Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/12/2021 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 | |
| HB159 | |
| HB58 | |
| HB44 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 44 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 12, 2021
3:22 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Liz Snyder
Representative David Nelson
Representative James Kaufman
Representative Ken McCarty
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"An Act establishing the Consumer Data Privacy Act; establishing
data broker registration requirements; making a violation of the
Consumer Data Privacy Act an unfair or deceptive trade practice;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to insurance coverage for contraceptives and
related services; relating to medical assistance coverage for
contraceptives and related services; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 44
"An Act relating to the practice of accounting."
- MOVED HB 44 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 159
SHORT TITLE: CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/31/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/31/21 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
04/23/21 (H) L&C AT 8:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/23/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/05/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
05/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/12/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 58
SHORT TITLE: CONTRACEPTIVES COVERAGE: INSURE; MED ASSIST
SPONSOR(s): CLAMAN
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) HSS, L&C
04/15/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
04/15/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/21 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/20/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
04/20/21 (H) Moved CSHB 58(HSS) Out of Committee
04/20/21 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/22/21 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 5DP 2DNP
04/22/21 (H) DP: FIELDS, SPOHNHOLZ, MCCARTY,
ZULKOSKY, SNYDER
04/22/21 (H) DNP: PRAX, KURKA
05/03/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
05/03/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/07/21 (H) L&C AT 8:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/07/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/12/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTING; LICENSURE
SPONSOR(s): THOMPSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) STA, L&C
03/11/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/21 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/21 (H) Moved CSHB 44(STA) Out of Committee
03/23/21 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/21 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 6DP 1AM
03/24/21 (H) DP: CLAMAN, STORY, KAUFMAN, VANCE,
TARR, KREISS-TOMKINS
03/24/21 (H) AM: EASTMAN
05/03/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
05/03/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/07/21 (H) L&C AT 8:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/07/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/21 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
05/12/21 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ASHKAN SOLTANI, Fellow
Institute for Technology, Law, and Policy
Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 159.
JOHN HALEY, Assistant Attorney General
Special Litigation and Consumer Protection
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Detailed the sectional analysis of HB 159
on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee by request of
the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 58.
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Detailed the sectional analysis for HB 58
on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor.
LORI WING-HEIR, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 58.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, provided information on
HB 44.
SARA CHAMBERS, Director
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
44.
CORI HONDOLERO, Executive Administrator
Board of Public Accountancy
Divisions of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
44.
KAREN TARVER, CPA
Elgee Rehfeld, LLC
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
44.
LESLIE SCHMITZ, Chair
Board of Public Accountancy
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
44.
THOMAS NEILL, CPA, Chair
Uniform Accountancy Act Committee
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
44.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:22:09 PM
CO-CHAIR IVY SPOHNHOLZ called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:22 p.m. Representatives
McCarty, Nelson, Schrage, Fields, and Spohnholz were present at
the call to order. Representatives Snyder and Kaufman arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 159-CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY ACT
3:23:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 159, "An Act establishing the Consumer
Data Privacy Act; establishing data broker registration
requirements; making a violation of the Consumer Data Privacy
Act an unfair or deceptive trade practice; and providing for an
effective date."
3:23:52 PM
ASHKAN SOLTANI, Fellow, Institute for Technology, Law, and
Policy, Georgetown University Law Center, shared that he is a
technologist and researcher with over 20 years' experience in
technology, privacy, and behavioral economics. He said he has
served as Chief Technologist with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) and Senior Advisor in the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy, co-authored the California Consumer
Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), and
is the co-creator of the proposed Global Privacy Control
standard, which creates and mechanism by which consumers can
communicate their privacy preferences. Mr. Soltani gave a brief
history of CCPA and described the lobbying efforts of businesses
against data privacy.
3:28:07 PM
MR. SOLTANI described the lobbying efforts business engage in to
prevent or weaken data privacy laws, including strategies to
battle CPRA by introducing weaker legislation in other states in
an effort to bring down the overall standard of privacy and
justify federal preemption. He pointed out that there have been
letters to the committee from business interests advocating for
Alaska to adopt the Virginia model of data privacy, the Virginia
Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA), which was drafted largely
by Amazon and other large industry interests. He expressed
approval of HB 159's definition of "pseudonymous" information,
which does not refer to individuals by name but nonetheless
permits data brokers to exchange information about individuals.
The definition responds to the realities of current digital
advertising practices, he said, in which online tracking and
profiling relies on pseudonyms such as numeric identifiers
corresponding to an individual or a device.
MR. SOLTANI expressed approval of the addition of "authorized
agents for consumer rights," and he shared that such an addition
may relieve consumers of the onerous task of requesting their
information from every business that has it. Allowing consumers
to exercise their rights through the use of an authorized agent
may assist in the development in new industry standards and
market solutions to innovate new ways to manage consumer data.
He then pointed out that HB 159 also provides consumers with the
right to know who has their information beyond the business that
initially collected it; having that knowledge, he said, may
allow consumers to request the deletion of their information or
opt out of future sales.
MR. SOLTANI suggested several changes to HB 159. He suggested
including the Global Privacy Control (GPC), which helps
implement opt-out preferences for businesses; instead of having
to go through the onerous work of opting out on each individual
website, he said, GPC would integrate with a consumer's Internet
browser. He stated that 40 million consumers already use
browsers with built-in privacy controls; GPC would allow a
consumer to click one button to opt out of all online tracking.
He said the California Office of the Attorney General has
recognized GPC as a valid standard and will begin enforcement
against companies that don't recognize GPC's opt-out function.
3:32:51 PM
MR. SOLTANI suggested that the proposed legislation be amended
to update the definition of "sale" to include "sale and
sharing." He said the business industry has begun arranging
contracts for the sharing of personal information, indicating in
the contract that a transaction was a "no value" exchange in
order to circumvent the initial prohibitions in CCPA.
MR. SOLTANI addressed verified user requests and said that the
proposed legislation should not require customers to submit
verified requests to opt out of business use of their data. He
noted that verified requests for access and deletion of data are
important since those rights, if exercised fraudulently, can
adversely impact the individual; however, simply asking a
business to not use personal data does not create the same risk,
he said, and does not need the same level of verification. He
pointed out that the proposed legislation should include that
any information collected by the business for the purpose of
opting out of data sale or sharing cannot be used for another
purpose. As an example, he said, clicking "unsubscribe" on a
spam email verifies to the company that their emails are getting
through to a live person; the company will then sell the list of
email addresses to another company, which repeats the cycle.
MR. SOLTANI addressed the possible inclusion of nonprofit
organizations, noting that they engage in the same practice of
data sharing and sale as for profit businesses. He said that
there is currently no state or federal oversight of nonprofits'
use of data information. He then stated that the largest
component of HB 159 would be enforcement; whether the Office of
the Attorney General has the right to enforce the law, or
whether there would be a private right of action.
3:38:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed that Alaska's Office of the Attorney
General doesn't currently have the technical expertise to
effectively enforce the parameters under HB 159. He asked, "How
do we put that into law, to collect an adequate amount of
revenue to sustainably fund an adequately-sized cadre of ...
[attorneys general] who will make sure this law is being
followed?"
MR. SOLTANI said that the people qualified to do such work would
normally receive "three or four times" the salary that a
government agency could pay; not only the number of staff, but
also the expertise of the staff, is critical to the
sustainability of the proposed legislation. He said that one
model is to fine the company a percentage of the money it
receives from the sale of the information; however, in many
cases the value of the transaction is not monetary. He also
discussed an "eat what you kill" model, in which the revenue
collected by fining companies is then used to build staff and
expertise.
3:42:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked what features a consumer gives up
when implementing the Global Privacy Control (GPC) in an
Internet browser.
MR. SOLTANI replied that current law requires companies to
provide a link for consumers to opt out of the sale of their
information; GPC, he said, essentially clicks that button for
the consumer. He said that the question now is, "What happens
after the button is clicked?" He stated that HB 159 would allow
companies to charge consumers different rates in direct relation
to the consumer's choice to opt out of data sharing. For
example, he said, "When a business encounters a Global Privacy
Control they could say, 'We've noticed you would like to opt out
of the sale of your personal information. Would you like to
either disable that for our site and permit us to opt in, or
would you like to pay a fee?' or whatever else the law permits
when a consumer opts out." He clarified that GPC is like a
little robot that clicks the "do not sell" link. He said that
most websites honor GPC without any extra fees to the user;
however, while the current ecosystem of the data-supported ad
economy exists on the sale of personal information, there are
new, innovative technologies that attempt to advertise without
using personal information in the same manner. Development in
contextual ads, or ads based on the website a consumer visits,
is a way for companies to sell advertisement without using a
consumer's personal information. He said companies are
innovating ways to practice sustainable advertising in the same
way there are innovations in sustainable energy.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether there exists the practice
of increasing prices for those who have opted out of having
their data sold.
MR. SOLTANI responded that the law permits that a company may
charge a person a non-usurious, non-exploitative fee in direct
relation to the sale of their personal information. He said
that in California, if a company's only revenue is from their
sale of user information, the law permits the company to charge
the customer for the use of the website. He pointed out that
companies are exploring models such as subscription services or
per-use fees.
3:47:58 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked about the best practices for the
protection of children's information.
MR. SOLTANI replied that he believes the "opt-in" requirement is
critical. He said discussed the civil penalty judgement in FTC
v. Google, No. 1:19-cv-2642 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2019), and he
shared the argument that a website that contains children's
content should be held to a higher standard.
3:50:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked for a written summary or resources
pertaining to the recommendations that have been addressed in
the hearing on HB 159.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked Mr. Soltani to email his written
testimony.
MR. SOLTANI agreed.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS noted that his staff has been keeping track of
all the recommendations from Mr. Soltani and the previous
experts, as well as the businesses that have provided testimony,
and he said he will be considering those recommendations in
drafting a committee substitute that would protect Alaska's
businesses while ensuring adequate oversight of outside
technology companies.
MR. SOLTANI added that, since the passage of CCPA and CPRA, the
business industry will fight legislation in every state. He
pointed out that the issue is so technically nuanced that
California's legislation almost included a seven-word amendment
that would have nullified the standards in the legislation.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said that his intent is to work through the
committee substitute with the experts.
3:52:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the committee would hear another
portion of the sectional analysis.
3:53:01 PM
JOHN HALEY, Assistant Attorney General, Special Litigation and
Consumer Protection, Department of Law, resumed his
presentation, which commenced on April 23, 2021, of the
sectional analysis of HB 159 on behalf of the House Rules
Standing Committee by request of the governor. He said that he
previously ended his presentation just before "Article 2.
Activities and penalties regarding personal information."
3:53:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER referenced Sec. 45.49.015 and asked for a
definition of "person."
MR. HALEY replied that "person" would be defined as either a
corporation or any "natural person." He said that business not
qualifying under the definition of "business" would be "persons"
under the section in question.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER said she was trying to understand a
scenario involving businesses and "persons."
MR. HALEY responded that he hasn't thought of a situation in
which a business would disclose a person's personal information
to a legislator. He said the main intent is to address
businesses sharing information with corporations that wouldn't
normally meet the definition of "business." He said that an
individual should be able to understand which, and how many,
businesses have their personal information by making a request
of the initial collector. The sharing of information with
smaller corporations who don't meet the definition of "business"
or with "individual humans," he said, is a scenario on which he
would need to consider further.
3:56:24 PM
MR. HALEY resumed detailing the sectional analysis, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 45.49.100. Retaliation prohibited.
As the subject suggests, this section prohibits a
business from retaliating against a consumer that
exercises their rights under this chapter and lists
examples of activities that may be considered
retaliation. A business may, however, provide a
different rate or quality if it is reasonably related
to the value provided to the business by the
consumer's data. A business may also provide consumers
with a financial incentive for collection, sale, or
retention of information, so long as the business
notifies the consumer of the incentives and obtains
consent before entering a customer into a financial
incentive program. Financial incentive practices may
not be unjust, unreasonable, coercive, or usurious.
3:58:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that page 15, lines 7-8, of the
text of HB 159, says "(2) charging different prices or rates for
goods or services, including through the use of discounts or
other benefits or imposing penalties;". She pointed out that
page 15, lines 13-16, says that business may charge different
prices or rates. She asked Mr. Haley to comment on the apparent
conflict between the two statements.
MR. HALEY responded that the intent is to provide a general rule
with a condition that the difference in price or rate must be
reasonably related to the value provided by the sale of data.
3:59:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the problem is in the
writing or in the "pure difficulty" of the concept. He said,
"To say that it has to be equal, but then it can be different,
that just seems like a stiff challenge."
MR. HALEY replied that the general rule is that while a business
could not retaliate against a person for disallowing the sale of
their information, a business may charge a different rate or
provide a different level of service if the difference is
reasonably related to the value of the data.
4:00:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked Mr. Haley whether there is a reason
that outright denying a good or service would not be allowed.
MR. HALEY responded that the subsection is attempting to create
a scenario where consumers are always going to be able to have
at least some ability to access various services and social
media companies without having to give up their privacy rights.
If denying a service was included, he said, it wouldn't fit well
within the concept because it's not possible to provide a
different rate for a service when that service is denied
altogether. He said that complete denial of a service would
mean that consumers could be faced with losing a service they've
used for years.
4:03:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that a business could force
acceptance of data sharing by refusing to continue providing
services.
4:03:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE expressed the idea of a social media site
such as Facebook being so integrated into the fabric of society
that it could be regulated like a utility. He asked, "Is it a
private business that has the ability to exclude access ... or
is it a common piece of infrastructure to society that should be
regulated on a federal level?"
4:04:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS pointed out that Facebook can't be used on a
smart phone unless it has access to an individual's private
phone contacts. He said he would like to see functional federal
regulations but, he said, "Congress is broken, so I think we
have no choice but to do it in Alaska."
4:05:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his belief that social media
companies regularly ban users because of their political
beliefs. He mentioned the possibility of a consumer bill of
rights and said that there may be "traps" which may never be
reconciled within the current structure.
4:05:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opined that the challenge with broader
principles is that there would be endless litigation.
4:06:20 PM
MR. HALEY resumed his presentation of the sectional analysis,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 45.49.110. Transfer of information in a merger or
acquisition.
This section authorizes a business to transfer
personal information to a third-party as part of a
merger or acquisition of all or part of the business.
If the new owner decides to change the policy for use
or sharing of the personal information in a material
way, they must notify the consumer before making the
change and ensure that existing customers can easily
exercise their rights under this chapter. The new
owner may not make material, retroactive privacy
policy or other changes in a manner that violates
state law.
Sec. 45.49.120. Duty to maintain reasonable security
measures.
Under this section, a business that owns,
licenses, or maintains personal information has to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures
to protect the information from unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
4:07:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether there is an advocacy group
that has set some standard that could be referred to as
"reasonable." He then asked Mr. Haley to comment on the
definition of "reasonable" from the perspective of the
Department of Law.
MR. HALEY responded that concepts such as two-step
authentication exist for privacy protections. He pointed out
that, while the term "reasonable" is a term that has a degree of
vagueness, it's a common standard in law and is necessary
because standards change over time. He said that two-step
authentication has become standard because of the way scammers'
techniques have developed over time. He said that as technology
changes, standards of what is reasonable also change.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE commented that the Federal Trade
Commission may have such standards in place.
4:09:31 PM
MR. HALEY resumed his presentation of the sectional analysis for
HB 149, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 45.49.130. Violations.
This section makes a violation of this chapter a
violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act under AS 45.50.471 45.50.561. This
section also creates a presumption that a consumer
whose personal information is subjected to
unauthorized activity has suffered a loss of $1 or an
amount proven at trial. The number of violations may
be counted by each action or omission, each person
affected, or each day the activity continues,
whichever is greater. Funds recovered as a result of
an action under this section may be appropriated to
the consumer privacy account created in AS 45.49.140,
below, for the Department of Law to offset costs
incurred in connection with enforcing this chapter.
MR. HALEY said that in order to bring a claim against a business
under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, an
individual would be required to show an ascertainable loss of
money or property. He said that it's very likely that a
consumer would not be able to demonstrate such a loss because a
business may refuse to respond to a disclosure request. He
pointed out that if an action is brought under AS 45.50.531, the
Private Person Unfair Trade Practices Act, an automatic loss of
$1 is created in order to get a business into court.
4:13:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 159 was held over.
HB 58-CONTRACEPTIVES COVERAGE: INSURE; MED ASSIST
4:14:18 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to insurance
coverage for contraceptives and related services; relating to
medical assistance coverage for contraceptives and related
services; and providing for an effective date."
4:14:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 58. He said that HB 58 would bring
Alaska's statutes into consistency with the federal
contraceptive coverage guarantee, and mandate coverage for
dispensing up to 12 months of contraceptives at a time. He said
Alaskans often face challenges in trying to access
contraceptives; for women in rural areas, multiple trips to a
pharmacy can be an insurmountable barrier to consistent
contraception, and a one-year's supply would help balance health
with work and family life. He said that research shows that
women who are allowed a 12-month supply of contraceptives have a
30 percent drop in unplanned pregnancy and a 46 percent drop in
the likelihood of abortion, compared to women who are allowed
only a one- or three-month supply. He pointed out that HB 58
would also save money for the state, due to a reduction in
unplanned pregnancies. He said that improved access to
contraception improves health for women and families, and he
pointed out that HB 58 would support victims of reproductive
coercion, or "contraceptive coercion," by providing long-acting
reversible contraceptives (LARCs) or a 12-month supply of birth
control. He said that a strong, longstanding body of evidence
recognizes contraceptives as vital components of public health
care that help women avoid unintended pregnancy and improve
birth spacing, which have positive consequences for women,
families, and society. The evidence strongly suggests that
insurance coverage of contraceptive services, he said, is a low-
cost or even cost-saving means of helping women.
4:20:49 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, detailed the sectional analysis for HB 59 on behalf
of Representative Claman, prime sponsor. She read the sectional
analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1
AS 21.42.427. Coverage for contraceptives.
Amends AS 21.42 by adding a new section which (1)
requires a health care insurer to provide coverage for
prescription contraceptives and medical services
necessary for those products or devices (including
over-the-counter emergency contraception that was
obtained without a prescription); (2) requires
reimbursement to a health care provider or dispensing
entity for dispensing prescription contraceptives
intended to last for a 12-month period for subsequent
dispensing; (3) prevents an insurer from offsetting
the costs of compliance; (4) prevents an insurer from
restricting or delaying coverage for contraceptives;
(5) if the provider recommends a particular service or
FDA-approved item based on a determination of medical
necessity, the plan or issuer must cover that service
or item without cost sharing; and (6) exempts
religious employers if certain criteria are met.
Section 2
AS 29.10.200. Limitation of home rule powers.
Amends AS 29.10.200 by adding a provision applying to
home rule municipalities.
Section 3
AS 29.20.420. Health insurance policies.
Amends AS 29.20 by adding a new section clarifying
that municipal health care insurance plans that are
self-insured are subject to the requirements of sec.
1.
Section 4
AS 39.30.090. Procurement of group insurance.
Clarifies that a group health insurance policy
covering employees of a participating governmental
unit is subject to the requirements of sec. 1.
Section 5
AS 39.30.091. Authorization for self-insurance and
excess loss insurance.
Clarifies that a self-insured group medical plan
covering active state employees provided under this
section is subject to the requirements of sec. 1.
Section 6
AS 47.07.065. Payment for prescribed drugs.
Requires the Department of Health and Social Services
to pay for prescription contraceptives intended to
last for a 12-month period for subsequent dispensing
for eligible recipients of medical assistance, if
prescribed to and requested by the recipient, as well
as medical services necessary for those products or
devices. The Department of Health and Social Services
must also provide coverage for over-the-counter
emergency contraception that was obtained without a
prescription.
Section 7
Uncodified law - applicability
Requires the Department of Health and Social Services
to immediately amend and submit for federal approval a
state plan for medical assistance coverage consistent
with sec. 6 of this Act.
Section 8
Uncodified law - applicability
Makes sec. 6 of the Act conditional on the approval
required under sec. 7 of the Act.
Section 9
If sec. 6 of this Act takes effect, it takes effect on
the day after the date the revisor of statutes
receives notice from the commissioner of health and
social services under sec. 8 of this Act.
4:24:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether insurance companies would
be required to pay for 12 months of contraceptives. He
expressed the concern that a person may receive the full
prescription and then no longer be covered by insurance, and he
asked whether there exists a requirement for other medications
to be covered in a similar manner.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that a person would be able to
continue taking their prescribed medication in such a scenario.
He pointed out that if someone receives 12 months of birth
control, then changes jobs after six months, the new employer's
insurance wouldn't have to pay for the birth control the person
was previously prescribed.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked what concerns have been expressed
by representatives in the insurance industry.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that the insurance industry has
expressed no concerns.
4:27:12 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:27:35 PM
LORI WING-HEIR, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, said that
insurance companies are aware of the existence of the proposed
legislation, but that they have not contacted the Division of
Insurance with any comments.
4:28:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that this is the third time that the
sponsor has introduced the proposed legislation. She commented
that other medications are available for longer periods of time.
MS. WING-HEIR said, "That is a very good point." She pointed
out that most prescriptions have a 90-day or even a six-month
supply, and she said that the Division of Insurance encouraged
health care providers to allow longer supplies of medication
during the pandemic.
4:29:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed concerns about setting a
precedent for longer supplies of medications.
MS. WING-HEIR explained that insurance plans operate on either a
fiscal year or calendar year. If a patient has an appointment
in November and receives a three-month supply of medication, she
said, the patient may have a new insurer or plan on January 1.
She stressed that it's quite common for insurance coverage to
change midway through a prescription supply.
4:31:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked for information on receiving
medications via mail.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that his understanding is that
insurers prefer mail order plans due to lower costs, but that
mail order plans are optional.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON expressed that mail order would be a
better way to receive medications.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he always has been a
supporter of mail order, but that many patients want a
consultation with a pharmacist, and he wouldn't want to stand in
the way of consumer choice.
4:34:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS interjected that he contacted a representative
from Aetna, and he said the company expressed that it was
"neutral" on HB 58.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that the insurance industry is
well-represented, and the committee and sponsor would be aware
of any concerns.
4:34:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER added that the provisions under HB 58
would result in fewer visits to the doctor, which would help
recover any costs to the insurance company. She pointed out
that several states allow contraceptive coverage for periods of
between 15 and 22 months.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ added that reducing unintended pregnancies
would also save money for insurance companies.
4:35:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN referred to page 1, line 11, of the text
of the proposed legislation and asked Representative Claman
about the inclusion of emergency contraception.
MS. KUBITZ responded that the inclusion of emergency
contraception was made during the hearings of HB 58 in the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee. She said the
intent of the inclusion was to allow someone who needs emergency
contraception to purchase it over-the-counter and then submit to
the insurance company for reimbursement.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked about being covered by insurance
with which a patient is "philosophically aligned."
MS. KUBITZ referenced the religious exemption discussed in the
sectional analysis, and she pointed out that employers that
object to emergency contraception have the option to choose a
certain plan.
4:37:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suggested a discussion with Ms. Wing-Heir
on religious exemptions for contraceptive coverage.
4:38:18 PM
MS. WING-HEIR stated that an employer does not have to offer
employees a plan that includes contraception.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked for clarification.
MS. WING-HEIR responded that an employer chooses an insurance
plan for a group.
4:40:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN referred to the text of the proposed
legislation, page 2, lines 28-30, which read as follows:
In this subsection, "cost containment" means
incentivizing the use of generic or lower cost
medications or the use of health care providers or
pharmacies that offer services or prescriptions at a
lower negotiated rate.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the language "avoids" other
opportunities for cost containment.
MS. KUBITZ responded that the inclusion of that language was a
compromise. She said that the sponsor wanted the option to
encourage the use of generic medications.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed the opinion that, as written,
it looks like it is defining cost containment.
4:41:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ shared her understanding that this provision
relates directly to contraception, so that cost containment
measures could exist without interfering in the doctor-patient
relationship. She pointed out that birth control has uses other
than simply preventing pregnancy, and generic options sometimes
don't meet the therapeutic need.
[HB 58 was held over.]
HB 44-PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTING; LICENSURE
4:43:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 44, "An Act relating to the practice of
accounting."
[Before the committee was CSHB 44(STA).]
4:43:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 44, thanked the committee.
4:44:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that the proposed legislation would
increase oversight of out-of-state accountants who provide
services within Alaska.
4:45:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY shared his support for the proposed
legislation.
4:45:35 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ expressed understanding that the proposed
legislation would eliminate the licensing fee for out-of-state
accountants. She asked how the state would have the resources
for enforcement.
4:46:42 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing (CBPL), Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development, said that CBPL is not
anticipating a spike in investigations as a result of the
proposed legislation; other states have not seen an increase in
investigations; there have been no demonstrable investigations
of out-of-state practitioners; and eliminating this particular
permit would save the resources normally used in the front-end
audit process.
4:47:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ shared that there exists currently a $300
application fee and a $900 permit for out-of-state partnerships
and limited liability companies. She asked whether those fees
would continue to exist under the proposed legislation.
MS. CHAMBERS deferred to Ms. Hondolero.
4:48:29 PM
CORI HONDOLERO, Executive Administrator, Board of Public
Accountancy, Divisions of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development, responded that those fees would no longer
be incoming. She said that the number of licenses total 98,
with an expiration date of December 31, 2021.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that eliminating the fees for out-of-
state licensees would result in a revenue loss of $88,000.
MS. HONDOLERO replied that the amount sounds accurate.
4:50:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Tarver to explain the ways in which
the proposed legislation would provide greater oversight of
firms based outside Alaska.
KAREN TARVER, CPA, Elgee Rehfeld, LLC, pointed out that AS
08.04.421, which is the out-of-state permit and exemption
section, would be deleted in its entirety. The way the statute
currently reads, she said, an exemption is allowed for out-of-
state firms that are not providing audit services. The proposed
changes include an exemption for all attestation services, which
include audit services as well as financial statement review,
review of prospective financial statements, other engagements
done in accordance with a public accounting oversight board, and
any exemption examinations that follow the standards of
attestation engagements as published by AICPA. She explained
that the new statute would let firms know that if a licensee is
practicing in Alaska and is providing anything in the practice
of public accounting as defined by statute, that licensee is
accepting Alaska's statutes and regulations.
4:54:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that she is concerned about the
possibility of reducing revenues to CBPL by $88,000.
MS. CHAMBERS explained that the Board of Public Accountancy at
CBPL has a surplus of several hundred thousand dollars, which
should remain for approximately the next four to six years, at
which time firm mobility in Alaska may be reexamined. She
pointed out that it's the opinion of CBPL and the board that the
lack of license revenue is counteracted by the ability of Alaska
practitioners to work in other states.
4:57:54 PM
LESLIE SCHMITZ, Chair, Board of Public Accountancy, Division of
Corporations, Business, and Public Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, agreed with Ms.
Chambers' assessment that the loss of fees is worth the
expansion of mobility for Alaska-based accountants. She pointed
out that the board would have more oversight over the services
provided by out-of-state accountants to Alaskan clients.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether Ms. Schmitz studied how firm
mobility works in smaller states.
MS. SCHMITZ deferred to Mr. Neill.
5:00:09 PM
THOMAS NEILL, CPA, Chair, Uniform Accountancy Act Committee,
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AIPCA), said
that he checked with AIPCA staff regarding the existence of
feedback or complaints on the specific issue of mobility.
Hearing none, he said, he approached Jennifer Sciba, Deputy
Director of the Washington State Board of Accountancy, who said
that there have been very few, if any, complaints about out-of-
state firms practicing within states that have adopted firm
mobility. He said, "There's no statistical data because, from
what I'm hearing, it's just not happening."
5:02:29 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report CSHB 44(STA) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 44(STA) was reported out
of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
5:03:19 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 12 version A 5.7.2021.PDF |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Testimony Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Testimony Department of Defense 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Research Division of Corporations Military Licensing Presentation 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Sponsor Statement 5.7.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Supporting Document- Top Spouse Professions DoD 2012.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SL&C 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Supporting Document- Millitary Courtesy License Statute.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SL&C 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Supporting Document - DCCED.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SL&C 4/26/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM SSTA 3/4/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| SB 12 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 2.26.2021.PDF |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HMLV 5/11/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| HB 58 -Additional Support Received as of 5.11.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Letters of Support as of 5.6.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Fiscal Note DOA-DRB 4.12.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Fiscal Note DCCED-DOI 4.9.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Fiscal Note DHSS-MS 4.9.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Additional Document - Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives 4.1.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Additional Document - HRSA Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 v. B 4.22.2021.PDF |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Unintended Pregnancies Study March 2011 3.30.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - UCSF Study Newspaper Article 2.11.2011.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Guttmacher Public Costs from Unintended Pregnancies February 2015 3.30.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Sponsor Statement v. B 4.22.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Supporting Document - Guttmacher Alaska Statistics 2016 3.30.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| HB 58 Sectional Analysis v. B 4.22.2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/7/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/17/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Sectional Analysis v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Sectional Analysis, v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Sponsor Statement, v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Summary of Sectional Analysis, v. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Explanation of changes version A to I.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) v. I.PDF |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| CS HB 44 (STA) Fiscal Note, DCCED, 4.6.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Legal Services Memo 3-17-2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/23/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Legal Services Memo 3-15-2021.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/16/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 159 - Additional Public Comment Received as of 5.11.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Sectional Analysis version A 4.1.21.pdf |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Sponsor Statement version A 4.1.21.pdf |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 version A 3.31.21.PDF |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Fiscal Note DCCED 3.31.2021.PDF |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Fiscal Note Law 3.31.2021.PDF |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Testimony Received as of 4.26.21.pdf |
HL&C 4/23/2021 8:00:00 AM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Ad Trade Letter of Opposition 4.22.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 44 Follow-Up Attachment - Legislative Report by Profession - FY20.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 44 Follow-Up Information from CBPL (5.11.21).pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 44 |
| HB 159 Invited Testimony Bill Suggestions - Chris Koa.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Invited Testimony - Ashkan Soltani 5.17.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |
| HB 159 Testimony, Ashkan Soltani, 5.17.21.pdf |
HL&C 5/12/2021 3:15:00 PM |
HB 159 |