03/31/2008 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB179 | |
| HB319 | |
| HB354 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 354 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2008
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bettye Davis, Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Vice Chair
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Fred Dyson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 179
"An Act requiring family health care insurance coverage for
dependent children who are less than 26 years of age."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 319(L&C)
"An Act relating to the practice of dentistry, to dental
assistants, and to dental hygienists."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 354(JUD)
"An Act relating to adoptions, to subsidies for a hard-to-place
child, to criminal sanctions for unlawful disclosure of
confidential information pertaining to a child, to child support
orders in child-in-need-of-aid and delinquency proceedings, and
to civil actions on behalf of children in need of aid who are
injured or die while in state custody; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSHB 354(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 179
SHORT TITLE: DEPENDENT HEALTH INSURANCE; AGE LIMIT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
05/14/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/07 (S) L&C, HES, FIN
03/18/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/18/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/18/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/25/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/25/08 (S) Moved CSSB 179(L&C) Out of Committee
03/25/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/26/08 (S) L&C RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR NEW TITLE
03/26/08 (S) DP: ELLIS, DAVIS
03/26/08 (S) DNP: BUNDE
03/26/08 (S) NR: STEVENS
03/31/08 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: DENTISTS & DENTAL ASSISTANTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) HES, L&C
02/07/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/07/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/12/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/12/08 (H) Moved CSHB 319(HES) Out of Committee
02/12/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/08 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 1DP 2NR 3AM
02/15/08 (H) DP: FAIRCLOUGH
02/15/08 (H) NR: KELLER, GARDNER
02/15/08 (H) AM: CISSNA, ROSES, WILSON
03/03/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/03/08 (H) Moved CSHB 319(L&C) Out of Committee
03/03/08 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/04/08 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 5DP
03/04/08 (H) DP: GARDNER, BUCH, RAMRAS, NEUMAN,
OLSON
03/19/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/19/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 319(L&C)
03/21/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/08 (S) HES
03/31/08 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 354
SHORT TITLE: CHILD IN NEED OF AID/ADOPTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
02/28/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/28/08 (H) Moved CSHB 354(HES) Out of Committee
02/28/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/29/08 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 7DP
02/29/08 (H) DP: CISSNA, KELLER, GARDNER,
FAIRCLOUGH, SEATON, ROSES, WILSON
03/13/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/13/08 (H) Moved CSHB 354(JUD) Out of Committee
03/13/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/08 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 5DP
03/17/08 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, COGHILL, DAHLSTROM,
HOLMES, RAMRAS
03/18/08 (H) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
03/27/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/27/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 354(JUD)
03/28/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/08 (S) HES, JUD
03/31/08 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM OBERMEYER, Staff
Senator Davis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of SB 179.
DENNY DEWITT, State Director
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 179.
PATTY KRUEGER, Staff
Representative Ramras
North Pole, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of CSHB 319.
DAVE LOGAN, Alaska Dental Society
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 319.
DAVE EICHLER, DMD PC
Board of Dental Examiners
North Pole, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 319.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff
Representative Coghill
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of CSHB 354.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Child Protection Section
Department of Law
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about CSHB 354.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BETTYE DAVIS called the Senate Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:33:53
PM. Present at the call to order were Senators Kim Elton, Fred
Dyson, Joe Thomas, John Cowdery and Chair Bettye Davis.
SB 179-DEPENDENT HEALTH INSURANCE; AGE LIMIT
CHAIR DAVIS announced consideration of SB 179.
1:34:41 PM
TOM OBERMEYER, Staff to Senator Davis, presented SB 179, Version
\M. The title was changed by a previous committee to make it
shorter; it is "An Act requiring family health care insurance
coverage for dependent children who are less than 26 years of
age." He said this bill presented questions that he hoped to
address in the sponsor statement and the explanation that was
handed out to committee members. He then proceeded to read the
sponsor statement.
SB 179 mandates family private health insurance
coverage for dependent children through age 25. It
prohibits a health care insurer from denying or
removing enrollment or eliminating coverage under age
26.
Young adults, ages 19-29, are one of the largest
growing segments of the U.S. population without health
insurance. In 2004 almost 14 million young adults
lacked coverage, an increase of 2.5 million since
2000. This rapid change is due in part to their losing
coverage under their parents' policies at 19, or
Medicaid, or State Children's Health Insurance
Program, or graduation from high school or college.
Almost half of college graduates and high graduates
will be uninsured for a substantial time after
graduation.
Age 19 is a crucial year in health insurance
coverage. Both public and private insurance
plans treat this age as a turning point for
insurance coverage. Even if youth go on to
college, parents' insurance plans often stop
before graduation. Almost all private
universities and about one fourth of public
universities require health insurance as a
condition of enrollment. Forty percent of
part-time students and non-students, and 20
percent of full-time students ages 19-23 are
uninsured.
States are taking action to mandate coverage
for young adults, often allowing for
targeted policy options. For example, in
2006 New Jersey required most group health
plans to cover single adult dependents up to
age 30. Massachusetts as part of its
expanded health insurance law in 2006
considered dependents for insurance purposes
up to age 25 or for two years after they are
no longer claimed on their parents' tax
returns. Since 1994 Utah has required
coverage through age 26, and New Mexico
provides coverage for unmarried dependents
up to age 25, regardless of school
enrollment. Texas in 2003 allowed full-time
students up to be covered by their parents'
insurance plans to age 25. It is not
uncommon, or unreasonable, therefore, that
Senate Bill 179 requires offering family
health insurance coverage to dependent
children up to age 26.
MR. OBERMEYER added that there had been questions by insurers as
to how this might be implemented, so he drew on an example from
a previous bill, SB 190. He hoped this explanation would help
assure insurers that SB 179 would not wrest control of benefits
and premium costs from them.
SB 179 added a new subsection (e) to AS 21.345 [21.42.345]
"Required provision for coverage of dependents." This was
similar to the addition to the same subsection in SB 170
regarding well-baby exams, which was sponsored by Senator
McGuire and was in Senate Rules.
1:38:25 PM
Linda Hall, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, Juneau, AK, in a
letter to Senator Green on March 18, 2008, explained and
compared the coverage for well-baby exams to existing mandates
for dental, vision and hearing under the same subsection
21.42.385. Ms. Hall wrote, in part:
With respect to how a mandated offer requirement is
implemented, first of all, insurers who write health
care insurance and offer dependent coverage would be
required to provide coverage forms which include
coverage for well-baby care, that is for this
particular benefit, in this case up to age 26. Second,
insurers are responsible for assuring compliance with
mandates and we have seen insurers comply with
21.42.385 in a number of different ways including:
a) offering the specified benefit in their health
policies (if the insurer already includes coverage, no
additional offer would need to be made.
b) developing or offering a separate rider or
amendment that provides the specified benefit, which
is then offered in conjunction with a base health
insurance policy for a separate premium. The
application form would provide an option to select the
specified benefit.
c) developing and offering a stand-alone policy that
contains the required benefit, or
d) offering the benefit as one of several available
optional benefits from which employers or individuals
can select and which, if selected on the application
form, is incorporated directly into that employer's or
individual's health insurance policy as a premium.
MR. OBERMEYER said, as he understood it, this provided that the
insurers still had a number of options available to control
their costs. There was no actuarial basis at that time to
determine what the costs might be, which was why the zero fiscal
note indicated an "indeterminate" dollar amount.
It had been recognized that, particularly in family plans,
students in the middle of their college career might suddenly be
faced with a significant premium to maintain health insurance
required by the school. This would allow these people in
particular, to extend coverage under the family plan for a
little longer.
1:41:45 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Obermeyer for the definition of a
dependent child.
MR. OBERMEYER answered that he thought the definition was
covered in each policy by each insurer, but was not sure.
SENATOR ELTON asked if he had understood correctly that each
insurer could offer a different health insurance plan say, for a
child who was 23 and one who was 16; for example the insurer
might have a health policy that would cover catastrophic
illness, but not vision and dental. He asked Mr. Obermeyer if
that was possible under this bill.
MR. OBERMEYER said he did not understand all the nuances of it,
but the implication of the letter from Ms. Hall regarding SB 170
under mandated coverage was that there would be a lot of
flexibility in how they drafted their policies. Also, the
coverage would not be free. If a family wanted to continue to
cover their children, they would have to elect that coverage and
pay for it. This bill simply required the company to offer it.
That was the mandate.
SENATOR ELTON read it differently. The language said the insurer
"may not deny enrollment and may not disenroll or eliminate
coverage" and it seemed to him that meant the insurer would have
to continue to extend the same kind of policy they had when the
child was 18. He asked Mr. Obermeyer if he was reading it
incorrectly.
1:45:32 PM
MR. OBERMEYER answered that the way he read it, the concept of
disenrolling or eliminating [coverage] would be if a party was
already enrolled and the insurance company wanted to remove that
person for some reason. He did not have a definite answer
however; he apologized for not having someone from the Division
of Insurance on hand.
CHAIR DAVIS said she would like to speak to that. The bill had
already been heard in Labor and Commerce, where they had
discussed the matter of being "disenrolled." Once the child was
on the coverage, neither the parents nor the insurance company
th
could disenroll them until their 26 birthday. As for having
different coverage for an 18 year old vs. a 24 year old, she
could not respond to that but would get an opinion from legal.
SENATOR ELTON insisted that it would depend on the definition of
a dependent child.
CHAIR DAVIS said she had not pursued a definition because she
thought each insurance company might have their own; but if he
felt it would be helpful, they could put a definition in the
corpus of the bill.
SENATOR ELTON pointed out that if a dependent child was
considered simply someone who lived at home until the age of 26,
that dependent child might have a job and have insurance through
that job; it seemed to him they would want a provision that, if
the child was covered under another plan, they need not be
covered under the family plan.
CHAIR DAVIS agreed.
SENATOR DYSON asked Mr. Obermeyer if he had meant to imply that
the enactment of this piece of legislation would not keep the
insurance company from raising the cost of the insurance policy.
MR. OBERMEYER responded that he believed, based on his
interpretation of the bill and the letter from Linda Hall from
Division of Insurance, that the insurer would have the ability
to offer riders, which would be a separate addition to a policy
and would add to the cost of the policy; or offer other options
that could be worked into the existing policy. It wasn't
anticipated that this would be blended into all rates unless
they elected to do that because of actuarial experience; so he
could not respond specifically to the question, except to say
that it would offer some flexibility to insurers and they would
not be locked into a particular fee schedule.
SENATOR DYSON continued that he thought he had just heard Mr.
Obermeyer say yes; so indeed the insurance company could raise
the cost of that rider to the point that it would be prohibitive
to continue the coverage. He said that before he would be
willing to vote this out of committee, he would want to be clear
on the definition of a dependent and what the insurance
companies would be free to do with the costs. He felt they could
all agree that a teenager not living at home, now able to drive
a car, would add some risk to the insurer; but he would want
clarification.
CHAIR DAVIS said they could call upon someone from legal to
discuss Senator Dyson's question later on.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what this would do to a dependent who
produced a child of his or her own; would it require the insurer
to cover the dependent of the dependent?
CHAIR DAVIS said she was not able to answer that.
SENATOR DYSON commented that was a good question.
SENATOR COWDERY continued to say that whether the dependent were
the mother or the father of a child or children, if they were
dependent on his or her parents, he would be interested to know
how far down the line insurance coverage would go.
CHAIR DAVIS noted that Senator Thomas had left the room.
She pointed out that some insurance companies covered full-time
students until they were 21 to 23 years old; but with the cost
of college and the length of time many students had to attend,
this bill would ensure access to the required medical coverage
throughout their college years without having to bear another
expense.
She asked if there was someone present from legal who could
answer questions about the bill. There was not.
1:55:00 PM
SENATOR DYSON disagreed with the notion that dependent children
would continue to get coverage without additional cost; somebody
would pay. He also disagreed with the idea that it was the
government's responsibility to make sure everyone had insurance;
he thought what they were really interested in was everyone
taking responsibility for their own health and their health care
in whatever way they chose.
He added that on a national level, the more mandates put upon
the insurance companies, the less attractive Alaska appeared to
health insurance companies that might want to come into the
market.
1:57:12 PM
DENNY DEWITT, State Director, National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB), Juneau, AK, opposed SB 179. The NFIB
appreciated where Chair Davis was headed with it and he
understood personally, having just who reached the age at which
they had to purchase insurance. The difficulty the NFIB saw was
that this bill focused on a very small percentage of Alaskans
covered by insurance, those who were in traditional insurance
programs regulated by the state. It would not cover those in
union pension welfare programs; it would not cover anyone who
worked for the state; it would not cover anyone whose employer
had an ARISA plan; small employers would have to fund this while
larger employers would be exempt. So while the intent was
admirable, the implementation of it was very biased against
small Alaska-based companies.
He pointed out that there was no real cost to the insurance
company; the cost was to the premium payer and the premium payer
in this case would most likely be small businesses that were
trying to provide coverage to their employees. Insurance
companies moved money around and administered programs; but in
fact, the cost fell upon the person who paid the premiums, which
tended to be the small employer. The language, in their
judgment, was also somewhat confusing. It appeared to be a
mandated offering bill but at the same time, should an employer
choose that offering, there did not appear to be any way out. By
preventing disenrollment, a small employer who might be looking
at it optimistically and hoping the cost would be very small,
would be forced to consider that if he were wrong, he would be
on the hook with no way to get out.
MR. DEWITT said that rather than encouraging companies to look
at this and take the risk, most would be reluctant to do so.
Also, when some disabled youth turned 18 they became eligible
for public programs as their family plans no longer covered
them; he was concerned that those costs would be shifted back to
private employers from age 18-26 and if that were the case, it
would indeed drive the cost of this benefit significantly higher
than they had anticipated.
2:02:01 PM
CHAIR DAVIS did not feel there would be a problem with disabled
youth being forced back on their parents' insurance, but she
said she would check on it. She agreed that the unions and the
state's plan would not fall under this mandate, but pointed out
that the state's plan changed at least every 2 years and if
there were enough employees interested in that coverage, they
might add it, just as they had the well-baby exams.
MR. DEWITT said the NFIB wondered why it was appropriate for
them to mandate a particular coverage on employees of small
businesses if they, as employers, were unwilling to mandate that
coverage on their own employees.
CHAIR DAVIS said that before she heard the bill for the well-
baby exams, she believed that it would include the state plan;
if left up to her it would.
CHAIR DAVIS set SB 179 aside for further work.
HB 319-DENTISTS & DENTAL ASSISTANTS
2:04:25PM
CHAIR DAVIS announced consideration of HB 319. [Before the
committee was CSHB 319(L&C).]
PATTY KRUEGER, Staff to Representative Ramras, thanked the
committee for the opportunity to present HB 319 and said it
might sound familiar to them because it was very similar to SB
239. She said there was only one change that had been made in
this bill and she would bring it to their attention.
Ultimately oral health plays a key role in over all
health and unfortunately, not all Alaskans enjoy good
dental health due to geographical barriers, cost of
dental care and limitations in dental personnel. HB
319 follows the provisions already in place in 36
other states, allowing expanded duties of dental
assistants, thereby improving access to dental care
and reducing cost for dental care.
With expanded duties, dental assistants can help
community health centers and traveling dental teams,
provide greater access to care; and more cost-
effective care. This bill specifically lays the
framework for expanding dental assistant duties for 2
specific functions. It would allow a certified dental
assistant under a dentist's direct supervision to
place fillings into a cavity prepared by a licensed
dentist, and allow a certified dental assistant under
a dentist's direct supervision to polish teeth that
are already clean of tartar.
Dental assistants who perform expanded duties of
packing cavities or polishing teeth will have to pass
a training program and an exam prior to becoming
eligible for certification by the Alaska Dental Board.
Furthermore, supervising dentists must personally
authorize the procedure and examine the patient
afterward.
This bill is supported by the Alaska Dental Society,
Alaska Board of Dental Examiners, the Alaska Dental
Outreach Consortium and the Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium. HB 319 meets the goals of the
preliminary report of the Governor's Health Care
Strategies Planning Council.
The CS before the committee came from House Labor and Commerce
and incorporated a change that was brought forth from a legal
memo which accompanied the House version of HB 319. That change
was found on page 3, line 3; it restricted the duties that could
be delegated to a dental assistant.
MS. KRUEGER continued to say that as HB 319 moved to Senate
Finance, the intention was to add HB 136, which was "An Act
relating to the supervision of dental hygienists by dentists,
establishing a restorative function license endorsement for
dental hygienists and allowing collaborative agreements between
licensed dentists and dental hygienists."
2:08:51 PM
She commented that HB 136 was heard previously in the Senate
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) Committee and
passed out with a vote of 3 do pass and 2 no recommendation; it
was passed out of Senate Labor and Commerce and was awaiting a
hearing in Senate Finance.
MS. KRUEGER thanked the committee for hearing the bill and for
their support of the legislation.
2:09:47 PM
DAVE LOGAN, Alaska Dental Society, Juneau, AK, said that Patty
did an excellent job of explaining the bill and offered to
answer questions.
SENATOR COWDERY asked Mr. Logan if the dentists supported this
bill.
MR. LOGAN answered yes, that the Dental Society supported HB
319.
CHAIR DAVIS confirmed that they had heard HB 136 and SB 239 and
asked Ms. Krueger if she understood her to say that she would
like to have HB 136 rolled into HB 319.
MS. KRUEGER testified that she would.
CHAIR DAVIS said she had spoken with Senator Thomas and he had
no problem with combining them, but she wanted to hear from
other members of the committee. There were no objections, so she
agreed they would combine them.
2:11:50 PM
MS. KRUEGER said Mark Davis was available should any questions
related to the new fiscal note need to be addressed.
DAVE EICHLER, DMD PC, Board of Dental Examiners, North Pole, AK
agreed that HB 319 was substantially similar to SB 239 that he
had testified in favor of it in early February; he reiterated
the Board's support for the concept of the bill and indicated
that the current version was acceptable to them.
CHAIR DAVIS asked whether Mr. Eichler had any problem with
combining HB 136 and HB 319.
Mr. Eichler replied that he had not been aware of the fiscal
note that recently came through on this bill and he would really
have liked to avoid Senate Finance and any entanglements there;
but if that was how things had to work, that was how things had
to work.
CHAIR DAVIS announced that she would put HB 319 aside until a
new CS could be prepared.
HB 354-CHILD IN NEED OF AID/ADOPTIONS
2:14:23 PM
CHAIR DAVIS announced consideration of HB 354. [Before the
committee was CSHB 354(JUD).]
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative Coghill, presented an
overview of HB 354 She explained that the bill started at the
request of Office of Children's Services (OCS) and the
Department of Law (DOL) to clarify some practices that were
being performed by OCS; it grew to address a constituent issue
and a concern that Representatives Gara and Coghill shared.
Sections 1 and 2 addressed a constituent concern. An 18 year old
in Fairbanks had been raised by a stepfather [who wished to
adopt him] and had never met his biological father; but there
was a contradiction in the law and because he wasn't 19, he was
required to try to locate and provide legal notice to the
father. This bill attempted to bring 2 sections of law together
on notification so that an 18 year old could be adopted without
trying to find a missing parent.
Section 3 transferred from the commissioner to the department,
the authority to adopt regulations to set the amount and [length
of] time that a subsidy for a hard-to-place child could be
granted. Under the current language it could be disputed that,
even if a child had no special needs, the department would be
required to pay a subsidy. This clarified that if there were no
special needs, it could be deferred to a later date. It also
corrected disparities so that every child would be treated
equally.
Section 4 clarified that if public officials or their employees
disclosed confidential information that was released to them
under HB 53 they could be charged with and convicted of a
misdemeanor.
Sections 5 and 7 would allow OCS to adjust child support orders
[for minors in state custody] in Child in Need of Aid (CINA) and
delinquent minor cases, through administrative order so they
would not have to go to court each time they had to adjust a
support order.
Section 6 rolled in HB 377, which made it very clear that the
state could be held civilly liable for the actions of an
employee when it resulted in the death or injury of a child in
state custody.
Finally there was an immediate effective date clause.
SENATOR DYSON asked under what circumstances a person would want
or need to adopt a child at 18.
MS. MOSS answered that in this case the 18 year old was very
close to the stepfather and wanted to carry his name.
SENATOR DYSON suspected that some high needs people might be
adopted by caring stepparents for the purpose of providing other
family benefits such as insurance.
MS. MOSS advised Senator Dyson that they had had this
conversation with Department of Law and that Jan Rutherdale was
present to answer questions. She also assured him that other
sections of the law would apply to protect special needs
individuals from abuse.
SENATOR DYSON was surprised by language on page 2, line 20,
which referred to "the spouse of the person to be adopted" and
asked under what circumstances that might come in to play.
2:19:51 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Child Protection Section, Department of Law, Juneau, AK, asked
Senator Dyson to confirm that his question was under what
circumstances a spouse would need to consent to the adoption.
SENATOR DYSON explained that he was trying to understand what
circumstances would create a situation in which a child needing
adoption might have a spouse.
MS. RUTHERDALE responded that this bill was not limited to
children; the rules would apply to anyone who wanted to be
adopted. She guessed that, if the 18 year old in Ms. Moss'
example were married, the spouse would have to consent because
it would affect the laws of intestate succession and that sort
of thing.
SENATOR DYSON asked if there was an age limit on adoption in
present law.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered "No."
SENATOR DYSON related a hypothetical situation in which a man 89
was hospitalized for some months, drifting in and out of coma,
and eventually asked his young nurse to marry him. When he died,
his heirs were surprised to find he had married and that she
would inherit his substantial estate. It was later discovered
that her romantic partner was the doctor who had been
administering the medication to her elderly husband. He asked
what would keep a person with a substantial estate from adopting
someone under similar circumstances.
MS. RUTHERDALE said the short answer was "Nothing." But if a
person had a guardian, under AS 25.23.040(b) the court could
allow a petition to adopt only if there were written consent of
the adult, the adult's spouse and the guardian or conservator.
SENATOR DYSON agreed that should cover the situation. He
continued that he was surprised they were allowing a state
employee involved in a child's care to be sued under common-law
negligence.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied that subsection (b) clarified what
already existed in law. This would not change anything. What
would become Section (a) made clear that there would be no
statutorily-based liability under...
MS. MOSS interjected that it might help to provide Senator Dyson
with some history of this matter. She explained there had been a
disagreement on this matter in the Department of Law itself, as
to what the state's liability was. This would clarify that if a
child was injured or died while in state custody because of the
actions of a state employee, the state would clearly be civilly
liable.
SENATOR DYSON pointed out that it did not say in the bill
"because of the actions of the employee," it just said "on
behalf of a child who is injured or dies while in" and said he
would like a short discussion of the differences between gross
negligence, criminal negligence, negligence and common-law
negligence.
MS. RUTHERDALE wanted to qualify that her expertise was not in
tort law. She knew that Gail Voigtlander did have experience in
that area and offered to contact her.
SENATOR DYSON said he would be satisfied with what she could
remember from law school.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that certainly gross negligence was more
serious than regular negligence and rose to the criminal level;
so if a person drove drunk, had a car accident and killed
someone, that person might be liable for manslaughter.
SENATOR DYSON added that as he remembered, it became negligence
when an ordinary person using common sense would have known that
it was a dangerous activity.
MS. RUTHERDALE agreed it was a "reasonable person" standard.
2:27:25 PM
SENATOR DYSON conjectured that if a child in the custody of the
state was placed outside the home and was subsequently injured,
common-law negligence would apply against the case worker if a
reasonable person would have said that was a dumb place to put
the child.
MS. RUTHERDALE confirmed that it would have to be something a
reasonable person would have foreseen could be harmful.
SENATOR ELTON thought they had taken care of the situation in
which a state employee committed a misdemeanor if they revealed
confidential information.
JAN RUTHERDALE agreed that they had; this bill made clear that
it was only the release of information that made it a
misdemeanor. The criminal sanctions were limited to the
disclosure of confidential information.
SENATOR ELTON asked for clarification regarding what types of
disclosure constituted a misdemeanor. He questioned whether
someone who disclosed information to a legislator while
reporting a problem would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
MS. RUTHERDALE said no, the way it worked was that ordinarily
under AS 47.10.093, a state employee could not reveal any
information in a file; but a statutory exception was created in
AS 47.10.092, which allowed an OCS employee to release
information to a legislator or ombudsman who requested it to
assist with an investigation. The logic behind that was, if a
parent came to a legislator and said "look at what is happening
with my case" that parent had essentially waived the privacy
interest.
2:32:06 PM
SENATOR THOMAS moved to report committee substitute for HB 354,
Version \M, from the committee with individual recommendations
and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
354(JUD) moved from committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 2:32:24 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|