Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/24/1999 01:40 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
March 24, 1999
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Miller, Chairman
Senator Pete Kelly, Vice-Chairman
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Drue Pearce
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 82(HES)
"An Act requiring that the cost of contraceptives obtained by
prescription and related health care services be included in health
insurance coverage."
-MOVED CSSB82(HES)OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing for
an effective date."
-HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 82 - No previous action to report
SB 94 - No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Theda Pittman
PO Box 241513
Anchorage, AK 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 82
Ms. Cathy Girard
PO Box 101359
Anchorage, AK 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 82
Ms. Mary Ross
342 W. 11th
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 82
Ms. Robin Smith
14100 Jarvi
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 82
Mr. Charles McKee
PO Box 243053
Anchorage, AK 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 82
Mr. Scott Calder
PO Box 75011
Fairbanks, AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 82
Ms. Kay Lahdenpera
Alaska Nurses Association
Anchorage, 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 82
Mr. Gordon Evans
Health Insurance Association of America
211 4th St., Suite 205
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 82
Ms. Marianne Burke, Director
Division of Insurance
PO Box 110805
Juneau, AK 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 82
Ms. Becka Braun
536 Park St. B
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 82
Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 94
Mr. David Finkelstein
Alaskans for Medical Rights
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 94
Lt. Audie Holloway, Commander
Narcotics Enforcement Division
Anchorage Police Department
4501 S.Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 94
Mr. Richard Welch
721-1/2 18th Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 94
Capt. Bill Miller
Anchorage Police Department
4501 S. Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 94
Mr. Jay Snodderly
PO Box 813
Ward Cove, AK 99928
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 94
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-14, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 82-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTIVES
CHAIRMAN MILLER called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 1:40 p.m. and brought up SB
82.
SENATOR GARY WILKEN, presented his sponsor statement on SB 82
which requires insurance carriers to provide coverage for
prescribed contraceptives and related health costs. While many
health care plans pay for surgical means of preventing pregnancy,
few pay for the routine oral contraceptive methods prescribed and
recommended by physicians.
Women spend about 68% more out-of-pocket costs for health care than
men. One of the biggest contributors to those expenses is birth
control. The most widely used prescription drug of women aged 15
to 54 is for birth control, yet most insurance companies do not
include contraceptive coverage in their policies.
The out-of-pocket cost for oral contraceptives is about $25 per
month while the estimated increase in insurance premiums for
coverage for birth control is about $16 annually per enrollee,
according to the Health Insurance Association of America.
Requiring insurance coverage for contraceptive services not only
makes good business sense, but it also increases access to
contraceptives and related services.
In response to a person's conscientious objection to contraceptive
coverage, SB 82 states an individual health care insurance policy
or a policy issued by a qualified church-controlled organization
with a religious-based objection is exempted from this mandate.
Eight out of ten privately insured adults support contraceptive
coverage. SENATOR WILKEN concluded, SB 82 recognizes this strong
public support, and he urged the committee's support for this
legislation.
Number 046
SENATOR WILKEN commented that people will point out the increased
cost of $16 for this coverage, but the cost is much more for
unwanted pregnancies and the problems caused by unwanted
pregnancies. This is an investment that over time pays back, and
the cost of insurance over time will decrease because of this bill.
On a personal note, SENATOR WILKEN related that he became involved
in this issue when his daughter, an active high school junior
needed oral contraceptives, not for birth control but to regulate
female hormones so that she could basketball. He said, "You can
imagine when my wife said to me, 'Gary, I think we need to put
Karen on birth control pills' what I said... a junior in high
school." After the reasons were explained to him, his daughter
went on birth control pills and is an active college basketball
player today. The birth control pill began as a medicinal device
for birth control and it's evolved into a significant therapy to
control female hormones.
He referred to pages 3-4 of the committee packets containing quotes
of support from organizations, and studies speaking to the benefits
of contraceptive coverage.
SENATOR WILKEN brought up the draft CS and a draft Amendment
Version H. He moved that the committee adopt the CS as a working
document. Without objection, the CS was adopted.
SENATOR WILKEN explained the CS, Version H, does two things. Last
year in similar legislation the intent language addressed the
primary purpose of contraceptives in preventing conception. This
CS rolls that purpose, which gave a lot of people comfort, into the
legislation itself. Secondly, the CS cleans up the bill by
removing the definition of contraceptive device and adding the
words "obtained by prescription" to clarify that only
contraceptives obtained through a doctor's prescription are covered
by this insurance.
Number 107
CHAIRMAN MILLER announced that following testimony on SB 82, many
people want to speak on SB 94, and he set a 2-minute time limit on
testimony on both bills.
MS. THEDA PITTMAN, Anchorage, thanked Senator Wilken for
introducing SB 82 and urged co-sponsorship and support by the
committee members. She stated that according to DHSS, there were
over 10,000 births in Alaska in 1995 and 41% were unintended,
unwanted or mis-timed. In 1995 alone there were 4,000 reasons why
this legislation is a good idea. She suggested that two groups
oppose this idea, the insurance companies and members of the "far-
righteous groups" that seek to control the right of a woman to make
her own decision about pregnancy.
MS. CATHY GIRARD, Anchorage, expressed support for SB 82. She
stated her medical bills over 10 years for prescription
contraceptives and related medical exams have not been reimbursed
by her insurance plan or her husband's. She asked why Viagra, a
sexual aid for men, is covered by both their insurance policies and
yet contraception, primarily made for and purchased by women is
not covered by current insurance programs.
MS. MARY ROSS, Nurse-Midwife representing the Chapter of the
American College of Nurse Midwives, Anchorage, expressed support
for SB 82 as a practitioner for women's health care. Many women up
to the age of 52 use birth control as a supportive measure during
the perimenopausal and menopausal times.
MS. ROBIN SMITH, Anchorage, spoke in strong support of SB 82,
stating insurance coverage for contraceptive care would be a good
business decision. Recently four of her employees, both male and
female, have dealt with unintended pregnancies, causing emotional
stress and negative impacts on her business including lost employee
time. increased work loads on others, re-hires and re-training.
Small business cannot dictate special insurance coverage for
employees, and must choose a package that does not include birth
control coverage in Alaska. Rectifying this inequity in health
care for women will establish a more stable work force and
stronger, healthier families.
MR. CHARLES MCKEE, Anchorage, stated he thought it was mandatory
insurance coverage for all individuals in the state of Alaska.
Number 260
MR. SCOTT CALDER, Fairbanks, referred to the language on page 2,
Section 3, line 6 "except for a policy issued to an individual or
a qualified church-controlled organization," and "qualified church-
controlled organization" on page 2, lines 15-16, defined under 26
U.S.C. 3121(w)(3). He asked why the focus is on a religious-based
organization when 'fraternal benefit society' is not included in
this section, which he found referenced in Sec. 21.42.390.
MS. KAY LAHDENPERA, Public Health Nurse representing the Alaska
Nurses Association, applauded the committee for SB 82, which "is
terribly important to reduce unintended pregnancies." There are
about 6 million unintended pregnancies nationally every year. Women
must have the opportunity to plan their families and get coverage
for this $25-$35 per month expense. The National Commission to
Prevent Infant Mortality estimates infant death could be reduced by
10% and incidence of low birth weight babies reduced by 12% if
pregnancies were planned.
Number 312
MR. GORDON EVANS, representing the Health Insurance Association of
America (HIAA), a national trade association of commercial health
insurance companies, stated HIAA opposes SB 82 as presently
written. Its provisions mandate coverage for contraceptives, which
is not considered to be basic health care treatment, and the
consequences in the long run would be to increase the costs and
reduce the efficiencies of managed care. As noted previously, the
HIAA favors the preservation of a system that allows the
prospective purchaser of health insurance free choice of which
risks he or she wishes to cover from among the various coverages
offered by competing insurance carriers. The HIAA also believes
that the choice of how the policy holder spends the funds available
for health insurance should be free of government decree. Any time
government mandates certain coverage, that mandate becomes one of
the rating factors which insurance companies use in making their
underwriting decisions. Premium costs would be increased, even for
those people who have no use for or do not want the coverage.
MR. EVANS continued, this mandate would apply only to small
employer group policies and certain other group policies who
generally can least afford a premium increase. The mandate would
not affect Alaska's largest employers such as Carrs, BP, ARCO, or
EXXON which are self-insured and subject to federal ARISA law which
pre-empts state law. The mandate also would not affect those with
federal insurance coverage such as the Indian Health Service.
Technically, it wouldn't affect the state employees.
Senator Wilken noted a $16 cost; however, MR. EVANS felt the figure
is misleading because it covers only the cost of contraceptive
drugs like birth control pills. It does not include contraceptive
devices or appliances like IUDs, or the cost of related health care
services.
HIAA would not be opposed to a mandate to offer coverage for
contraceptives and related health care services. As a result,
policy holders - employers and their employees - would be able to
choose whether to spend additional funds on this type of coverage.
They, and not the insured population in general, would pay the cost
of that coverage. Substituting the word "offer" for the word
"provide" on page 1, line 10 of original draft would make the
coverage sought as a mandated offering. MR. EVANS suggested this
would accomplish the purposes of the bill's proponents.
Referring to the adopted draft CS, HIAA opposes favoring a specific
group, as in the language "a qualified church-controlled
organization" because it gives persons of one religion a preference
over other groups who also may not want the coverage but will have
to take and pay for it. MR. EVANS said it should be an "all or
nothing bill."
Number 371
SENATOR ELTON asked if Mr. Evans' testimony that emphasized the
cost that will be spread to all policy holders, disputes the
sponsor's claim that the contraceptive health coverage would save
money by not incurring additional medical expenses with unwanted
pregnancies or problem pregnancies.
MR. EVANS replied that is the HIAA position.
SENATOR WILKEN responded that in the testimony in U.S. Congress on
the recently passed Equity in Prescription Insurance and
Contraceptive Coverage Act, the president of the organization said
"we oppose mandates but we're not going to spend a dime fighting
this."
He continued, noting for the record that the total dollars spent
per employee is $17.12 on all contraceptive devices including oral,
diaphragms, cervical caps, injectables, implants and IUDs. Of that
figure, $16.13 or almost 95% is spent on oral contraceptives.
MR. EVANS countered that the memo provided to him last session by
Senator Ellis stated oral contraceptives cost on average $25 per
month.
Number 400
MS. BECKA BRAUN expressed support for SB 82. She described it as
a "win/win" proposition because it would reduce the number of
unintended pregnancies. According to several studies, half of
unintended pregnancies end in abortion in this country. Those who
support choice and those who oppose abortion can all agree that
reducing the number of abortions is a good thing, and making
contraceptives more widely available is one very smart way to do
that. Studies show that as the availability of contraceptives
increases, the number of legal and illegal abortions decreases.
Those unintended pregnancies that go to full term have costly
effects for society and for the state.
There's a much higher pregnancy rate with cheap contraceptives,
such as condom failure. These are the methods most affordable to
women. It doesn't make sense to exclude contraception, the only
FDA-approved prescription drug regularly excluded by insurers.
It's not included on the list of "basic health care" but MS. BRAUN
said she's not sure what basic health care entails, when Viagra is
covered. Insurer costs should not rise by more than 1% under this
proposed mandate. She urged the committee's support of SB 82.
SENATOR WILKEN moved the draft Amendment Version H.1 by Ford 3/24.
The text follows.
Page 2, lines 6-7:
Delete "for a policy issued to an individual or a qualified
church-controlled organization with a religious-based objection"
Insert "as provided in (b) of this section"
Page 2, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) This section does not apply to a policy
(1) issued to an individual;
(2) issued to a qualified church-controlled
organization with a religious-based objection
to contraceptives; or
(3) that does not provide coverage for drugs
obtained by prescription."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
SENATOR WILKEN explained that it inserts a provision that if a
policy is in place by an employer that does not offer coverage for
prescription drugs, this legislation would not impose upon the
employer the requirement that they now offer prescription coverage.
If they did have prescription coverage, contraceptive prescription
coverage would be included.
Number 446
SENATOR ELTON objected to adopting the amendment for the purpose of
discussion. He pointed out on line 8 of the amendment, it provides
that this section does not apply to a policy "issued to an
individual." The previous language has been removed that said
"issued to an individual with a religious objection." He asked if
this means that only insurance policies that are group insurance
policies would now be affected.
SENATOR WILKEN replied he put it in at the request of Blue Cross.
He admitted he did not know why that change was made.
CHAIRMAN MILLER followed up, asking if this language just deals
with those companies that do not offer the coverage, that being the
original understanding of the amendment.
SENATOR ELTON replied, and CHAIRMAN MILLER agreed, that this
section outlines the exceptions. This broadens the exception that
had formerly applied to an individual, now including any policy
written to an individual.
SENATOR WILKEN stated his staff told him that language was in last
year's bill.
MR. EVANS said the way he reads the draft CS with the draft
amendment, this bill would exempt individual policies; it would
exempt policies issued to church-controlled organizations; and it
would exempt any group policies that do not provide coverage for
drugs obtained by prescription. On the other hand, the CS on page
2, line 5-6 says "except for a policy issued to an individual or a
qualified church-controlled organization with a religious-based
objection."
CHAIRMAN MILLER followed up, asking if the language is because an
individual who decides he doesn't want this coverage may be
mandated by law to take the coverage anyway.
MS. MARIANNE BURKE, Director of the Division of Insurance, stated
Chairman Miller is correct. Individual policies are individually
underwritten, and (Chairman Miller) would probably not want a
policy that covered oral contraceptives.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked for objection to adopting the amendment.
Hearing none, the amendment was adopted. He asked the sponsor if
the bill covers contraceptives prior to conception but not after
conception, such as the RU 486 drug. He said that question will
come up on the Senate floor.
SENATOR WILKEN replied post-conception prescriptions are not part
of this legislation. The intent language from last year's bill was
incorporated into the CS on page 2, lines 1-2 and states "insurance
providers not be required to cover the cost of prescriptive drugs
necessary to cause the rejection of a fertilized ovum." The intent
of the bill addresses pre-conception.
Number 505
SENATOR KELLY stated "that may be the bill's intent, but with our
Judiciary, I'm sure somebody's going to take the right to privacy
clause of the Constitution and require that you include RU 486 or
something like that...I think you'll probably find that there will
be a lawsuit on that."
He said he's not a big fan of the bill, and he doesn't feel the
Legislature has any business telling insurance companies that they
have to do this. Contraceptives are widely available, and this asks
insurance companies to cover those who choose more expensive
methods than condoms. It doesn't require legislation. It
encourages people to go toward oral contraceptives which have no
value in prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). He
asked, would there be unintended health consequences as a result of
this? Are we putting a burden on private industry? Those are his
biggest objections to this bill.
SENATOR WILKEN said he appreciated Senator Kelly's comments. He
doesn't have data on STDs. He wants to see mandated coverage
happen sooner because the cost of insurance will go down. It's an
issue of equity and of money. Some women can't afford the
contraception they need, and he suggested that those are the
pregnancies that should be most controlled. While there is a
rackful of inexpensive male contraceptives available, there is not
a rack of female contraceptives, and this limits a couple's ability
to plan and time their childbearing. This legislation is a tool
that could benefit society.
SENATOR WILKEN said he cannot understand why it's taken so long to
get us to where we are today. It's an investment in lowering
costs, and an investment in society, and it gives us more options
to plan our lives. If the industry doesn't want to do it, then
this bill will encourage them to do it, and he said he's pleased to
do that.
Number 540
CHAIRMAN MILLER said that, like Senator Kelly, he's not necessarily
a big fan of the bill, but he is willing to be democratic and let
the will of the committee prevail. He asked for a motion.
SENATOR ELTON expressed appreciation for the work of the sponsor to
bring the legislation this far, and said he looks forward to it
being on the Floor.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to report CSSB 82(HES) out of committee with
individual recommendations and indeterminate fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked for objection. Senator Kelly objected and
the roll was called, with Senators Wilken, Peace and Elton voting
"yea," and Senators Kelly and Miller voting "nay." CSSB 82(HES)
passed out on a 3-2 motion.
SB 94-MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
Number 576
CHAIRMAN MILLER brought up SB 94, relating to the medical use of
marijuana initiative. He stated that SB 94 is a very controversial
bill that raises emotions on both sides of the issue, but he
believed a fair discussion could take place about policies and
which direction the state should be heading. He cautioned, "be
forewarned, I will not tolerate anybody in the audience raising the
personal motives of anybody in the State Senate." He would not
tolerate anybody questioning the motives or attacking a senator
personally. "We may attack their legislation, that's fair game, but
not them personally." He warned that he would rule anybody out of
order who does that.
TAPE 99-14, SIDE B
Number 588
CHAIRMAN MILLER repeated that SB 94 would not move out today
because of the number of people waiting to testify and the
committee having to adjourn and vacate the room by 3:00. He was
unsure when the next hearing on SB 94 would take place. He set a
2-minute time limit on all speakers except the bill's sponsor,
Senator Leman, and former state Representative David Finkelstein,
representing Alaskans for Medical Rights, the sponsor of the
initiative.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, expressed appreciation for the committee's
willingness to hear the bill. SB 94 addresses an issue that is
timely and needs to be debated. It proposes several amendments to
the medical marijuana initiative that was enacted last November.
The amendments are designed to close loopholes in the initiative
and ensure that it works as intended and as advertised. The bill
was drafted with input from Attorneys General in the Department of
Law, and the Department of Public Safety. A draft CS for the
committee's consideration is from the Department of Health & Social
Services and youth counselors from around the state, and law
enforcement personnel from Anchorage and other communities. These
people told him they had trouble with the initiative as it is
worded and it would cause them trouble enforcing the drug laws of
Alaska. The initiative can't be repealed but it can be amended to
work as intended.
SENATOR LEMAN continued, his aim is to ensure that marijuana is
legally available only for valid medical reasons as defined and
intended in the initiative, and not for recreational use. The
people voted to recriminalize the recreational use of marijuana
when Ballot Measure 2 was approved in 1990. Sponsors of Ballot
Measure 8 in the 1998 official election pamphlet described their
proposal as designed to help terminally ill patients and others
suffering from debilitating medical conditions. Marijuana would
still be illegal for non-medical use, and Ballot Measure 8 would
provide full protection against abuse of the new law.
Unfortunately, SENATOR LEMAN said, close study of the initiative by
legal experts and those who work in law enforcement revealed there
is plenty or room for abuse of the new law. "It is rife with legal
loopholes, ill-defined terms and vague language." These are well
outlined in the bill's sectional analysis and he wouldn't discuss
them in detail today.
SENATOR LEMAN said he believes the Legislature, as public
officials, must respect and honor the views of voters. In this
case of marijuana policy, however, there are two ballot initiatives
to consider. On one hand, the 1990 initiative affirmed that
possession, use or distribution is a criminal act, punishable by
imprisonment of up to 90 days and fines up to $1,000. These are
not trivial punishments and reveal how seriously the voters take
the problem of drug abuse, particularly among the youth. On the
other hand, Ballot Measure 8 from last year proposed to allow
unlimited marijuana use for valid medical purposes. Because the
latter initiative does not repeal the earlier ballot measure, the
Legislature's job is to make both measures work together. SB 94 is
designed to reconcile the provisions of both initiatives, which
both represent the majority will of Alaskan voters.
SENATOR LEMAN stated he believes the constitution's provision for
voter-initiated ballot measures is a great freedom, giving citizens
a direct voice in crafting laws under which we live. However, the
crafters of Alaska's constitution recognized one potential
shortcoming of ballot initiatives. Unlike legislative measures,
voter initiatives are not subjected to scrutiny or the amendment
process before their final presentation to the voters. Accordingly,
the crafters included in the constitution a provision allowing the
Legislature to make needed amendments to approved ballot
initiatives. This authority is found in Article XI, Section 6.
The Legislature has exercised this authority in the past, and in
response to legal challenges the Alaska Supreme Court has upheld
the Legislature's authority to do so. SENATOR LEMAN cited 1975
Warren v. Boucher in which the Alaska Supreme Court described why
the constitution grants this power to the Legislature. He said,
clearly, the Legislature has the authority, acting on behalf of the
people, to pass amendments but not to repeal the initiative.
The constitution which grants the Legislature the authority to
amend initiatives was ratified by the people. The voter approval
of Ballot Measure 2 in 1990 is no less valuable a measure of public
opinion than the passage of Ballot 8 in 1998. He hoped these facts
would put to rest "venomous rhetoric about defying the will of the
people," stating the greatest service the Legislature can provide
the public is to have an intelligent, informed and civil debate on
the merits of the legislation.
The key elements of SB 94 clarify the standards the physician would
use and that registration would be required. Law enforcement could
access the information for purposes of an investigation, but it
would not be a public document. It further restricts the use and
display of medical marijuana to the doctor's office or the home of
the patient or primary care giver. It defines primary care giver
as someone over 21 who hasn't been convicted of a felony under
Alaska's controlled substance laws. The law enforcement people will
discuss why these elements of the bill are important to them in
enforcing the drug laws of Alaska.
SENATOR LEMAN concluded that his intent in introducing this bill is
to lay a very important topic on the table. He has met with David
Finkelstein and staff in the Department of Law, Department of
Public Safety, Department of Health & Social Services, the lobbyist
opposing this effort, and the Governor's Office. He said he intends
to work cooperatively to accomplish legislative objectives that
allow enforcement of the drug laws of Alaska.
Number 437
MR. DAVID FINKELSTEIN, representing Alaskans for Medical Rights,
encouraged people who can't testify today to leave a short
statement at the LIOs to give to the committee. He asserted the
provisions of SB 94 are overwhelming, and a complete re-write of
the initiative. He said it took him over five hours to read and
understand the bill, cross-referencing it with the existing law.
There are over 40 major amendments to the existing law, which can
be counted in the sponsor's sectional analysis, not including
additional technical and conforming amendments.
As he could not address these 40 amendments in the time available,
MR. FINKELSTEIN talked about the two categories they fall into.
First, minor amendments based on misinterpretations of the law or
based on interpretation questions, or correcting citations. He
stated any of these changes that are necessary can be accomplished
either through the current regulation process, with the comment
period open through Friday, March 26; or in the Revisor's Bill. He
said some of the amendments just aren't necessary.
The second category are provisions that would eliminate otherwise
qualified patients from the initiative. For example, no patients
would be covered except those with cancer, glaucoma or AIDS, and
then only where it causes them "severe and chronic pain and
nausea." It doesn't say "severe or chronic..." It is his
experience with about one hundred patients who use medical
marijuana that most of them would be excluded by just this
provision alone. Another provision requires doctors to make a
finding that there are no other legal treatments that can be
tolerated by the patient that are as effective. There will always
be other drugs that are effective, but many of those are dangerous
or have side effects and, he said, no doctor would be willing to
make an analytic finding like this when they can prescribe other
narcotics and drugs with no findings whatsoever.
"The sponsor's apparent fear is that many doctors will get carried
away recommending medical marijuana." In his view it is not very
likely. Only licensed doctors can make the recommendation. Under
existing statute AS 08.64.101 doctors can be investigated, and if
necessary, even lose their license.
SB 94 eliminates the protection patients receive under the
initiative and replaces it with an affirmative defense. This
places the burden of proof with the patient to prove their case.
Even a patient with ID card, complying with the law and possessing
less than an ounce would still have to demonstrate that the entire
amount in their possession was intended for their own medical use.
He asked how a patient can prove that.
In conclusion, MR. FINKELSTEIN stated that SB 94 is not necessary
and if passed, will eliminate hope for all the patients who would
be helped under the initiative. He offered to work with the
sponsor during the interim to see which concerns were addressed
through the regulation process, check whether the registration is
working as intended, and address any problems that may have arisen
under the law. He asked, on behalf of Alaskans for Medical Rights,
to be given a chance to let this initiative work.
Number 375
CHAIRMAN MILLER stated Mr. Finkelstein's reputation in Juneau has
always been one for "open government and full disclosure." He
mentioned the talk about the expensive ad campaign floating around
the state. While acknowledging Mr. Finkelstein not legally required
to disclose the source of the the funds to his group, CHAIRMAN
MILLER asked in the spirit of open government where those funds
came from.
MR. FINKELSTEIN replied that he respects and considers Senator
Leman a worthy adversary, but Alaskans for Medical Rights which
represents the majority of Alaskans wasn't included in any of the
deliberations on how this bill was developed. He stated the cost
of the ad campaign was probably $4,000 to $5,000 and it came
entirely from individuals in and outside Alaska, with no government
or PAC money involved.
SENATOR WILKEN echoed Chairman Miller's request. He didn't know
how he stands on SB 94, but he opposed groups that try to influence
public opinion through the media. He would like to know all donors
of over $100, and asked that the information be sent to the
committee in the interest of full disclosure.
CHAIRMAN MILLER again promised that SB 94 would not move from
committee until everyone wanting to testify had the opportunity to
do so. He apologized to those who will not have that chance today.
Number 331
LT. AUDIE HOLLOWAY, Narcotics Enforcement Division, Anchorage
Police Department, spoke in support of SB 94 which gives some clear
guidelines for the police department in dealing with those people
who want to take advantage of the initiative. He said, "I can
assure you that we will have a lot of people who will try to take
advantage of it." He has a limited number of people working on a
lot of drug cases. A standardized registration and format for
those people who are using medical marijuana and deserving of it
would help in cutting down the workload of the department. He
doesn't have time to investigate people with legitimate use for the
plant. Rigorous standards should be in place. A lot of people in
Alaska make a lot of money off the illegal use of marijuana, and he
suspects money is coming from "that area to keep it as vague as
possible." He reads police reports everyday about people who are
driving and using marijuana. There needs to be a standard
addressing that, to prevent hiding behind medical use and driving
because it's as bad as alcohol in that regard.
MR. RICHARD WELCH stated he is a long-time resident of Fairbanks
and has HIV and Hepatitis C and chronic pain. This bill would
severely limit what his doctor can tell him he can have. He's also
a member of the Interior HIV Care Consortium, a group that performs
needs assessments and quality assurance tasks regarding HIV care.
The consortium is sponsored by the Interior Aids Association whose
executive director could not stay, but wanted Mr. Welch to convey
that they object to any effort to change the peoples' initiative
about medical marijuana.
Number 276
CAPT. BILL MILLER, Headquarters, Anchorage Police Department,
stated headquarters deals with major crimes including homicides,
sexual assaults and narcotics. His officers must have the ability
to distinguish between what is legal and what is not. Officers
need definitions and clear understanding. This bill would clear up
confusion, and prevent wasting time and resources. It defines who
can prescribe the medical marijuana and who decides who can
prescribe it.
MR.JAY SNODDERLY, Ward Cove, stated he is opposed to anything that
would restrict the wishes of the people as expressed last November.
He admitted he does not understand the bill, so he doesn't know if
it would do that, but he's heard it both ways.
CHAIRMAN MILLER stated he would hold SB 94 and take further
testimony the next time it is brought up, and again apologized for
the time constraints. The committee will take up bills previously
heard, the education bills and the proposed CS for SB 73, next
Monday, March 29. He thanked the members for their hard work in
his absence, and adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|