03/06/2018 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB351 | |
| HB290 | |
| HB268 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2018
3:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Vice Chair
Representative Sam Kito
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative David Eastman
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Matt Claman (alternate)
Representative Dan Saddler (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Chair
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"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 adjudication of minor delinquency
and the deoxyribonucleic acid identification registration
system; 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. 290
"An Act relating to the membership of the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 290 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to the prescription of opioids; relating to the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to the
practice of dentistry; relating to the practice of medicine;
relating to the practice of podiatry; relating to the practice
of osteopathy; relating to the practice of nursing; and relating
to the practice of optometry."
- MOVED CSSSHB 268(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
02/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/18 (H) HSS, JUD
03/06/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 290
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION: MEMBERSHIP
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/19/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/18 (H) HSS, JUD
03/01/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/18 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/06/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 268
SHORT TITLE: OPIOID PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): GARA
01/12/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) HSS, L&C
01/22/18 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/22/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/18 (H) HSS, FIN
01/30/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/30/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/18 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
02/15/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/18 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/22/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/22/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/18 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
02/27/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/18 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/06/18 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JUDY JESSEN, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 351 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, Representative Spohnholz.
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 351.
VALERIE DAVIDSON, Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 290.
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff
Representative Les Gara
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 268 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, Representative Gara.
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of HB
268.
SARA CHAMBERS, Deputy Director
Juneau Office
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of HB
268.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.
Representatives Tarr, Edgmon, Kito, Claman (alternate), Saddler
(alternate), Johnston, and Eastman were present at the call to
order. [Representative Tarr was the acting chair during the
absence of Chair Spohnholz]
HB 351-JUVENILES: JUSTICE,FACILITES,TREATMENT
3:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "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 adjudication of minor delinquency and the
deoxyribonucleic acid identification registration system;
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."
3:11:22 PM
JUDY JESSEN, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement [Included in
members' packets], which read:
HB 351 is a statutory cleanup bill which updates the
terms used to describe the facilities operated by the
Division of Juvenile Justice and provides updated
definitions for those terms. Current statutes contain
references to facilities which DJJ does not operate,
and facilities that do not exist in the state of
Alaska. The bill also makes a clear distinction
between the role of juvenile probation officers and
adult probation officers in places where the
difference is unclear. HB 351 also requires staff of
juvenile justice to be added to the list of mandatory
reporters of child abuse and neglect. These updates
are necessary to provide statutory clarity to ensure
the Division can manage its facilities effectively
throughout the state.
Currently, Alaska Statutes reference places like work
camps and juvenile detention homes, which are not
recognized or operating in the state of Alaska. HB 351
adds juvenile treatment facility, juvenile detention
facility, and temporary secure juvenile holding area
as facilities currently being operated by the division
and provides clear definitions for each of these
terms. Because references to these facilities occur in
many places in statute, this bill also touches upon
many sections of statute. These changes are necessary
to provide the clearest regulation over facilities in
existence and operated by the DJJ.
3:13:16 PM
HB 351 also clarifies the role of juvenile and adult
probation officers, first by distinguishing clearly between
the two, and second by providing a clear definition for the
term juvenile probation officer. These are meaningful
changes to provide the best protection for juveniles in the
custody of the Division of Juvenile Justice.
Lastly, HB 351 adds DJJ staff to the list of mandatory
reporters. It is the Division's objective to engage in
the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Adding DJJ
staff to the list of mandatory reporters provides the
best guarantee that when DJJ staff discover cases of
child abuse and neglect, those cases are reported,
investigated, and resolved for the best interest of
the child.
While these technical language updates touch many
sections of statute, these language changes do not
significantly alter the authority of the Division over
juveniles in its care. Rather, these updates protect
juveniles by making it clear where juveniles can be
placed and clearly defining the authority of DJJ, its
staff, and facilities using current and relevant
language.
3:14:25 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the Sectional Analysis, which read
[Included in members' packets] [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 AS 09.65.255(b): Deals with indemnity of
civil liability for the actions of minors in state
custody Adds foster home, definition reference for
foster home, juvenile treatment facilities, juvenile
detention facility, and treatment institution. Adds
references for the definitions of juvenile treatment
facility and treatment institutions
Section 2 AS 11.41.425(b)(1): Deals with sexual
assault in the third degree Adds staff who work in
juvenile detention facilities and juvenile treatment
facilities to definition of sexual assault in the
third degree
Section 3 AS 11.41.425(b)(2): Deals with sexual
assault in the third degree Updates the definition of
juvenile probation officer.
3:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked in what way Section 2 added to the
definition of sexual assault in the third degree, and what was
attempted to be accomplished.
3:15:49 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, Social Services Program Officer, Division of
Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services,
explained that, in these sections referring to the sexual abuse
of a minor and the sexual assault crimes addressed in AS 11, the
terms describing the juvenile staff and facilities already
existed, and these were just conforming changes. These staff
were not being added and were being provided as a reference to
the earlier new definition. He emphasized that, for the
purposes of sexual assault in the third or fourth degree, it was
a special crime for staff of a juvenile justice facility to
engage in sexual behavior with kids in their care.
3:16:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 24 and
asked about the changes to juvenile probation officers that
necessitated these conforming changes.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the actual definition of juvenile
probation officers was in Section 24, and that the existing
statute, AS 47.12.270, referred to youth counselors, an earlier
term for facility staff which described the work of probation
officers. He added that this reference and definition had
existed for decades. He pointed out that there was only a minor
update for the actual work of probation officers in Section 24.
3:18:08 PM
MS. JESSEN continued her paraphrase from the Sectional Analysis,
which read:
Section 4 AS 11.41.427(b)(2): Deals with sexual
assault in the 4th degree. Updates definition of
juvenile probation officer
3:18:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the new definition for the
juvenile probation officer position required any additional
certification, training, or credentials.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the probation officers were
considered peace officers, although they were not an official
part of the peace officer corps and were not sworn officers
similar to adult probation officers or police officers. They
did attend divisional training and they did meet the
requirements to fulfill the role.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the proposed bill made any
change to adult probation officers.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that adult probation officers were already
cited in statute, and that the proposed bill delineated between
adult and juvenile probation officers in the sections that
referenced probation officers, to provide clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether, if juvenile probation
officer was not specifically delineated, this would be a
reference to adult probation officers.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that this had been the attempt, although it
was possible that some references had been missed.
3:20:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his belief that the definition
for juvenile probation officer was specifically asking the
department to title these individuals as such.
MR. DAVIDSON stated that the title of juvenile probation officer
was for personnel reasons and was attached to the job
description in AS 47.12.270.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the substantive difference
between a juvenile probation officer and a juvenile justice
officer.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the two had separate job
descriptions, duties, and roles within the department. There
was also a pay differential, as well as a difference for
experience and requirements, and educational background. He
declared that these were different positions and did not replace
each other in terms of the roles in the Division of Juvenile
Justice. He listed some of the duties of a probation officer.
3:23:31 PM
MS. JESSEN continued to paraphrase from the sectional analysis
Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section
10, and Section 11, which read:
Section 5 AS 11.41.470(3): Deals with crimes by legal
guardians Adds employees of juvenile treatment
institutions and juvenile and adult probation officers
to list of legal guardians
Section 6 AS 11.41.470(5): Deals with crimes against
persons committed by a person in a position of
authority Adds correctional employee, juvenile
facility staff, and staff members of juvenile
treatment institutions as people in positions of
authority
Section 7 AS 11.41.470: Deals with crimes against
persons committed by a person in a position of
authority Adds definitions for juvenile facility staff
and treatment institutions
Section 8 AS 11.56.760(a): Deals with orders to submit
to DNA testing Clarifies that those who have been
"adjudicated delinquent" may have to submit DNA
samples
Section 9 AS 11.61.123(e): Deals with Indecent Viewing
or Photography Adds treatment institutions and
juvenile treatment facilities to list of included
facilities. Provides references to definitions of
those terms
Section 10 AS 14.07.020(a): deals with providing
public education services Includes juvenile detention
facilities and juvenile treatment facilities as places
where public education must be provided. Provides
references to definitions of those terms
Section 11 AS 14.30.186(a): Deals with providing
special education Includes treatment institutions,
juvenile detention facilities, or juvenile treatment
facilities as places where special education must be
provided. Adds references to definitions for those
terms
3:25:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation to the
functional effect of the expansion of the definition in Section
10, page 4, line 27 for juvenile education services.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that this section related to the duties
of the Department of Education and Early Development to provide
education services to youth in the custody of the Division of
Juvenile Justice in their facilities. He said that this was
updating the references to those facilities, and it was not an
expansion. He noted that all the facilities had school district
operated schools and he pointed to AS 47.12 for a definition of
those facilities. He stated that the intent was to update the
references and ensure they were being uniformly referenced
across the statute. He said that each of these conforming
changes had individually been discussed with the Department of
Education and Early Development. He added that there had been
discussions regarding special education with the Governor's
Council on Special Education and Disabilities to ensure they
were "hitting our references correctly."
3:27:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for examples of juvenile treatment
facilities.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that, for the purposes of the bill, the
definition of juvenile treatment facility was referenced in AS
47.12, and included the four Division of Juvenile Justice
institutional treatment facilities: McLaughlin Youth Center in
Anchorage, the Bethel Youth Facility, the Johnson Youth Center
in Juneau, and the Fairbanks Youth Facility. He pointed out
that previously some of the terms had not been well defined and
there were not any references provided throughout the statute.
3:28:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referring to page 4, line 27, asked if
there was a definition of detention.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the facilities operated by the
Division of Juvenile Justice were referred to as detention homes
in the earlier statute, and these terms had been deleted from
statute. He stated that this proposed statute did not use this
term, as it was a less specific term.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there were any detention
facilities that were not included in the definition for juvenile
detention facility or juvenile treatment facility. He asked if,
during this transition, there was any chance for someone "to
fall through the cracks."
MR. DAVIDSON explained that, as the Department of Education and
Early Development was required to provide education services,
there was not a chance. He reported that a definition for
temporary juvenile holding areas was being added, explaining
that these were areas where a youth, who had committed a
criminal offense and needed to be detained, was held securely
while awaiting transport to a juvenile justice facility. He
clarified that there was not an expectation that educational
services would be provided at these facilities, as they were
most often a "less than six hour hold and were waiting for the
trooper to come and transport that youth... "
MR. DAVIDSON, in response to Representative Eastman, explained
that the Department of Education and Early Development did
provide education services for youthful offenders who were held
in Department of Corrections facilities, as they had been tried
as adults. He pointed out that this section of the proposed
bill was addressing education in coordination with the
Department of Health and Social Services, and not with the
Department of Corrections.
3:32:22 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 12,
Section 13, Section 14, and Section 15, which read:
Section 12 AS 17.37.070(6): Deals with medical
marijuana Includes juvenile treatment facilities as
facilities operated by the state which are not
required to provide medical marijuana
Section 13 AS 18.20.499(2): Deals with overtime for
nurses Adds "juvenile" treatment facilities and
treatment institutions to describe facilities operated
by Division of Juvenile Justice
Section 14 AS 47.10.141(c): Deals with Runaways and
Missing Minors Updates terms used to describe juvenile
detention facilities operated by the Division of
Juvenile Justice and inappropriate emergency placement
for minors.
Section 15 AS 47.10.141(j): Deals with Runaways and
Missing Minors Creates new definition for "temporary
secure juvenile holding area" where delinquent minors
may be kept while awaiting transportation to a
juvenile detention facility or pending a court order
in AS 47.10.990
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her belief that Section 15 offered a
new definition for "temporary secure holding area."
3:33:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification that Section 13
defined a juvenile treatment facility as an area in which
overtime for nurses was prohibited.
MR. DAVIDSON replied, "That's my understanding."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if these were salaried state employees
that would not otherwise be eligible for overtime.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that some of the salaried staff were
overtime eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referenced AS 18.24.400, listing
facilities which, under this amendment, would include juvenile
treatment facilities and that "a nurse in a health care facility
may not be required or coerced to work overtime."
3:34:49 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 16,
Section 17, Section 18, and Section 19, which read:
Section 16 AS 47.10.990(20): Deals with Runaways and
Missing Minors Updates the definition used to describe
facilities operated by the Division of Juvenile
justice for the temporary secure detention of minors.
Section 17 AS 47.12.025(c): Arrest procedure for
juveniles Clarifies that the described duties apply to
juvenile probation officers, not adult probation
officer. Updates language used to describe juvenile
facilities and other areas where delinquent minor may
be held.
Section 18 AS 47.12.120(b): Deals with the placement
of minors who have an adjudication order under AS
47.12.120(b)(1) Updates terms of facilities where
minors can be placed
Section 19 AS 47.12.120: Deals with DNA submission for
minors Adds a new subsection to clarify that minors 16
or older may be ordered to submit a DNA sample if
adjudicated for certain crimes
3:35:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if "16 or older" [in Section 19]
was new language, and if so, why was this being added.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the underlying statute requiring DNA
submission for adjudicated delinquents 16 years of age or older
already existed in AS 44, and this referred to the delinquency
statute to bring "that all together."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there was a category of crimes
committed by a juvenile that was not already considered a crime
committed by an adult.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that this was "kind of a term of art we
use which is the youth that are referred to the division commit
delinquent acts that would have been a crime if they were an
adult, but they are delinquents rather than criminals." He
stated that the crimes requiring DNA samples were crimes of a
sexual nature.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about the penalty for a 16-year-old
not submitting to a DNA test.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that this was a misdemeanor, as it was part
of an adjudication order and the court sentence, and he would
research the exact crime.
3:38:32 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 20
and Section 21, which read:
Section 20 AS 47.12.240(a): Deals with placement of
minors after court commits them and before they are
convicted Makes conforming and clarifying amendments
to the conditions under which a minor may be held in a
facility housing adult prisoners and the language used
to describe facilities operated by the Division of
Juvenile Justice
Section 21 AS 47.12.240(b): Deals with temporary
holding of minors while awaiting transport Updates
language used to describe conditions under which a
minor may be held in a facility housing adult
prisoners and the language used to describe facilities
operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice
REPRESENTATIVE TARR addressed an amendment [Included in members'
packets] which would amend Section 21.
3:39:58 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from Section 22 and Section 23, which
read:
Section 22 AS 47.12.245(b): Deals with parole officers
arresting minors Clarifies that the authority to
arrest a minor rests with juvenile, not adult,
probation officers.
Section 23 AS 47.12.250(a): Deals with temporary
detention/ detention hearings Clarifies that the
authority to detain a minor rests with "juvenile," not
adult, probations offices. Adds "temporary secure
juvenile holding areas" to the list of approved placed
to hold juveniles
3:40:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER shared testimony from another committee
which reported that a Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) must
restrain a person after an arrest. He asked if the VPSO could
secure a juvenile in a place not described as a secure juvenile
holding area, such as the VPSOs home or office, and, if so,
would this practice come into conflict with Section 23.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the temporary juvenile holding area
was in compliance with the federal Juvenile Delinquency and
Prevention Act. He reported that the Division of Juvenile
Justice had agreements with dozens of these temporary areas and
these were monitored and inspected every third year. He
acknowledged that, upon occasion, it was necessary to restrain
adults and juveniles in areas that were not part of the
definition.
3:42:07 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 24,
which read:
Section 24 AS 47.12.270: Deals with juvenile probation
officers Updates the title and duties of juvenile
probation officers.
3:42:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked in which situations the juvenile
probation officer would need to exercise the powers of a peace
officer with respect to the service of process.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that he was not sure of the role for a
peace officer, although they did have the ability to arrest
minors if they had failed to meet conditions of conduct imposed
by the court.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to [page 14] line 19
and asked whether the addition for "service of process" had been
"copied over from another pre-existing statute" or was it now a
power of a peace officer being given to a juvenile probation
officer.
MR. DAVIDSON deferred to the experts within the division for a
more thorough answer to the powers and the intent. He offered
his belief that it was being held over from the section which
was being repealed and re-enacted.
3:44:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 13 [line 25]
which specified that a juvenile probation officer may arrest a
minor under certain conditions, and he asked if an adult
probation officer could arrest a juvenile under these
conditions.
MR. DAVIDSON opined that, for the purpose of the delinquency
statute, this was being specific to the roles of juvenile
probation officers. He pointed to the citizen arrest provision,
which allowed that any peace officer or citizen witnessing a
crime had that power. He noted that this was in a different
statute and was not being addressed here. He reported that
these sections in AS 47.12 referred to the powers of the
juvenile probation officers employed by the Division of Juvenile
Justice and was not intended to preclude other powers.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that he wanted to make sure that
something necessary was not being excluded during this
clarification process. He asked if an adult probation officer
could only have the authority to arrest a juvenile under the
citizen arrest basis. He declared that the proposed bill
specified that only a juvenile probation officer could make the
arrest.
MR. DAVIDSON opined that, as it was generally outside the role
of an adult probation officer to monitor the conditions under
which a juvenile had been released from the Division of Juvenile
Justice, they would not be privy to the information necessary to
conduct an arrest.
3:47:29 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 25,
which read:
Section 25 AS 47.12.310(d): Deals with notifying
victims of crimes Clarifies that the department has a
duty to notify victims when a minor is released from
any court ordered placement under AS 47.12.120(b)(1)
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if this expanded or maintained the
status quo.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that this was an expansion of the
notification as youth were placed in secured places in other
non-Division of Juvenile Justice on rare occasions.
3:48:26 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 26,
Section 27, Section 28, Section 29, Section 30, and Section 31,
which read:
Section 26 AS 47.12.315(c): Public disclosure of
information in department records relating to certain
minors Corrects 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 "alleged to have
committed."
Section 27 AS 47.12.990(7): Deals with definitions and
institutions Amends the definition of juvenile
detention facility
Section 28 AS 47.12.990(12): Deals with definitions
and institutions Amends the definition of minor
Section 29 AS 47.12.990: Deals with definitions of
institutions Creates new definitions for juvenile
probation officer, juvenile treatment facility,
residential child care facility, temporary secure
juvenile holding area
Section 30 AS 47.14.010: Deals with the powers of DHSS
over DJJ Updates language to describe juvenile
facilities operated by the department
Section 31 As 47.14.020: Deals with the duties of the
department related to the custody of minors Updates
the language used to describe juvenile facilities
operated by the department
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if [Sections 30 and 31] just addressed
deletion of the homes and the juvenile work camps, and updated
the language.
MS. JESSEN expressed her agreement.
3:49:55 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 32,
which read:
Section 32 AS 47.14.040: Deals with the authority to
maintain and operate facilities Updates the language
used to describe places the department can operate
juvenile facilities to reflect the diversity of
Alaskan communities and entities, such as the need for
airports that operate "temporary secure juvenile
holding areas."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if this was an appropriate place to
insert a provision for the unorthodox restraining techniques
which were occasionally used.
MR. DAVIDSON asked about the unauthorized restraint techniques.
He said that he was not aware that this was an issue in statute.
He offered his belief that the addition of this definition
served to define these areas as having a duty to provide sight
and sound separation and move them on in six hours or less.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that, as this was the vehicle for a
lot of changes, he would ask the people in the Department of
Public Safety.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 26, page 15, and
asked if there was now anything in the provision to limit the
type of information available to a parent or guardian.
MR. DAVIDSON stated that the disclosure statutes were very
robust and included someone with a legitimate interest in
receiving the information. He said that this section amended a
bill passed in 2012, as it was an "alignment issue" for "alleged
to have" to now become "adjudicated delinquent."
3:53:18 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 33,
Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, and Section 37, which read:
Section 33 AS 47.14.050(a): Deals with the operation
of homes and facilities Repealed and reenacted to
update the language used to describe juvenile
facilities
Section 34 AS 47.14.050(b): Deals with the operation
of homes and facilities Updates language to reflect
the diversity of Alaska communities that may be
authorized to operate juvenile detention facilities
Section 35 AS 47.14.990(7): Social Services and
Institutions Definitions Updates the definition of
juvenile detention facilities
Section 36 AS 47.14.990(14): Deals with Social
Services Institutions and Definitions Updates the
definition of minor
Section 37 AS 47.14.990: Deals with Social Services
Institutions and Definitions Adds new definitions for
juvenile probation officer, juvenile treatment
facility, and temporary secure juvenile holding area
3:54:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 34 of the
proposed bill [page 18, line 2], and asked if this prohibited
the department from entering into a contract with a tribal
organization.
MR. DAVIDSON explained that the intent was to update the term
"cities," which was not inclusive of the types of communities in
Alaska that may want to seek a contract with the department.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the department was opposed to
adding language to permit tribal organizations alongside
municipalities.
MR. DAVIDSON directed attention to page 17, line 21 of the
proposed bill, and explained that the intention was to include
the range of organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if the language limited this.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that it would be an unintended limitation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that many non-profits associated
with Native Corporations had contracted to provide VPSO
services, although he was unsure if these would qualify. He
stated that he did not know if a tribe would be considered a
non-profit and asked if it would be appropriate to expand this
section to include tribal authorities.
3:57:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO pointed out that the regional non-profit
corporations were distinct entities and were not affiliated with
the regional for-profit corporations, even though they may share
some regional boundaries.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the tribal entities
operated under non-profit corporation status.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO stated that there were tribes which were
established as non-profit organizations, although he was unsure
whether this was universal.
3:58:04 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 38
and Section 39, which read:
Section 38 AS 47.14.020(a): Deals with mandatory
reporting of child abuse and neglect Adds juvenile
probation officer, office staff, and staff of juvenile
facilities to the list of mandatory reporters
Section 39 AS 47.28.15.176: Repealers Repeals
revocation of juvenile driver licenses for offenses
involving a controlled substance that were handled
informally by the division. Repeals definitions for
the terms "juvenile detention home" and "juvenile work
camp" and "treatment facility"
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to Section 38 and
asked if the practical impact of the change to the mandatory
reporter status might mean to juvenile correctional facilities.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that this impact had been considered, and,
by policy, the staff were mandatory reporters. They did receive
admissions about abuse and neglect from the youth and they did
make those reports. This change would recognize the duties and
important role played by the staff.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if it was good policy for every
person speaking with the juveniles to be a mandatory reporter.
MR. DAVIDSON replied that facility staff and probation officers
often had strong relationships with the youth, built upon trust
and sharing. He said that the youth in the treatment facilities
were required to assess their criminal offenses and the factors
leading up to these offenses. He stated that, although these
assessments could include abuse and neglect, every time they
were brought up did not necessitate a new report. He allowed
that with those youth "further deeper in the system" who "have
been adjudicated delinquent and are working through their
process," there was a different relationship and these
admissions and discussions were much more confidential.
4:01:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether, as some youth were
notorious for making false reports, this provision which removed
the staff discretion necessitated the reporting as legitimate.
MS. JESSEN said that, as many of the juvenile probation officers
had professional certifications which carried an ethical
requirement to report these types of infractions, the real
amount of discretion was very limited. She pointed out that
every report would go through an investigation process and there
was not an automatic condemnation of the person receiving the
allegation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that there was a consequence
for having to go through an investigation, and sometimes
multiple investigations.
MS. JESSEN, in response to Representative Eastman, declared that
all staff as mandated reporters would be obligated to report
every allegation.
MR. DAVIDSON pointed out that the staff, by policy, were
mandatory reporters, although the relationships with youth
allowed for modulation of those known to be multiple reporters.
He pointed out that once something was reported, they did not
keep reporting it. He reported that the Office of Children's
Services was the arbitrator of the investigations. He
reiterated that the proposed bill did not change the discretion
currently allowed by staff.
4:05:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that, although there were more
than 15,000 reports of harm each year, only a few thousand were
screened in for an actual investigation, others were screened
out, and false reporting takes place.
4:06:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there was an obligation for a
mandatory reporter to report suspected child abuse inflicted by
the minor in custody.
MR. DAVIDSON said "yes."
4:05:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to page 19, line 9 of
the proposed bill, and asked whether someone was no longer a
mandatory reporter if they volunteered for less than four hours
each week.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that this was the minimum to be a
mandatory reporter.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER mused that this did not apply to juvenile
corrections or treatment.
4:07:27 PM
MS. JESSEN paraphrased from the sectional analysis Section 40,
Section 41, and Section 42, which read:
Section 40 AS 11.41.425(b)(1) Applicability section
Applies to sections of the bill related to criminal
offenses
Section 41 Authorizes the department to adopt
regulations to implement the changes of the
legislation
Section 42 Effective date for regulations.
Immediately, allows DJJ to begin making changes
4:07:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referenced the questions on the proposed
bill for follow up, which included a question about the
temporary, secure juvenile holding area, the inclusion of tribal
entities, and some additional questions regarding Section 34 of
the proposed bill.
MS. JESSEN acknowledged these questions and stated that she
would have the answers as soon as the next committee meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Ms. Jessen if there was anything
else that should be addressed.
MS. JESSEN offered her belief that the regulations should be
regularly reviewed and updated with the current best practices.
MR. DAVIDSON added that, as bills which addressed juvenile
justice and delinquency were rare, this was an opportunity to
fix several "tweaks" which had been pending for many years.
4:10:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that HB 351 would be held over.
HB 290-CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION: MEMBERSHIP
4:11:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act relating to the membership
of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; and providing for an
effective date."
4:11:51 PM
VALERIE DAVIDSON, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), stated that
favorable consideration for the proposed bill would be
appreciated.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that an additional fiscal note had
been received from the Alaska Judicial Council.
4:12:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Commissioner Davidson how her role
on the advisory committee would be enhanced by status as a
voting member as opposed to that as an advisory member.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON stated that a voting membership would
allow the Department of Health and Social Services to weigh in
on policy decisions considered by the Criminal Justice
Commission. Although both voting and non-voting members
participated in the deliberations of the meetings, those with a
vote have a greater opportunity to influence the outcome of the
policy decisions.
4:14:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
GH2586\A.2, Radford, 3/2/18, which read:
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "nonvoting member, serving ex officio, who
is a"
Insert "[NONVOTING MEMBER, SERVING EX OFFICIO,
WHO IS A]"
Page 2, line 17:
Delete "nonvoting member, serving ex officio, who
is a"
Insert "[NONVOTING MEMBER, SERVING EX OFFICIO,
WHO IS A]"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion.
4:14:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the proposed bill would add
two more voting members appointed by the governor to the
commission. He offered his belief that the Criminal Justice
Commission would become more a reflection of the governor's
cabinet, pointing out that the majority of the 13 voting members
of the board were appointed and served at the will of the
governor. He opined that the purpose of the commission was
larger than passing on the agenda of the governor. He suggested
that, as the reasons offered by Commissioner Davidson for a
voting membership were in line with the two non-voting
legislative members, it would be "only proper that we also add
these two legislative members to the voting category." He added
that it would preserve the larger role of the commission for
making recommendations inclusive of the judiciary, the
executive, and the legislative branches.
4:16:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about the voting membership of
other boards and commissions with legislative ex-officio
members.
4:17:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to a memo from
Legislative Legal Services and stated that it would not be
improper for the Criminal Justice Commission to have voting
members from all three branches of government. He offered an
example of another commission which had voting members from both
the House and the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON emphasized that these were very distinct
commissions with very different missions and asked for another
example. She asked if there were any state policy commissions
on which the legislature had voting members.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he would also like to have that
information. He suggested that there were very few, if any,
similar commissions which, by design, were reflective of all
three branches of government and had more than one
representative from each.
4:19:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that it would take a systematic
review to recognize which commissions and boards had voting
legislative members. He stated that, although this commission
did authorize judiciary votes, it denied that legislative
members have the right to vote, which he deemed to be
inconsistent. He declared his support for the proposed
Amendment 1.
4:19:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO shared that he had been appointed, as a
voting member, to an advisory committee to the Department of
Education and Early Development for bond reimbursement and grant
review. He reported that this position was identified very
specifically in statute. He offered his belief that this
commission was "a little bit broader" and that it became a
legislative policy call. He allowed that there could be a
concern if there were recommendations from the Criminal Justice
Commission to the Legislature while there were legislators on
the commission who had already voted, and the Legislature was
aware of the direction of those votes. He offered his belief
that there could be a conflict if legislators were offering
recommendations and having a vote on those recommendations. He
stated that he could see reasons for both allowing and not
allowing members to have voting rights and that it was up to the
committee members to determine whether it was appropriate.
4:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered his belief that it was a conscious
choice by the commission to not have legislators vote, as these
were policy recommendations to the legislature. The expectation
was that legislators would make their vote in the Capitol. He
offered his belief that the commission appreciated the
perspective from legislators for how things would be received in
the Capitol, and that a vote by legislators on the commission
"would probably unduly impact the commission deliberations." He
declared that he did not support the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his agreement that this was a
policy call, and that the proposed policy would be to add two
more voting members to the commission. He suggested that this
would offer the opportunity for the commission to have joint
representation from all three branches of government.
4:23:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her belief that her service on a
council as a non-voting member and a citizen legislator allowed
the council to more easily reach a quorum when she was not
present. She expressed concern that legislative members could
limit or discourage conversation regarding proposals related to
funding as it may be unpopular.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that the original premise for
the Criminal Justice Commission did not include the Commissioner
of the Department of Health and Social Services. He mused that
the premise for much of the state criminal policy was that much
of the criminogenic process was based on behavior. He stated
that, to the extent that behavioral health was increasingly a
factor in state correctional policy, the Commissioner of the
Department of Health and Social Services already had tremendous
influence on the dialogue and the policies that were pursued had
far more impact than an advisory position. He added that many
commissioners had multiple responsibilities on boards and
commissions, and that the designee often represented them at
board meetings.
4:28:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked what the legislators brought to
the table at the commission in order to be voters.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that the question for legislators
interested in service on the Criminal Justice Commission was for
how active they should be, similar to the question for the level
of activity for the Commissioner of Department of Health and
Social Services. He shared that his desire to serve would be
prioritized differently, dependent on the role as a voting or
non-voting member. He declared that the message he wanted to
send was for the "legislators to be just as active as our
Commissioner." He acknowledged that, although legislators could
quash discussion based on funding concerns as non-voting
members, giving legislators the vote "tells them its important
and that it also encourages the Commission as their going
forward and making decisions to fully include the legislators."
4:31:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON opined that the commissioner was
bringing access to the department, whereas a legislator was
bringing a political agenda with the possibility to act on that
agenda. She acknowledged that this could go "both ways." She
pointed out that, as voting members, the legislators were
responsible for taking the policy of the commission to their
respective bodies. If they were non-voting members, they did
not have to champion the policy.
4:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that it could be argued that
legislators could be some of the most effective members of the
Criminal Justice Commission, based on their broad experience and
perspective for state policy, funding constraints and
opportunities, and the necessity of coordinating different state
policy and law. He pointed out that legislators were a distinct
minority on the commission, and he opined that two voting
legislators would not be able to drive the agenda. He added
that the commission was an advisory commission for
recommendations. He noted that, as the judges would also be
able to take votes on criminal justice policy when cases came
through the judicial system they would also be required to
implement the same policies.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that members of the judicial
branch on the Criminal Justice Commission were often declining
and recusing themselves from voting because they believed it was
a policy question that they may be called upon to act in a
judicial capacity. He stated that the judiciary viewed that
these issues "could come before them on the bench and they don't
want to have taken a position."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded that this was the practice and
not the policy, and that this supported his argument.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked whether, once the commission
adopted a policy, a legislator would be responsible for
championing this policy in the legislature.
4:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his belief that passage of the
proposed Amendment 1 would still allow that the now two voting
legislators would still be "outnumbered more than two to one
simply by the governor's cabinet." He declared that it would be
na?ve to assume that the governor's cabinet did not have a
political agenda. He opined that the commission members would
be well qualified and had a concern and passion for the work of
the commission. He stated that this was an opportunity to
encourage that commitment and passion by "making [the
legislators] a full voting member." He stated that having the
legislators as a lively part of the discussion was a value to be
brought back to the legislature after a recommendation had been
made. He opined that no commission member would feel obligated
to support a recommendation from the commission, regardless of
their vote.
4:39:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR maintained her objection to proposed
Amendment 1.
4:39:57 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Saddler
(alternate) voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Tarr, Kito, Claman (alternate), Johnston, and Edgmon voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2 yeas -
5 nays.
4:40:48 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:41:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR brought the committee back to order.
4:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that he could not support the
proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that adding a crime victim to the
commission as a voting member was good and would add to the
diversity of discussion, although he was less convinced to the
necessary addition of the commissioner of Department of Health
and Social Services as a voting member.
4:42:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that, as he had overlooked the
addition of a crime victim as a member of the commission, he
would revise his position on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that it was usually necessary to
add two voting members to a commission to maintain an odd number
of members.
4:43:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report HB 290, Version 30-
GH2586\A, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 290
was moved from the House Health and Social Services Standing
Committee.
HB 268-OPIOID PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION
4:44:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR announced that the final order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 268, "An Act
relating to the prescription of opioids; relating to the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to the
practice of dentistry; relating to the practice of medicine;
relating to the practice of podiatry; relating to the practice
of osteopathy; relating to the practice of nursing; and relating
to the practice of optometry."
4:44:51 PM
CLAIRE GROSS, Staff, Representative Les Gara, Alaska State
Legislature, declared that Alaska was in the midst of an opioid
crisis, as three of five drug overdoses in the state involved
opioids. She reported that Alaska had twice the national rate
for prescription opioid overdose deaths. She stated that many
people being prescribed opioid drugs were still unaware of the
high potential for addiction or the associated health risk. The
proposed bill, HB 268, was a patient information bill, had a
narrow scope, and put little or no new burden on prescribers.
The principal intent was to ensure that every patient being
prescribed an outpatient supply of an opioid be made aware of
the associated risk and be informed about alternative treatment
options if reasonable options existed. She stated that the
guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) for opioid prescribers asked that they provide this same
information when they prescribed. She noted that the proposed
bill would have medical providers with the authority to
prescribe opioids make a brief oral statement, in their own
words, which stated the reason for prescribing the opioid, that
opioid use can lead to addiction, that the risk of addiction
increased with time, that opioid addiction may pose potentially
life threatening health risks, and offer reasonable alternatives
to opioid medication therapy. She added that, along with the
oral statement, the prescriber would give the patient a short
hand-out prepared by the Department of Health and Social
Services that provided appropriate information conveying the
potential addictive and health risks of opioids. She noted that
this hand-out would also be available on the department's
website and could be printed in the provider's office. She
reported that the addition of the term "outpatient supply" to
refer to opioid prescriptions would exempt emergency departments
and in-patient facilities from the requirements of the proposed
bill. The bill does not apply to patients receiving hospice
care or substance abuse opioid dependence treatment. She stated
that the new committee substitute removed discussion about
heroin use and its relation to opioid abuse from the provider's
oral statement and kept the focus on opioid medication. She
listed the Department of Health and Social Services, the Alaska
Mental Health Board, and the Alaska Dental Society as supporters
of the proposed bill. She read part of a letter from Dr. Ann
Zink [Included in members' packets]:
HB 268 appears to be legislating something that we
believe physicians should be doing for their patients.
As emergency physicians we fully embrace the
importance of the risk-benefit- alternative discussion
between provider and patient any time a potentially
hazardous test or treatment is being considered. The
decision to use opioids or not certainly falls into
this category. Our hope is that with all the attention
being paid to opioids by both the house of medicine
and society in general, these conversations are
already happening.
HB 268 may help encourage a conversation we believe in
and is in line with many other steps this body and
others have taken end this epidemic.
4:48:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if prescribing an outpatient supply
only dealt with the initial prescription for a new patient.
MS. GROSS said that the intent had been for the initial visit
and prescription, and that an amendment could clarify this
ambiguity.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked about a conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR suggested to ask Legislative Legal Services
to provide clarity.
4:50:43 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, acknowledged that
the proposed bill was not clear, and that she could draft an
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if this was preferable as a drafted
amendment or as a conceptual amendment.
MS. RADFORD opined that the single word would need to be added
in the different sections.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR directed attention to page 4 [line 4] and
asked if this could read "before prescribing the initial
outpatient supply..."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that it could read "before
initially prescribing an outpatient supply..."
MS. RADFORD replied, "yes, that's correct."
4:52:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered conceptual Amendment 1, adding
the word "initially" between the words "before prescribing" on
page 4, line 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion. She said that it
would also need to be added on page 6, line 31; page 8, line 29;
and page 11, line 1.
4:53:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR removed her objection.
4:53:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered conceptual Amendment 2, which
would add the word "initially" [on page 6, line 31; page 8, line
29; and page 11, line 1] and would allow Legislative Legal
Services the latitude to make any conforming amendments for
consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that this was a reasonable
limitation, as the warning would be as effective given once as
it would be given multiple times.
4:54:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that his intent with conceptual
Amendment 2 was to ensure that this was for the initial
prescription to a particular patient.
4:55:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR removed her objection to proposed conceptual
Amendment 2. There being no further objection, it was so
ordered.
MS. RADFORD asked if Legislative Legal Services could have
conforming authority to make those changes.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said "yes."
4:55:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there were current laws
preventing habitual, without good cause, overprescribing of
opioids.
MS. GROSS said that she would defer.
4:56:54 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Deputy Director, Juneau Office, Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, referenced the
passage of House Bill 159 in 2017, one of many bills to combat
the opioid crisis, and included a seven day limitation [to
opioid prescription] which could be overridden by a prescriber
if the prescriber was documenting the rationale for pursuing
greater than a seven day supply. She stated that there was an
evolution for different tools to combat this opioid crisis. She
reported that the boards overseeing the licensees prescribing
had codes of ethics, regulations, and other guidelines that
indicate how patients should be informed prior to any course of
action.
4:58:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that he was not enthusiastic about
the proposed bill, although he acknowledged that the concern was
well placed because opioid medications were not measuring up to
the expectations for living better lives. He pointed to the
requirements on page 4, line 14, for doctors to list any
reasonable non-opioid alternative to the prescription as well as
oral and written information. He stated that he did not think
"the prescription matches the problem." He suggested that
"requiring every prescriber to be listing out all the drugs that
they didn't prescribe and the reasons maybe why they didn't" was
more paperwork and regulation and not the solution to solve this
problem.
5:00:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed his agreement that opioid use
and addiction in Alaska, as well as the rest of the nation, was
"a real problem." He declared that the proposed bill did not
deal with the prescription of opioids, per se, as nothing in the
proposed bill changed the authority for writing prescriptions by
doctors and dentists. He referenced House Bill 159 and its
seven-day limitations. He stated that there were other
restrictions, as physicians may prescribe subject to the
constraints of the normal, ethical, professional practice of
medicine, as informed by the Medical Board. He declared that
the proposed bill did not deal with this. He offered his belief
that people already realized that opioid drugs were addictive
and that a doctor would make some offer of information to the
patient. He shared his own experience upon receiving
prescriptions from doctors. He stated that the proposed bill
was essentially a "placebo bill" as it "has no real effect."
5:02:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON stated that, although she had originally
had concerns with the proposed bill, the sponsor had addressed
those concerns. She reported that several physicians had
visited her office in the past week and that they had declared
support for this bill, while pointing out that, even though
there was a new emphasis among doctors, there was not enough
being done. These doctors stated that there was not any harm in
the proposed bill, and that "there could be some good." She
declared her support for the proposed bill.
5:03:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report CSSSHB 268, Version 30-
LS1081\R, Radford, 2/9/18, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
5:03:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
5:03:39 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kito, Edgmon,
Saddler (alternate), Johnston, Claman (alternate), and Tarr
voted in favor of CSSSHB 268, Version 30-LS1081\R, Radford,
2/9/18, as amended. Representative Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, CSSSHB 268 (HSS) was reported out of the House Health
and Social Services Standing Committee by a vote of 6 yeas - 1
nay.
5:05:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0290-1-2-011918-DHS-N.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB290 Fiscal Note DHSS--DSS 2.28.2018.pdf |
HHSS 3/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Sectional Analysis Ver A 01 22 18.pdf |
HHSS 3/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Transmittal Letter 01 22 18.pdf |
HHSS 3/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Supporting document - AK Crim Just Comm 2016 Report.pdf |
HHSS 3/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Supporting document - AK Crim Just Comm 2-2018 Recommendation.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB290 draft proposed amendment A.2 3.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB290 Fiscal Note JUD--AJC 3.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 351 Draft Proposed Amendment R.1 3.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Sectional Analysis 3.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Fiscal Note DHS--DJJ 3.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Sponsor Statement 3.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| SSHB268 Sectional Analysis ver O 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Sponsor Statement 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-AK DHSS Opioid Addiction and Treatment Factsheet 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-AK DHSS Opioid Infographic 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-AK DHSS Heroin Use Infographic 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-AK DHSS Pain Treatment Handout 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-AMA Study 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Article ADN AK Gov. Opioid Declaration 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Article ADN AK Heroin Problem 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Article Huffington Post 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Article New Yorker 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Article NIDA 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Article The Star Press Opioids and Foster Care Indiana 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Article VOX 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-CDC Checklist for Opioid Prescribers 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-New Jersey Legislature Relevant Opioid Statutes Doc 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-Report CDC Long Term Opioid Use 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document-STUFF Online Article on Alternative Pain Treatment in NZ 1.24.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB 268 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 01.29.18.pdf |
HHSS 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Draft Proposed Blank CS ver R 2.14.18.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Explanation of Changes (O-R).pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document--Anne Zink Support Letter 2.21.18.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document--Memos from Leg Legal 2.21.18.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| SSHB268 Supporting Document--Support Letters 2.14.18.pdf |
HHSS 2/22/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/27/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 268 |
| HB351 Supporting Document -- Letter from DJJ.pdf |
HHSS 3/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |