Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
03/22/2005 01:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB120 | |
| HB190 | |
| HB180 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 180 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2005
1:16 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to safety devices and sharp instruments for the
prevention of the spread of bloodborne pathogens in health care
employees; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 120 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 190
"An Act relating to the purchase of alcoholic beverages and to
requiring identification to buy alcoholic beverages; requiring
driver's licenses and identification cards to be marked if a
person is restricted from consuming alcoholic beverages as a
result of a conviction or condition of probation or parole."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to a special deposit for workers' compensation
and employers' liability insurers; relating to assigned risk
pools; relating to workers' compensation insurers; stating the
intent of the legislature, and setting out limitations,
concerning the interpretation, construction, and implementation
of workers' compensation laws; relating to the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board; establishing a division of workers'
compensation within the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, assigning certain Alaska Workers' Compensation
Board functions to the division and the department, and
authorizing the board to delegate administrative and enforcement
duties to the division; establishing a Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; providing for workers' compensation hearing
officers in workers' compensation proceedings; relating to
workers' compensation medical benefits and to charges for and
payment of fees for the medical benefits; relating to agreements
that discharge workers' compensation liability; relating to
workers' compensation awards; relating to reemployment benefits
and job dislocation benefits; relating to coordination of
workers' compensation and certain disability benefits; relating
to division of workers' compensation records; relating to
release of treatment records; relating to an employer's failure
to insure and keep insured or provide security; providing for
appeals from compensation orders; relating to workers'
compensation proceedings; providing for supreme court
jurisdiction of appeals from the Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission; providing for a maximum amount for the cost-of-
living adjustment for workers' compensation benefits; relating
to attorney fees; providing for the department to enter into
contracts with nonprofit organizations to provide information
services and legal representation to injured employees;
providing for administrative penalties for employers uninsured
or without adequate security for workers' compensation; relating
to fraudulent acts or false or misleading statements in workers'
compensation and penalties for the acts or statements; providing
for members of a limited liability company to be included as an
employee for purposes of workers' compensation; establishing a
workers' compensation benefits guaranty fund; relating to the
second injury fund; making conforming amendments; providing for
a study and report by the medical services review committee; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE: HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
02/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (H) HES, L&C
02/24/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/24/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/24/05 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/25/05 (H) HES RPT 4DP 1NR
02/25/05 (H) DP: CISSNA, GARDNER, SEATON, WILSON;
02/25/05 (H) NR: KOHRING
03/22/05 (H) L&C AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 190
SHORT TITLE: REQUIRED ID FOR PURCHASING ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CRAWFORD
03/01/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/05 (H) L&C, JUD
03/22/05 (H) L&C AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 180
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/25/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/05 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/09/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/09/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/16/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/21/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/21/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/22/05 (H) L&C AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 120.
GREY MITCHELL, Director
Division of Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 120.
PAT SENNER, Nurse
Alaska Nurses Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 120.
JAY HARDENBROOK, Staff
to Representative Crawford
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 190 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Crawford.
CINDY CASHEN
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 190, related that
the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence supports
the issue embodied in HB 190.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the division is willing to
support the proposal [embodied in HB 190], although it has many
questions.
BRENDA MOORE, Community Liaison
Christian Health Associates
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to support HB 190.
CHRIS SCHUTTE
Anchorage Downtown Partnership
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Characterized HB 190 as a valuable tool to
help inebriants and get them off the streets.
DOUGLAS B. GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 190 isn't compatible with
existing provisions allowing alcohol to be shipped by written
order.
MICHAEL J. JENSEN, Attorney at Law
Law Offices of Michael J. Jensen
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 190.
BOB FAVRETTO Business owner;
Board Member, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged the committee to pass HB 180 out
of committee.
JOHN DAVID RAGAN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 180.
MARJORIE LINDER, Rehabilitation Counselor
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 180.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:16:20 PM. Representatives
Anderson, Lynn, Rokeberg, Crawford, and Guttenberg were present
at the call to order. Representative LeDoux arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 120-HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to safety devices and
sharp instruments for the prevention of the spread of bloodborne
pathogens in health care employees; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
announced that this bill basically brings Alaska standards up to
the federal standards. The main difference between Alaska's
regulations [for bloodborne pathogens] and those of the federal
government is that Alaska's regulations didn't inlcude dental
offices and other medical offices with less than 25 [employees].
1:17:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that there were two reasons for this
improvement. She explained that if [these procedures for
bloodborne pathogens] weren't already being used, the effects
would be disastrous to those already working in these offices.
Therefore, this is almost a housekeeping matter. However, the
larger issue is that failure to comply with the federal minimum
standards jeopardizes the state's eligibility for federal
grants.
1:19:10 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON highlighted that HB 120 already went through the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
and the Department of Labor & Workforce Development recommended
its introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there were any statistics
regarding people who have been exposed to bloodborne pathogens
at dental offices, and if it was greater or less than the
exposure rates at regular medical offices.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON answered that dentists weren't included
original because when these regulations were originally
implemented a member of the House of Representatives, who
happened to be a dentist, feared that including dentists would
cost dentists more. Therefore, dentists were exempted.
1:19:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the language referring to
having "not more than 25 employees" exempts dentists.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON indicated that the aforementioned language
was used to exempt dentists.
1:20:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled that there was concern for all
health care providers in all small settings, not just dentists.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON announced that almost all health care
providers are already in compliance with [what is proposed in HB
120].
GREY MITCHELL, Director, Division of Labor Standards & Safety,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), spoke in
support of HB 120. He characterized it as a housekeeping
measure. He explained that at the time this law was created,
there were no federal standards for bloodborne pathogens. In
the year 2000, the federal employee protection law was created
and special exemptions were created for small employer groups
and dental groups.
1:22:15 PM
MR. MITCHELL then stated that in the following year, the federal
government came out with comprehensive regulations for
bloodborne pathogen standards. However, these two professional
exemptions were not included in the new regulations and thus the
state was at odds with the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) program because the state had a
less strict interpretation regarding when the protective
regulations had to be in place to keep workers safe. He noted
that these regulations also protect customers at these
facilities.
1:23:34 PM
MR. MITCHELL turned to the earlier questions regarding the
number of incidences and the number of employees. Referring to
a list he had that didn't detail employers with less than 25
employees, he guesstimated that 30 percent of these were
employers with less than 25 employees. There is a total of 85
businesses that had incidences between October 2003 and
September 2004, 12 of which were dental establishments and the
other 73 were other health care-related businesses. He then
said that the other confusing element is that the state law, AS
18.60.030(6), established when the state was given jurisdiction
over occupational safety and health issues required the state to
maintain standards as effective as federal standards.
Therefore, there is a conflict between statute and federal
standards. The legislation simply intends to eliminate the
conflict and clarifies the obligation of these health care
businesses in protecting their employees and the public from
bloodborne pathogens.
1:25:24 PM
MR. MITCHELL characterized this matter as a common sense issue.
He related that the [department's] occupational safety and
health industrial hygienist has found that all of the dentists
are complying because they don't want to risk exposure.
1:26:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, referring to AS 18.60.890(G), pointed
out that this statute, which came out a couple of years ago,
states that a employer who employs 10 or more front-line health
care workers shall be required to establish an evaluation
committee. He then asked what businesses are to do if they have
very small practices and the exemption is eliminated.
MR. MITCHELL answered that right now state law requires that the
business review the safety products on the market. If there are
10 employees or less, there has to be one person who is directly
involved in reviewing safety products. Regardless of the ratio
of employees, 50 percent of the employees that do the review
must have direct involvement with patient care or lab work. The
intent is to provide a way for the people who are using the
products to have a say in evaluating the safety procedures in
their clinic or lab.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that he is concerned with
throwing away the provision. He then asked how the department
would enforce this and determine that the business, however
small, had an evaluation committee.
MR. MITCHELL answered that this was essentially the case. He
noted that the dental community doesn't have much concern with
HB 120 because there isn't a lot of technology available for
dental facilities to use. There is a lot of common sense in the
[existing] statutes, he said.
1:30:10 PM
MR. MITCHELL said that there are provisions that allow for
individual analysis of each practitioner's situation. If, in
the mind of the doctor, the use of the equipment would not
provide any additional safety margin, then they do not bother
purchasing the equipment. The dental community cannot use a lot
of the equipment that is on the market so they do not have any
consternation about the issue, as long as they comply as best
they can and are in compliance with federal law.
PAT SENNER, Nurse, Alaska Nurses Association, announced that she
as in support of the bill and that she was involved with the
enactment of the original Act. She informed the committee that
since the federal act took place in 2001, there has been a 50
percent reduction in needle sticks. She related that the
infection of one person can cost the system over a million
dollars in long-term care. The safety devices being discussed
were originally very expensive, which is why the exemptions were
put into place. However, the cost has since decreased then, and
should no longer be an issue. She ended by expressing the hope
that this bill would pass so that state law can be in compliance
with federal law.
1:33:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the Alaska State Medical
Association (ASMA) had taken a position on this or any of the
other parts of the bill concerning sharps and other devices. He
surmised that some of the smaller practitioners would be the
ones to testify because the larger entities are covered.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that he did not think the packet included
anything [from the small practitioners or ASMA]. He suggested
that the lack of testimony or endorsement could be the result of
the matter not being on "their radar".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled relating that the Dental
Society is amenable to HB 120, although there is no information
in the committee packet specifying the aforementioned. He
expressed concern about the teeth cleaning devices and asked
whether they would qualify as sharps.
CHAIR ANDERSON answered that this will be addressed by
Representative Wilson before it goes to the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report HB 120 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 190-REQUIRED ID FOR PURCHASING ALCOHOL
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to the purchase of
alcoholic beverages and to requiring identification to buy
alcoholic beverages; requiring driver's licenses and
identification cards to be marked if a person is restricted from
consuming alcoholic beverages as a result of a conviction or
condition of probation or parole."
1:35:57
JAY HARDENBROOK, Staff to Representative Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 190 is a step toward preventing
problem drinkers from purchasing alcohol in Alaska. Mr.
Hardenbrook informed the committee that Alaska has the highest
rate of alcoholism and alcohol-related crimes in the U.S.
Although Alaska has some of the strictest penalties for alcohol-
related crimes, Alaska continues to have astronomical rates of
recidivism. Therefore, it's time for a new approach, and HB 190
moves in that direction. Currently, many people on parole and
probation for alcohol-related crimes aren't allowed to purchase
alcohol. This legislation would simply place a mark on state-
issued identification as a way in which those who sell alcoholic
beverages will know whether a person is not allowed to purchase
alcohol. The legislation also requires that bar tenders, wait
staff, and clerks in liquor stores check a resident's state
identification before selling the individual alcohol.
1:37:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether any other states have
adopted similar legislation.
MR. HARDENBROOK answered that no other state has adopted this
specific plan. He informed the committee that other states have
created special license plates for those who have [been
convicted of] driving while intoxicated (DWI).
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, speaking as the sponsor of HB 190,
related that Oregon is presently hearing legislation almost
identical to HB 190.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled that either the State of
Washington or Oregon put in place a "zebra [license] plate" for
the same reason as this, but it was withdrawn from the law
because of the "negative feel" it created.
1:38:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that the aforementioned is why
HB 190 is directed only toward drunk drinking. He informed the
committee that more than 80 percent of the people in Alaska's
jails and prisons were convicted of alcohol-related offenses.
Therefore, the desire is to prohibit repeat [offenders with
alcohol-related offenses] from being able to buy, sell, or
consume alcohol. The aforementioned is already in law, but law
enforcement hasn't been given the tools to segregate those
individuals from the rest of society, which is what this
legislation attempts.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that tourists wouldn't have such
distinctions on their identification.
MR. HARDENBROOK explained that if an individual has
identification specifying that he or she is from another state,
the individual wouldn't have to present [identification from
Alaska].
1:40:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised then that the legislation would
prohibit an individual from entering locations at which alcohol
is served.
MR. HARDENBROOK clarified that HB 190 only addresses the
purchase of alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD interjected that the prohibition of
individuals [with alcohol-related offenses] from entering
locations where alcohol is served is a law that's already in
place.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned attention to Section 3(6), and
asked if the language specifying that the license would "be
designed to allow the electronic reading and electronic display
of the information" means that there will be a new type of
license.
MR. HARDENBROOK explained that the aforementioned language was
used because of the new electronic driver's licenses. The
drafter felt that it would be appropriate to have this be part
of the magnetic strip on the back of the driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that this special driver's license
would be provided upon issuance of a new driver's license or
when an individual is convicted of this particular crime.
MR. HARDENBROOK explained that currently when an individual is
convicted of an alcohol-related crime, the license of that
individual is revoked. That individual has to have his or her
license reissued. Mr. Hardenbrook related that the sponsor is
going to work with the chair to develop a mechanism by which the
Alaska Court System and the parole board can communicate with
the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in order to avoid the lag
time that's currently occurring.
1:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether an individual convicted of
an alcohol-related offense would lose his or her driver's
license even if the offense isn't a DWI.
MR. HARDENBROOK replied yes, that's the current situation. This
legislation is merely specifying that the new license would have
the information specified on the license.
1:43:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether an individual convicted of
an alcohol-related offense who has obtained a new license would
still be precluded from buying alcohol.
CHAIR ANDERSON posed a hypothetical situation in which an
individual who received a DWI 20 years ago receives another in
the next couple of months. If that individual were to lose his
or her license for 90 days and the license is returned, would
the driver's license continue to specify the individual's
record.
MR. HARDENBROOK clarified that the special mark would only be in
effect during the time the individual is on probation or parole
for the alcohol-related crime.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD clarified that once the individual is
not on probation or parole, he or she can obtain another
driver's license without the special mark and consume alcohol.
The special mark on the driver's license provides the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) the ability to identify these individuals
from the rest of society.
1:45:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether an individual would lose his
or her driver's license for an alcohol-related crime if it
didn't involve driving.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that it depends upon the judge.
He informed the committee that for domestic violence, one can
lose his or her right to drink.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to where DPS actually comes
into the picture. She suggested that it's actually the
restaurant staff and bar owners [who will identify these
individuals].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed that food and beverage
establishments are the first line of defense. However, DPS
helps enforce these laws. The partnership [between food and
beverage establishments and DPS] that already occurs today would
continue. Representative Crawford emphasized the need to do
something different to address the fact that Alaska leads the
nation in alcohol-related crime.
1:48:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said, "We can save a lot of lives and
make a huge change in what's going on, and that's what I'm
asking for you to do." He opined that a difference can be made
[with this legislation]. Representative Crawford commented that
he is sorry he didn't take more notice of Representative Green's
legislation four years ago, and that it took seeing his wife
lying on the emergency room table before realizing what a
problem this is for everyone.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised then that a 94-year-old
individual in a Title 4 premise would have to be carded each
time he or she is served a drink.
MR. HARDENBROOK replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that perhaps there should be a
cost-benefit analysis of all statutory legislation that is
introduced. Representative Rokeberg suggested that probably one
of the primary reasons this proposal hasn't been adopted in any
other state is because it intrudes on privacy and is an
impediment to human interaction.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that HB 190 has nothing to do
with an individual's age; it only addresses those who are under
court order.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that the only way to know
whether an individual is under court order is by carding the
individual.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed, and characterized carding an
individual to determine whether he or she is under court order
as a small inconvenience.
1:51:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if this legislation applies to repeat
offenders. He also inquired as to the point at which the
[decision is made] to not allow the individual to [purchase]
alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that judges can already decide
that an individual can't have that privilege again.
CINDY CASHEN, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug
Dependence, thanked the sponsor for the legislation because it
addresses a problem that has existed for many years. It's
common knowledge that some people are classified as "not to
enter or consume alcohol (NEOC)". In the old days, bars and
liquor stores would keep a list of NOECs and would be able to
check because they knew everyone in town; and law enforcement
could keep a check on those individuals as well. However, the
state is just too large and [law enforcement, bar staff, and
liquor store staff] don't know everyone. Furthermore, the
probation dates with the court system have become more
complicated and are ever-changing. All of the aforementioned
has resulted in many people who abuse their probation. When
such individuals are caught, the punishment is merely a slap on
the wrist. Ms. Cashen informed the committee that often there
are offenders who have repeatedly violated their probation,
which is frustrating. Ms. Cashen opined that by bringing this
problem to light, folks can work toward a solution that's
palatable to everyone. In conclusion, Ms. Cashen related that
the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence supports
this issue.
1:55:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled that Ms. Cashen had brought to
his attention that judges in the 1st judicial district aren't
applying the DUI law evenhandedly but rather are using an old
court of appeals' case that allowed offenders to get off with
lesser fines. He inquired as to Ms. Cashen's thoughts on the
aforementioned.
1:56:59 PM
MS. CASHEN characterized HB 190 and [legislation addressing what
Representative Rokeberg mentioned] as similar. She indicated
agreement with Representative Rokeberg's comments regarding the
[1st judicial district]. The issue at hand in HB 190 has been
going on for many years. Ms. Cashen related that the sentencing
for violating probation often results in more time being tacked
onto that already assigned. Occasionally, repeat offenders on
probation are put in jail. The aforementioned isn't done often,
she indicated, because the Department of Corrections doesn't
like [housing that many drunk driving violators]. She clarified
that the aforementioned is drawn from her own observations.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
stated that the division is willing to support the proposal
[embodied in HB 190], although it has many questions. He
related his understanding that in the next few days there will
be a good grasp of the number of individuals that this
legislation would impact. Still, DMV is poised to produce an
[identifying] mark on one of the three types of identification
it produces. However, the concern is regarding whether the
division will have accurate information as to who is impacted by
this proposed change. There is also concern with regard to how
the DMV will be able to obtain the information. Mr. Bannock
informed the committee that DMV will be attaching a fiscal note
to HB 190.
2:00:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD announced his intent to pass the cost of
issuing a new license on to the perpetrator. He further
announced that he would continue to work with the DMV in order
to address its concerns.
MR. BANNOCK informed the committee that it should be proud to
know that Alaska's new digital license is second to none in the
nation.
BRENDA MOORE, Community Liaison, Christian Health Associates,
explained that she became aware of repeat offenders when she
worked for an outreach program. She said it was amazing how
many offenders were repeat offenders who hadn't received any
treatment or education. The aforementioned became very real
when the daughter of one of the peer counselors was struck and
killed by a drunk driver who had a number of DUIs and was
driving with a revoked license. If HB 190 had been in place at
the time, Ms. Moore opined that it might have "detoured" him
because the driver wouldn't have had a license to present and if
he managed to have such, it [would've been marked] such that he
wouldn't have been able to purchase liquor. Ms. Moore concluded
by asked the committee to support HB 190.
CHRIS SCHUTTE, Anchorage Downtown Partnership, informed the
committee that the aforementioned organization represents
downtown businesses, property owners, and residents in the area.
Mr. Schutte said that one of the largest issues facing downtown
businesses and residents is the issue of public inebriants.
Many of the members of the Anchorage Downtown Partnership view
HB 190 as a valuable tool to help these inebriants and get them
off the streets. Those chronic inebriants frequent the same
establishments and are served until they are incapacitated and
then they return to the streets. The Anchorage Downtown
Partnership, he related, hopes that HB 190 would help curb the
aforementioned. In response to Chair Anderson, Mr. Schutte
confirmed that there would be a letter from the Anchorage
Downtown Partnership.
2:08:10 PM
DOUGLAS B. GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC), Department of Public Safety, said he didn't believe that
HB 190 is compatible with existing provisions allowing alcohol
to be shipped by written order. Those who ship alcohol to damp
communities have to have licenses on file, although no face-to-
face inspection occurs. The aforementioned can be addressed, he
said. Mr. Griffin informed the committee that currently the ABC
Board maintains a list of those package stores who want to do
business via written order because these stores need to be kept
well informed regarding changes to the local option list. He
noted that the ABC Board also provides liquor stores listings of
individuals who are convicted bootleggers. Therefore, there is
already a mechanism by which those who purchase by written order
are screened and thus the legislation would need to address
that. Mr. Griffin opined that there will be some operational
issues with regard to requesting identification each time an
alcoholic beverage is sold, but he viewed the aforementioned as
the legislature's policy call.
2:12:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the ramifications if
there was a breech of [AS 04.16.160 and AS 04.16.167] in Section
1 of the legislation. He inquired as to the sanctions under
Title 4.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that he assumed that it would be similar to
the current violations imposed on wait staff who [sell alcoholic
beverages] without properly checking identification or
recognizing the identifying mark on the identification. The
aforementioned could result in a misdemeanor and criminal
prosecution. Furthermore, there could also be ramifications for
the licensee as well.
2:13:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the licensee's Title 4
license would ultimately be held in jeopardy.
MR. GRIFFIN confirmed that it could lead to that. He
characterized it as a progressive thing in most cases. Usually,
it's a situation in which the licensee knows that there's a
problem and has been notified of such, but hasn't taken any
corrective actions. The [situation], he said, certainly could
lead to the revocation of the license.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Griffin was aware of any
private causes of action against a licensee for breech of Title
4 provisions.
MR. GRIFFIN said that he wasn't aware of any such causes of
action.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD specified that it wasn't his intention
to broaden the law further than what it is already when someone
sells to an underage individual. Furthermore, the law only
applies to those individuals under court order.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that HB 190 would be held over.
HB 180-WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 180, "An Act relating to a special deposit for
workers' compensation and employers' liability insurers;
relating to assigned risk pools; relating to workers'
compensation insurers; stating the intent of the legislature,
and setting out limitations, concerning the interpretation,
construction, and implementation of workers' compensation laws;
relating to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board; establishing
a division of workers' compensation within the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, assigning certain Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board functions to the division and the
department, and authorizing the board to delegate administrative
and enforcement duties to the division; establishing a Workers'
Compensation Appeals Commission; providing for workers'
compensation hearing officers in workers' compensation
proceedings; relating to workers' compensation medical benefits
and to charges for and payment of fees for the medical benefits;
relating to agreements that discharge workers' compensation
liability; relating to workers' compensation awards; relating to
reemployment benefits and job dislocation benefits; relating to
coordination of workers' compensation and certain disability
benefits; relating to division of workers' compensation records;
relating to release of treatment records; relating to an
employer's failure to insure and keep insured or provide
security; providing for appeals from compensation orders;
relating to workers' compensation proceedings; providing for
supreme court jurisdiction of appeals from the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Commission; providing for a maximum amount
for the cost-of-living adjustment for workers' compensation
benefits; relating to attorney fees; providing for the
department to enter into contracts with nonprofit organizations
to provide information services and legal representation to
injured employees; providing for administrative penalties for
employers uninsured or without adequate security for workers'
compensation; relating to fraudulent acts or false or misleading
statements in workers' compensation and penalties for the acts
or statements; providing for members of a limited liability
company to be included as an employee for purposes of workers'
compensation; establishing a workers' compensation benefits
guaranty fund; relating to the second injury fund; making
conforming amendments; providing for a study and report by the
medical services review committee; and providing for an
effective date."
2:16:19 PM
MICHAEL J. JENSEN, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Michael J.
Jensen, informed the committee that [the committee packet should
include] a letter dated March 16, 2005, from himself and Joseph
Kalamarides, Chancy Croft, Steve Constantino, and William Soule.
He explained that he and the aforementioned attorneys
exclusively represent injured workers and workers' compensation
cases. Mr. Jensen said that he would limit his comments to the
creation of the commission and the concern the governor has
raised regarding premium increases. The statistics used to
justify HB 180 specify the following: overall benefits have
only increased 7 percent; the number of injuries have decreased;
the vocational rehabilitation costs have decreased; time loss
claims have decreased; indemnity benefits have decreased; legal
expenses of the plaintiff's lawyer have decreased; defense legal
expenses have increased; and medical benefits have increased 8
percent. Therefore, Mr. Jensen opined that it's difficult to
understand how employers can face premium increases of 400
percent. He offered an analogy in which natural gas prices
increase 7 percent, but the electric user has a rate increase of
400 percent. The natural inclination is to ask the regulator of
the utility why the electric users would be charged 400 percent
[more] when the gas prices have only risen by 7 percent.
However, when dealing with injured workers, the solution seems
to be to go after the workers and the physicians.
MR. JENSEN opined that HB 180 doesn't address the legitimate
concerns of Alaskan employers. Although Alaskan employers are
experiencing a dramatic increase in premiums, it's not explained
by the relatively modest increase in benefit costs. In fact,
the commission created by HB 180 will increase the cost to
workers and physicians in litigating claims. This seems to
create a court and judges without calling them such. "For the
first time in Alaska's history, judges will be near political
appointees not subject to the standards of judicial conduct,
preemption would not be allowed, the commission would not be
subject to the present standards of judicial review; it will
decide cases de novo and the judges will never be evaluated for
their ability or fairness." He highlighted that the power of
the board to determine credibility of medical reports will be
taken away by this Act. "The board's determination of
credibility will be exclusively limited to testimony presented
by a witness at hearing," which will increase the cost of
litigation to employers and employees alike, he pointed out.
Mr. Jenson further pointed out that [AS 23.30.128] clarifies
that the commission will review de novo all prior board
decisions; permit parties to present new or additional evidence;
permit easier granting of stays without surety bonds; and ensure
that all adverse board decisions will appealed by the party who
lost at the board level. He opined that all of the
aforementioned will greatly increase litigation costs as well as
medical costs because physicians will now have to wait one to
two years for the litigation to be concluded at the commission
level. He noted that every party that lost before the board
will be compelled to appeal for a chance "at two bites of the
apple." "We simply don't see how the governor's proposal to
create this commission will save ... costs ..., time, and will
make the system fairer for injured workers and employers alike,"
he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that Mr. Jensen should be
invited back at another time because he represents four other
counselors who represent the plaintiff's bar. Representative
Rokeberg said he would like to hear suggestions regarding a
solution from Mr. Jensen. Representative Rokeberg expressed
concern that Mr. Jensen admits that there's a 400 percent
premium increase, but denies what's causing it.
MR. JENSEN said that he and his colleagues have addressed what
they believe would be better solutions, and certainly much
cheaper and speedier solutions. He said that he and his
colleagues have some suggestions regarding the medical issues.
In regard to the premium increases, the statistics from the
Division of Workers' Compensation show that the cost of benefits
have only increased by 7 percent. Therefore, there seems to be
a disconnect between what employers are being charged in
premiums and what those premiums are purchasing, he opined. No
one is addressing the aforementioned concern, he highlighted.
Mr. Jensen claimed that HB 180 won't save employers 400 percent
in premium increases.
BOB FAVRETTO, Business owner; Board Member, Alaska State Chamber
of Commerce, informed the committee that he's the twice past
president of the Kenai Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Favretto
relayed that a hotel/restaurant/property management business in
the area had workers' compensation premiums in the amount of
about $16,000 in 2000, which increased to about $36,000 in 2004.
Those premiums are estimated to increase another 20-30 percent
in 2005. He then turned to attention to a local machine shop
that employs approximately 36 individuals and had $40,000 in
[workers' compensation] premiums in 2001, which will increase to
in excess of $100,000 this year. Mr. Favretto highlighted that
in 2001 the McDonald's franchises on the Kenai Peninsula
employed approximately 130 employees of which he estimated 65
percent to be part-time employees. In 2001, the workers'
compensation premium was $24,000 and in 2005 the premiums are
projected to be in excess of $133,000. Mr. Favretto then turned
to a local fish processing plant that had 233 employees in the
year 2000 of which 90-95 percent are part-time employees. In
2000, the local fish processing plant's workers' compensation
premiums were a little over $31,000. In 2005, this fish
processing plant will employ less than 130 employees, but the
workers' compensation premium will exceed $148,000.
2:28:04 PM
MR. FAVRETTO then related similar information regarding his own
business. He noted that in any of the aforementioned businesses
he highlighted, there were no catastrophic injuries to cause the
[workers' compensation] premiums to rise to the levels
specified. The rise in workers' compensation premiums causes
employers to reduce benefits and employees and require
participation of employees and their families to subsidize the
premiums. In fact, small businesses are borrowing money to pay
for their workers' compensation premiums, which he characterized
as destined for failure. In conclusion, Mr. Favretto encouraged
the committee to pass HB 180 out of committee and address this
matter this session.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD informed the committee that the
[workers' compensation] premium for one of his rental properties
was $197 per year and it had no claims against it. However, two
years later the premium increased to $856, although there still
had been no claim. He related that he has heard that costs are
increasing by 7-15 percent a year, although premiums have
increased approximately 400 percent in that same timeframe. He
asked if this is different from workers' compensation. He also
asked if [the legislature] should also go after insurance
companies for increasing the insurance rates on homeowners'
insurance. He asked if another factor could be at play, such as
the loss of $7 trillion in the stock market.
2:31:17 PM
MR. FAVRETTO empathized with Representative Crawford as a
business owner and commented that everyone is experiencing the
same thing. He acknowledged that there is a lack of carriers,
but expressed the need to do what's possible to correct as much
as can be corrected.
JOHN DAVID RAGAN suggested that premium rate increases in Alaska
aren't being driven by cost increases in Alaska. Rather,
insurance companies paid out massive claims after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001 and suffered massive investment
losses due to the stock market crash. Furthermore, companies
insuring in Alaska have also had serious financial problems in
other states. Therefore, cutting costs in Alaska may not
actually impact those premiums, he opined. As a firefighter and
a laborer, Mr. Ragan said that firefighters and emergency
medical technicians (EMTs) deserve the best possible care
available when injured in the line of duty, which falls under
workers' compensation. Mr. Ragan characterized the freezing of
the medical reimbursement rates that physicians can charge for
specific injuries as a major problem. The aforementioned is a
very bad idea, which he predicted would produce poor or second-
rate medical care for workers' compensation patients because
many physicians will simply choose not to take workers'
compensation patients as is often done with Medicare patients.
Mr. Ragan emphasized that "fixing up" workers and getting them
back to work after being injured on the job is merely part of
the cost of the job and part of the cost of doing business,
which is what workers' compensation is about.
MR. RAGAN urged the committee to provide workers' compensation
patients the best medical care possible by opposing this medical
reimbursement cap at the 1999 level. He characterized the
aforementioned as the smart thing to do because second-rate
medical care will increase medical and nonmedical costs. He
informed the committee that almost all of the studies performed,
including one performed by the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW), have concluded that the most cost
effective way to deal with workers' compensation is to provide
the injured worker the best medical care available and get the
worker back to work as quickly as possible. Therefore, this
legislation, which caps the medical reimbursement cap at the
1999 level, doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the legislation
deducts pension money from workers' compensation payments.
2:36:04 PM
MR. RAGAN maintained that personal assets, such as an employee's
pension, shouldn't be attacked because of the employee's
accident. He stressed that it's not appropriate to punish those
who have prudently set aside money in a pension plan.
Furthermore, it's not [appropriate] to punish those who, after
retirement, stay productive by getting another job. In
conclusion, Mr. Ragan related his understanding that there was a
very good, bipartisan, ad hoc committee consisting of
representatives of employees and laborers who made some
excellent suggestions. However, somehow those suggestions were
brushed aside and HB 180 was introduced. He characterized HB
180 as a "knee-jerk punitive approach". Mr. Ragan suggested
that HB 180 be killed and the committee return to the ad hoc
committee's recommendations. He further suggested that if the
desire is to cut costs, it should be done with massive emphasis
on safety in the workplace and training. Current law, he
charged, doesn't do enough to reward safe employers.
MARJORIE LINDER, Rehabilitation Counselor, expressed concern
with HB 180, which seems to take out the profit margin that the
insurance companies want. She related her belief that the
reemployment benefit is being amended based on erroneous,
unreliable, and unverifiable data. The data is filled with
nonrehabilitation related costs, such as settlement inducements
so that employers can avoid paying a 6 percent assessment into
the second injury fund. The reemployment benefits administrator
can only find one-third of the cost reported by the carriers for
claimants under the program he administers.
2:39:14 PM
MS. LINDER said that this faulty data is being used to raise
rates for employers and reduce benefits for employees. She
noted that the committee should have her testimony and exhibits
illustrating this faulty data. She informed the committee that
her fees were reported to be $75,761 one year when in fact she
was paid $43,478. Some carriers have reported paying
rehabilitation providers over $20,000 for an eligibility
evaluation, which typically cost $1,500 to $2,000. She then
turned attention to exhibits two and three, which are examples
of different reporting practices for the sample carriers. The
overall benefit is 7.4 percent, although she mentioned that the
aforementioned figure can't be trusted because they are so
disparately reported. However, when one reviews Freemont, which
contributed to the situation in which Alaska finds itself today,
the data specifies it paid 15.45 percent in rehabilitation costs
[of the eligibility costs]. The reason the aforementioned is
reported is because the insurance carrier can avoid paying a 6
percent assessment on rehabilitation costs into the second
injuries fund, and therefore non-rehabilitation costs are
characterized as rehabilitation costs.
2:42:33 PM
MS. LINDER turned attention to Wausau (ph), which reported
paying 5.1 percent of its claim dollar to monitor rehabilitation
plans for which it paid no one to write. Furthermore,
Lieberman's Mutual reported paying .45 percent for plan costs
that it paid no one to write. Still, these companies have large
amounts in 041k, which is typically a waste basket for placing
settlement inducements. Although the aforementioned money is
characterized as rehabilitation costs, it isn't. Ms. Linder
said that if she were an employer, she would be very concerned
because the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation is making
these insurers report costs under the correct column. However,
these are used to raise rates on employers and now to cut
benefits. These costs aren't real, she emphasized. Ms. Linder
directed attention to exhibits 4 and 5, which illustrate that
overall rehabilitation costs have decreased from 2002 to 2003,
yet [insurers] are acting as if rehabilitation costs are rising
and out of control and the reason for this 400 percent increase.
She highlighted exhibit 6, which notes Commissioner O'Claray's
written comment that he has found 155 people in 2002 who were
paid rehabilitation costs but weren't even eligible for the
benefit. Exhibits 7 and 8 illustrate that the reemployment
benefit administrator who administrates the program can only
find one-third of the costs reported by the carrier in the
legitimate program that the administrator administers.
MS. LINDER suggested that the committee ensure that insurers
report their costs accurately and in a standardized fashion.
Furthermore, she suggested that the Division of Workers'
Compensation and the Insurance Commission ensure that the costs
are reported correctly before making more problems.
2:46:20 PM
MS. LINDER announced that she has three amendments that she
would propose and fax to the committee.
2:47:23 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that he intended to review the
physician issues brought up by Mr. Ragan as well as the
recommendations of the ad hoc committee in order to develop some
amendments. Chair Anderson expressed his desire to hear more
testimony and entertain amendments next Wednesday. However, he
noted that there is other legislation that the committee [needs
to hear as well].
2:47:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG highlighted that there are people who
have been waiting to testify for four days, and therefore it
might be prudent to have a meeting dedicated to taking public
testimony on HB 180 only.
CHAIR ANDERSON clarified that that's the [tentative] plan for
next Wednesday.
2:49:01 PM.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that there is concern from
small businesses regarding increased [workers' compensation]
rates. However, he said that he didn't get a sense that small
business [owners] understand HB 180 and its complexity, rather
they merely want relief. Representative Guttenberg related his
perspective that HB 180 "doesn't get there" with regard to lower
[workers' compensation] rates.
[HB 180 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
2:49:46 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|