Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/07/1996 09:15 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 7, 1996
9:15 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-96, #33, Side 1 and 2
SFC-96, #34, Side 1 (000-316)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:15 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairmen Halford and Frank, Senators
Donley, Phillips, Rieger, and Zharoff were present. Senator
Sharp arrived as the meeting was in progress.
ALSO ATTENDING: Senator Torgerson; Representative Ogan; Tom
Garrett, Director, Division of Tourism, Dept. of Commerce
and Economic Development; Wendy Wolf, Programs Manager,
Division of Tourism, Dept. of Commerce and Economic
Development; Catherine Reardon, Director, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Dept. of Commerce and Economic
Development; Bob Stalnaker, Director, Division of Retirement
and Benefits, Dept. of Administration; Ken Taylor, Deputy
Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Dept. of Fish
and Game; Barbara Gabier, Program Coordinator, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Dept. of Commerce and Economic
Development; Nancy Weller, Medical Assistance Administrator,
Division of Medical Assistance, Dept. of Health and Social
Services; Gordon Evans, representing the Health Insurance
Association of America; Harlan Knudson, Alaska State
Hospital & Nursing Home Association; Mike Greany, Director,
Legislative Finance Division; Bruce Richards, aide to
Senator Salo; and aides to committee members and other
members of the legislature.
ALSO PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE FROM KODIAK: Joe
D'Amico, Commander, Commercial Crimes Bureau, Division of
Fish and Wildlife Protection, Dept. of Public Safety; and
Dick Rottrer.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 86 - COMMEMORATIVE GOLD RUSH LICENSE PLATES
Testimony was presented by Tom Garrett and Wendy
Wolf of the Dept. of Commerce and Economic
Development. The bill was then held in committee
for comments by the sponsor and an updated fiscal
note (showing revenue projections) from the Dept.
of Public Safety.
SB 193 - MANDATORY INSURANCE FOR COSTS OF BIRTH
Testimony was presented by Bob Stalnaker, Nancy
Weller, Gordon Evans, Harlan Knudson, and Bruce
Richards. The bill was subsequently held in
committee for further discussion.
SB 241 - STUDDED TIRES ON STERLING HIGHWAY
Testimony was presented by the sponsor, Senator
Torgerson. The bill was then REPORTED OUT of
committee with a unanimous "do pass"
recommendation and zero fiscal notes from the
Dept. of Public Safety and the Dept. of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
HB 335 - BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
Discussion was had with Representative Ogan, Ken
Taylor, and Catherine Reardon. Commander Joe
D'Amico and Dick Rottrer listened via
teleconference from Kodiak. SCSCSHB 335 (Fin)
(version W, 3/7/96) was ADOPTED with a technical
amendment on page 8. In response to concerns
cited by the Director of Occupational Licensing,
she was asked to provide proposed amendments
relating to (a) differentiation of fees between
resident and non-resident guides, (b) definition
of "biologist," and (c) revised language
eliminating "a written and oral" from statutory
language pertaining to the examination for a
registered guide license. The bill was then held
in committee for further review.
SENATE BILL NO. 241
An Act relating to the use of studded tires on the
Sterling Highway.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 241 be brought on for
discussion. SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, sponsor of the
legislation, came before committee. He explained that the
bill would cure a problem on the Sterling Highway. Because
current law establishes a different time frame for use of
studded tires on the southern peninsula portion of the
highway between Ninilchik and Homer, those driving from
Anchorage to Homer are legally required to change tires in
Ninilchik in order to complete the journey to Homer, and
reverse the process when returning to Anchorage. The law is
presently being ignored, but the statutes should be
corrected.
Senator Torgerson referenced an earlier fiscal note by the
Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities indicating
fiscal impact. The department has since changed the fiscal
note to zero.
Senator Donley MOVED that SB 241 pass from committee with
accompanying zero fiscal notes. No objection having been
raised, SB 241 was REPORTED OUT of committee with a
unanimous "do pass" recommendation and zero notes from the
Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Dept.
of Public Safety.
SENATE BILL NO. 86
An Act relating to issuance of special request
commemorative gold rush motor vehicle license
plates.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 86 be brought on for
discussion. TOM GARRETT, Director, Division of Tourism,
Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development; and WENDY WOLF,
Programs Manager, Division of Tourism, Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development, and Co-chair, Alaska Gold Rush
Centennial Task Force; came before committee. Ms. Wolf
attested to a close working relationship between the
division and the Yukon as a result of the successful highway
anniversary promotion. She also advised of a cooperative
agreement with Yukon and British Columbia Tourism North to
build upon the gold rush anniversary as another means of
creating tourism opportunities, increasing highway travel,
and providing Alaskans an opportunity to learn about state
history. The task force began to form in 1992. It has
involved over a hundred individuals, statewide, via
teleconference. The effort is conducted within existing
funding for the division's office of history and
archaeology. In 1994 the legislature, by resolution,
recognized the gold rush centennial and the role of the task
force to coordinate statewide activities.
Ms. Wolf referenced distribution of an annual newsletter and
report and a series of community grants as evidence of
ongoing efforts. She further advised of design of a logo
and development of a press kit in conjunction with the
Alaska Tourism Marketing Council and the state library. She
then distributed a press kit for members' review. The
public relations program grew as communities offered funding
in support of state efforts. That enabled the division to
go on line and share a page with the Yukon Territory,
establish a recognition program for pioneers and historic
properties, provide for coordination of museum and symposium
planning, etc.
Interest in the centennial is high. The license plate made
available through SB 89 is a cost effective marketing tool.
After sale of the first 260 plates (at $30 a set), the state
will break even. Those purchasing subsequent plates will
pay for the cost of the program. Ms. Wolf urged support for
the bill. Senator Donley commented on lack of estimated
revenue on 1995 fiscal notes. Co-chairman Halford
concurred. He further noted analysis language saying that
"A revised fiscal note will be submitted to reflect new
general fund revenue." He then observed that since there is
no subsequent note, the status of the Dept. of Public Safety
fiscal note is unknown. The Co-chairman estimated that sale
of $30 sets of plates which cost $2.60 to produce would
result in a positive fiscal note of $15.0 to $18.0. A
fiscal note must be provided before the bill can move from
committee.
Co-chairman Frank referenced previously proposed legislation
requiring vehicles to have only one license plate and
suggested that perhaps that provision could be incorporated
within the present bill. He expressed need to discuss that
possibility with the sponsor. As an alternative, he
subsequently recommended that the centennial gold rush
license plate become standard issue. Mr. Garrett voiced
appreciation for that approach, characterizing it as "our
ultimate marketing dream."
In response to a question from Senator Zharoff, Ms. Wolf
said that the decade of gold rush plates would extend to
2004.
Discussion followed between Ms. Wolf and Senator Randy
Phillips regarding division efforts during the Alaska
Highway celebration. She advised that perceived problems
stemmed from the fact that the Yukon expended considerably
more on the effort than did Alaska.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 86 be held in committee
pending receipt of an updated fiscal note and attendance by
the sponsor, Senator Sharp.
SENATE BILL NO. 193
An Act requiring insurance coverage for certain costs
of birth; and providing for an effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 193 be brought on for
discussion. BRUCE RICHARDS, aide to Senator Judy Salo, came
before committee. He explained that the bill would require
48-hour mandatory coverage of postpartum hospitalization and
medical care for a mother and new-born baby for regular
vaginal delivery and 96 hours for a Cesarean section. The
legislation was introduced in response to a call from a
constituent who was not authorized to remain in the hospital
after 24 hours and did not believe she was ready to be
discharged. Review of the situation indicates this is
becoming a nationwide issue. Six states have passed similar
legislation, and it is under consideration in 16 others.
Mr. Richards referenced subsection (c), commencing at page
1, line 13, and stressed that the bill does not require
mothers and infants to remain in the hospital for 48 or 96
hours. If the mother and physician are in agreement,
discharge may occur prior to stated time frames. Senator
Donley expressed concern over "to what great lengths
insurance companies go to avoid providing coverage" and
noted that statutory language has previously been twisted in
dramatic ways.
GORDON EVANS, Health Insurance Association of America, came
before committee voicing opposition to the bill. He said
the association opposes all legislation which mandates
coverage since it tends to raise costs. The instant bill
would merely add another law to cure a non-existent problem
in Alaska.
Mr. Evans pointed to great strides made by the health care
industry in providing and delivering quality care at reduced
costs. One means of achieving the reduction was to lower
the number of in-patient hospital stays for a variety of
illnesses, including the length of maternity stay. The
average stay for maternity is not the result of a change in
policy by insurance companies but the result of a long trend
of steady decline. The average stay for vaginal delivery
was 4 days in 1970, 2.2 days in 1988, and 2 days in 1993.
That decline is consistent with the decline for other
services, due to increased medical knowledge and advances in
patient care.
Mr. Evans acknowledged that the health care industry has not
gotten across some key points in "this mostly emotional
issue." The issue does not involve debate about "covering
medically necessary care." If hospital care is necessary,
insurers will cover it for as long as needed. The real
issue is whether, and how, insurers and policy holders
should cover care that is not medically necessary or which
does not need to be provided in an unduly expensive setting
such as a hospital versus a home or hotel. Critics of early
discharge fail to understand that not paying for unnecessary
care or care in unnecessary settings is what enables
insurers to offer numerous other services managed care
programs provide. Mr. Evans cited "well-baby," dental, and
vision coverage as examples. He stressed that "nobody wants
a discharge program that jeopardizes the health of a mother
or child." The industry would not be utilizing early
discharge programs if they were not medically safe. There
is a lack of data indicating that early discharge before 48
hours after vaginal and before 96 after a Cesarean section
is harmful or unsafe for the mother or baby. Advocates of
proposed new mandates within CSSB 193 (L&C) have provided no
evidence that insurance companies doing business in Alaska
are systematically requiring mothers and infants to be
discharged before they are medically ready. There is no
empirical evidence to suggest how long a hospital maternity
stay should be. The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists suggests that:
There is relatively little scientific data on the
ideal length of hospital stay for delivery.
The American Medical Association has taken a similar
position. The Health Insurance Association of America
believes that services and length of hospital stay for
mothers and infants should be determined on a case-by-case
basis and on medical necessity for both mother and child as
determined jointly by a mother and her doctor.
Co-chairman Frank voiced his understanding that if a doctor
now determines that a woman should remain hospitalized for
longer than 48 hours following a regular birth, no insurance
company now doing business in Alaska would refuse to cover
that care. Mr. Evans concurred in that understanding.
Discussion followed concerning the situation which gave rise
to introduction of the legislation. Mr. Evans advised that
one of Senator Salo's constituents indicated she was forced
to leave the hospital before 24 hours. He acknowledged that
an isolated case of early discharge might have occurred, but
he said he had no knowledge of such a case. No complaint
was filed with the Division of Insurance.
NANCY WELLER, Medical Assistance Administrator, Division of
Medical Assistance, Dept. of Health and Social Services,
came before committee in response to a question from Senator
Rieger asking if the proposed bill would impact Medicaid.
She explained that while it is unclear whether or not there
will be impact, and the sponsor has requested a legal
opinion, impact is not anticipated because the legislation
does not require hospitalization. The bill speaks to
hospitalization or medical care for a certain number of
hours following delivery. The Medicaid program provides 24
hours of in-patient care for vaginal delivery and 72 hours
for a Cesarean section without a request for prior
authorization for extended stay. If the physician feels the
mother needs to remain hospitalized for a longer period, the
professional review organization is called, medical
information is shared, approval is obtained, and Medicaid
pays for the care. Medicaid also provides for "any
medically necessary services for the pregnant woman and the
child following delivery." If the mother is only Medicaid
eligible because she is pregnant, she "gets two months of
all health care services covered by the program following
discharge from the hospital."
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that should Medicaid
be impacted by the proposed bill, current program procedures
would remain unchanged. Mrs. Weller concurred, advising of
her understanding that the bill does not require 48 hours of
hospitalization. In response to a question from the
Senator, Mrs. Weller said that children born to women on
Medicaid receive "an automatic one-year coverage of Medicaid
without reapplying for coverage."
In response to questions from Co-chairman Frank, Mrs. Weller
explained that Medicaid policies are similar to those of
insurance companies in terms of provision of 24 hours of
care for vaginal delivery in a hospital. If the mother
requires additional care, the physician calls and requests
permission for an extended stay. The Co-chairman advised of
his understanding that the legislation would require that
the mother remain in the hospital for 48 hours unless she
and the physician agree on earlier discharge. Since that
appears to differ from present Medicaid policy in terms of
length of stay and pre-approval for an extended stay, it is
difficult to understand why no cost would be involved. Mrs.
Weller reiterated that the bill does not mandate an in-
patient setting. It is thus questionable whether there will
be impact on the program. Co-chairman Frank referenced the
sponsor's intent that the patient remain in the hospital
rather than merely under a doctor's care.
Bruce Richards returned before committee to explain that the
term "medical care" would cover home visits and return
visits to the doctor. Co-chairman Frank again questioned
the fact that the bill appears to mandate 48 hours while
Medicaid specifies 24 hours, with prior approval for
exceptional cases. He suggested that should the proposed
bill pass, there would be an inconsistency between what
private health care providers are required to cover and what
Medicaid provides. At the present time, private insurance
and Medicaid appear to be comparable. Should the proposed
bill pass, Medicaid would become substandard relative to the
new mandate. Mr. Richards voiced his belief that the
proposed bill would cover Medicaid. He suggested there
would be no increase in costs because Medicaid is living up
to the spirit of the law at the present time. Authorization
after 24 hours is forthcoming under Medicaid. Medicaid also
pays for medical care once the patient is discharged.
In response to additional questions from Co-chairman Frank,
Mr. Richards explained that the proposed legislation
responds to "a small problem in Alaska." It is more
prevalent in the "Lower Forty-eight" due to health
maintenance organizations. The intention is to "nip this
problem in the bud." Some places in California are
discussing discharge as soon as six hours after delivery.
While no evidence indicates 48 hours is the "magic number,"
there is also no evidence to suggest that early discharge is
safe. The American Academy of Pediatrics has asked for a
moratorium on the issue.
Co-chairman Frank advised of difficulty envisioning a
situation in which a doctor recommends continued
hospitalization but the hospital nevertheless discharges the
patient. Mr. Richards said that the question is not whether
the individual will be discharged but "Who is going to pay
for the coverage if they stayed longer." People pay for
medical insurance to cover situations such as that.
Amendments contained within the proposed bill relate to the
insurance title rather than health codes.
Senator Rieger asked if reference to "insurer" would cover
HMOs. Mr. Richards responded affirmatively.
In response to a further question from Senator Rieger, Mr.
Richards stressed that the proposed bill does not require a
patient to remain in the hospital for 48 hours. Under bill
language, the decision to leave earlier would be made by the
patient and her doctor. Language commencing at page 1, line
14, and carrying over to page 2, lines 1 and 2, reflects the
sponsor's intent that the decision be made by both the
patient and doctor in consultation with one another.
Senator Rieger referenced correspondence from a pediatrician
who indicated that the best way to ensure a baby gets off to
a healthy start is follow-up visits, especially in the first
week. That is what is most commonly not covered by
insurance. Mr. Richards explained that lack of bill
provisions relating to follow-up care reflects Alaska's
geography and the manner in which health care is provided
across the state.
Co-chairman Frank voiced reluctance to place arbitrary time
periods in statute. He then questioned why the decision on
length of stay should not be left to the doctor to decide.
END: SFC-96, #33, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #33, Side 2
The Co-chairman next asked how a stay beyond 48 hours would
be covered. Mr. Richards responded that most insurance
companies would cover medically necessary costs.
Co-chairman Frank suggested that the focus of the bill is
"this feeling that the mother may not be ready to leave"
rather than reliance on a medical professional's opinion.
Mr. Richards explained that the physician would consult with
the patient prior to making a decision. That is why bill
language relates to a decision by the mother and the "health
care provider" rather than the doctor alone. Co-chairman
Frank suggested that a specific time frame might not be
necessary if the decision is left to the doctor. That
appears to be more logical than placing an arbitrary limit
in statute. Mr. Richards reiterated that the bill deals
only with who is going to pay for the initial 48 hours. Co-
chairman Frank again voiced concern over legislative mandate
of a specific time frame, saying that it moves away from the
professional judgment aspect of individual cases.
Individuals want insurance to cover costs, and costs should
be medically reasonable and necessary.
Senator Sharp inquired regarding the frequently of
incidences in which a physician has recommended a stay
longer than 24 hours for which an insurance company has
refused to pay. Mr. Richards described that occurrence in
Alaska as "very small." The problem is growing outside of
Alaska and only starting to show here.
BOB STALNAKER, Director, Division of Retirement and
Benefits, Dept. of Administration, next came before
committee. Co-chairman Halford referenced fiscal note
information estimating a monthly per-employee charge of
$1.78. Mr. Stalnaker explained that the $104.0
note (dated 2/21/96) stemmed from analysis of potential
impact of increased hospital stays. Numbers were predicated
on what the department thinks experience will be. State
plans are experience rated. In such situations, it is
common for the department to show costs in the analysis
section. Mr. Stalnaker directed attention to an updated
zero fiscal note and referenced amounts set forth within
analysis language.
The current plan pre-certifies pregnant women for one day
for a vaginal delivery. If complications arise, coverage is
not denied, regardless of the length of stay, if there is
medical necessity. Experience shows that most women who go
to the hospital for delivery want to leave as quickly as
possible. Mr. Stalnaker said he was unaware of individuals
or physicians disagreeing with the present approach. He
subsequently noted that he knew of one case where the
individual was upset because she was not pre-certified for
two days. Mr. Stalnaker acknowledged attempts in California
to bring the time down to six hours. With increased managed
care there is a "tendency to try to squeeze it as much as
possible." What is happening nationally is a reaction to
that. There is a reasonable point somewhere. That is why
the department is neutral on the proposed bill. Mr.
Stalnaker advised that he was not aware of any cases where
the state disagreed with a doctor on what was prescribed for
a particular patient.
Co-chairman Frank said he was more comfortable leaving the
decision on length of stay to the doctor's discretion rather
than mandating a minimum.
Senator Rieger inquired concerning the co-payment for an
extended stay. Mr. Stalnaker advised of an 80% co-payment
per the state health plan. A state employee can purchase an
addition 10% coverage. The co-payment applies to any
services, including delivery. Senator Rieger suggested that
at a market cost of $600 a day for hospitalization, mothers
would not frivolously remain if the extended stay would cost
them $120. Mr. Stalnaker concurred, saying that the
foregoing was considered when the department analyzed the
bill. While experience might raise costs, the department
does not know what those costs might be. It is not
reasonable to assume that a mother would want to incur
additional, unnecessary costs. He acknowledged that the
legislation might not measurably impact the plan. However,
it could increase stays. That will not be known until the
department has some experience with the issue.
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that under the
status quo, which is policy rather than law, the stay is 24
hours. It is then up to the discretion of the doctor, only,
for the patient to remain beyond that time. Should the
proposed bill become law, remaining for the next 24 hours
would be up to the discretion of the doctor and the patient.
Hospitalization beyond 48 hours would, again, be up to the
discretion of the doctor. Mr. Stalnaker concurred. Senator
Rieger then voiced his belief that, in light of the co-
payment, it is unlikely there will be great impact from the
bill.
Brief discussion of co-payments for insurance plans followed
between Co-chairman Frank and Mr. Stalnaker.
HARLAN KNUDSON, Alaska Hospital and Nursing Home
Association, next came before committee, voicing support for
the bill. He acknowledged pressure on both insurers and
health care providers to lower costs. He questioned the
qualifications of both himself and committee members to deal
with an issue involving women and infants. He further
attested to a lack of understanding of conditions in Alaska
by out-of-state insurance companies when a physician calls
to request authorization for extended hospitalization. He
urged that members discuss the legislation with their wives,
mothers, and sisters prior to a vote.
When Senator Rieger asked about the actual cost of an extra
hospital day, Mr. Knudson noted that, in delivery of care,
hospitals tend to bunch charges into the first day.
Subsequent days are generally less costly.
Co-chairman Halford referenced the updated fiscal note
reflecting impact of $125.0 to $250.0 in the analysis
portion and questioned whether figures should be presented
in that fashion or spread across cost columns. He said he
was not convinced that notation in the analysis portion
meets the letter of fiscal note law. He acknowledged,
however, that that policy issue is not unique to the
proposed bill.
Discussion followed between Co-chairman Frank and Mr.
Stalnaker regarding the impact of health care cost increases
on the state plan. In the course of his comments, Mr.
Stalnaker described deductibles and caps as methods of cost
control.
Further discussion followed concerning insurance provisions
of state agreements with five employee labor unions and the
commissioner's plan which covers non-union employees. Mr.
Stalnaker noted that the state has experienced three years
of no cost increases. The dynamics of health insurance
increases "are starting to hit the plan again." The
proposed bill will not "matter in the big scheme of things."
It will not have material impact on the plan as a whole.
Co-chairman Halford directed that the bill be held for
further review.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 335(RES)(title am)
An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board; eliminating the requirement
for a commercial use permit and for payment of
commercial use permit fees; amending the membership of
the Big Game Commercial Services Board; relating to the
qualifications for an assistant guide-outfitter
license; eliminating the requirement for testing of
assistant guide-outfitters; providing for additional
licensing requirements for transporters; eliminating
the requirement for prior approval to enter or remain
on state and federal land; eliminating the requirement
to register base camps; amending the definition of 'big
game commercial services'; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-chairman Halford directed that CSHB 335 (Res)(title am)
be brought on for discussion and referenced a draft SCS CSHB
335 (Fin) (9-LS1156\W, Utermohle, 3/7/96). REPRESENTATIVE
SCOTT OGAN, sponsor of the legislation, came before
committee and explained that under the proposed draft:
1. Authority to license guides is given to the Dept.
of Commerce and Economic Development.
2. Basic statutory definitions for guides remain.
New language says that a person who has been
convicted of a felony in the last ten years
cannot qualify for a guide license.
3. Assistant guides may be hired without a test, upon
recommendation of a guide. That is a significant,
positive change.
4. Provisions for class-A guides will encourage rural
employment. A class-A guide is someone who has
lived or hunted in the area for ten years and
lives in the local area.
5. Game biologists are precluded from becoming a
guide for twelve months after employment by the
Dept. of Fish and Game in areas in which
they worked and studied. An individual
employed by the state to study animals
in an area has an unfair advantage to
subsequently exploit the wildlife.
Existing law prohibiting a fish and
wildlife enforcement officer from
becoming a guide prior to three months
after concluding employment is retained.
6. The level of accountability for transporters, in
terms
of violations, is raised to the same level as
guides.
7. Language within insurance provisions is changed to
require proof of financial responsibility.
8. The time that an individual may operate an
airplane incidental to guide activities is increased
from 250 to 500 hours.
9. Authority is given to the Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development to discipline guides convicted of
violations.
10. Guide-use areas are retained. However, guides
will not have to report to the department or get a
permit from the department for a guide-use
area. Guides will have to be in three use
areas. They will simply have to notify
protection when they wish to change, and they
may change once every calendar year.
11. Statutory language regarding what a guide may do
and what a transporter may not do is expanded so that
there is no cross-over between the two.
12. Retroactive authority is provided to those who
were licensed since the old board was sunset.
13. Wage and hour provisions exempt assistant guides
from overtime--similar to provisions for
fishermen, agriculture, and various other
occupations.
14. The commercial-use permit is eliminated.
The industry has complained for many years that it is
difficult to get assistant guides because of testing
requirements. A guide is legally responsible for action in
the field as if he were committing each act himself. He is
thus responsible for not only the actions of his assistant
guides but those of his clients. With that level of
responsibility, guides should be able to hire whomever they
wish.
Representative Ogan directed attention to a needed change at
page 8, line 11, and recommended removal of "at all times."
He explained that it is impractical for a registered or
class-A assistant guide to be physically present with the
assistant guide "at all times." Supervision by a registered
guide or class-A assistant is acceptable. Co-chairman
Halford noted that after the recommended deletion language
would remain as it is in current law.
Senator Sharp voiced his understanding that mandated
insurance requirements had expired. He then asked if
current provisions for insurance or proof of financial
responsibility were the only insurance provisions.
Representative Ogan responded affirmatively. Senator Sharp
attested to several guides who conducted two or three hunts
a year who had to go out of business because they could not
afford the mandated insurance.
Senator Randy Phillips MOVED for adoption of SCS CSHB
335(Fin) (Version W, dated 3/7/96) with the technical change
recommended by Representative Ogan at page 8, line 11. No
objection having been raised, SCS CSHB 335 (Fin) was
ADOPTED.
In response to a question from Senator Zharoff, asking why
deleted language was included in the draft, Co-chairman
Halford explained that the intent is that the level of
supervision for assistant guides be higher than supervision
required for class-A assistant guides. Original language
adopting class-A assistant guide provisions was intended to
encourage the hire of long-time residents in game management
units. The attempt was to keep local people in local
hunting areas involved. The Co-chairman reiterated that the
level of supervision for a class-A assistant guide should be
less than supervision required for an assistant guide. That
provides an advantage to hiring and keeping class-A
assistant guides.
Senator Zharoff asked if the forgoing would allow a guide to
supervise from "a penthouse in San Francisco." Co-chairman
Halford acknowledged that the board discussed the issue of
supervision for many years. The rule in the old system was
that a class-A assistant guide could be running a camp as
long as the contracting, registered, or master guide had
contracted the hunt and was actively involved in the hunt at
some point. An assistant guide had to have contact on a
regular basis with the contracting guide or a class-A
assistant guide. Representative Ogan noted that during his
term as a public member on the guide board, the standard was
that the registered guide had to be in the camp at least
once during each hunt. Under the proposed bill, a class-A
assistant guide may supervise an assistant guide in the
field.
Senator Rieger asked if others associated with the camp (the
cook and packers) would have to be licensed. Representative
Ogan responded negatively. Only those who help pursue,
stalk, take or actively engage in hunting must be licensed.
Referencing language at page 17, subsections (A) through
(G), Representative Ogan explained that he lifted language
from existing regulations and placed it in statute.
Established practices needed statutory classification.
KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Dept. of Fish and Game, came before committee.
He said that while he had only recently received a copy of
the draft committee substitute, initial review indicates
that it is "a lot cleaner than existing law." Requirements
removed from existing law (the operations plan was cited)
will not significantly impact management. The Dept. of
Public Safety and division of fish and wildlife enforcement
would have to address impact as well.
Senator Zharoff referenced the license fee structure on page
16 and asked if it differentiates between residents and non-
residents. Co-chairman Halford answered negatively. He
acknowledged discussion of a differential. For many years,
a registered guide or master guide had to be an Alaska
resident. That was lost in a constitutional question
because guiding is a commercial activity. He then suggested
that there could be a ratio of fees between resident and
non-resident guides and transporters.
END: SFC-96, #33, Side 2
BEGIN: SFC-96, #34, Side 1
The Co-chairman advised that language could specify that
non-resident fees in each category are four times the fee
for a resident. Senator Zharoff suggested that the
committee review that possibility and make provisions
consistent with other areas where non-resident fees are
different from those paid by residents.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, next
came before committee. She said the department had not yet
had an opportunity to examine the details of the draft bill,
take an official position, or prepare fiscal notes. She
acknowledged that the legislation would have fiscal impact
on the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development as well as
the Dept. of Public Safety (due to elimination of commercial
use permits that previously generated enforcement funds).
Ms. Reardon next noted areas within the draft giving rise to
questions and cited provisions requiring "fine tuning:"
Page 3, Line 4, language relating to "written or oral"
examinations would be more manageable if it simply said "an
examination." Oral exams are difficult to administer to
larger groups or in rural areas. Co-chairman Halford asked
that the department prepare an amendment reflecting the
change. He acknowledged that cited language was designed
for administration by a peer review board and was more
cumbersome than it needed to be.
Page 8, Line 10, language relating to supervision of
assistant guides is of concern. There is need for
clarification. The department would prepare regulations
defining what supervision means. At the present time,
class-A and assistant guides both have the same supervision
requirements. The guide has to show up once during the
hunt. Ms. Reardon advised of her understanding of foregoing
discussion to be that class-A guides should require less
supervision than assistant guides. Language at Page 7, Line
22, says that class-A guides may take charge of a camp and
conduct guide activities without the registered guide being
present in the area, as long as the registered guide is
supervising. If it is the intention that assistant guides
not be able to do so, it would be helpful if bill language
at page 8 says that an assistant guide cannot take charge of
a camp. Otherwise, supervision could be construed as
supervision from a distance. If the goal is to make class-A
guides more appealing to the employer, it would be helpful
if lack of independent authority for an assistant guide was
clarified.
Page 7 licensing requirements for class-A guides. Ms.
Reardon noted two methods of attaining a class-A license
under current law:
1. Employment one season as an assistant guide plus
ten years of hunting experience in the game management
unit, or
2. Physical residency in the game management unit and
fifteen years of hunting experience in the unit.
If the legislature wishes to place a premium on those who
reside in the game management unit, option number two should
be the only method of attaining that license.
Page 8 language relating to game biologists needs a
definition of "game biologist." Co-chairman Halford asked
that Ms. Reardon provide appropriate language. He explained
that the provision is simply intended to prohibit an
individual employed by the state to gather information from
immediately using that information in a private business
venture.
Page 10, Line 25-26, insurance requirements speak to proof
of financial responsibility of $100.0. Ms. Reardon
questioned what type of proof the individual would have to
submit to the department (a list of assets, something from
an accountant, etc.). Should the department check to
determine if the assets are available every two years?
There are some administrative logistics that need to be
worked out.
Page 12, Line 10, subsection (e) relating to inability of
the department to discipline a transporter for violations
committed by his or her employee. Co-chairman Halford
subsequently voiced intent that both registered guides and
transporters be treated equally in terms of responsibility
for their employees. In response to a question from Senator
Zharoff, the Co-chairman advised that transporters are
responsible for reporting violations of which they are
aware. They are, however, not actively involved in the
field. A transporter would be in violation if he or she
knowingly transports an illegal animal and does not report
the violation. Language pinpointed by Ms. Reardon appears
to be a drafting error. It was intended that the
responsibility levels be comparable and commensurate with
ability to both report violations and "know what was going
on."
Page 14, Line 30, language says that "guides" are
responsible for assistant guides.
Page 19 reference to wage and hour law should be discussed
with staff from the Dept. of Labor. Co-chairman Halford
noted that the industry has had problems with the issue in
the past. The proposed bill includes a limitation of 60
days a year. The existing exemption for fishery processing
workers and other exemptions are "wide open." The language
applies only to licensed personnel, in the employ of
licensed personnel, and "only for a maximum of 60 days . . .
." It thus relates to limited, seasonal employees in a very
specific area. Cooks and other unlicensed personnel would
not be covered by the exemption.
Ms. Reardon referenced earlier discussion of resident and
non-resident fees and advised that it would be helpful if
the differential was placed in statute, or the department
will establish one, across-the-board, consistent fee. Ms.
Reardon referenced a program with language saying that out-
of-state collection agency fees are twice as high as in
state. Co-chairman Halford again asked that the department
prepare amending language and a position paper concerning
whether the department would support the differential
between residents and non-residents.
Senator Sharp suggested that definition of a non-resident
track with one-year residency requirements for purchasing a
hunting license. Co-chairman Halford responded that the
effort could be tried. He acknowledged a possible
constitutional question because a hunting license is a
privilege, not a right. A commercial activity is usually
more suspect when residents are preferred over non-
residents.
Senator Rieger referenced old law relating to guides and
guide-outfitters and asked what changes are proposed in the
instant bill. Co-chairman Halford explained that in the
late 1980s, the law was changed to include the term
"outfitter" with the term "guide" because the term
"outfitter" is used outside of Alaska to denote one who
provides both outfitting and guiding services. The proposed
bill reverts to original definitions and original language.
He suggested, however, that the members might wish to
include a prohibition on use of the term "outfitter" by
someone who is not a registered or master guide, as it
applies to big game hunting.
Senator Rieger cited an example of an individual who does
not actually guide the hunt (stalk the animal) but flies a
hunter to a location and provides a camp and asked if the
provider would be regulated as a guide under the proposed
bill. Co-chairman Halford voiced intent that the provider
be treated the same. If the transporter is operating in air
commerce, the transporter would have to have an air taxi
license. If one provides services in the field in actual
pursuit of game, a guide license is required. Senator
Rieger asked if that includes setting up the camp. Co-
chairman Halford responded negatively, advising that a
section within the proposed legislation deals specifically
with that activity.
Senator Rieger directed attention to Page 17, Line 18, and
referenced the definition of "outfit." He also referenced
language at Page 5, Line 27, which says a registered guide
may contract to guide or outfit hunts. He then noted that
language appears to indicate that outfitting is guiding and
asked if that is a change from the status quo. Co-chairman
Halford advised that it is the intent to maintain the status
quo in those three areas. He said he would further review
the draft to ensure that is the case. Catherine Reardon
remarked that brief review of the draft indicates that the
current situation is unchanged. She clarified that under
current law, one who flies hunters in and drops them off
must have a transporter license. One who flies hunters into
a camp set up and established by the transporter must also
have a guide license. That would continue to be required
under the proposed draft.
Co-chairman Halford acknowledged the participation of JOE
D'AMICO, Commander, Commercial Crimes Bureau, Division of
Fish and Wildlife Protection, Dept. of Public Safety, via
teleconference from Kodiak. The Co-chairman then advised
that the bill would be held for further review.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|