04/02/2002 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 2, 2002
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act allowing employers that are small businesses, small
nonprofit organizations, or small associations for insurance
purposes to join state employee insurance coverage as a group;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSSHB 315(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 438
"An Act relating to motor vehicle registration plates for
disabled veterans; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 438(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 487
"An Act relating to fireworks; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE:GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PRIVATE GROUPS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1957 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/02
01/14/02 1957 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1957 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
02/15/02 2281 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/15/02 2281 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
02/15/02 2281 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
03/21/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/21/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/26/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/26/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/28/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/02/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 438
SHORT TITLE:DISABLED VETERANS LICENSE PLATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MCGUIRE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/15/02 2286 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/15/02 2286 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
02/26/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/26/02 (H) Moved CSHB 438(MLV) Out of
Committee
02/27/02 2418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/06/02 2485 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 6DP
03/06/02 2485 (H) DP: MASEK, KOTT, GREEN,
MURKOWSKI,
03/06/02 2485 (H) HAYES, CHENAULT
03/06/02 2486 (H) FN1: (ADM)
03/28/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/28/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/02/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 487
SHORT TITLE:FIREWORKS REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOHRING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2319 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2319 (H) STA, FIN
02/19/02 2319 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/02/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
GUY BELL, Director
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
PO Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 315.
JUDY WARREN, Director
Sterling Senior Center
PO Box 154
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 315.
LYNNE KORAL
Alaska Information Radio Reading & Education Service (AIRRES)
1102 West International Airport Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 315.
WILLIAM CRAIG
613 Degroff Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 315 and HB 438.
MARGIE BAUMAN
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 315.
BOB LOHR, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development
3601 C Street, Suite 1324
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5948
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 315.
KATIE CAMPBELL, Actuary Life/Health
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 315.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 315.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 438 to the committee on behalf
of the sponsor.
CHARLES R. HOSACK, Deputy Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 438.
SHARRON O'DELL, Staff
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 487 on behalf of the sponsor.
GARY POWELL, Director/State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 9507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 487 and answered
questions.
ROBERT HALL, Owner
Gorilla Fireworks
PO Box 871906
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 487.
JOEL ELROD
North Star Fireworks
PO Box 696
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 487.
JEREMY BESHAW
PO Box 611
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 487.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-34, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, Fate, Stevens, Crawford, and Hayes were present at the
call to order. Representatives James and Wilson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 315-GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PRIVATE GROUPS
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act allowing
employers that are small businesses, small nonprofit
organizations, or small associations for insurance purposes to
join state employee insurance coverage as a group; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a
work draft on 3/28/02, was Version O.]
Number 0210
GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits,
Department of Administration, explained that HB 315 would allow
the Department of Administration to obtain policies of group
insurance for businesses, nonprofit organizations, special
services organizations, or small associations formed for the
purpose of obtaining insurance. Eligible employees are defined
on page 4, line 26, of the bill. Size limitation is defined on
page 6. Basically, full-time and part-time employees are being
included to participate; it wouldn't include volunteers.
MR. BELL explained what the department envisions as the process
for acquiring the insurance policies. The department would
first work with interested groups and a professional benefits
consultant in designing an appropriate plan or plans. There are
many plan designs, each carrying different levels of cost,
depending on the value of the benefits that are provided. Quite
a bit of time will be spent up front designing a plan suitable
for the interested organizations. After a request for proposals
(RFP) was issued and insurance companies responded, then the
best proposal would be selected using the evaluation committee.
MR. BELL referred to page 2, lines 15-23, which identifies the
process for approval of employers. At that point employers
would be approved based on their application for participation
in the plan. From that point, the employers would purchase the
insurance directly from the insurance company selected to
provide the policy. The claims payment services and all
associated services would be provided by the insurance company.
At that time, the Department of Administration would be a
conduit for enrolling employers, be involved in design changes,
and be a liaison between the employers and insurance companies
participating in the plan.
Number 0494
MR. BELL noted that there is no state subsidy identified so
neither is there a state liability. It would be a completely
separate plan from current state administered plans. The
Division of Retirement and Benefits administers two major plans:
one for retired public employees and teachers and the other for
Select Benefits for certain groups of state employees. Those
are fully self-insured and would be kept separate from this
plan, which would be a fully insured product. That means there
would be no liability for the state associated with the
administration of this plan.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the RFP was reflected in the fiscal note
and if the first study and startup costs are being looked at.
MR. BELL replied yes. He indicated that a survey would be used
along with some meetings teleconferenced and maybe some face-to-
face meetings with interested associations. There is a benefits
consultant under contract with the department, and those
services would be paid for.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what the timeline would be.
Number 0640
MR. BELL stated that RFPs generally take about 90 days. Several
months' lead time before that will be required to make sure
there is a plan design that makes sense. The critical issue is
that organizations want affordable, quality insurance, and to
design a plan with those relative measures requires quite a bit
of input from different organizations about what they construe
as affordable, quality insurance. As the bill is drafted now,
it has an effective date of July 1, 2003, so that would be the
deadline. The plan year would commence then.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS reiterated that the idea is to allow the
insurance companies to save some costs with working with large
numbers of groups. He asked what the savings would actually be
for the insurance firms and how they could pass savings along to
the companies. He also wondered how the state could avoid
liability.
Number 0829
MR. BELL answered that it would have a design similar to another
plan called a political subdivision, a small medical plan it
administers that has only several hundred employees. That plan
allows political subdivisions to purchase insurance from Aetna,
the current plan provider, at established rates. The department
issues the RFP, awards the contract, and from that point forward
the political subdivisions who participate work directly with
Aetna and pay premiums. They are rated as a group. It is a
single group for rating purposes. Haines and Soldotna belong.
Both employers on employees' behalf pay the same premium, so
they are rated as a single group and that is the idea behind
this approach. Anyone who joins would be part of a single group
for premium setting purposes so each employer wouldn't have its
own premium.
MR. BELL explained there is a theory of economy of scale when
there is a larger group; there is savings in administrative
costs per head. There may be some design plan flexibility with
a larger group that a smaller employer wouldn't get. That may
add some leverage. It is certainly not a panacea. Insurance is
expensive and "you get what you pay for." Over that there's an
administrative cost. He hopes that the administrative costs can
be reduced through economy of scale, and then maybe through some
plan design measures an affordable plan can be developed.
MR. BELL said the question on liability would best be answered
by an attorney, because he is not an expert, but through the
contractual process the department would need to ensure that the
insurance company providing the insurance has the liability.
The department has full responsibility for approving and denying
procedures, and that would protect the state. Obviously,
someone could try to sue the state ultimately for some kind of
breach, but part of the contract design is to be sure that the
state is protected through the attorney general.
Number 1047
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if there would be the opportunity
to shape insurance coverage that each individual organization
wants or whether it would be stuck with some sort of package.
MR. BELL replied that obviously there can't be an unlimited
number of plans because that would be very expensive to
administer. He envisions several options. Under the political
subdivision plan there are three options: high, medium, and
low. Not knowing what the design will be in this case, he said
he assumes there will be several options that the groups can
choose from.
Number 1100
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the current plan for state
employees is self-insured.
MR. BELL replied that the political subdivision plan that he
mentioned is not part of the other plans. It is a third plan
altogether, and it is fully insured by Aetna. The retiree
medical and Select Benefits plan administered by the state are
completely separate and are self-insured.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the contract the state has with
Aetna is a "forever contract," or if there is a period during
which it has to be renegotiated, or if the state has to put out
for other bids.
MR. BELL answered that the state is required by law to issue an
RFP every five years.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what happens to Aetna if the state
doesn't have Aetna anymore.
MR. BELL explained that if one firm is awarded the bid and after
five years the contract is awarded to another company, the
liability associated with the claims preceding the date of the
transition falls to the prior insurance company and then the
liability for claims from the new contract forward falls to the
new insurance company. There is a transition from one company
to another if a new company is awarded the bid. The liability
stays with the insurance that is in effect at the time.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered about the savings that could be
accrued just simply by the administration. She asked how many
employees the organizations would have to have.
MR. BELL explained that the range is from 2 to 50 employees.
Potentially, that covers quite a large universe in Alaska
because many of the small businesses and nonprofits have fewer
than 50 employees. If a nonprofit had more than 50, it would be
precluded from participating in this as the legislation is
written.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what happens if no one bids on an
RFP, and whether that would be a "stand-alone." Why would they
want to bid as opposed to being a "stand-alone?"
MR. BELL said there are some issues about accessibility of
insurance, too, but the state wants to have an accessible,
affordable quality plan. He explained that an RFP would be
issued for an insurance company to provide this product. Under
the legislation, the commissioner of administration has to
certify that the company or nonprofit meets certain criteria.
At that point, the company or nonprofit can purchase the
insurance from the insurance company. There is not a new RFP
for this company to join; the company just joins and
participates in the plan. An RFP is issued and a contract is
awarded in anticipation of nonprofits' and businesses'
participating. It is up to those nonprofits and businesses to
participate, but this makes this product available with certain
premiums and certain policies in effect. There is not an RFP
every time someone joins.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered if the communication between the
drafter and sponsor of the legislation has been researched with
insurance companies. She said it seems to her that if this were
available, the amount of work that might be done to salve the
situation would not necessarily get it there. She said she is
concerned and remembered what a terrible experience it was for
the public employees changing to another company from NYLCare
(New York Life) to Aetna; she is concerned about putting "little
folks" out there who want to get affordable insurance and
expecting them to jump through those issues every time providers
are changed.
Number 1592
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked about the real benefit of this
bill:
Say that you had two nonprofits, United Way with 40
employees and the Center for Drug Problems with eight
employees; if they come into this plan, it puts them
in a much larger group, so it spreads the experience
out to potentially thousands rather than the eight
employees at the Center for Drug Problems. It may not
be all that much cheaper, but it would be safer in
that it would spread the experience.
MR. BELL agreed that with a larger group, the risk of high
claims, for instance, is spread among a larger group. A plan
that doesn't involve catastrophic [insurance] could also be
designed that involves what is called the "first dollar
coverage" up to a certain maximum per person, if that is
desired. There are multiple options, but this would at least
allow a design that would be somewhat monolithic, to hopefully
make this kind of insurance available.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there is anything in law now that would
preclude a group of people coming together without the state's
involvement at all.
MR. BELL said he didn't know the answer to that question. It
has been researched. This bill includes associations for the
purposes of providing insurance so groups could form an
association and then join. He said he isn't sure how it would
work and that it may be best answered by someone with legal and
ERISA [Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974]
expertise.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that one of the questions to be answered is,
"Why should the state do it, and if the state's going to do it,
could it be done any other way?"
Number 1762
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that HB 315 would help daycare
workers get into a pool of affordable insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said it seems clear there is no
obligation for an insurance company to respond to an RFP. He
wondered how the insurance companies would know the numbers they
are expected to deal with, and doesn't that determine what the
rates will be whether they're dealing with 100 or 10,000 people?
It seems as though it is pretty vague for the insurance
companies to decide what kind of rates to offer.
MR. BELL responded that that was one of the reasons to do a
survey. Part of the survey will be assessing interest and
perhaps types of coverage, coverage options, and premium ranges
that the groups would be willing to participate in. Then an RFP
that matched would need to be developed, and with the hope of
getting a satisfactory proposal back that meets those certain
criteria. There is a possibility that no company will bid or
that several companies might bid. He has no idea, he told
members. The design aspect is critical in making sure there is
"buy in" at the design level.
Number 1960
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that the question of affordability
cannot really be answered at this point.
MR. BELL agreed.
CHAIR COGHILL said making the case that this is going to make
insurance more affordable carries a big question mark over it,
but the stability of a pool probably would be the better selling
point.
MR. BELL agreed an affordable policy can be created, but it may
have limitations. For example, he said,
You can design down to a premium level where you will
cover 100 percent up to a certain amount but not have
catastrophic coverage, with the idea that there may be
other insurance available in the event of a
catastrophe. That would bring premiums down. An
affordable plan can be designed; the question is what
is being provided at that affordable level.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this would put any requirements
on the nonprofits or other businesses to provide insurance.
MR. BELL answered that there is no requirement that anyone
provide insurance. This just indicates that they may join and
defines who eligible employees would be.
Number 2064
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern for people who wouldn't
be able to pay for their insurance premiums. She suggested that
the idea of a medical savings account for a catastrophic illness
might be a better benefit for people. She said she doesn't see
that the administration of the setting up of this would be a
benefit at all unless almost all of those non-insured companies
playing in. The first step is to find out what the parameters
are: what is the maximum someone wants to pay, and what
coverage is needed. She said she is interested in providing the
ability for people to get insurance but agreed that drug
coverage will probably not be a part of it because that is where
the rising costs of medical care is. She commented that the
goal is before the plan. She expressed concern about the
state's being in the middle of the whole process.
Number 2298
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Bell to go over the survey point again.
MR. BELL agreed that the design is critical and doing the
advance legwork to make sure the plan is something realistic and
reasonable up front. There is some money in the fiscal note to
develop a plan. There is a professional benefits consultant
with Alaskan experience who knows generally what reasonable
premium ranges might be. He indicated that there will be a good
idea through the development of this before the issuance of the
RFP as to what kind of premium to expect for the type of plan
being designed. He said he doesn't believe there will be a
surprise at the other end. He thinks the premium ranges to
expect given the levels of coverage will be known up front. The
question will be, "What level of coverage can you get that's
affordable?" It may be a first dollar option. It may be just
up to $25,000 of expenses, at which point there would have to be
other coverage that a person would need to rely on, whether it's
Medicaid or some other.
CHAIR COGHILL said the federal law is allowing medical savings
accounts that would go for some catastrophic [situations].
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she knows of employers who
cannot afford insurance because of the rising costs. She said
she thinks that the nonprofits are the most vulnerable because
they get into something but then cannot continue because there
is no guarantee that as the costs rise; the premium isn't going
to rise.
Number 2450
JUDY WARREN, Director, Sterling Senior Center, testified via
teleconference. She informed the committee that a group of ten
senior center directors meet quarterly on the Kenai Peninsula.
They have been researching for affordable insurance for the past
four years and are very much in support of something that will
help them.
Number 2485
LYNNE KORAL, Alaska Information Radio Reading & Education
Service (AIRRES), testified via teleconference. She said AIRRES
supports that something be done. It's not the whole or only
solution. When people are not paid what they are worth in a
nonprofit, what they do have is an extra perk that is a health
insurance policy, and that helps defray the sting of working for
a place that can't afford to pay what they are worth. She
pointed out that people with disabilities can't work for most
places because people think they're going to be more of a risk
management problem and a risk to employers so people work for
lower pay. She supports "something," she said, and this at
least seems somewhat of a workable solution to have a larger
pool that will mitigate the damage in terms of insurance costs
that go up.
Number 2595
WILLIAM CRAIG testified via teleconference. He expressed
support for HB 315, which he said might not necessarily provide
cheaper insurance but it would provide a stable, larger pool.
Insurance would be one of the perks that nonprofits might be
able to provide to draw people to work for them.
Number 2630
MARGIE BAUMAN testified via teleconference. She expressed
concern that HB 315 is for small businesses that have to have at
least two employees. She is self-employed, she noted, but has
no other employees and would not be covered under HB 315. She
is one of a number of self-employed people who have a terrible
time getting health insurance, not because of their present
health condition but because they may have a medical history
such that their physician, being conscientious, wants them to
get periodic tests. When they tell a potential insurance
carrier that the physician recommended a certain test, the
insurance carrier automatically declines insurance. She would
like to see the legislation allow for participation in such a
plan by business employers that have only themselves to cover.
Number 2696
BOB LOHR, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED), testified via
teleconference. He stated that the department strongly supports
this legislation. House Bill 315 is an important step toward
providing more affordable and more stable health insurance
coverage to Alaskan nonprofit organizations. He spent the first
half of his career working with nonprofit organizations in
Alaska, he noted, and came to know how important the services
are that they provide. In many cases, they are equivalent to a
form of local government for communities outside organized
boroughs and are providing vital services that in many other
parts of the country would be provided by county or borough
governments. These [services] are done at a substantial
discount to the cost if it were done as a government service,
and it is a very good value for services rendered.
MR. LOHR said health insurance ought to be available and
affordable. It is an important step for the state to provide
this "brokerage" service - that is, the packaging of a large
group of small employers including small businesses - and to be
able to offer that up as a service to potential insurance
companies that would bid on this coverage. He said he thinks
there will be substantially greater interest on the part of
insurance companies if some of the homework has been done on
their behalf by the state.
MR. LOHR said he believes [groups] could go out and do it on
their own, but given the wide diverseness of Alaska, it would be
fairly expensive administratively to do so. The state is in a
very good position to be able to serve as a collection point for
this information and then to offer it to insurance companies.
This "small group insurance" market is characterized by a high
concentration of market share. Ninety-five percent of the
market for small group insurance is in the hands of the top
three insurance companies that write in this market. There are
a total of nine companies that write in the market. If the bill
were adopted and the Department of Administration proceeded
along the lines that Mr. Bell has outlined, the insurance
division would do everything it can to encourage full
participation in the bidding process under the RFP.
MR. LOHR said he believes that the "bully pulpit" could be
fairly effective in making the insurance companies aware of the
opportunity to bid and encouraging them to do so. The law of
large numbers, sort of the insurance equivalent of economies of
scale, would have a very important influence. It has the
potential to save significant sums, and it does spread the risk
of catastrophic expense over a larger number of people. The
Division of Insurance, DCED, does support this legislation and
would like to see the committee move the bill.
Number 2889
CHAIR COGHILL asked, "What stops us from doing this outside of a
state government brokerage?" Is there anybody else in the state
that could create a pool such as this?
MR. LOHR answered that he is not aware of a prohibition against
doing it, but the fact that it hasn't yet happened is one
indicator. The United Way is working with a grant from the
Rasmusson Foundation to try to figure out avenues toward more
affordable coverage, but it is just getting started in that
effort. He said he doesn't know if anyone else is as well
positioned as the state as a major purchaser of health insurance
already. That does provide some leverage just in terms of being
a large purchaser of services from the insurance industry.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed some concerns and asked if the
small businesses could band together to get the insurance
without going through the state or whether the state is the only
one who could do that.
TAPE 02-34, SIDE B
Number 2989
MR. LOHR answered that he doesn't know of a prohibition on that.
In nonprofits, it is extremely difficult to take on even very
important collateral purposes to the core purpose of the
organization. Generally, folks are so jammed with trying to
perform the basic function; taking on an ambitious effort like
this would be a very difficult assignment. He doesn't know of a
reason that it couldn't be done, he said, but he pointed out
that to date it hasn't been done. If the state could jumpstart
this effort and take this important first step, proper language
in the bill could minimize any liability to the state. "I'm not
an attorney, by the way, " he added.
Number 2896
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the cost of insurance would come
down if the base and the amount of incidents were broadened. He
referred to some written testimony that indicates it would
certainly broaden the type and availability of benefits, but
that it would not necessarily reduce the cost; then there has
been testimony saying it would reduce the cost. He wondered how
Mr. Lohr would [balance] those two diametrically opposed
testimonies.
MR. LOHR replied that in general, when the base of coverage is
broadened, the number of persons covered is increased; the
coverage will be more affordable primarily by reducing the risk
of expensive, catastrophic-type events. If, in broadening the
base, people who are substantially sicker than average are
brought in, that's a problem called "adverse selection." If a
plan appeals only to those who are seriously ill, then the
premiums are necessarily going to be much, much higher. He
surmised that the consultants in the Department of
Administration would design a plan that is not subject to
adverse selection. Other than that qualifier, the general
notion is "the bigger the better" in terms of a pool. If a
large number of healthy people participate in the pool, as it
would be if there were people across the age spectrum and all
kinds of different family types, that's going to be a good thing
for the health of the pool as a whole.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE commented that it's still not clear. He
asked, "If you take 1,000 people and add another 1,000 people to
the same category, the risk of incidents is the same with 1,000
people as it is with the other 1,000 people, is it not?"
Number 2746
MR. LOHR explained that there are two primary factors that drive
health insurance. One is utilization - the rate at which
services are used - and the other is severity - how serious is a
given event? Large numbers tend to make that severity less a
problem. If there is a group of three people and one has
terminal cancer, then the expenses for that plan are going be
catastrophic for everyone involved. If there is one person with
cancer in a much larger group, then the risks of that are more
manageable because the volume of premiums is coming in.
Number 2693
KATIE CAMPBELL, Actuary Life/Health, Division of Insurance,
Department of Community & Economic Development, referred to
Representative Fate's question and agreed that adding 1,000 to
1,000 more people probably wouldn't get much benefit, but in the
larger pool, the catastrophic illness will be spread over a
larger base of people, which makes it more affordable. When one
person in a five-person group is sick, that can be very
expensive for everyone. If that is spread over a lot of people,
it becomes more affordable. That's the concept of pooling.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE commented that it is based on the incidence
of catastrophic illness rather than general incidents.
MS. CAMPBELL noted that the pooling aspect will help that part
of it - or severity of the larger claims will be spread over a
broader base. "To the extent that everybody is utilizing a lot
of services, you're not going to gain as much in that area," she
remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there is any evidence in the
actuarial as to whether annual physical examinations are a
benefit in the overall plan to reduce the cost of serving as an
insurance company.
MS. CAMPBELL replied that she didn't know. Some insurance
companies may have done some studies, but she hasn't seen
anything where there is a direct correlation if people have
their annual physical. Presumably, it helps a little bit
because a lot of the employers will have wellness benefits; the
goal is to keep catastrophic illnesses from occurring. She
doesn't have any hard data to give.
CHAIR COGHILL said the way HB 315 is written and with the
testimony of Mr. Bell, the actuarial could not begin its work
until it knows who is in the pool. There are a lot of "what
ifs."
Number 2533
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that the issue has a lot to do
with reducing the costs of insurance but also availability and
stability. He wondered if people in smaller organizations are
having trouble even finding an insurance carrier.
MR. LOHR agreed that availability and stability are key
concepts. Having a large purchaser involved in the purchasing
process and the design of the coverage could assist in removing
a lot of roadblocks. Just knowing that the coverage is
available is an important step toward making this coverage more
broadly available than it otherwise would be. It may not pay a
given company to go out on speculation and simply "do outreach,"
whereas if there is an internal force organizing the group and
shaping the coverage, it could be a very important step forward
in making it available on a longer-term basis.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if a single person in a firm would
not be allowed into this pool.
MR. LOHR answered that the sponsor could better answer that, but
said he doesn't believe he/she would [be allowed] under the
current definition of 2-50 employees. There may be some
problems from the point of view of converting this to simply
individual insurance. That's a judgment call in terms of where
the lines are drawn. Classically small group insurance is
targeted toward those with between 2 and 50 employees.
Number 2735
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor of HB 315, answered that the individual aspect of it is
allowable under the special service organization provision
adopted in the proposed committee substitute (CS) [Version O]
last meeting. Those practitioners with that definition would
[qualify]. As a general rule, no. He offered to check with the
designers or private sector underwriters about that. "Usually
individual policies are structured actuarially different," he
said, adding that he isn't sure if there are any policy reasons
to create a barrier for an individual to join this particular
group.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the purpose of this
legislation, and one thing he wants to work on, is the design of
the actual policies that would be offered. The bill needs to be
"tuned up" in regard to some of the quantitative design elements
of the bill particularly as it relates to PPOs [preferred
provider organizations] or special bargains for per diem rates
at tertiary care hospitals, which would be a significant
reduction in cost.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that small businesses and
individuals cannot buy a policy such as the State of Alaska has.
Usually one menu is offered for those types of groups, and HB
315 will allow more selection. There are the private insurers
of the state, but there is a nonprofit association chapter in
the health insurance laws that allow the formation of other
nonprofit types of associations that could provide this type of
insurance; however, the market doesn't demand it because Alaska
is such a small market. Right now Blue Cross covers over
50 percent of the insured in the state. He said, "Basically
what we need is some competition for Blue Cross. They have a
limited number of insurance underwriters that are here.
Hopefully, if we can get a big enough group as a result of this
bill, that might be the germ of even exciting or drawing the
interest of an underwriter that is not even in the state right
now, and that would be a great thing."
Number 2151
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he wants to work with the
department and the director of insurance to be more specific in
some of the design specifications and to request that they
develop some kind of PPO with the major hospitals in the urban
areas and focus on driving the costs down to the point they
might even offer a stop-loss catastrophic policy with anywhere
from a $2,500 to $5,000 or $10,000 deductible, which is being
done now. That could be part of a menu of a program like this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Mr. Bell's testimony
regarding the periodic requirement of putting out an RFP every
five years. He said he thought that was something that could be
adopted; he would have no objection to the committee's moving a
conceptual amendment to that effect. In the last CS, the group
went from 300 to 500 in terms of the size; he noted, but if the
committee wants, however, it could stipulate that the profit-
making small businesses would be limited to the 50, but that
there could be a different number for the nonprofit
organizations and it could be raised back up to 300. He didn't
think it would cause any equal protection type issues, he told
members. It would be a compelling state interest that it could
be demonstrated that nonprofit organizations are somewhat
different and have had serious problems with affordability and
acquisition of health insurance. Therefore, a state policy such
as that would be justifiable.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if there is a reason to limit the
employees of a nonprofit to 300. Could the limit of the
nonprofit be left off?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that was another option. There
is a bit of "arbitrariness" in 300, although 300 is usually a
breakpoint where it would be the size to be able to bargain and
negotiate.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that he didn't think that any
of the nonprofits had more than 300 employees, but that there
might be, and that he doesn't see a good reason to have that
limit.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated he wouldn't object to that.
He'd just found out that Hope Cottage is at about 300 people, he
noted, so it might be a nonprofit forced out of the pool if it
had too many employees.
CHAIR COGHILL said he has struggled with how great a portion of
the economy the nonprofits "play in" and the many times they
compete against the for-profit world. He is always cautious
about giving greater advantage [to the nonprofits], he added.
Number 1875
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with the issue of the size and scope
of nonprofits in the state and nation in their competition with
the private sector. She also acknowledged the good that the
nonprofits do by providing services that no one else does, so it
is a mixed bag. She doesn't want nonprofits to think she is not
in favor of what they're doing because nonprofits use
volunteers, she said; she is one of the biggest "hurrah" for all
of the volunteers in the state. There is no dollar figure
attached to what they do. It would be a big advantage if every
nonprofit and every small business were covered with some
insurance. She doesn't necessarily agree there should be a
limit on the number of employees, she told members. In the
survey with several options, she would like to see how much
premium the employee would be able to pay and how much cost the
employer can afford to pay, because if they can't get something
in that [range], then there is not an alternative for them.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered if the nonprofits that already
provide insurance would be interested in this because it might
be a better, bigger pool. She surmised they are covered by
other private insurance companies; she wondered if they would be
taking away from some of the private [sector] contracts and
whether that would be a direct conflict between government and
the private sector. "I think we should use the private sector
whenever it is something that we can do, and not assume the
government can do it better or cheaper, because I don't think
that's been borne out over the years." she concluded.
Number 1675
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG told Representative James that he shares
her philosophical view. When he served as chair of the Labor
and Commerce Committee for four years, his number-one goal was
to provide an attractive environment for new health insurance
underwriters to come into the state of Alaska and not indulge in
certain insurance mandates and other legislative actions that
push them out. Alaska is such a small market, so it is very
difficult, he said. He'd introduced this bill because he'd
reached a point of frustration, recognizing, however, that the
private sector is not going to be able to provide affordable,
quality health care insurance. He's been a victim of high
insurance premiums, he offered. When he reached 50, his and his
wife's premiums went up 20 percent. Eight years ago his
premiums in the private sector were more than what he pays now
to the State of Alaska, and it had no dental, vision, or
anything else. He would love to see some competition for Blue
Cross, he told members. He's trying to create something that
would help these groups.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she sees a real problem with
the preferred provider in many cases. It makes a bigger gap
between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in that issue. She is
concerned about mandating that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he couldn't agree with her more;
that's why he was alarmed when the State of Alaska made a policy
call to allow the bargaining units to disperse out from
underneath the group plan a few years back and enter into other
coalitions that could become more or less "800-pound gorillas"
when bargaining for per diem rates with providers. The only
kind of cost reduction mechanisms that are available to Alaskans
are some type of PPO-type contracts, because there are no HMOs
(health maintenance organization) in Alaska, he suggested.
There is a statutory regime that rejects and discourages HMOs in
the state of Alaska. So the only possibility for lowering
health care costs is to try to contractually do that. In larger
areas like Anchorage, which has the only major tertiary center
in Alaska where there is a modicum of competition, it works.
There are other provisions for day surgeries and things like
this that can be done on a PPO-type basis and provide some
savings. If the particular design of a plan doesn't include
some of those things, then the goal of HB 315 won't be
accomplished, which is access to more affordable, quality, and
stable care.
Number 1337
CHAIR COGHILL characterized this bill as the "template" for that
discussion because the survey is going to tell what different
tiers, if any, might look like. "We're way ahead of ourselves
on that discussion I think," he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS referred to page 3, line 11, and asked if
this was the RFP issue [referring to putting out an RFP every
five years].
MR. BELL answered that it is current law and there is no change
to current law along those lines.
Number 1200
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to the "harrowing" experience of
changing administration of insurance carriers. She said she
doesn't know if anyone can guarantee that won't happen again
when the five years are up. She wouldn't want to have a replay
of that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told Representative Rokeberg that she would
feel more comfortable if HB 315 were in two parts. She
expressed concern about raising up people's expectations and
disappointing them. She asked if there is a way to divide this
into two processes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked her if she thinks they should
study it first and then implement it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there's a lot of information they
don't have, like how many people there would be out there and
how much they can afford to pay. It is how much they can afford
to pay and what they're going to get that are the biggest
stumbling blocks for her.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would cosponsor with her a
resolution to send to Congress to stop creating a phantom health
tax for this country by not paying proper reimbursements for
Medicaid and Medicare. He stated:
The root of the problem is the accelerating health
care costs in this country, which the percentage of
GDP [gross domestic product] of which we're paying for
health care is accelerating at an alarming rate and,
it's the only inflation factor we have except oil
prices are going up now. ... To survey what people
can afford to pay is useless information. They can't
afford to pay what the costs are now; that's the real
issue. You can't design something to affordability
because it just doesn't work. We're designing it for
affordability in this plan to try to lower the costs
to the lowest common denominator. This is kind of a
Band Aid approach to deal with Alaska's
circumstances."
Number 0939
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would be happy to [draft] a letter
with Representative Rokeberg to the leadership in Washington,
D.C., particularly on the issue of not forcing Medicare to be
the first provider when people are 65. "If we could let the
insurance companies provide for people who have the options and
wish to pay, we certainly could be able to give drug coverage to
the people who are on Medicare," she commented. She suggested
they draft a letter on that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged that the chance of HB 315
passing this year is slim. He said he will work hard on this
legislation because he sees the need for it. He doesn't want
people's expectations to be built up and for them to start
making plans that this bill is going to pass this year. "I hope
it does but beware of this process," he warned. "It is a very
long, arduous, and difficult process."
Number 0799
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed that this is a very delicate
balance because everyone wants affordable insurance. What is
affordable today isn't going to be affordable tomorrow because
the costs keep rising, so even if a survey were done, by the
time it was implemented the costs would be more, so it would be
a moot point. It is a hard issue to deal with because it keeps
changing.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD acknowledged that the problem is almost
at crisis proportions, and that the sooner it's taken care of
the better.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES declared a conflict of interest because
HB 315 could benefit him in his private-sector job.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked why the self-employed people are
being limited.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that it is the way the health
insurance statutes are right now.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked about limiting just one person
from the group.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that he'll be looking into that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES commented that the problem with one is that
one is not a group.
Number 0533
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report CSSSHB 315 [version 22-
251177\O, Craver, 3/27/02] out of committee with individual
recommendations, the accompanying fiscal notes, and the new
title. There being no objection, CSSSHB 315(STA) was reported
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 438-DISABLED VETERANS LICENSE PLATES
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 438, "An Act relating to motor vehicle
registration plates for disabled veterans; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0463
CHAIR COGHILL moved to adopt CSHB 438, version 22-LS1503\J,
Ford, 4/2/02, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version J was before the committee.
Number 0420
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 438, on behalf of Representative
McGuire, sponsor. He informed members that the bill is trying
to honor the veterans. Alaska certainly has one of the highest
per capita veterans population of any state, he told the
committee. Most noticeably, the veterans have been honored with
special license plates. It started out with the various license
plates for the four services, and there is one for Purple Heart
recipients and a limited quantity of Medal of Honor winners.
All of these plates are well deserved, and the opportunity
should be taken to honor these veterans. However, not very much
has really been done for the nearly 900 disabled veterans
currently in Alaska. They have been given the standard gold and
blue license plate with the flag and the handicapped logo in the
middle of it and the letters "DAV." There is no great
opportunity for disabled veterans to have a license on their
vehicles that designates to people that they served their
country. While they didn't give the supreme sacrifice, they
gave a part of themselves to the country, he pointed out.
MR. POUND reported that the biggest concern of the Department
[of Administration] was that it would end up with four different
license plates because there would be the two blue and gold
plates and then the two red, white, and blue plates. The
department would like to go to just the red, white, and blue
license plates because of the logistical nightmare of having to
deal with four plates.
MR. POUND pointed out a correction in Version J. It should
read: Page 1, line 13, following (C): "if the applicant is a
veteran,".
Number 0040
CHAIR COGHILL moved the foregoing as Amendment 1. There being
no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHUCK HOSACK, Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, testified via teleconference. He
informed the committee that the department supports HB 438 as
amended. Mr. Pound and the sponsor have addressed all of the
concerns, he said.
TAPE 02-35, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. HOSACK said, "This will limit it down to two [license
plates], so we actually get a little bit of benefit out of it,
too, in that we can stop stocking the other plates and just
replace them with this. So it'll be pretty much a wash, and
we'll be able to drop our fiscal note to zero."
Number 0087
WILLIAM CRAIG testified via teleconference and said it seemed
like a good bill for honoring the handicapped veterans.
Number 0120
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 438 [version 22-
LS1503\J, Ford, 4/2/02], as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 438(STA) was reported out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 487-FIREWORKS REGULATION
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 487, "An Act relating to fireworks; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0165
SHARRON O'DELL, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, presented Version L on behalf of
Representative Kohring, sponsor, for the committee to adopt.
Number 0265
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection to adopting
CSHB 487, version 22-LS1385\L, Bannister, 3/14/02, as the work
draft. There being no objection, Version L was adopted.
Number 0297
MS. O'DELL explained that consumer fireworks are a great
American tradition, and that the use of fireworks has grown
exponentially with the increased availability in the last few
years. However, state statutes that were written in 1969 have
not kept pace with the changes in the fireworks industry. A few
local Alaskan jurisdictions and the federal regulators have had
success in developing effective and fair laws. The function of
the state fire marshal under the Department of Public Safety is
to foster, promote, regulate, and develop ways and means of
protecting the public against fire for persons and property, and
to encourage the adoption of fire prevention measures by means
of education. In response to the concerns of increased fire
risk from the devastating damage caused by the spruce bark
beetle, the state fire marshal has requested additional tools to
protect the lives and property of citizens of the state of
Alaska. The state fire marshal and representatives of the
fireworks industry have worked closely to draft HB 487, which
she believes will provide the state fire marshal with those
tools. The modifications in HB 487 are based on the positive
results in North Pole, Houston, and other jurisdictions inside
and outside the state of Alaska, she explained.
Number 0420
MS. O'DELL reviewed HB 487 section by section. She explained
that HB 487 is a proactive measure working with the department
and within the industry that will make things better for the
general public by giving the state fire marshal the regulating
and enforcing authority he needs by statute. In addition to
banning bottle rockets, it allows the state fire marshal to
restrict or limit the sale and use of skyrockets and missiles
between April 1 and September 30. Bottle rockets are very cheap
and popular fireworks if used properly, she explained. There
have been probably tens of millions sold in Alaska in the last
ten years; however, they are the most single source of noise
complaints and most likely to be misused. If misused, they
potentially can cause injuries and pose a fire risk.
MS. O'DELL explained the danger of the self-propelled rockets
and missiles. If misused, they can fly off course several
hundred feet and start a fire that could grow into a wildfire
before it's even detected. Even though the risk of fire created
by fireworks is very small, 80-90 percent of the risk of
potential fire is caused by the misuse of rockets and missiles.
It is true people are going to have to give up something by this
bill, she said, but it is a good compromise and will benefit
everybody. It's a proactive, prophylactic measure that is in
response to spruce bark beetle devastation. Bottle rockets,
skyrockets, and missiles combine to represent about 20-30
percent of the current annual sales of fireworks vendors; they
are the most popular [fireworks] sold. However, based on the
experience of North Pole, she noted, those vendors have found
that people will find other items to buy; the people there
understand the restrictions that have been placed there.
MS. O'DELL noted that HB 487 will ensure that all vendors,
including those in the unincorporated areas of Alaska, will
operate by the same rules. It will ensure that fireworks
regulations are up-to-date through the work of the advisory
committee. It gives the state fire marshal the ability to carry
out the safety and education function of his office through the
fire safety program that is created. It will ensure a safer
celebration by those people who choose to celebrate with
consumer fireworks.
Number 0852
GARY POWELL, Director State/Fire Marshall, Central Office,
Division of Fire Prevention, Department of Public Safety,
testified via teleconference. He stated that he worked with
Representative Kohring's office and Mr. Hall [fireworks vendor]
on HB 487 and that it is a good effort. It cleans up the
language that has been redefined over the years by other
standards. It allows a committee to sit down and involve all
the user groups, rather than just having his office adopt
regulations or regulate it on its own.
MR. POWELL reiterated that the bottle rockets and aerial rockets
are the biggest concern out of the fireworks industry. There is
a small amount of property loss, a lot of nuisance-noise
complaints, and small injuries caused by the bottle rockets. He
pointed out the other aerial rockets are certainly cause for
concern because they can travel several hundred feet, land in
undetected areas, smolder all night, and possibly start a fire
several hours after the rocket was shot off. Overall, he said,
HB 487 is a positive step, even though it might make more work
for his office, but it's worth the effort if the bill comes
together as it is now.
Number 0997
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Powell for some statistics on
injuries sustained by people using bottle rockets or the other
type of rockets, and how many fires have been set by them.
MR. POWELL replied that he doesn't keep injury records in his
office but he does keep fire records. From 1997-2000, there was
a total of 88 responses from fire companies to fires of some
sort, with a total dollar loss of approximately $10,000. That's
not a large issue compared to other fires, he said, but it has a
potential of being larger. There were 63 tree, brush, and grass
fires, and that certainly has the potential of growing larger in
certain areas of the state.
MR. POWELL pointed out that these figures do not include the
responses of the Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Forestry. It keeps its own statistics. However, it would
include those if a fire department responded first. He just
collects fire department information, he noted.
MR. POWELL explained that he'd left 1996 out because there was
the large Miller's Reach fire in 1996. There was some suspicion
that fireworks caused that although that was not conclusively
shown. If that fire was included, it would add another
$5 million item.
Number 1146
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if there were other laws or statutes
governing manmade fires and the penalties attendant with those
regulations.
MR. POWELL answered that the Department of Natural Resources
does have regulations regarding man-caused fires.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the intent of the legislation is
to just prohibit the use of these kinds of fireworks or to also
prohibit the ownership or purchase of them.
MR. POWELL said he believes it is to prevent the sale and use.
The bottle rockets are prohibited year-round and would not be
allowed to be sold. The aerial rockets would be permitted
during the winter months.
Number 1345
ROBERT HALL, Owner, Gorilla Fireworks, expressed support for
HB 487. He has worked with the fire marshal and thinks in the
long term it will be the best for the fireworks industry, he
told members. It is modeled on what has happened in North Pole,
which prohibits bottle rockets year-round and prohibits the sale
of rockets in the summer months. North Pole has had very good
results, he said. This is a proactive thing. There is no
emergency or crisis being faced, but the [Municipality] of
Anchorage has expressed concern about the spruce bark beetle and
the fire in the Hillside area. This would bring all the vendors
under the same rules. It will give some stability to the
industry. If this bill doesn't make it, he said he will work on
a cooperative arrangement until a bill gets through.
Number 1463
JOEL ELROD, North Star Fireworks, Glennallen, testified via
teleconference. He stated that the vendors can do a lot to
prevent the misuse of fireworks. There is a law now that
restricts people under the age of 18 in Alaska from purchasing
fireworks. He will not market fireworks to anyone underage
without parental consent, he said, and that helps. In 1996 he
was in Nenana marketing fireworks and there was a ban, and it
worked because it reduced the sales. When there is extreme fire
danger, public announcements will effectively help prevent
fires.
MR. ELROD wondered if HB 487 passes, whether it would cause some
people to be unemployed during the summer. If certain fireworks
are restricted, the sales would be so low that the fireworks
stands would not be able to be open during the summer and he
would be out of a job. It could be a $1 million business in
Alaska, he suggested, although he had no statistics to back that
up. People may be unemployed because of the bill.
MR. ELROD commented that consumer education can help a lot, and
consideration ought to be given to the problem of alcohol abuse
and the misuse of fireworks. He tries not to market his
fireworks to someone who is intoxicated, he stated.
Number 1632
JEREMY BESHAW testified via teleconference. He referred to the
spruce bark beetle and stated that any firefighter knows that if
the fuel is removed, there won't be a fire. He suggested that
the deadwood trees be eliminated. A firebreak was put through
in Glennallen, he noted, but it has not been maintained. He
agreed with Mr. Elrod that HB 487 would put the small guy out of
business.
Number 1700
CHAIR COGHILL announced HB 487 will be held over until the next
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
approximately 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|