Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/09/2000 08:20 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2000
8:20 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Harold Smalley
Representative Jim Whitaker
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 292
"An Act adopting the National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact; making criminal justice information available to
interested persons and criminal history record information
available to the public; making certain conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
"An Act requiring written consent by the person who is the
subject of the information before releasing personal information
contained in motor vehicle records, to comply with 18 U.S.C.
2721; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 324 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 270
"An Act relating to sexual assault and sexual abuse and to
payment for certain examinations in cases of alleged sexual
assault or sexual abuse."
- MOVED CSSSHB 270(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act relating to recruitment, selection, appointment, and
promotion of state employees and the duties of the Department of
Administration concerning those and other related functions; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 317(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 299
"An Act relating to rates charged in a Pioneers' Home."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 292
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/00 1954 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/21/00 1954 (H) STA, JUD
1/21/00 1955 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
1/21/00 1955 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
1/21/00 1955 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
2/22/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/22/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
2/29/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/29/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/02/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/02/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/07/00 (H) Heard & Held
3/07/00 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 324
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFO IN MOTOR VEH. RECORDS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/02/00 2060 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/02/00 2060 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
2/02/00 2060 (H) FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
2/02/00 2060 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/02/00 2060 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
3/02/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/02/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SSHB 270
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT & SEXUAL ABUSE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/10/00 1890 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/00
1/10/00 1890 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/10/00 1890 (H) STA, HES, FIN
1/21/00 1976 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
2/16/00 2224 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SMALLEY
2/18/00 2236 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
2/18/00 2237 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/18/00 2237 (H) STA, HES, FIN
2/18/00 2237 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: STATE EMPLOYEE HIRE AND PROMOTION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/24/00 1991 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/24/00 1991 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
1/24/00 1991 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS)
1/24/00 1991 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/29/00 (H) MLV AT 4:30 PM CAPITOL 120
2/29/00 (H) Moved CSHB 317(MLV) Out of Committee
2/29/00 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
3/03/00 2393 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) NT 5DP
3/03/00 2394 (H) DP: CROFT, PHILLIPS, JAMES, CISSNA,
3/03/00 2394 (H) MURKOWSKI
3/03/00 2394 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL
DEPTS)1/24/00
3/03/00 2394 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 299
SHORT TITLE: PIONEERS HOME RATES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/00 1961 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/21/00 1962 (H) STA, HES, FIN
1/21/00 1962 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
3/07/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/07/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/09/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
MARY MARSHBURN, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 324.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 270.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 270.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
130 Seward Street, Room 209
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided agency's position and answered
questions regarding HB 270.
TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 270.
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager
Department of Administration
PO Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 270.
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 299.
MAREL HAKALA
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 299.
IRENE PAYTON
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 299.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:20 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Green, Hudson, and
Ogan. Representatives Smalley and Whitaker were excused and
Representative Kerttula was ill.
HB 292-DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
Number 0030
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 292, "An Act adopting the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact; making criminal justice information available to
interested persons and criminal history record information
available to the public; making certain conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JAMES commented that the committee had finished public
hearing and discussion on HB 292 during the committee meeting of
March 7, 2000. She asked the members if there was any more
discussion on HB 292 before moving it out of committee.
Number 0070
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he objected to moving HB 292 out of
committee. He noted he had articulated his reasons in the
meeting of March 7, 2000 and believes there are some potential
constitutional problems regarding the possibility of violating
people's right to privacy. He explained that the biggest problem
he has with HB 292 is that a person is supposed to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty but according to HB 292 if a person
has been arrested, detained, indicted, or has any other formal
charge against him/her, including acquittal, this information
will be made available for civil uses which includes collection
agencies.
Number 0271
CHAIR JAMES stated that she would put HB 292 off until the
committee has a different quorum.
HB 324 - PERSONAL INFO IN MOTOR VEH. RECORDS
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 324, "An Act requiring written consent by the person who is
the subject of the information before releasing personal
information contained in motor vehicle records, to comply with 18
U.S.C. 2721; and providing for an effective date."
MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
She said the purpose of HB 324 is to bring state law into
compliance with recently passed federal legislation regarding
confidentiality of vehicle records. She noted that HB 324 does
apply only to vehicle records and does not apply to driver's
license or driver information which is already private and
confidential covered under a separate statute. She explained
that the original federal law after which the Alaska statute was
modeled allowed information from vehicle records to be disclosed
for eleven permitted uses, ten of which uses were vehicle
centered because they involved uses by law enforcement, the court
system, government agencies in hearings, and uses like that. The
eleventh use, she added, permitted the information to be
disclosed for mass marketing for bulk surveys if the owner of the
vehicle had not prohibited the release of that information.
MS. MARSHBURN commented that the new federal law and HB 324
retains allowable uses by government agencies in various
proceedings for law enforcement but the new federal law did
change relating to mass marketing. She mentioned that under HB
324 information for the purpose of mass marketing cannot be
disclosed unless the owner has given specific permission. She
informed the committee that federal legislation mandates that
Alaska be in compliance with the new law by June 1,2000 or suffer
daily sanctions until the state is in compliance.
Number 0500
CHAIR JAMES stated that for reasons of illustration, assume that
someone is parked on her property and the only recourse that she
has is to call the license plate number in to the police.
However, she noted that where she lives, the few police available
are very busy with more important calls and do not have time for
nuisance calls. She inquired as to how she is supposed to
address her rights in view of HB 324.
MS. MARSHBURN replied that statutes apply if a vehicle is parked
on personal property. She indicated that Chair James' first
recourse is correct in calling the police and as Chair James
suspected, HB 324 does not allow divulgence of vehicle
information except to a government agency for law enforcement
purposes.
CHAIR JAMES explained that she owns a small motel and in the past
when cars were left parked at her motel she could request vehicle
[owner] information in order to contact the owner and get the
vehicle removed but now under HB 324 she will not be able to make
that inquiry.
Number 0769
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that HB 324 sounds like it will
eliminate junk mail.
Number 0805
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated that HB 324 seems to be moving
along positive lines.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move HB 324 out of
committee with individual recommendations, attached zero fiscal
note and unanimous consent. There being no objection, HB 324
moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SSHB 270-SEXUAL ASSAULT & SEXUAL ABUSE
Number 0873
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is SPONSOR
SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 270, "An Act relating to sexual
assault and sexual abuse and to payment for certain examinations
in cases of alleged sexual assault or sexual abuse."
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, said there
is a proposed CS that makes minor changes and it should be
adopted for discussion.
Number 0903
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for
SSHB 270, version 1-LS1108\M, Luckhaupt, 2/25/00, as a work
draft. There being no objection, proposed CSHB 270 was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the issue that brought the
proposed CS to his attention is forensic examinations after a
sexual assault. He recognized that sexual assault examinations
are a delicate and troubling issue so it is all the more
important that the committee consider it. He observed that
someone who has been sexually assaulted has already been
victimized once and the exam that is necessary to gather evidence
about the crime is, in some ways, a second victimization. He
reiterated that the forensic exam is unpleasant and
uncomfortable.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he had heard of victims being
asked to pay for the forensic exam with his/her health insurance.
He noted that it is not standard police practice [to request
payment for forensic exams] and the committee will hear testimony
from police agencies to that effect. He explained that the
request to pay is only for isolated incidents but it is
particularly troubling because it seems to indicate third level
victimization. He commented that if someone's house was
burglarized and the police came to investigate the crime, dusted
for fingerprints, and took pictures, the homeowner's insurance
would not be billed. Therefore, he added, charging a sexual
assault victim for a forensic exam does not seem ethical.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned that the proposed CS makes very
small changes, for example, it defines the crime more
specifically. He indicated that the reason there is both a
sponsor substitute and a proposed CS to HB 270 is because it was
difficult to write the legislation even though the sponsor knew
what he wanted to accomplish. He informed the committee that in
the first draft the sponsor had written "a law enforcement agency
shall pay for the [forensic exam]" and that applied to both
adult and juvenile sexual assault. He emphasized that the
writing became complicated because there are various ways
agencies pay for sexual exams and for children there is a
compassionate model, Alaska Cares, that uses Medicaid money.
Therefore, he acknowledged, when the sponsor tried the approach
that told who would pay, some of these paying programs were
precluded.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked that juvenile victims were
problematical because from whom did agencies ask permission to
conduct a forensic exam. He reminded the committee that parents
must give permission for a juvenile to be examined and parents
sometimes are the prime suspect in juvenile sexual assault. He
added that parents can stop a sexual exam. He observed that
writing HB 270 just became so difficult in the juvenile area that
the sponsor left out the juvenile section and concentrated on
what the sponsor knew he could write correctly.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he is a member of the Standing
Together Against Rape (STAR) Board and that is where he heard
about some of these issues. He noted that there are many small
things that people can do for victims of sexual assault, for
example, providing clothes for a victim to use after the forensic
exam. He explained that when a victim goes to the hospital the
victim's clothes are seized as evidence. He commented that
providing clothing for victims is a small step but necessary
because otherwise the victim has to go home in a taxi dressed in
a hospital gown or borrow someone else's clothes. He mentioned
that he had tried to bring before the committee concrete examples
of what victims go through and how they can be helped and the
reason there are no direct witnesses is because it is difficult
to talk about the issue. He indicated that the proposed CS asks
all police agencies to conform to no charge for forensic exams.
Number 1393
CHAIR JAMES remarked that after hearing what sexual assault
victims must go through she is not sure she would report a sexual
assault because it sounds so awful and then to have to pay for
[the forensic exam is the outside of enough]. She added that she
supports the proposed CS as a good move in the right direction.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the proposed CS only applies to
adults.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered in the affirmative. He noted that
sexual assault crimes are generally perpetrated against adults
while statutory rape is in the section regarding juveniles.
However, he added, a juvenile sexual assault can fall under the
proposed CS guidelines so the proposed CS had to read both adult
victims and crimes that are non-statutory rape. He reiterated
that it had become very complicated to write a bill that applied
to juveniles which did not result in more harm than good,
therefore, the proposed CS only applies to adult victims. He
said that one of the problems in writing a bill that applied to
juveniles was the funding mechanism that is used in juvenile
cases and the other problem was who gives permission for the
juvenile to undergo a forensic exam.
Number 1597
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understands from Representative
Croft that no one will be falling through the cracks if the
proposed CS is adopted.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
testified in support of HB 270. He noted that it has always been
the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the
collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal
prosecution. Under no circumstances, he explained, has he ever
thought it appropriate to bill a victim or even by extension bill
the victim's insurance company. He commented that he does not
think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual
assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He
emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay
because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of
evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police
agency that has requested payment. The Department of Public
Safety paid $48,659 in fiscal year (FY) 1999 for sexual assault
exams in the state, and so far in FY 2000 the department has paid
$22,880. He indicated that paying for exams had never been an
issue in the department or in the Anchorage Police Department.
He reiterated Representative Croft's comment that Alaska Cares
handles juvenile sexual assault exams, and the department is
pleased with the proposed CS because it leaves payment of
juvenile exams with Alaska Cares.
Number 1750
CHAIR JAMES asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Smith is
saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams.
MR. SMITH replied that the department might have been billed, but
he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim.
CHAIR JAMES said she understood then that some other entity
billed victims and that the department did not think HB 270 was
necessary for the department.
MR. SMITH answered that he did not think HB 270 was necessary for
the Department of Public Safety under the current administration,
but he would feel more comfortable if there were a law that would
make sure sexual exam billings were discontinued.
Number 1789
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Smith if he believes that requiring payment
for the exams under the proposed CS will be not create a fiscal
note since the Department of Public Safety has been paying for
the exams already.
Number 1793
MR. SMITH replied that the proposed CS will not create a fiscal
note and he thinks the proposed CS is a good bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had heard Mr. Smith agree with the
sponsor who had presented a very convincing discussion about why
the proposed CS only deals with adults and that children would
not fall through the cracks. He asked what if "Maud" claims to
have been attacked, and the evidence does not trigger a police
agency authorized forensic exam. Nevertheless, "Maud" is still
convinced and she wants to prove sexual assault so she goes ahead
and has forensic evidence taken. In that case, he asked, would
the police agency still pay for the exam or would the individual
pay. Further, he added, the exam showed that "Maud" was in fact
sexually assaulted.
MR. SMITH answered that the agency should pay in all situations
where police are involved in the investigation. He noted that if
someone had a sexual assault examination done and then contacted
the police agency, it would be problematic in deciding who pays.
Number 1873
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that his concern is not that a person
would come in after getting a sexual exam but that a person comes
to the police first and claims to have been violated. He asked
if the person is automatically examined then or is a decision
made whether an examination is warranted.
MR. SMITH expected that if a person reports that he/she has been
sexually assaulted, unless there is some reason to believe that
he/she is making up a claim, the agency would agree to check to
see if in fact a sexual assault occurred since that is the point
of the examination. He believes that, as a police administrator,
an examination needs to be done if there is an allegation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that it sounds like the department is
effectively paying for exams now, as Chair James had observed.
Therefore, the proposed CS re-establishes that the department
will do this.
Number 1954
MR. SMITH replied that it is basically a policy decision and it
is current departmental practice.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that the proposed CS is a
compassionate statement, the cost is nothing, and it speaks well
to any woman who might be a victim. He said the proposed CS is
good legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN inquired as to how many sexual assaults
happen in the state in a year and how does Alaska rank per
capita.
MR. SMITH answered that he believed that Anchorage received 300
reports a year and he guesses that the number statewide might be
600.
Number 2058
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), said that not everyone knows what is
involved in a rape exam; it is not to be taken lightly. If a
person goes into the hospital for a rape exam right after the
event has happened, he/she still has the clothes on in which the
rape took place. She noted that the clothes will be taken from
the person and kept for evidence. She commented that the person
stands in the middle of the examining room on a white piece of
paper and the first thing he/she does is take off his/her
clothes. The clothes are laid on the paper, and the person is
brushed down because the person is the crime scene. The paper is
folded up, set aside, and becomes the beginning of a stack of
papers for evidence. Next someone takes a fingernail file and
goes under each of the person's fingernails to find skin or hair
identifying the perpetrator. Then the person's hair is combed to
look for evidence and then the person is examined for bruises,
scratch marks or cuts. A small comb is taken out of an envelope,
and the nurse combs the person's pubic hair, again, looking for
evidence. She observed that the person's body orifice is
examined for semen, and swabs are taken to collect evidence. She
stated that the person has to pluck his/her own pubic hairs in
order to identify that person's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to
see what is different from the perpetrator's DNA. A regular
gynecological exam is also performed to ascertain if there are
tears or injuries inside of the person.
MS. HUGONIN said that the sexual exam can take anywhere from 40
minutes to three hours depending upon the person's ability to be
able to endure someone's touch and examination after this
terrible experience. Sometimes, she added, a person is not
admitted right away to the examining room so the person could be
in the waiting room for three hours. Hopefully a person has the
company of a sexual assault intervention program advocate to wait
with, but that is not always the case. The examination process
can last from one hour to eight hours. It is hoped that when the
person is able to leave [the hospital], the person is able to
walk out and go home.
MS. HUGONIN mentioned that in the best of circumstances the
perpetrator is caught, evidence has been collected and used in
the prosecution to a good end, and the perpetrator is jailed.
She indicated that as the victim recovers from this heinous
crime, at every point where the victim has to relive it, the
victim does relive it because it is not something that can be
forgotten. She emphasized that it is incomprehensible that the
victim should have to relive the crime upon receiving a bill for
the assault exam from his/her insurance company. Just as Mr.
Smith had testified, billings have not come from police agencies
but have come from hospitals. She hopes everything can be done
to expedite the proposed CS because people must understand that
it is not acceptable for the system to re-victimize someone who
has gone through such a horrible experience.
MS. HUGONIN reminded the committee that last year there were 325
reported sexual assaults in Anchorage and 600 statewide. She
observed that in FY 99 her program saw 1000 victims of sexual
assault. She stated that not everybody reports and not everybody
gets exams done. Per capita, she added, Alaska ranks in the top
five for sexual assaults which is 2.2 times over the national
average in the FBI Uniform Crime Report.
Number 2408
TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence &
Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 270. She said that
the council believes that the proposed CS needs to be on the
record so that when those rare situations do arise, hospitals and
police officers have clear direction not to charge sexual assault
victims for the exam. She noted that in those cases when a
victim wants an exam but the police do not think it is justified,
the victim can get a medical exam. She explained that a forensic
exam is a very specific process; in most parts of the state there
are sexual assault response teams available to cooperate with
police. She explained that sexual assault response teams are
made up of trained nurses, examiners, and advocates who are able
to meet with a victim. She acknowledged that there are times
when a victim is not sure he/she wants to go through with a
forensic exam, but he/she has health concerns so instead of going
through a forensic exam he/she chooses to go to a doctor for a
medical exam.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he understood that a medical exam choice
on the part of a victim is a personal choice and would not be
affected by the proposed CS.
Number 2568
MS. GENTLE agreed with Representative Ogan's statement and added
that the victim's exam would not be identified as a sexual
assault exam.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented he is puzzled as to why hospitals
are sending bills to victims when the exam has obviously been
ordered by a local police department.
Number 2591
MS. GENTLE answered that there have been changes in hospital
protocol, and hospitals have chosen to separate some of the costs
of sexual assault exams. Hospitals are adding sexually
transmitted disease (STD) and blood tests to the cost of sexual
assault exams, and the hospital makes a choice to bill the victim
for those charges. Police departments are willing to pay for
sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part
of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill. She indicated
that there is an issue of insensitivity.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Ms. Gentle planned to notify the
public, hospitals, and organizations that HB 270 has passed and
become law.
MS. GENTLE replied that her organization has many ways to
implement public notice and does have a committee that has been
working on sexual assault protocols.
Number 2833
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to how many women refuse to go
through the lengthy forensic process of proving sexual assault.
MS. GENTLE answered that nationally about one in ten women choose
to report a rape, and surveys of general population reveal that
one in four women has been sexually abused in her lifetime. She
emphasized how important the advocate's role is in helping women
recover, and if a victim will call an advocate agency the victim
will get support. She remarked that advocate agencies help a
victim see what options are available and what the real picture
is. She stated that the proposed CS helps make sexual assault as
bearable as possible. She reiterated that a low percentage of
women report a sexual assault, even fewer go to trial, and even
fewer perpetrators are convicted.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it were true that most sexual
assault victims knew the perpetrator.
Number 2960
MS. GENTLE replied in the affirmative but wanted to define what
"known" means. There is a new term called "acquaintance rape,"
and that could mean a best friend's husband or real relationships
where the man and woman know each other to an apartment building
acquaintance. She noted that a distinct grooming behavior
pattern is enacted to get into someone's confidence, although she
acknowledged that intimate partner violence is one of the biggest
crimes against women.
TAPE 00-19, SIDE B
Number 2967
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the proposed CS also applies to a
male victim.
MS. GENTLE replied absolutely.
CHAIR JAMES noted that she had received information from an e-
mail that listed ten things to protect against sexual assault.
One of the protections was to be aware of what is happening
around one, for example, not walking alone in a parking lot.
Another protection is to keep the car and house locked, but the
best protection was to be aware.
MS. GENTLE mentioned that women's shelters are trying to help
people understand the importance of awareness. She indicated
that perpetrators are looking for vulnerable people.
Number 2687
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move the proposed CS for HB
270, version 1-LS1108\M, Luckhaupt, 2/25/00, from committee with
individual recommendations, the attached zero fiscal note, and
ask for unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSSSHB
270(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 317-STATE EMPLOYEE HIRE AND PROMOTION
Number 2674
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 317, "An Act relating to recruitment, selection, appointment,
and promotion of state employees and the duties of the Department
of Administration concerning those and other related functions;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 2655
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel,
Department of Administration, presented the sponsor statement for
HB 317. He said that HB 317 is a clean-up bill designed to
refresh the Personnel Act with respect to the state's recruitment
and selection process. He noted that for a long time the state
has used a paper and labor intensive method for accepting and
reviewing applications and preparing an eligible list for hiring
managers in the state system. He explained that Workplace Alaska
is an electronic system that allows job seekers to file a single
electronic resume which is attached to vacancy announcements
filed by hiring managers. He commented that the response time
for both applicants and managers is virtually instantaneous. He
mentioned that HB 317 changes references to "examination" and
"registers" to "assessment" and "lists of qualified individuals."
Number 2582
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that a bill was passed last year
dealing with the point system. He asked if HB 317 was cleanup to
conform with last year's bill.
CHAIR JAMES replied that HB 317 is to streamline applications and
review of applicants for state jobs.
MR. STEWART agreed. He noted that Representative Ogan was
referring to a bill that established a fixed point system for two
categories of veterans. He explained that HB 317 changed the
fixed point system to a percentage of total assessment. He
commented that HB 317 maintains the same relationship but under
the former examining system a veteran was awarded five or ten
points to the total of the examination score. He mentioned that
with the percentage system there is a variable assessment based
on the vacancy and the criteria for that vacancy.
Number 2501
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the new percentage system favors
veterans.
Number 2483
MR. STEWART replied that it was a "wash" for most of the
veterans.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said that the state used to hire from
registers. He asked if HB 317 conforms to the change to the
electronic system; he presumes the employee unions were satisfied
with that change.
MR. STEWART answered in the affirmative. He noted that all of
the collective bargaining units have referenced Workplace Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked when did the department do that.
MR. STEWART replied that the last of the bargaining unit
agreements were amended during the latest negotiations.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the bargaining unit agreements
were amended during that last round of negotiations.
Number 2396
MR. STEWART answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said then that HB 317 was the first change
in the statutes to comport to the new system.
MR. STEWART replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON inquired if HB 317 was necessary.
MR. STEWART answered that it was necessary in that the references
to "register" preclude the use of "hiring lists," and HB 317
allows the department to fully implement Workplace Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there was any language in HB 317
that provides any governor with the power to expand the exempt
and the partially exempt employees program without legislative
approval.
Number 2358
MR. STEWART replied that the exempt and partially exempt service
is only defined in statute and requires legislative action to
expand or change.
Number 2353
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he had mentioned this because in
reading through HB 317, he had seen some relationship to the
exempt and partially exempt service.
MR. STEWART answered that there is a reference in the statute to
the use of eligible lists as part of partial exemption. He
reiterated that an employee "can be" appointed to a partially
exempt position without going through a register, but the
statutory amendment changes that language so that an employee
"does not have to be" appointed from a list of eligible
candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if exempt or partially exempt
employees have rehire rights, or do they flow into the new system
so that they are eligible to take a numerical position within
that list in so far as the next opening is concerned.
MR. STEWART replied that there is nothing in HB 317 that
advantages that group.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he understood then that there is no
change to exempt or partially exempt provisions.
MR. STEWART answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR JAMES asked where the amendment came from.
MR. STEWART replied that the amendment came from the hearing with
the House Special Committee on Military and Veteran's Affairs.
CHAIR JAMES said she understood then that the amendment was just
clean-up language of the amendment that was put in to Military
and Veterans' Affairs legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was anything in current
statute that precludes the department from using this method
[Workplace Alaska].
MR. STEWART answered that reference in statute to "registers" and
"eligible lists" would limit the ability to enact regulations to
fully operate Workplace Alaska because the department is not
establishing master lists of Workplace Alaska. He said that the
department is shifting from maintaining eligible lists to a
vacancy-based recruitment system where the department only
collects a list of applicants when a vacancy occurs and is going
to be filled.
Number 2181
MR. STEWART noted that use of the system [Workplace Alaska]
allows people who are actually interested in the vacancy to apply
and be considered by the hiring manager.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that the state used to have
provisions for people who qualified under minority hire. He
asked if minority hire and underutilized was maintained in the
new Workplace Alaska program.
MS. STEWART replied in the affirmative and those candidates who
are considered underutilized through specifics provided by the
office of Equal Employment Opportunity are still marked as a
requirement of consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that some people were on 12
registers when the state maintained the register program and were
blocking other people from getting jobs. Therefore, he stated
that he believes HB 317 is the right way to go and it surprises
him that it has taken this long to change the statutes to comply
with the new procedure.
Number 2079
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if HB 317 makes a major change in how
people are hired as far as potential abuses on the part of
administration are concerned.
MR. STEWART answered that the fundamental change of HB 317 is
that rather than being tied to a costly time and paper manual
process, the state hiring process has now become electronic. He
said that the competitive nature of hiring and the merit system
are maintained. He noted that all of the hires in the classified
system are still based on an applicant's measure against the
minimum qualifications that are established through the
classification system and the collective bargaining unit process.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said then that there is nothing to fear in HB
317 as far as nepotism or "who you know" system.
MR. STEWART replied there was nothing to fear.
CHAIR JAMES acknowledged that does not mean that there are not
employees who are political appointees.
Number 1933
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered Amendment 1, 1-GH2050\G.1, Cramer,
3/4/00, which read:
Page 5, following line 12:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec. 5. AS 39.25.155(c) is amended to read:
(c) Applicants shall be placed on [ELIGIBLE]
lists for the vocational classification indicated
in their applications [SUBMITTED TO THE DIVISION
OF PERSONNEL IN THE ORDER OF THEIR RELATIVE
RANKING] based on an assessment of their
vocational [TECHNICAL] ability and [,] place of
residence [AND WITHOUT WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
APTITUDE OR OCCUPATIONAL TESTS MAY BE GIVEN IF A
POSITION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ABILITY].
*Sec. 6. AS 39.25.155(e) is amended to read:
(e) The director of personnel shall embody a
concept combined of vocational [TECHNICAL]
ability, place of residence, local hire, and area
unemployment in the personnel rules to accomplish
the intent of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 26:
Delete "secs. 1-14"
Insert "sec. 1-16"
Page 9, line 27:
Delete "Section 15"
Insert "Section 17"
Number 1915
CHAIR JAMES announced Amendment 1 is before the committee. She
directed attention to line 12 and said that the repealer was
repealed in the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans'
Affairs. She asked if there was any opposition to Amendment 1.
Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 317(MLV),
version 1-GH2050\G, as amended out of committee with attached
zero fiscal note, individual recommendations, and asked for
unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHB 317(STA) moved
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 299-PIONEERS HOME RATES
Number 1808
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 299, "An Act relating to rates charged in a Pioneers' Home."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he introduced HB 299 because of rate
increases at Pioneers' Homes. He noted that HB 299 will remove
rate setting power from the administration and give that
authority to the legislature. He explained he thinks this is
necessary because many people had moved into a Pioneers' Home
after having made a lifetime decision that entailed liquidating
assets and moving out of their own homes. These people had
expected to live out their days under a certain deal agreed upon
with the Pioneers' Home, but that deal has changed dramatically.
He mentioned that if rate setting is transferred to legislative
overview, a consistent policy will emerge because legislators are
held responsible for their public policy every two or four years.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated that Pioneers' Homes were set up
originally to be homes for Alaskan pioneers, which is the reason
for the name. He acknowledged that a number of court cases have
ruled that people must be treated equally, therefore, the
criteria for the original mission of Pioneers' Homes has
dramatically changed to the extent that anyone can move in if
that person is a resident of the state. He informed the
committee that the court cases created a great demand for
services [offered by the Pioneers' Homes], and there seems to be
more people who suffer from different forms of dementia who are
entering the homes. The focus and mission of Pioneers' Homes has
changed from simply a residential facility into a long-term care
facility. The change is appropriate; for this reason there needs
to be discussion as to whether the Pioneers' Homes are going to
remain residential.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reminded the committee that the state should
honor the agreement that was made with those people when they
moved into Pioneers' Homes. He has seen their dignity taken away
from them, even though many of them had never been on welfare and
had provided for themselves their whole lives. As a result of
the dramatic rise in rates, some people residing in the homes
have literally had their dignity stripped from them. He stated
that the legislature has passed legislation assuring Pioneers'
Home residents that they will not be put out on the street if
they become indigent, and he agrees with that legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that he had heard comments from the
Department of Law regarding different rates for Pioneers' Home
residents even though that would not be treating them equally as
current law requires. He suggested perhaps the committee should
discuss whether the homes will continue to operate as residential
facilities. He noted that residents who agreed upon a certain
rate could be phased out by attrition because attrition may be
legally acceptable; a shift in focus could then follow. He
explained that a good example of attrition being legally
acceptable is the longevity bonus program; although that also had
been litigated on an equal protection basis, because it was going
to be phased out it was legal to continue the program with those
who already received a bonus.
Number 1502
CHAIR JAMES commented that there is a $1.2 million fiscal note
with HB 299. She asked if Representative Ogan would be willing
to take that money out of the earnings reserve or the permanent
fund.
Number 1485
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered in the affirmative, as soon as the
legislature constitutionally protects the existing dividend
program.
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
said that in 1995 the Pioneer Home Advisory Board adopted a
policy of raising rates over a defined period of time to the full
cost of care in the homes. Those rate increases started
effective July 1, 1996, and the last one will be in place in July
1, 2002; over a seven-year period, the department moves from low
rates to those that represent the full cost of care. She
commented that the fiscal note for HB 299 includes the rate
schedule. She mentioned that the administration had publicized
rate schedule information so that everybody knew where the
administration was headed.
MS. ELGEE indicated that the reason the Pioneer Home Advisory
Board felt it was important to raise rates is because in 1995
legislation had been introduced to privatize the homes, which
were being reviewed primarily due to state budget problems.
Also, she added, the state was heavily subsidizing a very few
people in a long-term care environment. In addition, as the
administration watched the senior population grow, it recognized
that the state was never going to be able to meet the majority of
the senior population's needs through the services that were
offered in a Pioneers' Home. She informed the committee that the
Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA) felt
that there was a great unfair competitive advantage. She
emphasized that ASHNHA felt that those people who had the good
fortune to get into a pioneer home at highly subsidized rates
were drawing from those folks who could benefit from skilled
nursing care and would otherwise be taken care of in another
long-term care facility.
MS. ELGEE said that at the same time the rate policy was adopted,
legislation was put in place that protected financial assets of
[pioneer home] residents, thus removing the danger of
impoverishing a spouse by pioneer home rates, retained certain
monthly allowances, exempted the permanent fund from collection,
placed a prohibition on reviewing financial resources for
admission, and precluded putting a person on the street if unable
to pay the rate. The department does not ask people about their
financial resources until people get to the point where they feel
they cannot continue to pay the rate. At that time the
department performs an assessment of financial resources,
determines an appropriate rate, and subsidizes the balance
through the state.
MS. ELGEE reminded the committee that HB 299 rolls rates back to
the rates in effect July 1, 1999, but HB 299 does represent $1.2
million revenue loss from the administration's current
environment. The administration anticipates that revenue loss
would be increasing as rates increase until the pioneer home rate
reaches full cost of care. She recognized that the
administration is dependent upon the receipt of those revenues in
its operating budget so the fiscal note shows the trade-off of
the revenue collected from the Pioneers' Homes with general
funds.
Number 1201
CHAIR JAMES asked if the cost of maintaining a person in a
Pioneers' Home is $10,000 per month.
MS. ELGEE replied that the cost varies, depending on the level of
care, and the rates are listed on the attachment to the fiscal
note to HB 299. She said that the rates listed at the bottom
labeled July 2002 represent the full cost of care.
CHAIR JAMES asked where someone came up with $10,000.
MS. ELGEE explained there is some confusion between what the
Pioneers' Home charges and costs in other long-term care
environments. She noted that there are nursing homes throughout
the state that charge a variety of rates, and some are as high as
$10,000 a month.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the [fiscal note] included any capital
expenditures.
Number 1077
MS. ELGEE answered in the negative. She commented that if the
administration were to add a depreciation component to the
facility rates, they would definitely be higher than the rates
listed on the fiscal note. She mentioned that depreciation
itself is not going to take $6500 and drive it to $10,000. The
$10,000 figure is a generalization based on averages found in the
Alaska long-term care market.
CHAIR JAMES said she understood that Ms. Elgee was talking about
other nursing homes around the state. She asked if the state
subsidizes other nursing homes in any way, and whether they are
Medicaid-paid or totally private.
MS. ELGEE replied that nursing homes are private for-profit and
nonprofit organizations. She noted that residential makeup
within a nursing home is running about 82 percent Medicaid
clients. Therefore, she added, to the degree that the
administration participates in the Medicaid program for long-term
care, the administration gets a state match for federal dollars
that are going to the nursing homes. She explained that
financial protection put in place for Pioneers' Home residents
was modeled after financial protections that are in place for the
Medicaid program. People looking for state assistance through
Medicaid or through Pioneers' Homes are treated comparably.
Number 0962
CHAIR JAMES asked if there is a waiting list for people to get
into the Pioneers' Homes.
MS. ELGEE answered that the administration continues to maintain
waiting lists, and it depends on location and level of care. She
mentioned that Pioneers' Homes have vacant beds for residential
level care identified on the rate list as coordinated services,
but people are not interested in that level of care. Without
additional staffing the department is unable to upgrade vacant
beds to a higher level of care. She indicated that the most
prevalent need on the waiting list is for enhanced assisted
living or for special Alzheimer disease and related dementia
(ADRD) services.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that she has been a strong advocate for
eight years of privatizing the homes but has not yet figured out
how to make it work.
Number 0868
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the state still has a provision
that allows people who cannot afford the cost of being in the
home to remain in the home while the state covers all the
expenses.
MS. ELGEE answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how many Pioneers' Home residents fit
into the category of those who cannot afford to pay.
MS. ELGEE replied that there are 220 people on state assistance,
and that number can vary based on the population. She observed
that does not mean people are not paying anything; people pay
what they can afford to pay. For example, if the monthly charge
is $2000 and the person can pay $1500, the person pays $1500.
The state picks up the difference.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked where the subsidy is listed in the
budget.
Number 0778
MS. ELGEE answered that a portion of the Pioneers' Home budget is
general funds, and a portion is Pioneers' Home revenue, so state
assistance is listed in general funds.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how many people pay the balance of
Pioneers' Home revenue.
MS. ELGEE replied about 350 people.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that HB 299 rolls back Pioneers'
Home rates to 1998 rates.
CHAIR JAMES said she thought that the legislature had fixed the
problem by previous legislation. She commented that she
sympathizes with and personally knows many of the folks who are
going through this problem, and she understands their
frustration. She noted that many seniors in the state are having
a hard time figuring how to stay in their homes, and at the same
time there are not enough assisted-living homes. She mentioned
that assisted-living homes are less expensive than Pioneers'
Homes, and if more people could be moved into assisted-living
homes, the state would probably save a lot of money. Currently,
she added, $34.50 per day is paid for "general relief medical
folks," but there is legislation before the legislature to raise
that to $75 per day.
Number 0570
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked the prime sponsor how HB 299 allows
for raising Pioneers' Home rates. He said he assumes that under
HB 299 the homes cannot raise rates by regulation but must come
to the legislature and propose raising rates.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied in the affirmative. He said the
fiscal note assumes that HB 299 will take effect. He added that
he had introduced HB 299 as a point of discussion and is willing
to modify the bill. He noted that the department might want to
make a policy call to stop providing coordinated services and
basic assisted living and to shift the focus to enhanced
[assisted living] and Alzheimer[-related services]. He stated
that he believed that people suffering Alzheimer's [disease]
should pay for services if they can pay, but the discussion needs
to be started about what is going to happen; this is why he
introduced HB 299. He is willing to sit down with the department
and hold a discussion to see if something can be worked out to
protect people who have already moved in and do not have other
options. Some people simply do not have other options, the deal
in the pioneer home changed on them, and he does not think it is
fair.
Number 0361
CHAIR JAMES reminded Representative Ogan that those people are
guaranteed by law that they cannot be removed for lack of ability
to pay, and she does understand that they like to pay their own
way. Whether they run out of money or not, they are allowed
money for personal use, and they are guaranteed permanence in the
pioneer home, so she believes they are protected by language in
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN observed that the law does not protect their
dignity. He noted these people have been self-sufficient all
their lives, have never been dependent on anyone, and had moved
into a situation that is no longer what they thought it would be
because the deal has changed.
Number 0254
CHAIR JAMES commented that Representative Ogan would have to find
those people specifically and "grandfather" them into the system
because she does not think it can be done by blanket legislation.
She acknowledged that she thinks people could be "grandfathered
in" but is not sure if the rate could be rolled back to when they
first moved into the home.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated he would like to have a discussion
with the department about "grandfathering in" those people while,
at the same time, ensuring that people who move to a Pioneers'
Home in the future understand that rates are going to rise. He
again questioned the fairness regarding those who moved in with
one understanding, only to have the deal change, although he
agreed that rates need to rise appropriately so that the homes
pay for themselves. Perhaps, he added, people could be
"grandfathered in" to the two lower levels of services
[coordinated services and basic assisted living] with the
understanding that the Pioneers' Homes are getting out of the
business of providing those particular services.
Number 0113
CHAIR JAMES noted that people who moved to Pioneers' Homes after
the law was changed already know what the deal is. She commented
that it is great to provide services but the legislature has to
figure how to pay for them. She explained that the contract
people sign when they move into a Pioneers' Home does not
preclude rate hikes, so this issue should have been addressed in
past legislation.
TAPE 00-20, SIDE A
Number 0009
MS. ELGEE verified that Pioneers' Home contracts do not preclude
rate hikes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he has talked with people living in the
Anchorage Pioneer Home and the complaint they have is that when
they moved into the home it was a pioneer home. Then, over
several years, the focus has changed to a dementia home to the
extent that 85 percent of the people living there do suffer some
form of dementia, which is obviously going to run costs up. He
noted that the residential people feel that their cost has gone
up in support of dementia patients and people who cannot pay. He
asked Ms. Elgee whether, if the homes did not have dementia
inhabitants, the coordinated services and the original intended
use of the homes would be anywhere near as costly as is listed on
the rate sheet.
Number 0194
MS. ELGEE replied that costs would be the same because what the
department has done, in terms of allocating costs to these
various levels of care, is to review base costs such as
housekeeping and food service, and to adjust rates appropriately
to correspond to the kind of staffing needed at various care
levels. Therefore, when reviewing the lowest level, coordinated
services, no direct-care staff is represented in that rate.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is concerned that there might be an
additional need for a dietitian or someone specifically trained
that would be calculated in to the base cost, which might not be
necessary if it were not for the presence of dementia patients in
the Pioneers' Homes.
Number 0321
MS. ELGEE answered that the need for dietitians and services like
that just come with the care and feeding of hundreds of people;
it has nothing to do with dementia. She noted that physical
therapy services are not represented in coordinated service rates
since pioneer residents are Medicare-eligible and Medicare covers
the cost of physical therapy when it is brought into the home to
meet individual needs. She explained that medications are
separate costs from the Pioneers' Home rate; therefore, things
specific to physical and/or mental needs of an individual are not
represented in the rates beyond the staffing requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if he understood correctly that in six
years the Department of Administration has gone from a
significant supplemented cost of $900 to $2135. He commented
that Ms. Elgee is saying that back when [the cost] was $900,
those costs should have been about $1600 because there is no way
that [the cost] could jump that high in the last six years unless
the department was trying to pick up a supplemental payment. He
asked if that was the reason [the costs] had gone up so high.
Number 0451
MS. ELGEE replied that the rates were calculated based on the
operating budget in fiscal year (FY) 1997. The rate effective
in July of 1996 was a FY '97 cost. She noted that the department
had reviewed what its operating budget (various levels of care)
was that year and divided it out until reaching 2002. She
explained that in the intervening years the operating budget had
increased $1.5 million but the department has not adjusted these
rates; they are still the same rates that were projected. The
department has observed a shift in makeup of Pioneers' Home
clientele in that there are more people at the higher levels of
care. She mentioned that they are picking up that differential
in terms of what the department proposed as an increase to the
operating budget. She indicated that the $2135 represented in
July of 2002 for coordinated services is what it actually cost
the department in July 1996.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that in 1996 it was actually costing
the department $2135. Therefore, he stated, he understands that
Ms. Elgee is saying the department is paying a $1200 supplement.
MS. ELGEE answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that the state was supplementing
all of these costs in the range of $1000 per person.
Number 0615
MS. ELGEE replied that in some cases the supplement was much more
than that when reviewing the higher levels of care.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he had understood that the higher
levels of care are taken care of by the differential.
MS. ELGEE answered that Representative Green was correct. She
said that if the committee reviewed what the department was
charging in 1996 for the highest level of care versus the full
cost of the highest level care, the supplement is much more than
a couple of thousand dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed and noted that the supplement was
about $5000. He commented that the difference [in rate] has
doubled for comprehensive services in 1996 and tripled in 1999.
He asked if all of the difference between then and 2002 is
supplemented by the state.
MS. ELGEE replied in the affirmative.
Number 0679
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Elgee if it was correct that the department
had to be authorized to bump up [the rate] for Pioneers' Home
residents. She explained that the plan had been to get residents
paying up to full cost within seven years. She noted that even
then residents were not paying anywhere near full cost;
therefore, the state had been supplementing the cost of the
homes. She indicated that the decision had been to move
residents up to full cost. She emphasized that the year 2000 is
here and asked if the department is still "bumping up" to arrive
at the full cost. She acknowledged that rates listed on the
Pioneers' Homes rate history sheet are the charges for services,
not full cost.
MS. ELGEE answered that the numbers represented on the line
labeled July 2002 are what the department is experiencing as full
cost of care today.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated that the department is still a couple of
years behind reaching full-cost level.
Number 0783
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that if the legislature abides by
these estimates, the 2002 estimated costs will be even higher
just because of inflation. He said he is concerned about a large
shift toward additional care. He asked whether Pioneers' Homes
should be renamed because he agrees with Representative Ogan
regarding those people who are not suffering [dementia]. He
agreed that the people had anticipated one thing, but that one
thing has significantly changed. He asked if there should now be
something that recognizes a dementia problem in the state. He
emphasized that the legislature and the department should accept
the problem and not hide behind the name of Pioneers' Homes. He
noted that for him, a pioneers' home is for people who have been
in the state for 25 years, for example, and are still fairly
healthy. But because the legislature and the department are
changing the scope of what is going on in the Pioneers' Homes,
maybe a name change is appropriate.
Number 0881
MS. ELGEE replied that about three years ago the Pioneer Home
Advisory Board had heard this recommendation that perhaps there
should be a name change for all the reasons that Representative
Green has cited. She said that the Pioneer Home Advisory Board
had forwarded that recommendation to Governor Knowles, and the
reaction was that people wrote from throughout the state who
thought that a name change was a very, very bad idea.
Subsequently, the board withdrew its recommendation.
MAREL HAKALA testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
said that HB 299 is the first time in his memory that anything
has been done to ease the hardships of residents of Pioneers'
Homes since this administration came into power. He commented
that he, along with many others, supports HB 299 because it is a
move in the right direction. He explained that he does have a
problem with a two-tier system and does not approve of it. He
mentioned that anybody who enters the homes now or in the future
should be covered by the state law. He indicated that HB 299
should be amended to read that all admittance, in the past, now,
and in the future should be treated equally. He informed the
committee that in making the homes into health care facilities,
they will become full health care facilities with no initial
residents. He emphasized that he would like to see the homes
return to their original concept, where there was only one door
to enter. He remarked that the one door was entry as a resident,
and as the resident failed in health, the resident received care
but it is not that way today. Now there are three doors by which
to enter, and a big door is the Alzheimer dementia group. He
stated that he felt that all money income from the mental health
trust fund should go to the Pioneers' Homes to take care of these
people, and he is sure then the rates for remaining residents
would be reduced accordingly.
Number 1152
IRENE PAYTON said that, as one of the people fortunate enough to
be receiving dividends and the longevity bonus, she is very
grateful for what the State of Alaska provides. She noted that
the whole concept of raising rates came about because Alaska does
not have the same amount of money that it had when it built the
Pioneers' Homes. She explained that it seems to her that those
who are receiving benefits are going to have to start to pay
their way a little bit since there is talk about cutting the
budget. She commented she is not sure why HB 299 is even needed
since the state is paying for those people who cannot pay.
Number 1245
CHAIR JAMES announced that she would close the meeting and the
committee would discuss HB 299 at a later time. [HB 299 was held
over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:12
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|