02/23/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB7 | |
| HB147 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 23, 2005
3:24 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Bob Lynn
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to the calculation and payment of unemployment
compensation benefits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 147
"An Act relating to the regulation of insurance, insurance
licensing, surplus lines, insurer deposits, motor vehicle
service contracts, guaranteed automobile protection products,
health discount plans, third-party administrators, self-funded
multiple employer welfare arrangements, and self-funded
governmental plans; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 7
SHORT TITLE: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CRAWFORD, GUTTENBERG
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) L&C, FIN
02/18/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/18/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/23/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL
BILL: HB 147
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/14/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/05 (H) L&C, FIN
02/23/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
BILL KRAMER, Chief Officer
Office of Unemployment Insurance,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7.
PATRICK SHIER, Acting Deputy
Employment Security Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7.
JOHN BROWN, President
Central Labor Council
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7.
RAYMOND SMITH, Business Manager
International Union of Painters, and Allied Trades
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7.
ROYCE ROCK, Manager
Carpenters Labor Union 1281
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7.
DAVID FORD, Business Manager
Ironworker Union 751
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 7.
LINDA HALL, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 147.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:24:49 PM. Representatives
Guttenberg, Crawford, Rokeberg, Anderson were present at the
call to order. Representative Ledoux arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 7-UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 7, "An Act relating to the calculation and
payment of unemployment compensation benefits; and providing for
an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, co-sponsor of HB 7, began by stating
that retaining a well-trained force of workers benefits the
state economy, and providing an overdue increase in the weekly
benefit amounts to these workers is critical and necessary in
times of layoffs and other economical changes. Linking benefit
amounts to actual living costs will assure that benefits are in
harmony with the economy and retain the workers that live and
work here. The reason we chose the average weekly wage is that
it more closely tracks with the actual wages paid out. There
have been times in the past when the average weekly wage went
down when the prices actually went up. He went on to say that
Alaska has been stuck at much lower employment benefit amounts
than states that are comparable to us. He stated that the state
is number 47 in the field of 50 in the speed at which the weekly
wage is changed. He then went on to say that the state is at 35
percent of the national average weekly wage at $248. He
indicated that at 50 percent of the weekly wage, this would put
the state of Alaska at 23rd in the rankings.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that the state is spending their
resources on the training of these workers and when the seasonal
work is ended and the winter cuts off any other opportunities,
they move out of state and take much better paying jobs down
south. The benefit checks cannot equal or come close to this
amount and so the state loses workers that it trained with its
own resources to other states. He then said that the benefit
must be closely pegged to the Alaskan economy or the state will
continue to lose its skilled workers.
3:29:44 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON indicates that this is a bill that was presented
by himself and asked if it was commensurate with his own
figures.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that it was in fact the same
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how much this was going to cost
employers to pay for a raise in unemployment pay rates.
BILL KRAMER, Chief Officer, Office of Unemployment Insurance,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, answered that as
far as this increase would affect employers, the cost would be
about 12.4 million dollars.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked how this would work.
MR. KRAMER answered that in Alaska, the financing for our trust
fund is shared amongst the employers (80 percent) and a tax on
the workers themselves (20 percent). It will take a few years
to take full effect on the employers and be felt by the workers.
This will mean that the average employer will have an increase
by 64 dollars per worker, hypothetically.
CHAIR ANDERSON reiterated that 1/5th is paid by the worker and
4/5th of the amount is paid by the employer.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if these ratios were based on the
payroll.
PATRICK SHIER, Chief of Tax, and Acting Deputy for the
Employment Security Division, stated that annually his group
calculated 75percent of the average weekly wages (the taxable
wage base) that are contemplated in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX indicated that she was confused and asked
if the limit for is about $24,000 for the yearly income benefit
calculation.
MR. SHIER stated that the limit is $27,000 and this is actually
arrived at by adding all the wages per individual together and
divided by the number of workers, and the answer is the annual
average wage. They then take 75percent of this amount and this
is the amount upon which is levied against the Alaskan employers
as a tax.
3:37:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if, though the passing of the bill,
the benefit amount would advance from $24,000 to $35,000. She
then asked if that was what this bill is designed to do.
MR. KRAMER stated that it sets the new weekly benefit amount and
the rating system that is in place; however, rates would
increase to reflect the taxable wage base, as wages should
increase over time to reflect cost of living increases.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX indicated her understanding of the issue.
3:37:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD brought up the fact that Alaska's
unemployment benefit pay had been $248 for a very long time and
that before that it was at $212. These changes have to happen
at least more than once a decade in order to keep up with
changing economies, and enable these workers to be able to pay
their bills without having to leave the state in order to do so.
He then continued by asking if anyone had the year that this
rate change took place.
MR. KRAMER answered this by suggesting that the change occurred
in January 1st 1997 when it moved from 212 to 248.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD then asked how much earning and buying
power had been gained or lost, and if that could be given as
well.
MR. KRAMER said he could do this and also try to show what the
erosion effect of inflation has been on the benefits.
3:39:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that although he would like to
support the chair, he would like to have some information on the
costs on employers and what the impact was on payroll deduction
on employers and employees. He concluded that there was no way
he would support this bill in any way, shape, or form unless
this information was supplied.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if Representative Rokeberg had asked the
chamber for this information.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG retorted that it was not his bill and
not his responsibility. This committee should be getting
pertinent information regarding all aspects of a bill and it is
up to the sponsor of the bill to do so. He indicates that in
regards to his own businesses, he is agitated to find his
payroll costs going up and he wants to know the rationale behind
this change. He then postulates that it would cost him $2000 a
year to pay for 'rocking chair' money for someone that wants to
take some time off. He ended by stating that if he is forced to
pay this, then he wanted to know why. He asked what the
physical impact would be on business owners.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered by stating that he was sure
that Representative Rokeberg did not mean that skilled workers
that get on unemployment are really taking 'rocking chair'
money. He then went on to say that this about workers trying to
take care of their families and take care of their bills. He
then apologized for Representative Rokeberg and indicated that
his previous statement was probably not intended to sound like
the unemployment benefit was a vacation for workers.
3:43:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG continued by stating that his own
experience indicated that retention is the critical issue here-
not in defining what the benefits are or not. He said that he
has seen a lot of people leave the state and that it was the low
unemployment for those that make over $27,000 a year.
MR. KRAMER indicates that he would have to get back to him
regarding this question.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG restated the question and then said
that this was really the key issue here and asked if this were
true. He then asked how long they are normally unemployed.
3:45:31 PM
MR. KRAMER answered that the average duration is 14.8 weeks and
that the average benefit is 190 a week. He said that the
Representative was correct in saying that this is pertinent to
the highest end of the employment benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that there is a difference
between the higher end worker and the lower end worker. He then
added that the lower end worker would not go back to work as
fast as the higher end worker would go back to work. He
indicated that he would like to see a number on this.
MR. KRAMER reiterated this request and said that what was being
asked was the difference in the average unemployment duration
between a low-end and the high-end person receiving benefits
based on what they received as a worker
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG indicated that this is what he meant.
MR. KRAMER indicated that he would look into this.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that his people were not
adding to the bottom but they were adding to the top.
3:47:56 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON answered that these dynamics were important to
the committee. He then went on to say that he endorsed the HB 7
generally but that he would like to take into consideration what
Representative Rokeberg has brought up. He said that as much as
he would like to push this out, he is going to hold it and ask
for new information be given to the committee regarding the
costs to the employers.
3:48:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked the gentleman from the
Unemployment Office if he could bring back the history of the
percentage that these tax rates have climbed. He indicated that
the in the time he has been in Alaska, he could not remember a
time when the change was significant. He reflected that when he
first came to Alaska, the weekly amount was $190 and the current
weekly amount was $248, and that this amount was not a big
change from what it was thirty years ago. He added that after
moving only 38percent over thirty years, he would be interested
in knowing how this relates to inflation rate over time.
MR. SHIER listed the questions on subjects that the committee
has asked for: dates of increase and impact of economical
inflation, cost impact on the employers and employees, and some
discussion on how the average tax wage base will act over the
coming years if there are measurable impacts of this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she really appreciate getting
answers to these questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the gentleman could also supply
the committee with an analysis of the cost impacts on the
employer and the employee, and supplant this with real life
examples of percentage changes. Also the average time that they
are unemployed- further debate on whether it is for retention or
is it a structure [culturally accepted way of life] for these
higher end workers that is somehow regarded as part of the
annual income that they plan on having. He then pointed out
that this is unlike the lower end workers that work year round
and lose their income only when something unforeseen happens.
3:51:46 PM
MR. SHIER answered that his group has industry specific material
that addresses this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG queried the gentleman as to the
philosophy behind unemployment compensation. He then inquired
as to the mission statement that defines [unemployment
security].
MR. KRAMER agreed that his group would bring back the needed
information.
CHAIR ANDERSON chuckled, and summed up the task as one that
would take a decade.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued by stating that there are
other evidence that can show more explicitly why there might be
a need for an increase. If you are making the case for an
increase, you could get a comparison to state average payouts
instead of average maximum payouts. This is a better indicator
of what is going out of the state. In the present packet we are
only looking at the maximum payout of $248.
MR. SHIER answered that this was positively the case and that
the chart that is presently in the hands of the committee is
reflective only of the maximum payout amount. He then indicated
that he would seek out a comparison between the states and the
state of Alaska and then create a chart that identified and
compared average weekly payouts, rather than maximums.
CHAIR ANDERSON agreed, and said there are other factors that
need to be looked at and reasoned with.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG went on to say that the lower end of the
scale ($190) was more important if you wanted to really help
lower end employees [during periods of unemployment]. He then
said that this bill the way it is written does not address what
the average worker receives and seemingly only helps the upper
end worker. This bill does not help anyone who doesn't make the
upper limit of income. Even the income of the legislator, a
mere $24,000 a year, is not impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that we had talked about moving
the maximum benefit down to the 27 thousand dollar level, but
this would be much more expensive to the trust fund. What we
are trying to do is maintain a much larger percentage of people
at the bottom end. This was the cheaper way to go overall.
3:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that people at the income maximum
are only allowed to get 35percent of their wages. This is not
enough to pay bills and maintain life.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that it might be interesting to
debate whether raising or lowering the pay scale or doing what
we are doing with this bill is the better choice.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed that he would really like to see
the lower end raised as well.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that Representative Rokeberg apparently
wants to include everyone here.
3:58:07 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON kept public testimony open and asked for people
to testify.
JOHN BROWN, President, Central Labor Council, stated that he
understood that HB 7 had gone around three times, and noted that
it hadn't changed. The department of labor has put out good
documents that showed the diaspora of workers out of Alaska. As
an example, he noted the case of an electrical operating
engineer. The equipment that we use is very expensive and the
training of the workers is just as expensive. These workers,
when they get laid off, have to either change industries or face
layoff periods that severely challenge them economically. The
training that goes into these people is wasted when they change
industries. This being said, it is obvious that the
construction industry is big here in Alaska and the waste that
goes into training these workers over the years is phenomenal
when they leave the industry to have more predictable
employment. He ended by stating that this bill needs to be
passed and that the committee has been hearing this same bill
over and over for years.
RAYMOND SMITH, Business Manager, Painters, and Allied Trades
Union 1140, urged the committee to pass HB 7. He indicated that
the so-called 'rocking chair' that he gathered did not give
enough to support himself, yet he had to support the family. He
did not take vacations, but spent the time looking for other
jobs. This industry by nature is not a year round employment.
He ended by urging the committee to pass the bill.
4:02:58 PM
ROYCE ROCK, Carpenters Labor Union 1281, urged the committee to
pass HB 7 onto the Senate, and that this is becoming rather a
nuisance and tenacious. This bill has been held over and held
over and it needs to be passed. The cost of this is 12.4
million dollars but the truth is that 20percent is paid by the
employees and this is rare in the United States. The amount
given as a monthly benefit as it stands now at $968, is pretty
low and we are a laughing stock when we go out to the lower 48.
MR. ROCK addressed Representative Rokeberg's concerns by
clarifying what the mission of the unemployment benefits was.
He pointed out that they are in place to sustain the economic
communities welfare, which included both the local economy and
the worker itself, and that ultimately, unemployment was set up
for the welfare of the society, and benefited everybody.
MR. ROCK indicated that he disagreed with putting the top level
at $37,750. He stated that this came from negotiations made two
years ago when the amount was moved up to set a limit for
getting the high end of the benefits. He continued by saying
that the average worker only gets $35,000 a year, so the maximum
benefit is never received.
MR. ROCK urged the committee and the house to pass this bill and
Gave hope that the Senate would finally have an opportunity to
hear the bill. He ended by stating that this bill had been
heard for too many years to still be debated and that the
political games had to stop.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG rebutted the last comments by pointing
out that the committee had one new member on the committee and
that she needed to be brought up to speed on the issue. He
continued by stating that this committee that needed to do the
"heavy lifting" on this bill and make it the best bill packet
for it to go forward. He then said that he was not going to
stand in the way of the bill, but he felt that he would not be
doing the sponsors any favor by not making sure these questions
are answered.
MR. ROCK answered by stating that he appreciated these comments
and urged the committee to help Representative Ledoux get
through the issues and get this out of the House.
CHAIR ANDERSON, referring to Representative Rokeberg, concurred
terms of procedure and said that the Representative asked some
substantive questions. However, he indicated that he also heard
what the testifiers were saying.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG chortled that the bill package is
incomplete and that it was inexcusable for the sponsor not to
include information on the bill and its impact on business
owners.
CHAIR ANDERSON agreed and said that Representative Crawford
needs to have this put together in a better way.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that he would do this and
provide any information that is being requested. He then added
that he was not complaining about this concern of Representative
Rokeberg.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented he understood this, but that
some of the testifiers were complaining about his concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that they can complain if they
wish, [since they are the public].
DAVID FORD, Business Manager, Ironworker Union 751, stated that
the workers that work in the more weather challenging parts of
the state cannot support their families during the long winter
months of unemployment on the compensation currently being given
out by the state. He then pointed out that the senior members
of the crew and highest paid are kept on and the least skilled
workers or lowest paid are laid off. He added that these are
also the young apprentices that these are the future
ironworkers, and when they leave to find work, they do not come
back. Since the amount of unemployment is so low, they have to
leave the state. Seasonal work needs to be bridged from month
to month.
CHAIR ANDERSON kept public testimony open.
4:12:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that if you take a highly
skilled worker, and give him a job from spring to the winter, he
will off work for the rest of the year. The unemployment
benefit, or stipend, is what keeps him in town and on-call. He
stated that being on-call keeps the worker in place and in
state. He concluded that people coming up here that are highly
skilled are not native to the northern latitude and are not
adapted to the environment. He then added that employers need
local workers who are adapted, and this little bit of money is
what keeps them around instead of leaving the state. He ended
by stating that they are not sitting in their "rocking chair"
gathering free money.
4:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that the reason we are behind is
that are at 35 percent of the average national weekly
unemployment wage. He Gave an example using his father who
lived in Longview Texas back in 1935. He said that his father
worked at a paper that shut down leaving him unemployed. He
said the unemployment check that he received for this time of
joblessness was half of his regular salary which was $36 a week
at the time. He stressed the point that Alaska, in the 21st
century, should pay its unemployed and laid off workers a
reasonable wage comparable to a time in America when the economy
was severely depressed.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that he was pleased with the testimony.
He mentioned that if the committee can get the requested facts,
that the bill would go forward with more time.
[HB 7 was held over.]
HB 147-INSURANCE
4:17:37 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that last order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 147, "An Act relating to the regulation of
insurance, insurance licensing, surplus lines, insurer deposits,
motor vehicle service contracts, guaranteed automobile
protection products, health discount plans, third-party
administrators, self-funded multiple employer welfare
arrangements, and self-funded governmental plans; and providing
for an effective date."
LINDA HALL, Director of Insurance, Department of Commerce,
Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), stated that she was
here to speak on HB 147. If passed, she said, this bill will
provide more efficiency for the division, more uniformity for
the insurance industry, and more protection for Alaskan
consumers.
MS. HALL quickly went over the bill and what it stipulates
beginning with the industry. She stated that there is no longer
a requirement of the insurance industry to keep their own lists
of agents, and if the division decides to administer regulatory
action, the insurance company can go ahead, pull the license,
and notify their agent themselves.
MS. HALL then went on to describe the types of insurance
companies. The first type of company, she said, is the admitted
companies that file their rates and forms and pay premium tax,
and the second kind are called surplus lines, or unauthorized
insurers. There were a few things that were overlooked and
these, she said, were looked at.
MS. HALL then indicated that there were minor changes to insured
deposits in Section 3, 4, and 5. They are removing the clause
that refers to safety deposit boxes and are now permitting the
release of the deposit directly to the guarantee fund.
MS. HALL continued to say that there are two sections, sections
30 and 33, that deal with automobile insurance and service
contracts, and guaranteed auto protection. This has been the
subject of discussion with dealerships and the Division is now
seeking to put together standards that can be used across the
board, that will allow them to have more uniform review of those
products.
MS. HALL announced that these sections really clarify the
division's authority to promulgate regulations for licensing
product standards and financial responsibility and adds a
definition for automobile protection and auto contracts. She
then indicated that this will be the subject of discussion and
possible revision and rewording. She then adds that it is not
her intention to create havoc in the automobile dealership
industry, but she insists that she must have some oversight
ability.
4:22:04 PM
MS. HALL continued with a discussion on sections that deal with
health discounts. These are plans, she said, that are sold
using terminology found in the health insurance industry, and
from 2000-2002, over 200,000 of these plans were sold
nationally, leaving $250 million of unpaid claims. This
fraudulent insurance, she said, is advertised on radio and
television, and they purport to have a web of medical providers,
which they do not. She indicates that her group is trying to
add these groups under the unfair practices act in Alaska.
[Chair Anderson passed the gavel to Representative Ledoux, who
now presides over the meeting.]
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there were questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this were the kind of thing
that requires a monthly payment and one where you are given a
closed panel of doctors.
4:24:39 PM
MS. HALL indicated that she has not heard of the closed panel
terminology. She said that with this type of so-called
insurance there is no waiting period, or questions about pre-
existing conditions. Instead, she said, the consumer might get
discount rates at the medical provider's office. The
unsophisticated consumer who is looking for discount insurance
will probably fall prey to this scheme.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were any legitimate plans
that are associated with insurance companies.
MS. HALL answered that there were some discount plans associated
with insurance companies.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how the division regulates a
company that does not have a physical presence in the state of
Alaska.
MS. HALL answered that we have put some companies out of
business by working with other states. She indicated that it is
an investigative effort of several states that usually leads to
tracking down the companies through either fax numbers or toll
free numbers through a national database.
4:27:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that these advertisements are
broadcast on public and private airwaves and that being so, she
asked if the Division could issue cease and desist orders to the
broadcasters to shut the insurance companies out from the public
eye.
MS. HALL answered no, but that it was an interesting angle and
she would look into the method.
4:28:40 PM
MS. HALL answered that the next section are found in 28 and 29,
the self funded governmental insurance plans. The division
conducted a review of the state union health trust that resulted
in greater clarification in the extent of state regulation.
Section 28 provides standards for filing requirements for
financial analysis and solvency regulation, and provides minimum
standards for healthcare expenses and finally, the division is
seeking to have oversight of the union health trust.
4:29:55 PM
MS. HALL then stated that the last section that this bill dealt
with third party administrators. She defined these as insurers
that perform administrative functions for an insurer or a self-
funded health insurance plan. She then mentioned that these
third party administrators have to be registered.
MS. HALL stated that there are 7 sections that deal with these
entities. The first thing it does, she said, is to remove the
requirement that the insurer be registered with the Division,
since this is already established. It does add a requirement
that entities that are exempt certify their eligibility for
exemption and it also authorizes the director of the Division to
immediately suspend the registration of third party
administrators if they are financially impaired or engaged in
practices that are injurious to the policyholders.
In the last three last sections, the division has added in
section 24, the same standards in rate making as found in other
lines of insurance. She pointed out that this is the basic rate
making philosophy that stipulates that rates are not excessive,
inadequate, or discriminatory. She then went on to say that
sections 26 and 27 deal with minor changes in title insurance
that authorizes the director designee to accept financial
statements, and it also requires them to provide quarterly
financial statements within 45 days of issue, which creates
uniformity within all insurance industries.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how the regulations prescribing
fairness in terms of excessive prices, inadequate coverage, or
discriminatory practices deal with credit scoring and he asked
it would disallowed.
MS. HALL answered that would not be disallowed. She indicated
that she allows credit scoring around particular parameters.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there are any persons that
work within the division that have, as their sole
responsibility, the safeguarding of Alaskan citizens through
consumer protection.
MS. HALL announced that her division has a consumer advocacy
position whose only job is to investigate consumer complaints
and review statute regulations, and enter into discussions with
insurance companies and see that they are obeying these
regulations. The efforts that these people have given consumers
has generated over $100,000 to $300,000 in payments that would
not have been received had it not been for these efforts. She
ended by stating that in addition these goals and the previous
ones, that achieving a healthy insurance environment and the
needs of the consumers was their top priority.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there any further questions and
then the committee took an at-ease from 4:36 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.
[HB 147 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:37:25 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|