Legislature(2015 - 2016)BILL RAY CENTER 230
06/01/2016 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB374 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 374 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION
June 1, 2016
1:03 p.m.
1:03:19 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Kate Burkhart, Alaska Mental Health Board, Juneau; Sheela
Tallman, Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Juneau;
Fred Parady, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development; Lori Wing-Heier,
Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; Gina Bosnakis, Owner,
Gina Bosnakis and Associates, Juneau; Senator Mia Costello;
Senator Cathy Giessel; Chris Hladick, Commissioner,
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
David Morgan, Self, Anchorage; Nancy Merriman, Executive
Director, Alaska Primary Care Association, Anchorage;
Jennifer Meyhoff, Co-Chair, Legislative Committee, Alaska
Association of Health Underwriters, Anchorage; Jennifer
Jolliffe, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CSHB 374(FIN)
REINSURANCE PROGRAM; HEALTH INS. WAIVERS
CSHB 374(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 374(FIN)
"An Act relating to coverage under a state plan
provided by the Comprehensive Health Insurance
Association; establishing the Alaska comprehensive
health insurance fund; relating to a reinsurance
program; relating to the definition of 'residents who
are high risks'; relating to an application for a
waiver for state innovation for health care insurance;
and providing for an effective date."
1:04:20 PM
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1:04:53 PM
KATE BURKHART, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, JUNEAU,
testified in support of the legislation. She noted that she
was the Executive Director of both the Alaska Mental Health
Board and the Department of Health and Social Services
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. She shared
that she provided written testimony (copy on file). She
remarked that the bill would benefit a unique portion of
the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA)
constituency. She discussed Alaskans who had mild to
moderate behavioral health conditions that could be treated
with regular access to a counselor or mental health
professional if the necessary resources were available. She
shared that working Alaskans often could not afford the
insurance plans available to them in the marketplace.
Subsequently individuals went without services, which could
lead to mental health conditions becoming acute, which led
to a greater level of disability that impaired the ability
to work. She thought that stabilizing the insurance system
and providing the opportunity for more affordable options
would benefit the aforementioned part of her constituency.
Ms. Burkhart stressed that there were private mental health
practitioners among the AMHTA constituency that could not
afford health insurance for themselves or their families,
which made it very difficult to recruit and retain
qualified mental health professionals. She emphasized that
private practitioners were an important part of Alaska's
health care sector, and served individuals with mild to
moderate conditions who were not in the Medicaid system and
were not among the acutely disabled population that was
normally discussed. She thought it was important to support
the small businesses and solo practitioners, so that they
had access to more choices and more affordable insurance
coverage. She remarked that the bill was not a panacea, but
rather a step forward to resolving problems in the
insurance sector. She expressed appreciation for earlier
comments in the committee relating to a commitment to
continued problem solving.
1:08:41 PM
DAVID MORGAN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), voiced
his support for the bill. He had worked in the health
industry for 32 years. He shared that he was a retired
health economist, and had a breadth of experience in the
health care industry. He commented on increases to private
insurance, and specified that Alaska and some other states
had seen an increase of over 40 percent. He remarked that
there was an actuarial flaw that people had been warned
about, and many groups had advocated for the current
program.
Mr. Morgan continued to address the bill. He discussed
insurance cooperatives (co-op). He thought the bill
proposed to create a pool that was a program for chronic
and acute medical conditions that were high-cost. He
commented on other states that had been used as examples,
and suggested that the cost-pools had developed into "black
holes of cost" that states had to pay for. He suggested
that the former Chronic Acute Medical Assistance (CAMA)
Program would be successful if the income issues were taken
out. He noted that he had six pages of written testimony
(copy on file) which would provide details. He mentioned
Centers of Medicare Quality. He alluded to a program by the
Alaska Health Insurance Underwriters. He was worried that
the institutions involved in the bill would not examine
cost drivers. He discussed Medicaid expansion, and the
associated costs. He mentioned future taxes. He commented
that projections were always low in cost, and overestimated
savings. He thought the bill did not go into great detail
as to definitions of what was considered chronic.
1:17:11 PM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if Mr. Morgan would support the
bill if there was no amendments.
Mr. Morgan answered in the negative, and considered the
current bill to be a "blank check." He thought interest
groups could influence the outcome. He thought general
parameters as to how the configuration would be set up and
managed would be important. He discussed existing studies
that could inform the state about managed care techniques
to incorporate into the bill. He thought the bill would
shift tens of millions of dollars, and thought there should
be cost containment.
Senator Dunleavy asked what Mr. Morgan foresaw happening to
healthcare in Alaska if the bill was not passed.
Mr. Morgan thought the situation could be turned to an
advantage by directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to follow the processes that were in the CAMA
program in order to improve quality by managing care. He
thought the processes would also control cost and make the
funds go farther. He discussed federal funding and a court
ruling regarding subsidies.
1:21:02 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about Mr. Morgan's reference to
CAMA.
Mr. Morgan discussed the CAMA program, which formerly had
income restrictions and served those that had pre-existing
conditions or that did not qualify for Medicaid. He
recalled that the average total cost of the program was
between $12 million and $15 million. He thought that it
would be more costly to do an insurance pool, and was
concerned about program growth once there was access to the
general fund (GF). He added that CAMA defined "chronic,"
which was important, and controlled costs. He opined that
the CAMA program encouraged quality.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about the Nuka program at the
Southcentral Foundation.
Mr. Morgan conveyed that he had done some financial work on
the Nuka program. The program managed chronic acute
patients, and it had lowered the cost per member, per
month. The program had certified Medicare dieticians to
work with acute diabetes. The program managed pharmacology
and emergency room visits. He suggested that the state
utilize a solution in Alaska that was working.
1:24:27 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that the Division of Insurance
had expressed it did not manage healthcare. Rather, it paid
providers to do so, and it was processing claims. She
referred to managed care as she had discussed it in a
meeting earlier in the day. She considered her thoughts to
be aligned with those of Mr. Morgan. She referred to
insurance companies leaving the state. She wondered if Mr.
Morgan had a quick comment on the matter.
Mr. Morgan estimated that there was possibly 200 to 300
individuals for whom there would be a waiver. The state was
asking to develop a pool with the insurance program, which
the state would pay for. He did not know why the state
could not set certain parameters to manage the care. He
thought if the state was processing payments it would be in
control of where the payments went and what was being
purchased. He clarified that the configuration was not an
insurance program, but rather a state-funded pool. He
suggested that the state could get Mutual of Omaha or the
Kaiser Foundation to take up the program and manage it, or
even perhaps the Nuka program. He emphasized the importance
of getting the most quality for the state's dollars.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the number of people were
being considered was 495. She asked if Mr. Morgan had read
the most recent version of the bill.
Mr. Morgan answered in the negative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that version "P" of the bill
came from the House. She thought Mr. Morgan was indicating
that the state should include managed care in the portion
of the bill that applied a waiver for state innovation.
Mr. Morgan replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon hoped that Mr. Morgan would contact her
office with his notes and ideas as quickly as possible. She
communicated that the committee would be considering
amendments to the bill the following day.
Mr. Morgan thanked the committee.
1:29:58 PM
NANCY MERRIMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PRIMARY CARE
ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. She relayed that the Alaska
Primary Care Association (APCA) supported community health
centers throughout Alaska and served as one of the state's
two navigator organizations that performed outreach and
enrollment for Alaska's federally facilitated healthcare
marketplace. Since the previous year, APCA and partners in
the state had reported an increase in patients of all
income levels choosing to forego insurance due to price.
She pointed out that unaffordable insurance resulted in an
individual market that became full of sicker people that
needed insurance. Additionally, it resulted in increased
utilization of emergency services, poorer health outcomes,
and personal financial instability.
Ms. Merriman continued to discuss the bill. She supported
the legislation because it would ease the existing Alaska
Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (ACHIA)
mechanism to reinsure the most expensive claims by
individual policy holders. She thought the bill would
lessen the rate of annual policy inflation and stabilize
the individual health insurance marketplace. She supported
the section of the bill that authorized the state to begin
the process for applying for a 1332 waiver. She thought the
individual insurance market needed reinsurance to stabilize
costs as well as to instill confidence in potential new
insurers. She believed the cost of not passing the bill
could be the collapse of the individual insurance market,
and the shifting of individual costs of over $120 million
to plan holders in the bigger, small, and large group
market. She looked forward to working on the matter with
other groups in the future.
1:33:10 PM
SHEELA TALLMAN, PREMERA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ALASKA,
JUNEAU, testified in support of the bill. She read from her
written testimony (copy on file):
• The individual health insurance market is in crisis
• I'd like to start by briefly describing what got us
here-- With health reform, in 2014, the major change
to the insurance market was guaranteed issue to all
individuals without preexisting condition exclusions.
This provided access to insurance for several
thousands of individuals
And, Premera and insurers priced products
estimating the impact of the uninsured purchasing
coverage for the first time
We experienced a significant influx of new
enrollees with very high medical costs, many
leaving the high risk pool (which has shrunk by
half) and the federal preexisting condition pool
and Premera lost approximately $13 million in the
individual market
• For 2015 and 2016, Premera had approximately 37% and
39% average rate increases for the individual metallic
plans, but claims continue to exceed premiums.
To break even in 2015, Premera would have needed
a 70% increase
• To say it differently, Premera is taking in on
average $713 in premium PMPM and paying claims at $919
PMPM, demonstrating the very high claims costs in the
individual pool
• In a very small sized market like Alaska, there are
not enough healthy individual purchasers to offset the
costs of enrollees with very high medical needs
• Today-- Alaska's average benchmark plan premium is
the highest in the country (over $700 per month; next
highest state is $468)
While states are experiencing similar increases,
impacts in Alaska are more than double
While subsidies help many, Premera has over 1,200
individuals who do not qualify for them
• We are very concerned that premiums will continue to
skyrocket due to the small size of the individual pool
With fewer people to spread risk across, a small
number of individuals with high cost conditions
is destabilizing the pool and impacting costs
dramatically
• One solution - is an approach other insurers already
took- to exit the individual market
• Alternatively, Premera has been working
collaboratively with the DOI to come up with a
sustainable option for Alaskans-which is the
reinsurance program administered by the state's high
risk pool, ACIDA
• The reinsurance program would cover/reinsure the
claims for the highest cost medical conditions (long
term, chronic conditions- heart failure, kidney
disease)
• A reinsurance program would help mitigate the
premium increases for individual policyholders, but
also stabilize the market which can potentially
attract new competitors
It also provides more financial certainty to
customers about their health insurance
• Premera also supports the state innovation waiver
Premera supports flexibility at the state level
to help Alaskans maintain the coverage they've
had and to tailor reforms to meet the unique
needs of the AK market.
A waiver would allow the state to explore long
term ideas to help address the high cost of
healthcare in this state
• What Alaskans need is immediate relief from these
year over year premium increases
• HB 374 will help mitigate these swings and on behalf
of the 23k individual policyholders, we ask for your
support
1:38:34 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon recognized Senator Mia Costello and
Senator Cathy Giessel in the gallery.
JENNIFER MEYHOFF, CO-CHAIR, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, ALASKA
ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH UNDERWRITERS, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She
explained that the Association of Health Underwriters (AHU)
represented over 100 licensed health insurance brokers,
agents, consultants, and benefits specialists in Alaska.
She noted that AHU members consulted with individuals as
well as small and large Alaskan employers on how to
purchase, administer, and utilize individual or group
health insurance coverage. She discussed the portion of the
bill that amended ACHIA. She noted that much focus had been
given to the ACA, which was supposed to help deal with the
high-risk population. She thought the ACA had not worked in
Alaska, and if the bill passed, the state could utilize
ACHIA. She expressed understanding of the challenging
fiscal climate, but thought that the situation could be
much worse if the individual insurance market was not
stabilized.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the state did not have the
money to fund the bill. She asked Ms. Meyhoff if AHU had a
plan that had more participants than just the state.
Ms. Meyhoff replied that AHU had looked at the situation in
different ways, and one proposal had included additional
taxation per member per month as a solution for gathering
more funds. She stated that AHU was looking at ways to cut
costs for medical care, which she thought was not addressed
through ACA.
Co-Chair MacKinnon hoped Ms. Meyhoff understood the
position the legislature was in, having to draw from state
savings.
Ms. Meyhoff indicated understanding.
1:43:26 PM
JENNIFER JOLLIFFE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She owned a small acupuncture
practice in Anchorage, and purchased her health insurance
on the insurance marketplace. She did not qualify for a tax
subsidy. She noted that she had sent the committee members
a letter earlier in April. She commented that she could
barely afford insurance, and with an anticipated 30 percent
to 40 percent rate increase, paying for insurance would no
longer be an option. She calculated that with the potential
increase, her insurance premium and deductible would equate
to 35 percent of her pay. She expressed gratitude for
health insurance. She discussed patients in her practice
who experienced sudden health conditions. She pondered what
could happen to people who did not have insurance.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
1:47:28 PM
AT EASE
1:48:21 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Micciche addressed the fiscal note attached to
the bill from the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (OMB component 354). He explained that
the note included a one-time expense of $55 million,
appropriated under grants and benefits. The note had
indeterminate fiscal impact from FY 18 through FY 22. He
read an excerpt from the analysis on the second page:
HB 374 amends AS 21.55.430, the Alaska Comprehensive
Health Insurance Association (ACHIA), to allow
legislative appropriation of insurance premium tax
receipts collected by the Division of Insurance to
fund the reinsurance program created in HB374.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that while there was no net
change to revenue generated from the premium taxes, the
taxes would be diverted from the GF into the insurance fund
(ACHIA) as proposed in the bill.
Vice-Chair Micciche agreed.
FRED PARADY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, echoed the comments of
Co-Chair MacKinnon. He agreed that while there no net
change to revenue, there was effectively a diversion of GF
for the purpose. He continued that the insurance premium
tax had been a source of significant revenue to the GF
heretofore.
1:50:23 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
stated that the bill asked that the legislature make an
appropriation each year as it saw fit. She noted that the
House Labor and Commerce Committee had added the specified
amount of $55 million to the bill, and the change had
carried forward to the current version of the bill and was
now on the fiscal note. She relayed that the department's
analysis (based on the actuarial analysis in the member's
materials) showed that the $55 million would have between a
15 percent and 18 percent stabilization on the premium
rates. This signified that the department did not expect
that rates would decrease in the current year. If Premera
were to file for a 40 percent rate increase, it would
effectively be a 25 percent rate increase because of the
reinsurance program. She continued that the amount to be
appropriated to the reinsurance program in further years
(if any) would be determined by the legislature.
Senator Hoffman asked if the dollar amount on the fiscal
note had been included in state budget totals during
Conference Committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the number had been present
on the fiscal note earlier.
Senator Bishop clarified that the workers compensation
division still had an annual assessment.
Mr. Parady answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that in Conference Committee,
the bill had been attached to the fiscal notes. If the bill
did not pass, it would not be included, so the numbers
discussed by Co-Chair Kelly did not reflect the $55 million
because it was a fiscal note addition that was dependent
upon the passage of the bill. The number had not been
included in the total the Senate had released for GF
spending.
Ms. Wing-Heier understood that the fiscal note was
appendant to the budget, and had been passed as such.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled an assertion from the
administration (in a meeting of the House Finance
Committee) that there would be a $200 million problem if
the bill were not to pass. She asked Ms. Wing-Heier to
speak to the issue, including how the department felt about
federal takeover of healthcare and the expansion to cover a
guaranteed coverage rate.
Ms. Wing-Heier referred to an earlier conversation, in
which she provided a quick analysis of what the cost would
be if the state had to set up an insurance company as a
stand-alone corporation. She recounted that the department
had considered its understanding of claims in the
individual market, an estimate of the surplus (a set ratio
to expected claims to demonstrate ability to pay), and the
operating costs to establish a corporation staff. The
department estimated that the initial start-up costs would
be roughly $200 million. Additionally, the state would be
required (as any other insurer would) to maintain the
surplus capital at the statutorily required ratio.
1:55:53 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked if Ms. Wing-Heirer had any comments
on the earlier testimony by Mr. Morgan.
Ms. Wing-Heier relayed that she had made note of what Mr.
Morgan had said about CAMI. She expressed concern about the
income limits and diagnoses. She noted that a founding
principal of the ACA was guaranteed issue. She did not
think the state could only look at insuring people with
chronic conditions. She noted that all illnesses were under
the ACA. She understood and respected the comments by Mr.
Morgan, but did not know how the state could restrict
things to the degree he was suggesting and still have
guaranteed issue.
Senator Dunleavy surmised that the goal for the bill was
that others would come into the insurance pool and reduce
the cost. He thought some of the conditions that caused the
existing situation seemed to de destined to resurface. He
wondered if Ms. Wing-Heier could prognosticate if the bill
would entice others to join the pool to lower costs, or if
the program would inherently keep costing the state greater
amounts of money.
Ms. Wing-Heier thought most people recognized that the ACA
was in its infancy as a program, and was not perfect. She
opined that there had to be amendments made at the federal
level, and some leeway given to states to make it
affordable. She considered the bill to be a short-term
solution to get the state through the next year or so, so
that the state could address the situation and find the
mechanisms to support itself in the individual market
without having to make a draw from the GF.
1:59:31 PM
Senator Dunleavy thought that if the bill were to pass, the
legislature needed to consider amendments that would compel
the restructuring to happen. He thought it was easier to
ask for more funding than to work to change the structure.
He was concerned about the future of the ACA.
Co-Chair MacKinnon did not think the ACA was affordable,
and thought the matter was complex. She commented that the
committee had not been collaborated with to address ideas
for solutions, and was now boxed in to a solution that
included a $55 million fiscal note. She understood from the
testimony of Mr. Morgan that the legislature should examine
language under the waiver program that required some kind
of managed care effort to control costs. She looked forward
to reading Mr. Morgan's written comments before the meeting
the following day. She wondered if the committee had ample
time to consider the information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood Ms. Wing-Heier's estimate of
$200 million for the state to set up an insurance company.
She thought another choice for the state (if the bill was
not passed) would put at risk the single carrier that was
supporting the individual exchange market. She wondered if
she had accurately stated the concern of the
administration.
Mr. Parady answered in the affirmative. He thought the
issue was that Alaska had seen the withdrawal of three of
the four of its insurance carriers (with Moda Health's
departure on May 2, 2016). Starting in January, 2017; the
state would have only one carrier and 23,000 people in the
individual marketplace. He considered the issue to be how
best to triage within the coming 12 to 15 months. He
thought Medicaid reform, the healthcare authority and
proposed innovation waiver proposed in the bill, as well as
ongoing pressure on cost control were necessary tools to
find a path forward.
Senator Olson asked about waivers that would be considered
and approved in 2017. He understood some states would be
considered for waivers, and wondered why the state of
Massachusetts was included in the group with demographics
similar to Alaska (with small population and wide areas).
Ms. Wing-Heier opined that Massachusetts applied for the
waiver to remove federal oversight, in order to have more
state control.
2:04:32 PM
AT EASE
2:04:59 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon REOPENED public testimony.
GINA BOSNAKIS, OWNER, GINA BOSNAKIS AND ASSOCIATES, JUNEAU,
testified in support of the bill. She relayed that she was
a lifelong Alaskan, a small business owner, and a past
president of the Alaska Association of Health Underwriters.
Her firm was based in Anchorage, and her clients were
individuals and families, private businesses in Anchorage,
and school districts throughout the state. She recounted
seeing many people struggle with insurance in the previous
few years. She observed that due to requirements of the
ACA, many small businesses had elected to drop their group
coverage for their employees and their family members; and
steered them to the individual market. She conveyed that
the results were that the workers paid a great deal more
than anticipated, and noted that most of the people she was
describing were low-wage earners. The individuals had hoped
to receive subsidies or be eligible for Medicare, which
generally was not happening. Consequently, people were
faced with paying much more for a plan that covered much
less.
Ms. Bosnakis observed individuals who were in good health
and who had been paying for catastrophic insurance no
longer had the plans available to them. Such individuals
were not able to find plans to meet their needs in the
marketplace. She discussed high claimants and low claimants
in the same insurance pool, resulting in a 30 percent to 40
percent increase each year. She discussed Alaskans who
needed serious and ongoing medical attention, but could
only afford insurance that had a very high deductible. Such
individuals were faced with getting penalized for not
having insurance, or paying an enormous amount for a policy
that they could not use after paying so much for a premium
and not being able to reach the deductible.
Ms. Bosnakis discussed the ACHIA plan, which she thought
was efficient and worked well for years. She believed that
allowing the functionality of an ACHIA-type program for the
most ill members of the state would create a healthier
insurance market for everyone. She recognized that there
were many issues to consider, but thought the bill was a
good first step.
2:09:00 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon echoed her earlier comments about the
challenge to the state's finances. She reiterated that
anything put toward the insurance program came directly
from state savings. She wondered how to fund the problem to
support another industry that was being affected by actions
that were not of the state's doing.
Ms. Bosnakis understood the fiscal challenges faced by the
state, and hoped that the committee would consider her
comments. She was afraid the problem would be worse if it
was not addressed by the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon RECLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated he would likely support the bill
as a one-year stopgap, and support working toward other
solutions. He discussed the time the legislature had put
into Medicaid reform, and thought heavily amending the bill
would complicate the process dramatically. He thought if
there was an amendment that could be executed easily, while
still reaching the objectives of the bill in the waiver and
the stop-gap funding, he would be in support. He thought
anything more complicated would put the bill at risk and
create other challenges.
Senator Olson echoed the comments of Vice-Chair Micciche.
He discussed his constituency and the cost of healthcare in
his district. He wanted to see some relief given to the
insurance market, so that individuals would have some
protection. He was in favor of the bill in its current
form.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the schedule for the following
day.
CSHB 374(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
2:13:49 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 374 Public Testimony ABADA-AMHB.pdf |
SFIN 6/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 374 |
| HB 374 Public Testimony Hawk.pdf |
SFIN 6/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 374 |
| HB 374 Public Testimony Mitchell.pdf |
SFIN 6/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 374 |
| HB 374 Public Testimony S.Tallman.pdf |
SFIN 6/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 374 |
| HB 374 - Public Testimony - AIIAB.pdf |
SFIN 6/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 374 |
| HB 374 Public Testimony David Morgan.docx |
SFIN 6/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 374 |