Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/31/2021 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB126 | |
| HB111 | |
| HB151 | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2021
3:17 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Liz Snyder (via teleconference)
Representative David Nelson
Representative James Kaufman
Representative Ken McCarty
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Public
Accountancy; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to the practice of dental hygiene; relating to
advanced practice permits for dental hygienists; relating to
dental assistants; prohibiting unfair discrimination under group
health insurance against a dental hygienist who holds an
advanced practice permit; relating to medical assistance for
dental hygiene services; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 111 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to unemployment benefits during a period of
state or national emergency resulting from a novel coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) outbreak; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 151 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 126
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMPSON
03/05/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/21 (H) L&C, FIN
3/31/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 111
SHORT TITLE: DENTAL HYGIENIST ADVANCED PRAC PERMIT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SPOHNHOLZ
02/24/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/21 (H) L&C, FIN
03/29/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/31/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR COVID-19
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
03/26/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/26/21 (H) L&C, FIN
03/29/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/31/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 126.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 126.
LESLIE SCHMITZ, Chair
Alaska Board of Public Accountancy
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 126.
DON RULIEN, Member
Alaska Society of Certified Public Accountants
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 126.
SARA CHAMBERS, Director
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 126.
KATRINA VIRGIN, President
Alaska Dental Hygienists' Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 111.
DAVID LOGAN, DDS, Executive Director
Alaska Dental Society
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111.
SANDON FISHER, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 111.
LENNON WELLER, Economist
Research and Analysis Section
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 151.
PATSY WESTCOTT, Director
Central Office
Division of Employment and Training Services
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 151.
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 151 on behalf of Representative
Spohnholz, prime sponsor.
CARA DURR, Director of Public Engagement
Food Bank of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 151.
TREVOR STORRS, President and CEO
Alaska Children's Trust
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 151.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:17:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. Representatives Nelson,
Spohnholz, Fields, McCarty, Schrage, Kaufmanm and Snyder (via
teleconference) were present at the call to order.
HB 126-EXTEND BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY
3:18:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 126, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Public Accountancy; and providing for an effective
date."
3:18:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 126 as prime sponsor, explaining that it would
extend the termination date for the Board of Public Accountancy
for eight years until June 30, 2029, as recommended by a
legislative audit. He read excerpts from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Legislative Audit conducted their review of this board
and concluded that "?the board served the public's
interest by conducting meetings in accordance with
state laws, amending certain regulations to improve
the public accountancy occupation, and effectively
licensing and regulating certified public accountants
and partnerships/corporations engaged in the practice
of public accountancy."
Extending the Board of Public Accountancy is critical
in protecting the public interest by ensuring that
only qualified persons are licensed, and that
appropriate standards of competency and practice are
established and enforced.
3:20:26 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative Audit,
explained that the purpose of the audit is to determine whether
a board or commission is serving the public's interest and
whether its termination date should be extended. She stated
that the audit concluded that the board served the public's
interest by conducting meetings in accordance with state laws,
amending certain regulations to improve the public accountancy
occupation, and effectively licensing and regulating certified
public accountants (CPAs) and partnerships or corporations
engaged in public accountancy. She said that the recommended
extension is eight years.
MS. CURTIS directed attention to page 5 of the audit report
[included in the committee packet], showing licensing statistics
for the board. As of January 31, 2020, there were 1,328 active
licenses and permits, a 10 percent increase when compared to the
prior sunset audit in 2012. She noted that Alaska is one of the
few states that doesn't require a social security number for
licensure; consequently, the board receives many international
applicants, which accounts for the increase. She then directed
attention to page 7, showing a schedule of revenues and
expenditures, and noted that the board had a surplus at the end
of fiscal year 2019 (FY 19) of just over $84,000. She directed
attention to page 11 and noted that there is one recommendation
for improvement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Recommendation No. 1: DCBPL's chief investigator
should ensure investigations are completed timely.
Forty of the 101 cases open or opened from July 1,
2016, through January 31, 2020, were open over 180
days. Five of the 40 were evaluated by auditors. Two
of five investigative cases selected for review had
unjustified periods of inactivity ranging from 64 to
219 days. According to DCBPL staff, the inactivity was
the result of turnover and competing priorities.
Auditors also noted that supervisory review of
outstanding investigations was not documented in the
case files as required by DCBPL procedure, indicating
that the reviews did not occur or did occur but were
not documented.
MS. CURTIS said that response from the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) begins on page 21.
She stated that the DCCED commissioner agrees with the report
conclusions, except for the finding that 40 percent of
investigations took over six months to complete. The response
stated that the Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing (DCBPL) has no control over how an
investigation will unfold or how long it will take and has no
policy stating a specific timeframe of completion. The
commissioner did agree, however, to authorize an additional
supervisor to help reduce caseloads. Ms. Curtis also noted that
the commissioner didn't agree with the audit's conclusion that
the use of technology impacted board operations, saying that
technology tools have been successful for all of the boards.
The response from the chair of the Alaska Board of Public
Accountancy begins on page 25, Ms. Curtis said, and highlights a
disagreement between the board and DCCED regarding what
constitutes "essential travel."
MS. CURTIS stated that auditing standards require that, in cases
where management disagrees with an audit, the auditor must
respond; her response, she said, begins on page 27. She said,
"I explained that the report conclusions regarding technology's
negative impact on the board operations was based on the
auditor's observation of a board meeting in February 2020, and
discussions with the board members." In response to the
commissioner's comments on the investigations, she said,
"Management has a responsibility to implement controls over the
investigative process to ensure the accuracy, due process, and
timely completion of an audit."
3:25:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed his understanding that there
are investigations taking over 180 days, and DCBPL is of the
opinion that staying within 180 days is not that important.
MS. CURTIS read a quote from the DCCED commissioner, found on
page 21, which read [original punctuation provided]:
While a noble goal, the department finds the inference
that all investigative matters should be completed
within six months is unreasonable and unattainable in
many situations. The agency is more concerned with
ensuring the facts are correctly obtained in each
matter and that due process is secured than ensuring
the speed of concluding investigations meets an
arbitrary goal.
MS. CURTIS said that her response read, "I agree that accuracy
and due process are essential to an investigation; however,
investigations should also be timely. Some may argue that
timeliness is critical to due process." She described the six-
month timeframe as a performance measure that was developed over
prior administrations, and she said that one of the objectives
of the audit was determining how efficiently the complaints have
been addressed. She noted that there could be valid reasons for
periods of inactivity, such as awaiting a response from an
expert or having a competing priority. She said that the audit
only highlighted periods of unjustified inactivity. The
question of "What would be a good performance measure?" has been
discussed over previous administrations, and the 180-day
timeframe is in the board's procedures; therefore, she said,
it's "odd" to receive that response.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY surmised that the board is operating
appropriately, and that DCBPL is of greater concern.
MS. CURTIS answered, "Yes, this is [DCCED's] support for the
board, which is reviewed at the same time we reviewed the
board."
3:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN referred to Ms. Curtis's explanation that
the significant increase in the number of licenses since the
previous sunset audit is because Alaska does not require a
social security number. He asked for further explanation.
MS. CURTIS responded that it's a policy call. She said that the
report also stated that the number of new licenses issued from
FY 17 to FY 19 increased 36 percent compared to the three prior
years. She said that the increase was notable enough to lead to
more questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said that a social security number
provides a certain level of "traceability," and he said that he
would like to know more.
3:30:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, referencing the schedule of revenues and
expenditures on page 7, noted that there's volatility from year
to year due to biannual renewals. She said asked about the
total number of licenses renewed.
MS. CURTIS replied that the licenses are on a biannual renewal
schedule, with the renewals happening every other year, which is
standard practice with occupational boards.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if an extension shorter than eight
years was considered.
MS. CURTIS said that it wasn't considered because there are
typically systematic issues in boards and, in every aspect other
than timeliness, the board is operating effectively.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked about any liability issues arising from
taking more than six months to complete 40 percent of
investigations.
MS. CURTIS explained that the Board of Public Accountancy
doesn't deal with aspects of health or safety. Some of the
cases are likely dealing with lower-priority issues such as
continuing education or unlicensed activity, with the biggest
risk coming from complaints of unqualified or incompetent
license holders. She said that the audit didn't include a
review of the specific nature of the complaints, and expressed
that she is not surprised that the cases of this board take
longer because, in the big picture, they're less important
compared to the cases of other boards.
3:33:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether or not it is the policy for
investigations to finish in 180 days.
MS. CURTIS replied that the policy is quoted on page 28 of the
report, and read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Investigative actions (regardless of category) open
over 180 days must be reviewed by supervisory staff
(Senior Investigators) to determine what (if anything)
remains to be done to complete the action and to spur
a discussion of possible means to resolve the action.
MS. CURTIS said that it's an internal control that's been
changed since the audit was done.
3:35:35 PM
LESLIE SCHMITZ, Chair, Alaska Board of Public Accountancy, said
she is currently serving her eighth and final year on the board.
She expressed gratitude for the recommendation of the maximum
extension. She stated that the board makes "every effort" to
interact with stakeholders and licensees, as well as to stay
active at the national level to address issues affecting the
profession. She said that the board maintains ongoing projects
to update and modernize its statutes and regulations.
3:36:29 PM
DON RULIEN, Member, Alaska Society of Certified Public
Accountants, said that in March 2021 he completed his second
four-year term on the Alaska Board of Public Accountancy. He
stated his belief that the board is an integral part of
providing protection to the public and ensures that all CPAs
meet the requirements put forth by statutes and regulations,
protecting the public's interest for all financial matters
concerning Alaskans.
3:37:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked Mr. Rulien whether he has any concerns
about the timeliness of investigations, as identified in the
audit report.
MR. RULIEN replied that each investigation is different, with
some of them taking longer than the average of three months. He
mentioned that the seasonality of the industry can make it more
difficult to get information, and that CPAs normally have a good
rapport with the investigators. He said that while he would
like investigations to go more quickly, it's difficult.
3:38:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether investigation cases come to
board members for review before the investigation moves on to
the next step.
MR. RULIEN replied that the case goes first to the board, which
determines whether or not to investigate. If the board
determines an investigation is in order, he said, it's "out of
our hands," and once the investigation is concluded it's
reviewed before going to the board for a vote.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether there are individual board
members reviewing the cases.
MR. RULIEN responded that there are sometimes multiple
investigations occurring, so board members take turns reviewing
the cases on their own before presenting to the full board at a
meeting.
3:40:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked why there exists a fiscal note on
the proposed legislation.
3:41:00 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, responded that all of the fund sources
require a fiscal note to reflect the cost of the board aspect of
the licensing program. This fiscal note, she said, is not funds
being requested from the legislature but an expenditure
authority for the licensing fees.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked, "Are you saying that to manage the
board of over 600 people it's only going to cost $25,000?"
MS. CHAMBERS explained that the board is a group of seven people
appointed by the governor and that the licensing program is the
administrative program to license individuals. According to
state law, she said, DCCED would assume regulation of the
licensing program if the board sunsets. She clarified that this
audit was only of the governance of the board, not the licensing
itself.
[HB 126 was held over.]
HB 111-DENTAL HYGIENIST ADVANCED PRAC PERMIT
3:43:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to the practice of
dental hygiene; relating to advanced practice permits for dental
hygienists; relating to dental assistants; prohibiting unfair
discrimination under group health insurance against a dental
hygienist who holds an advanced practice permit; relating to
medical assistance for dental hygiene services; and providing
for an effective date."
3:43:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that HB 111 would create an
advanced practice permit allowing experienced, licensed dental
hygienists to provide preventative oral health care to
underserved populations, as well as to those who are eligible
for public assistance, are homebound, or who live in an
underserved community. She said that the permit would be
available to dental hygienists who have a minimum of 4,000 hours
of applied clinical experience and are approved by the Alaska
Board of Dental Examiners.
3:44:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY recalled that the last time HB 111 was
presented, he had asked for clarification on the 4,000 hours.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed that there was a
miscommunication. She said that a dental hygienist goes through
an educational program, becomes a licensed dental hygienist, and
then can practice in the community under the supervision of a
dentist. HB 111 would create an advanced practice permit that
would require 4,000 hours of clinical experience. She
introduced Ms. Virgin to provide more clarity on the matter.
3:46:15 PM
KATRINA VIRGIN, President, Alaska Dental Hygienists'
Association, said that Representative McCarty's assertion that
the requirement of 8,000 hours is incorrect; the requirement
would be 4,000 of clinical experience under the supervision of a
dentist.
3:47:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed understanding of the
requirement of 4,000 hours of clinical experience and five or
more years in the field, but said that he doesn't see
educational requirements in the proposed legislation. He then
said that after the previous committee meeting, he studied the
other states with an advanced practice permit equivalent, in an
effort to understand their criteria. He shared his perception
that the other states have higher criteria than Alaska would
have under the proposed legislation, and mentioned being
concerned about reciprocity. He asked Ms. Virgin to address the
concern.
MS. VIRGIN characterized the requirements under HB 111 as
"double" what the other states mandate. For example, she said,
Washington's advanced practice permit requires two years'
experience, which is approximately the same as what is proposed
under HB 111. Maine's advanced practice permit, established in
2008, requires 2,000 hours of clinical experience.
Massachusetts' permit, established in 2009, asks for 3 years'
experience. Connecticut's permit, established in 1999, requires
2 years' experience. Colorado's permit, established in 1987,
has no additional requirements after graduation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether all of the aforementioned
states require a bachelor's degree to be a dental hygienist.
MS. VIRGIN replied that they do not.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed understanding that some other
states require a dental hygienist to have a bachelor's degree,
take special courses, and pass an exam on law and ethics. He
said that he doesn't see such language in the proposed
legislation.
MS. VIRGIN said that she's not sure what he's referring to as
far as continuing education required by other states. She said
that Alaska requires continuing education credits in order for
dental hygienists to renew their licenses, which is every two
years.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY agreed that dental hygienists have
continuing education requirements, but he said that he doesn't
know how many credits are required. He expressed understanding
that obtaining the advanced practice permit under HB 111 would
mean having the ability to practice independently and stated
that the permit would come with higher standards for the
practitioner. He expressed concern about how to ensure public
safety. He stated that other states require a certain amount of
experience and "almost double" the continuing education
requirements, and that an individual would hold a dental
hygienist license as well as an advanced license. He then
restated his perception that the standard for advanced practice
dental hygienists in Alaska would be lower than the standards in
other states, and expressed concern that such a dental hygienist
from Alaska would not be recognized in another state.
3:52:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered to clarify that HB 111, in
creating the advanced practice permit requiring 4,000 hours of
clinical practice on top of a bachelor's degree, would be the
highest standard in the nation for this type of permit. She
pointed out that Ms. Virgin explained that other states require
between 2,000 and 3,000 hours of clinical experience, while
Alaska would require 4,000. She said that Ms. Virgin also
stated that not every state requires a bachelor's degree to
become a dental hygienist, and said that achieving a bachelor's
degree is the first step in the process, followed by 4,000 hours
of clinical experience, followed then by the application for the
advanced practice permit. She stressed that the standards under
HB 111 would be the highest in the nation, and she expressed
reluctance at the idea of "backing up" standards in Alaska in
order to establish reciprocity with other states. She
reiterated her earlier statement that this proposed legislation
is the result of a carefully crafted compromise between the
Alaska Dental Hygienists' Association and the Alaska Dental
Society.
3:54:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked Ms. Virgin to comment on AS
08.36.075, which establishes standards regarding dental
radiological equipment, and how it would translate to the
statutes amended by HB 111.
MS. VIRGIN directed attention to an amendment which would change
page 2, line 17, of the proposed legislation and quoted, "expose
and develop radiography, and maintain and register dental
radiological equipment as provided in AS 08.36.075." She said
that it refers to current statutes and regulations already in
effect.
3:55:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ added that there is a draft amendment
addressing radiological equipment.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggesting returning to the question of
radiological equipment after the amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said, "That specific amendment is not
present."
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that if Representative Kaufman was
not satisfied with the answer, an amendment could be offered to
reference the specific statute. She also said that dental
hygienists in the state of Alaska are already required to adhere
to AS 08.36.075, and that she's comfortable amending the
proposed legislation to be more specific, if necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said that he would like the amendment in
order to avoid confusion.
3:56:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER, referring to the earlier comments from
Representative McCarty regarding possible license reciprocity,
asked whether dental hygienists moving from other states would
"not necessarily be required" to have earned their license
following achievement of a bachelor's degree.
MS. VIRGIN replied, "That is correct."
3:57:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Logan to confirm that the Alaska
Dental Society is comfortable with the proposed legislation. He
said that he wants to ensure expansion of services to
underserved areas without destabilizing the market for
established dentists.
3:58:18 PM
DAVID LOGAN, DDS, Executive Director, Alaska Dental Society,
stated that the Alaska Dental Society supports HB 111. He
expressed that all health care practitioners should be used at
their "best and highest levels," and the proposed legislation is
an opportunity for dental hygienists to expand their practice
opportunities while filling a need in underserved communities.
3:59:04 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:59 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
4:00:46 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 111, labeled
32-LS0480\A.1, Fisher, 3/30/21, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 31, through page 4, line 1:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
4:01:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:01:08 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that he has concerns that the term
"independent contractor" could have implications regarding labor
laws. He said that he developed Amendment 1 in coordination
with Representative Spohnholz, and he asked for her confirmation
that Amendment 1 is a friendly amendment.
4:01:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ agreed that Amendment 1 is a friendly
amendment.
4:02:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY noted that an advanced dental hygienist
could be an employer, which means different labor laws would
apply.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that the passage of House Bill 79
during the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature codified decades
of case law in terms of the relationship between employees,
independent contractors, and employers. He said that it's best
to follow that statute for consistency.
4:03:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that Amendment 1 would not
prohibit an advanced practice dental hygienist from establishing
a business.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether the language regarding
being an independent contractor is needed.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said it is not needed.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked why the language was originally
written into the proposed legislation.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied it was intended to refer to a dental
hygienist practicing independently, without the direct
supervision of a dentist; however, the intention has been
adequately addressed in other sections of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said, "That is correct."
4:04:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN removed his objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
4:05:03 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked if anyone else objected to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:05:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32-
LS0180\A.7, Fisher, 3/30/21, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "receive"
Insert "access"
4:05:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:05:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that Amendment 2 would change
the accuracy of the subsection.
4:05:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed that the word "access" is
more precise, therefore, she supports Amendment 2.
4:05:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
4:06:02 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:06:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 32-
LS0480\A.8, Fisher, 3/30/21, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 5 - 29:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 08.32.125. Advanced practice permits. (a)
The board may issue an advanced practice permit to a
licensed dental hygienist with a minimum of 4,000
documented hours of clinical experience. A licensed
dental hygienist holding an advanced practice permit
may
(1) promote oral health and provide disease
prevention education and oral systemic health
education;
(2) remove calcareous deposits, accretions,
and stains from the exposed surfaces of the teeth
beginning at the epithelial attachment by scaling and
polishing techniques;
(3) apply topical preventive or
prophylactic agents, including silver diamine
fluoride, fluoride varnishes, and pit and fissure
sealants;
(4) remove marginal overhangs;
(5) perform preliminary charting and triage
to formulate a dental hygiene assessment and dental
hygiene treatment plan;
(6) expose and develop radiographs;
(7) use local periodontal therapeutic
agents;
(8) perform nonsurgical periodontal
therapy;
(9) screen for oral cancer;
(10) if certified by the board, administer
local anesthetic agents;
(11) prescribe
(A) fluoride that is applied or provided to
a patient; and
(B) chlorhexidine or a similar
antibacterial rinse; and
(12) delegate dental operations and
services to a dental assistant as provided in
AS 08.36.346."
4:06:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:06:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said that the language of Amendment 3 is
intended to "bring forth the full scope" of practices allowed by
a dental hygienist with an advanced practice permit under HB
111.
4:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment
3, labeled 32-LS0480\A.11, Fisher, 3/31/21, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 10 of the amendment:
Delete "exposed"
4:07:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for purposes of discussion.
4:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that, while the overall intent of
Amendment 3 is acceptable, she had a concern about the use of
"exposed" when it comes to teeth. She said that there are some
elements of dental hygiene which require going below the surface
of the epithelial attachment, which would not be possible with
the adoption of Amendment 3 as written.
4:08:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 was adopted.
4:08:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection to Amendment 3, as
amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 3, as
amended, was adopted.
4:08:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 32-
LS0480\A.3, Fisher, 3/30/21, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 7, following "experience":
Insert "in addition to attained dental hygienist
hours"
Page 4, line 31, through page 5, line 2:
Delete all material and insert:
"(10) permitted a dental assistant employed
by or working under the supervision of a dental
hygienist who holds an advanced practice permit issued
by the board under AS 08.32.125 to perform a dental
procedure in violation of AS 08.32.110 or
AS 08.36.346;"
Page 6, line 10:
Delete "hygiene"
Insert "hygienist"
4:08:30 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:08:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said that Amendment 4 addresses his
confusion regarding the number of hours of clinical experience
required to attain the advanced practice permit.
4:09:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that what she believes
Representative McCarty's desired outcome is would not be
achieved by Amendment 4. She said that, with respect to page 4,
line 31, through page 5, line 2, Amendment 4 would limit censure
to an advanced practice permit dental hygienist, rather than all
hygienists. The underlying language of HB 111, she said, allows
censure for inappropriate behavior for all dental hygienists,
rather than only those holding an advanced practice permit.
4:10:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY requested an at-ease.
4:10:15 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:10 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.
4:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked Ms. Virgin whether page 4, line 31,
of HB 111, refers to a dental hygienist employing a dental
assistant. He then asked whether there are dental hygienists
who employ dental assistants.
MS. VIRGIN responded that in Alaska it is not currently the
case; however, in other states, dental hygienists often employ
assistants.
4:14:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ directed attention to Section 3 of HB
111, beginning on page 4, line 5, noting that it would amend AS
08.32.160, [regarding grounds for discipline, suspension, or ,
which read:
The board may revoke or suspend the license of a
dental hygienist, or may reprimand, censure, or
discipline a licensee, if, after a hearing, the board
finds that the licensee
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ then directed attention to proposed
paragraph (10), on page 4, line 31 through page 5, line 2, which
read as follows:
(10) permitted a dental
assistant employed by a dental hygienist or working
under the supervision of a dental hygienist to perform
a dental procedure in violation of AS 08.32.110 or AS
08.36.346;
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that the way Amendment 4 is
drafted would prohibit the Board of Dental Examiners from
holding accountable dental hygienists who supervise dental
assistants and allow them to do work beyond their training.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated his understanding that the state
of Alaska currently doesn't allow dental hygienists to have
employees.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out the language "or working
under the supervision of a dental hygienist", and said that it
is common practice for a dental hygienist to supervise a dental
assistant, as the assistant has less education and legal
authority to perform certain procedures. She said that
Amendment 4 would limit censure to only advanced practice dental
hygienists, rather than allowing all dental hygienists to be
censured. In response to Representative McCarty's follow-up
question, Representative Spohnholz explained, "Because all
advanced practice dental hygienists will also be dental
hygienists, I think the language is broad enough to ensure that
an advanced practice dental hygienist who employs a dental
assistant, and also a dental hygienist who is not an advanced
practice dental hygienist, but who supervises a dental
assistant, in both cases they would be able to be censured for
inappropriate delegation of responsibilities."
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked, "If we do not put in the term
defining it 'advanced,' does that not open up this ... a dental
hygienist could now start employing when it hasn't existed
before?"
4:17:55 PM
SANDON FISHER, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, explained that under HB 111, a dental hygienist
with an advanced practice permit could hire a dental assistant,
as evidenced by the language of Section 4, subsection (c).
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed his belief that the language of
Section 4, subsection (c), needs to be reworked.
4:19:52 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS told Representative McCarty to either withdraw
Amendment 4 and rework it, or the committee can vote on it.
4:20:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed being confused by Amendment 4.
4:20:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed that the wording of Amendment
4 is unclear and could complicate the proposed legislation
moving forward. She suggested withdrawing Amendment 4 and
adding a conceptual amendment on page 4, line 31, so that the
paragraph would read:
(10) permitted a dental assistant employed by an
advanced practice permit dental hygienist or working
under the supervision of a dental hygienist to perform
a dental procedure in violation of AS 08.32.110 or AS
08.36.346;
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that this would clarify that an
advanced practice permit holder would be able to employ dental
assistants, and that a dental hygienist in a regular dental
practice could supervise dental assistants.
4:21:52 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Representative McCarty if he is amenable
to that suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed his agreement.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Representative Spohnholz to move her
suggestion as a conceptual amendment to Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that she would prefer Amendment 4
be withdrawn.
4:22:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY withdrew Amendment 4 and said, "I believe
we did not talk about page 6, line 10."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested addressing it later.
4:22:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 32-
LS0480\A.9, Fisher, 3/30/21, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 3, following "AS 08.36.346":
Insert "or that a licensed dental hygienist who holds
an advanced practice permit issued by the board under
AS 08.32.125 may delegate to a dental assistant under
AS 08.36.346(c)"
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that Amendment 5 was recommended
by the Alaska Dental Society to add clarity about the ability of
dental hygienists to assign tasks to a dental assistant.
4:22:54 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected then withdrew his objection. There
being no further objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
4:23:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 32-
LS0480\A.10, Fisher, 3/31/21, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 19, following "radiographs":
Insert "and maintain and register dental
radiological equipment under AS 08.36.075"
4:23:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion
4:23:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said that the purpose of Amendment 6 is
to link the standards of radiological safety and equipment
required of dentists to holders of an advanced practice permit.
4:23:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that she has no objection.
4:23:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FELDS withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
4:24:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7,
which would insert "advanced practice permit dental hygienist"
after "permitted a dental assistant employed by a" on page 4,
line 31, of HB 111.
4:24:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:24:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated his agreement and asked that the
text read "an" instead of "a".
4:24:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether there was any objection to
Conceptual Amendment 7. [The objection by Co-Chair Fields was
treated as removed.] There being none, Conceptual Amendment 7
was adopted.
4:25:01 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:25:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 8,
which would change the language of page 6, line 10, to read
"dental hygienist" instead of "dental hygiene".
4:25:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion and noted
that committee members can see the language on Amendment 4,
which was withdrawn.
4:25:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ objected because the wording would be
grammatically incorrect. She said that page 6, line 10, reads
"adult dental and dental hygiene services"; therefore, saying
"dental hygienist services" would be grammatically incorrect and
not what the proposed legislation is trying to achieve.
4:26:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether there needs to be special
recognition in the proposed legislation for insurance purposes.
4:26:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that Section 6, subsection
(b), provides the services which can be billed for, not the
providers.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he is comfortable with the existing
semantics in subsection (b).
4:27:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY withdrew Conceptual Amendment 8.
4:27:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated the intention to move HB 111, as amended,
at the end of the meeting.
4:27:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened public testimony on HB 111, as amended.
After verifying that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
[HB 111, as amended, was held and revisited later in the
meeting.]
HB 151-UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR COVID-19
4:27:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 151, "An Act relating to unemployment benefits
during a period of state or national emergency resulting from a
novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak; and providing for
an effective date."
4:28:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 32-
LS0704\B.4, Wayne, 3/31/21, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 28:
Delete "This"
Insert "Section 1 of this"
Page 2, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. Section 2 of this Act is repealed
March 31, 2022."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
4:28:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion
4:28:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that, because HB 151 was
designed to align with the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
(ARPA), the original expiration date of all provisions was in
September. However, she said, unemployment rates in Alaska
begin to rise in September, and she expressed wanting the "per
dependent" benefit to extend to one year hence, allowing time
for a broader update of the unemployment insurance (UI) program
in the state. She said that she wants to ensure that people
with children aren't penalized because the proposed legislation
is aligned with a federal act.
4:29:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed his agreement with Amendment 1 and
withdrew his objection.
4:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVES MCCARTY and KAUFMAN objected.
4:30:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY shared his perspective that HB 151 is
intended to be a "transition" bill to taper the UI program. He
said that there would be later opportunity to draft legislation
to make permanent changes to the UI program.
4:30:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said that his concern is that both HB 151
and Amendment 1 would not incentivize people to go back to work
and business to resume. He characterized actions taken by the
legislature as "doubling down that we are in an emergency" and
expressed concern about detrimental effects on businesses that
are "trying to get people to come back to work." He shared that
he has spoken with business owners who expressed the idea that
people won't return to work because "they're comfortable where
they are for the time that the money's flowing."
4:32:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether Amendment 1 would change the
fiscal note.
4:32:43 PM
LENNON WELLER, Economist, Research and Analysis Section,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, answered that
modeling the extension through the six-month period of April
through September would add approximately $13.5 million to the
total chargeable benefit costs. If the $75 per dependent
benefit was extended through the end of March 2022, he said, the
total cost would be $21.2 million.
4:34:16 PM
PATSY WESTCOTT, Director, Division of Employment and Training
Services, Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
concurred with Mr. Weller's response.
4:34:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether the $21.2 million would be
reimbursed by the federal government.
MS. WESTCOTT responded that the benefits don't technically come
out of the "state coffers," they come out of the unemployment
insurance trust fund. The resulting impact would be more
dollars out of the trust fund, potentially having an impact on
tax rates in future years. She stressed that the money is not
from the general fund, then deferred to Mr. Weller.
4:35:40 PM
MR. WELLER noted that, given the state's overall costs and
solvency, any additional outlays would impact tax rates in
future years. He said, "Any roughly $10 million draw out of the
fund will bring it down by roughly one-tenth of a percentage
point." He noted that September is an important month because
it's the month used to determine the reserve ratio, and
explained that one-tenth of a percentage point would be directly
added to employers' solvency taxes for the calendar year 2022.
4:37:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that Mr. Weller said that
the provision would cost an addition $8 million over the course
of six months to prevent a "benefits cliff" for people who have
children and are on unemployment. She also pointed out that the
UI fund is not a public assistance benefit, but an insurance
fund that every employee pays into. She recalled the March 29,
2021, testimony of Nolan Klouda with the Center for Economic
Development at the University of Alaska Anchorage, during which
he expressed that there does exist anecdotal evidence of people
reducing their work because of UI, but statistically speaking,
that is not the case. She said, "Receiving unemployment
insurance benefit does not reduce people's interest in working.
People want to work. Alaskans want to work. You get meaning,
you get dignity that comes with it." She stressed that one-
third of those receiving UI benefits have children and
commensurate expenses. Regarding Representative McCarty's
assertion that the per-dependent benefit under HB 151 is a
"transition piece," she said that under the current draft of the
proposed legislation, the provision would expire in September
and that a special session would be required for the legislature
to act. She stated, "Therefore, I think that it seemed like the
responsible thing to do, to ensure that people with children
continue to get this higher benefit level while we come back and
do a deeper dive on what should an updated unemployment
insurance benefit look like moving forward, this seemed like a
modest compromise."
4:39:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked whether it would be correct to say
that, regardless of the repeal date listed, the provision is in
effect so long as there is a national or state emergency due to
the COVID-19 outbreak.
4:40:01 PM
MEGAN HOLLAND, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska State
Legislature, responded that HB 151 is drafted in such a way that
the benefits will end on the repeal date. She noted that, as
there is no state emergency declaration in place, an end to the
national emergency would end the benefits.
4:40:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON recapped the discussion and asked Ms.
Westcott whether DOLWD supports Amendment 1.
MS. WESTCOTT replied that DOLWD is "neutral" on the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked about DOLWD's view of Amendment 1.
MS. WESCOT replied that DOLWD is "neutral" on Amendment 1.
4:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN restated his earlier remarks about
business owners' belief that people are refusing to return to
work. He opined that it's not the UI benefits that are
incentivizing people to not work, but the cumulative funding,
including emergency relief. He stated that he also has an
"issue" with the existence of a national emergency declaration
because the situation may not affect Alaska, yet would still
"trigger benefits."
4:43:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Westcott whether there are statistics
on "refusal to work" issues.
MS. WESTCOTT answered that DOLWD began tracking pandemic-
specific data on March 1, 2020, and she said the department has
received a little over 3,000 reports of what she called "refusal
of suitable work" issues. The vast majority of those were
cleared, she said, because the offer of work was either
unsuitable or it wasn't a genuine offer of work. Of those 3,000
reports, she said, 398 fact-finding investigations concluded
that the offer of work was not suitable, and there have been 208
"refusal of suitable work" issues denied.
4:45:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked Ms. Westcott to confirm the
difference between federal and state UI.
MS. WESTCOTT replied that the Federal Unemployment Tax Act
(FUTA) has provisions providing for the administrative funding
for the UI program, and the collection of tax contributions at
the state level to fund the UI trust fund. Employers in Alaska
pay the FUTA tax, which provides funding for the administration
of the program, and they also pay a state contribution tax,
which supplies the funds to the UI trust fund in order to pay
benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY remarked that he is a business owner, so
he understands. He then asked whether the $13.5 million for the
per-dependent allowance extension would come out of the state UI
trust fund.
MS. WESTCOTT replied yes, and explained that since the allowance
for dependents is a state provision, any benefit that Alaska
pays out would come from the UI trust fund.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated his perception that, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, "the employers' contribution to the
unemployment insurance has gone up almost a full percent to
employers, but not to the employees."
MS. WESTCOTT replied that she doesn't know how much the tax
rates have increased, and deferred to Mr. Weller.
MR. WELLER answered that in 2020 the average rate class for
employers was the statutory minimum of 1 percent, and the
average rate class is 1.41 percent in 2021. He explained that
there are 20 rate classes, ranging from a minimum rate of 1
percent for rate classes one through five, and 2.07 percent for
rate class 20. He said, "It is potentially true that you could
have had a doubling, or a full percentage point increase, in
your tax rate, but you would have had to have been in tax class
20, meaning that you would have had to have some pretty
significant swings, or fluctuations, in your payroll, so you
were likely a highly seasonal employer, meaning your employees,
or former employees, are likely drawing significant dollars from
the fund."
4:49:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ clarified that the federal money from
ARPA funds would only apply to the waiver of the one-week
waiting period. She also stated that the committee has heard
research presented that the federal relief funds increased
consumer spending by 44 percent. She then pointed out that the
$600 per week federal wage replacement, which was so concerning
to employers, expired last July. She shared her understanding
that there is an amount that an employers' tax rate for UI can
increase, and that it can only be increased three-tenths of a
percent per increment, so it couldn't double in a short period
of time.
4:51:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Spohnholz,
Schrage, and Snyder voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Nelson, Kaufman, and McCarty voted against it.
Therefore, by a vote of 4-3, Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:51:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened public testimony on HB 151.
4:52:03 PM
CARA DURR, Director of Public Engagement, Food Bank of Alaska,
presented a statement [included in the committee packet] in
support of HB 151, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
During the pandemic, hunger has increased
dramatically. Map the Meal Gap, which is a research
project of Feeding America, estimates that food
insecurity in Alaska has increased 32% in 2020.
Looking at children specifically, hunger has increased
44%. The Kulsilvak Census Area has emerged as the most
food insecure region of the country for kids during
the pandemic. Southeast Alaska, which typically
experiences lower levels of food insecurity, has seen
a huge jump in child food insecurity. Skagway, for
example, has seen an estimated 72% increase in child
food insecurity during the pandemic.
To meet these needs, Food Bank of Alaska and our over
150 agency partners statewide have worked incredibly
hard to source and distribute more food than ever
before. Food Bank distributed 43% more pounds of food
in the last six months of 2020, compared with the same
time frame in 2019. We are still experiencing
heightened levels of need, and we have seen record
numbers within multiple programs in just the last few
months. We anticipate that we will continue to see
elevated numbers for quite some time, even as things
related to the pandemic improve, as the economic
impacts will linger.
Hunger does not exist in a vacuum, and a lack of food
is a direct result of a lack of resources.
Unemployment insurance has been a critical resource
for so many Alaskans during this pandemic. Families
have been hit hard during this pandemic, as many have
struggled with the loss of income and a lack of
childcare options. This bill strengthens this resource
in important and targeted ways. While we have many
reasons to feel optimistic about the future, economic
recovery is not going to happen with the flip of a
switch and will likely be experienced unevenly by
different groups of people. The better we can support
Alaskans as we move towards recovery, the faster the
recovery will be, and the shorter our lines at the
food bank will be.
4:53:50 PM
TREVOR STORRS, President and CEO, Alaska Children's Trust,
testified in support of HB 151. He said that one of the most
effective ways of preventing child abuse and neglect is by
addressing the social determinants contributing to an
environment that promotes trauma and discourages building the
skills necessary to manage it. A key social determinant, he
said, is economic well-being. Alaska is ranked thirty-sixth in
the nation for overall child well-being, and thirty-fourth for
family economic well-being. He said that growing up in poverty
is a major barrier to healthy development and increases the
likelihood of poor academic, cognitive, and health outcomes. In
2019, he said, 14 percent of Alaska's children lived at, or
below, the federal poverty level, and 6 percent lived in
families experiencing "extreme" poverty, defined as 50 percent
of the federal poverty level. One quarter of children live in
households with a high housing cost burden, he said, and he
pointed out that these figures are all pre-pandemic. The
pandemic has magnified these issues, he said, and nearly 20
percent of adults living in households with children reported
"little or no confidence" in their ability to pay the next rent
or mortgage payment on time, and nearly 15 percent reported
"sometimes or often" not having enough food. He said that an
average of 38 percent of adults living in households with
children reported having difficulty paying for the usual
household expenses, and over 50 percent have lost their jobs
since March 2020. He said that HB 151 would directly provide a
measure of economic stability to Alaska's most vulnerable
families, and that without it, there would be greater strain on
families, thereby putting children at risk.
4:56:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 151.
4:56:23 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE moved to report HB 151, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
4:56:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked Ms. Westcott whether there would be
an updated fiscal impact forecast.
MS. WESTCOTT said that the committee could be provided with
updated information.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said that he would like to wait for the
updated information before voting.
4:57:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS noted that the committee coordinated with DOLWD
on the fiscal impact of Amendment 1.
4:57:45 PM
MS. HOLLAND pointed out that even without a formal fiscal note,
the fiscal impact is clear. She recounted a conversation with
Mr. Weller and said that he characterized the fiscal impact
resulting from Amendment 1 as a "rather nominal change" from the
original version of the proposed legislation.
4:58:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that the committee looked at different
options for transitioning away from the elevated levels of
benefits, and the provisions in Amendment 1 had a "very modest"
impact on the fund.
MR. WELLER concurred with Co-Chair Fields' statement and said,
"The total difference went from about $13.5 million to $21.2
[million], the difference between the two being roughly $8
million total over that 12-month period." He said that under
either scenario he expects the fund to remain solvent.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked what the size of the fund is.
MR. WELLER replied that the latest balance was approximately
$265 million. Without the change, he said, he would expect the
March 2022 balance to be $285.2 million; with the change, the
March 2022 balance should be $263.4 million.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said that the change would not affect
sustainability.
4:59:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN commented that this proposed legislation
would create a "local obligation" and said, "It was noted
earlier that the federal money is available for the first week
... but as amended, so that extends that period into a period
where that first week would not be funded federally." He
restated his perception that business owners are hurting and
that returning to work should be incentivized. He then said,
"There's so much federal money coming that I believe that [if]
it was properly applied, it could do much of the work that's
being expected of this bill, without creating the local
obligation." He stated that, even though he is sympathetic to
those who have lost their jobs, he does not support HB 151.
5:01:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Westcott to clarify what would be
covered by federal funds.
MS. WESTCOTT stated that federal funds would continue to cover
the first week of benefits if a state has a waiting week waiver
provision. The way HB 151 was drafted, she said, the first week
of benefits would be federally funded through September 6, 2021.
She stressed that the provision for dependents, not the waiting
week provision, would affect the UI trust fund.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS pointed out that the provision for dependents is
$50 per week, which he characterized as approximately what it
costs to feed a child. He said, "We have an opportunity to
reduce childhood hunger," pointing out that his district has
seen "sharp" increases in child hunger and that it's difficult
for children to do well in school if they're hungry.
5:03:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN restated his perception that "there's so
much other money coming," and restated his belief that relief
funds disincentivizes returning to work.
5:03:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether there would be a timeframe
for the updated fiscal note to be available.
MS. WESTCOTT replied that her staff would begin work on the
fiscal note now that the amendment has been adopted. She gave
the approximate timeframe of mid-afternoon the following day.
5:04:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that he supports HB 151 and
recounted various points from the testifiers. He said, "I think
there is an argument to be said for making sure that folks are
motivated to get back to work, but given the numbers of families
that we see utilizing the food bank and struggling during this
time, I have a hard time believing that those families would
refuse a job, if offered one." He expressed that the proposed
legislation would allow the flexibility to smoothly navigate the
situation while helping those who most need it.
5:05:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated his support for HB 151 and said,
"I, personally, as an employer, have witnessed two occasions
where people have refused work because they're making
unemployment money bigger than that, or they just like the
unemployment money and not going to work ... I witnessed it, I
have many employers have shared the same stories in my
district."
5:06:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN opined that one of the reasons for the
lines at the food banks is because businesses are shut down, and
he said that he's talked to businesses who could have operated
and hired people. He expressed the desire to take a more
"managed risk" to open the economy, and said that while it's
"great" to support people in times of need, what the committee
should be focusing on is commerce and getting businesses "back
to work." He said:
I'm taking the tough decision to say 'We need to start
looking at the differently,' and that goes all the way
from these wholesale disaster declarations which
enabled bills like this, to the concept that get
flowed down to the communities where they're all too
willing to shut things down because of fear, or
whatever the motivation may be. But we need to get
Alaska back to work.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said that, with regrets, he cannot
support HB 151 as written or amended.
5:09:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that she supports Alaska being
"open for business" and said that no one in the legislature
wants Alaska to be closed. She said that she wants people to
have the opportunity for meaningful work, saying, "I just want
to be really clear that what people are describing when they're
saying that folks are declining work in order to continue to
collect unemployment benefits is, in fact, unemployment
insurance fraud, and that is prosecutable by law." She stated
that establishing a provision to take advantage of federal funds
and allow very modest, sustainable per-dependent benefits does
not enable people to break the law. She stressed that HB 151
would not increase benefits "across the board," but that the
per-dependent benefit would allow those who have children and
are not able to work should be able to get what she
characterized as a "modest" increase.
5:11:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Schrage, Snyder,
Nelson, Spohnholz, Fields, and McCarty voted in favor of
reporting HB 151, as amended, out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee. Representative Kaufman voted
against it. Therefore, by a vote of 6-1, CSHB 151(L&C) was
reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 111-DENTAL HYGIENIST ADVANCED PRAC PERMIT
5:11:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be a return to HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to the
practice of dental hygiene; relating to advanced practice
permits for dental hygienists; relating to dental assistants;
prohibiting unfair discrimination under group health insurance
against a dental hygienist who holds an advanced practice
permit; relating to medical assistance for dental hygiene
services; and providing for an effective date."
5:12:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE moved to report HB 111, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 111(L&C) was
reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
5:12:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:13 p.m.