the state, she
explained, and updates are negotiated annually. They may
revisit scopes of work that can be expanded, they might identify
issues that were had in implementing certain scopes of work, or
they may revisit funding agreements related to those scopes of
work. Every year there is an effective and efficient evaluation
of the current scopes of work and what is being accomplished to
determine if updates need to be made, which is nimbler than
statute or regulation. It allows for more local control, she
continued, and more opportunity for tribes to provide feedback
on what is or isn't working, as well as for the state to provide
feedback, and allows an opportunity for those updates to be made
annually.
4:13:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked who is negotiating the compact on
behalf of the state.
4:13:57 PM
KIM GUAY, Director, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), responded that
currently the state has three co-lead negotiators: herself as
director of OCS; Clinton Lasley, DHSS Deputy Commissioner,
Family, Community and Integrated Services; and John Moller of
the governor's office. She noted that the tribal side also has
three lead negotiators.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether, from the perspective of the
administration, passage of HB 184 as written would tie hands,
alter the negotiations that are happening now, or change the
tone of the current negotiations.
MS. GUAY replied she doesn't know the answer to the question,
but that the compact is a legally binding document. She stated
that [the administration] is engaged in the tribal compact and
has no intention of not engaging in the compact.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that the first tribal compact was
signed in 2017, and both the Walker and Dunleavy administrations
have supported the compact. She explained that HB 184 is only
nine lines long, is very general and gives the administration a
lot of flexibility in how it would be implemented. The bill
doesn't say what specific scopes of work must be included and
has no fiscal note. She said it is a policy call on the part of
the legislature to say that child welfare compacting with tribes
is a good thing and the legislature wants the administration to
continue to do that.
4:17:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY noted that the premise of this whole
thing is the protection of children. He asked Mr. Storrs
whether there are criteria for what represents child abuse.
MR. STORRS replied that it is already outlined, and OCS has
criteria that it follows.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY recalled Mr. Storrs' statements about
multi-generational patterns within families and communities. He
inquired about the differences in criteria for child abuse in
tribal areas or villages versus non-tribal areas in Alaska.
Responding to Ms. Guay, he confirmed he is asking about the
difference of maltreatment between rural communities and more
urban communities but added that he is asking this with the
paradigm of criteria that are had for the care of all children
and making sure no child is abused, and the differentiation that
is being seen.
MS. GUAY answered that there is a disproportionate number, 60-65
percent, of Alaska Native children throughout the system and
that includes the number of children reported to OCS. She said
this disproportionate number is consistent on all decision
points that happen at OCS the reporting calls that come into
OCS, the calls that are subsequently investigated after
screening, the ones that end up into maltreatment, and the ones
that end up into foster care.
4:22:32 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY offered her opinion that the last question is
a bit off topic and seems like an implication that Alaska Native
families are implicitly more likely to neglect or abuse their
children. She requested clarification of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY disagreed with that interpretation. He
stated that when doing an equitable review of all the children
in Alaska he is asking whether it is disproportionate because of
bias, or disproportionate because there is a need that exists
and how that need can be reached most effectively. What the
ways are to reach that need, he continued, and whether those are
being done is the whole question of the bill.
MS. GUAY stated that the best option for families is to have
tribal members meet the families where they're at to help them
access both cultural and modernized resources. She pointed out
that tribes can navigate both the tribal world and the state
world, so the tribes know how to seek the resources for their
families that are in need. Regarding Representative McCarty's
first question, Ms. Guay said she doesn't know the answer but
thinks it goes into poverty in children as well as bias of
people over-representing calling in reports on Alaska Native
children. Also, Alaska Native children and families are
surrounded with a lot more mandatory reporters than other
families, she noted. Alaska Native families are reported for
numerous reasons, including historical trauma and other things
that equate into why Alaska Natives are disproportionately
represented in OCS and amongst other systems.
MS. MADROS agreed the question is complex and that there are
many variables of why Alaska Native children are
disproportionately represented. She said a lot of that has
taken years to accumulate to where things are at today, although
the 60-65 percent has stayed steady for many years. Due to
services being harder to be received or met in isolated
communities, she continued, it possibly makes Alaska Native
families and communities have more hurdles to either get an
investigation closed or if a case is created to get that case
closed with reunification. Poverty and isolation play a role in
the many hurdles faced by Alaska Native families, she added,
along with other more sensitive topics like generational trauma
and topics that are heard as buzz words when speaking of child
welfare and child protection.
4:27:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the existing compact is
available for review.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY replied that it is on the DHSS website. She
further noted that the tribes will make specific elements of the
compact available at the request of committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY requested that the committee receive the
compact.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER noted the request.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked whether the entire compact is on the
website or just parts.
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY responded that the tribes will provide
elements at the committee's request and the compact itself is on
the DHSS website.
4:29:54 PM
KATY GIORGIO, Staff, Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Zulkosky, prime
sponsor of HB 184, answered that the 2017 compact is available
on the OCS website. She said Ms. Hensley could provide more
details on the annual negotiations
4:30:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened public testimony on HB 184, then closed
public testimony after ascertaining no one wished to testify.
4:30:28 PM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY provided closing comments on HB 184. She said
the state and DHSS intend to continue the Tribal Child Welfare
Compact, which was related by Ms. Guay. A compact agreement is
signed, scopes of work are negotiated, and funding agreements
are tied to the different scopes of work. It is very important
for the state to meet families where they are at. She pointed
out that tribes offer an opportunity to wrap the preventative
resources that they receive from the federal government around
families; the intention is not to remove children from their
families, but to keep them preserved in their families. This
work complements the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). All these
parts work together, Co-Chair Zulkosky continued, there is not
one element of child welfare that is going to turn the tide on
the disproportionality. There are multi-faceted components
which lead families to crisis, and which lead the state to
getting involved, and in this situation the intention is to
engender public trust by tribes. Families are more inclined to
work with the tribe than the state and better results are seen
because of that. The only way to turn the tide on the
disproportionality, she opined, is making a policy call that by
providing state services as close to home as possible through
familiar entities like tribes in Alaska villages is in the best
interest of both the state and the tribes. The intent behind
drafting the bill's current language is to keep it broad and
general to have the most amount of latitude so there is not any
tying of hands. If tribes can leverage federal resources, she
added, the state will see cost savings. She said HB 184 seeks
to protect and preserve the ingenuity of what the Tribal Child
Welfare Compact is.
4:34:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA stated that due to unanswered questions he
will not vote to pass HB 184 out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that child welfare compacting
creates opportunity to make big progress in keeping families
together and keeping communities together. This compacting has
been successful so far by helping to provide higher quality
services closer to home at a lower cost, she continued. It has
helped to strengthen state services and leverage the resources
that tribes bring to the discussion on an issue of shared
interest, which has increased public trust in the process; it is
a proven strategy that builds on the strengths of communities.
She said the sponsor has done a great job of giving the
administration lots of flexibility to be able to manage it
effectively in partnership with local tribes. She offered her
support for advancing the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed his support for HB 184 as a
positive step.
4:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to report HB 184 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY objected. He allowed there is merit in
what Representative Spohnholz has shared and that wrap-around
services in the community are best, he stated he needs more
information to be able to make an informed decision.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Spohnholz, Fields,
Zulkosky, and Snyder voted in favor of HB 184. Representatives
McCarty, Prax, and Kurka voted against it. Therefore, HB 184
was reported out of the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
4:40:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:40 p.m. to 4:46 p.m.
HB 106-MISSING PERSONS UNDER 21 YEARS OLD
4:46:36 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to missing persons under
21 years of age." She noted that the bill is [sponsored by
House Rules] by request of the governor.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER observed that page 1, lines 4-6, Section 1, of
the bill would remove the language "in addition to the
requirements of AS 47.10.141 regarding reports of missing
minors". She related that there is concern about what else
might be lost given that it is a big section. She surmised this
language does not remove the requirements, but rather that they
are just no longer referenced in this part of statute.
4:48:25 PM
LISA PURINTON, Chief, Criminal Records and Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), confirmed it is correct that this would not
replace the requirement. She said it would add clarification to
AS 18.65.620 by adding the new section which bridges a gap that
exists under AS 47.10.141. She explained that AS 47.10.141
requires it is very specific to minors and AS 18.65.620 adds the
clarification to expand that scope to anybody under the age of
21 so that significant changes to the definition of a minor do
not have to be made throughout many statutes.
4:49:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA noted that the second paragraph of the
sponsor's statement says these laws are being changed to comply
with federal law changes. He inquired about the legal or
financial consequences to the state of not passing this bill and
not being 100 percent in sync with the federal guidelines.
MS. PURINTON answered that she doesn't know there would be a
financial or legal cost but said this conflict in state law
makes it difficult for the Department of Public Safety to audit
and require law enforcement agencies to comply with the more
restrictive federal requirements. The change, she explained, is
to encourage all law enforcement agencies to report this data
for the vulnerable population between the ages of 18 and under
21 so that information can be put into state and national
databases more quickly. Many studies, she added, have shown
that the chances of recovery for a missing person are very high
within the first 48 hours.
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that HB 106 is held over.
SB 65-LIABILITY CONSULTING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
4:51:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 65(JUD), "An Act relating to immunity
for consulting physicians, podiatrists, osteopaths, advanced
practice registered nurses, physician assistants, chiropractors,
dentists, optometrists, and pharmacists."
4:51:53 PM
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor,
introduced CSSB 65(JUD). He turned to his intern, Ms. CJ
Harrell, to present the bill.
4:52:26 PM
CJ HARRELL, Intern, Senator Jesse Kiehl, Alaska State
Legislature, presented CSSB 65(JUD) on behalf of Senator Kiehl,
prime sponsor. She explained that when health care providers
need advice on how to treat a patient it is common for them to
casually reach out to other health care professionals. She said
it is considered a "curbside" consultation when the conversation
is uncompensated and informal, and the consulting health care
provider has no relationship with the patient. Curbside
consultations happen regularly in Alaska and other states as
they are a fast and effective way for a health care provider to
get advice.
MS. HARRELL stated that should a civil liability case occur,
CSSB 65(JUD) answers a new question of who would be liable the
patient's health care provider or the professional who gave the
advice. She said current liability remains with the direct
health care provider. However, she continued, there was a case
in 2019 in Minnesota where a consulting health care provider did
have to defend himself. The Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling
threatened to upend this important part of American health care.
Medical professionals need to feel comfortable giving this
valuable advice to their colleagues, she explained, and CSSB
65(JUD) would allow curbside consultations to continue without
fear of the consulting health care provider becoming subject to
civil liability for a patient with whom they had no
relationship. At the same time, she said, it keeps the
longstanding rule clear that the treating health care provider
is the one responsible if a civil liability case occurs.
4:54:08 PM
SENATOR KIEHL provided a sectional analysis. He said the bill
is a single section with the initial nine subsections describing
situations where under current law and under common
understanding a doctor-patient relationship, or duty of care, is
established. In these situations, he explained, [the health
care professional] giving advice is still potentially liable
because of having a duty to the patient through laying hands on
the patient, being paid, and being part of a practice that is
treating the patient. A curbside consult and the liability
shield under CSSB 65(JUD) only occur when [the health care
professional] does not have that duty of care. Senator Kiehl
pointed out that subsection (b) is also important and is written
so that if the rare case happens where there is harm to a
patient and a liability, the patient is able to recover the full
amounts allowed under Alaska law; the patient's recovery cannot
be reduced because there was a curbside consult. He said the
bill also provides definitions for all the terms.
4:55:57 PM
[CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened invited testimony on CSSB 65(JUD).]
4:56:28 PM
ROBERT CRAIG, CEO, Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute, provided
invited testimony in support of CSSB 65(JUD). He explained that
the institute's physicians take calls at any time of the day or
night from physicians elsewhere in the state who have
cardiology-related questions or tests to interpret for patients
in their care. Since the institute's doctor will not have a
patient record and will be unfamiliar with the patient in
question, a special burden is placed on the institute's doctor
to be open to potential civil liability, but the institute's
physicians are interested in giving timely and accurate
information to the calling physician in order to care for that
patient. The other option to this, he pointed out, is to advise
the calling physician to send the patient to Anchorage or make a
formal request by way of consultation, but the downside is that
this can delay care as well as increase potential health care
cost. He said the goal of the institute's providers is to
continue to provide a high level of cardiology-related service
in a high quality and low-cost manner to the state's providers
calling for that service. He concluded by stating that the
institute supports CSSB 65(JUD).
4:58:27 PM
JACOB KELLY, MD, MHS, FACC, Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute,
provided invited testimony in support of CSSB 65(JUD). He said
he is one of two advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant
cardiologists in Alaska. He related that, in general when on
call, an institute doctor is on call throughout the entire
state, and during a 24-hour period he has had as many as 20
different phone calls and curbsides helping physician's
assistants, nurse practitioners, health aides, and other
physicians so they can deliver care timely and on site. Very
few locations in Alaska have cardiologists, he added, so there
is no local option. He pointed out that a lot of what the
institute's doctors do isn't remunerated and is to provide care
because the first oath a doctor takes is to not harm people and
afterwards doctors want to help patients extend their lives,
reduce suffering, and improve quality of life.
DR. KELLY noted that in the Lower 48 it is oftentimes easy when
receiving these calls to request the patient be sent to the
emergency room and the doctor being consulted will see the
patient there, whereas in Alaska that could mean a boat or snow
machine ride followed by a plane ride. He stated that some of
his colleagues at the institute see a lot of potential liability
in providing care for someone that the doctor being consulted
cannot see or touch but is trying to help as best as possible,
and an added challenge is that this could be at 2:00 a.m. He
said the simplest and easiest way would be to ask for transfer
of the patient, but this may not be the best thing for the
patient, so this bill would allow for the doctors being
consulted to relax and use their brains and skillsets to help
other providers and doctors and their patients in their local
space to get the best care. Sometimes the best care may mean
transferring into Anchorage, he continued, but sometimes it may
mean keeping patients where they are at. He advised that in
Alaska there is currently a transfer of the "old school" of
doctors who understand the remote way of life in Alaska to new
practicing doctors who are very fearful of litigation. The bill
would reduce that barrier so the institute's doctors could
continue to help give the outstanding care that has been given
over the last 30 years in Alaska. He concluded by expressing
his support for CSSB 65(JUD).
5:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA stated that it looks like a lot of new
language is being added to statute regarding who "duty of care"
would apply to. He asked whether this is already defined
elsewhere in statute or regulation.
SENATOR KIEHL replied that if a definition of what constituted a
"duty of care" was had in Alaska's statutes it would be the
preferable drafting approach. But, he explained, the concept of
a "duty of care" is a common law concept built through hundreds
of years of precedent in Western law; the Minnesota Supreme
Court case put things into an upset situation by creating a very
different standard. While Alaska's courts are in no way bound
by Minnesota's courts, he continued, various states look to one
another and so this bill would protect Alaska's medical care
system and the curbside consults that are an important part of
it. The text in the bill is an attempt to capture everything
that could be thought of where there really is a duty, an
obligation, a doctor-patient relationship, or a remuneration
relationship, he stated. The bill does not apply this liability
exemption to any place that would commonly be understood for
there to be a duty of the health care provider to the patient.
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA noted that Alaska currently has liability
for doctors who do malpractice. He said it seems that there
should be something beyond precedent of case law in terms of an
establishment of what constitutes a doctor's responsibility and
who is responsible when tending a patient.
5:06:10 PM
PAM VENTGEN, Executive Director, Alaska State Medical
Association (ASMA), responded that ASMA supports the bill. She
noted that the bill applies to other specialists in addition to
cardiologists. She explained that the duty of care has been
understood for centuries and it is part of the practice of
medicine. She said the bill's language was carefully crafted to
support what has been happening without the protections in the
bill.
5:07:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX said he is concerned that by stating
something it will be allowing something else, given the way
Alaska's laws are written. He asked whether plaintiff's
attorneys have been consulted regarding how this type of
attorney might look at it.
SENATOR KIEHL confirmed that conversations have been had with
personal injury attorneys in Alaska. He related that their
concerns center around the precise language that prevents "the
empty chair," which is what he described in not reducing the
treating health care provider's liability by virtue of having
gotten advice from someone whom the bill would not subject to
liability. He allowed that conversation is ongoing about
whether this needs a fine-tune adjustment. In terms of the
broader issue, he continued, the state of the law today is that
if [a provider] doesn't have a doctor-patient relationship [the
provider] is not understood to have a duty of care, which is why
the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision was such an upending
event. Regarding doing a harm, Senator Kiehl related that
several medical professionals have been worked with and a
situation of harm has not yet been identified, but he would be
amenable if a situation presents itself.
5:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX recalled one of the previous witnesses
stating that he got up to 20 calls in a 24-hour period. He
inquired whether it could be argued that part of that person's
job if making that many consultations in a day is to provide
consultations.
SENATOR KIEHL replied that he doesn't think so because these are
uncompensated calls. It is a service that medical professionals
are providing to one another, he stated, and they are under no
legal obligation, nor would this bill create a legal obligation,
to take those calls. He said the only goal, and he believes the
only effect, of CSSB 65(JUD) is to free them up to continue to
do so when they choose to do so.
5:11:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ surmised CSSB 65(JUD) would provide
support by protecting the provider-to-provider relationship and
would not create something more than that.
SENATOR KIEHL agreed.
5:12:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER asked whether there is precedence for other
occupations where they would be held liable; for example, if an
electrician called another electrician about what to do in a
special circumstance.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that none come to mind.
5:13:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ posited that one thing distinct about
this scenario from other scenarios of one professional
consulting another professional is that there is time
sensitivity to a health care decision. An answer to a health
care malady is needed quickly and it is desired to make sure
that the person who is picking up the call on the other end is
going to be comfortable. It is a sad state of affairs, she
opined, that there is a need to create this protection for
something that isn't described anywhere because there is no duty
of care. However, if providers are saying that they feel this
concern, there is merit to addressing it; the letters of support
for it are broad in the health care community. She related that
a physical therapist has suggested adding physical therapists.
She asked whether this has been discussed in previous
committees.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that there have been conversations about
other disciplines within the medical field with curbside
consults. He advised that it is important to be very precise
and specific when granting a shield from liability, specifically
because of the risk of unintended consequence. So, he said, the
list of providers in the bill was tailored toward the greatest
need for these curbside consults and with an eye toward some of
the broader physical health scopes of practice. Each
professional has a scope of practice that allows them to
independently evaluate the advice they are given, he continued.
The treating health care professional remains entirely liable to
be sued and held responsible in court. That is why, for
example, registered nurses (RNs) are not on the list. When a
nurse communicates with a doctor there is not a parallel scope
of practice, scope of training, and that is why the bill is as
narrowly tailored as it is.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that a [health care
provider] might consult with a physical therapist to find out
whether something is treatable via physical therapy as opposed
to a higher level of intervention such as surgery.
SENATOR KIEHL offered his appreciation to committee members for
their consideration and questions about CSSB 65(JUD).
5:19:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SNYDER opened public testimony on CSSB 65(JUD). She
closed public testimony after ascertaining no one wished to
testify.
[CO-CHAIR SNYDER held over CSSB 65(JUD).]
5:20:11 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 65 v. B.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sectional Analysis v. B 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Letter of Support ASMA 2.11.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Letter of Support Alaska Chiropractic Society.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/18/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Amendment 1 Hughes.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Amendment 1 Hughes.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/18/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Amendment 2 Wilson.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB65 Amendment 3.12.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| CSSB65 Ver. I.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65.msg |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB65 Public Testimony.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SJUD 3/31/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Version C.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Zero Fiscal Note.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| HB 116 Sponsor Statement, v. A.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Carey Acquittal, 2017.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document, FAQs 4.10.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Supporting Document - Temporary Secure Juvenile Holding Area.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116, v. A.PDF |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Letters of Support Received as of 4.20.21.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 PowerPoint Presentation.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Sectional Analysis, v. A.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| DHSS Comparison Memo- HB116 - HB105 and SB91 (4-14-21).pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| DHSS comparison of HB116 (HB105 or SB91) with notes.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| HB 105 v. A 2.19.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Transmittal Letter 2.18.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.23.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DHSS-PS 2.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 2.12.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Supporting Document - ABADA & AMHB Letter 3.5.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Testimony - Received as of 3.8.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 Additional Document - Memo from DJJ to HJUD 3.9.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. A Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 3.10.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/17/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 v. B (Distributed by HJUD Committee) 3.12.2021.PDF |
HHSS 4/15/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 116 Additional Document - DHSS Comparison of HB 116 and HB 105 (SB 91) with Notes 4.14.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 HB 116 SB 91 |
| HB 184 LOS_Alaska Childrens Trust.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HTRB 5/4/2021 8:00:00 AM SHSS 3/31/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 LOS_Alaska Regional Coalition.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 3/31/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 184 |