Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/09/2001 01:35 PM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
April 9, 2001
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 86
"An Act relating to employment of teachers who have subject-matter
expertise; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 86(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education and the Alaska Student Loan Corporation; relating to
student financial aid programs and the financing of those programs;
establishing the Alaska Advantage Loan Program and the Alaska
Supplemental Education Loan Program; increasing the bonding
authorization of the Alaska Student Loan Corporation; providing for
liens resulting from a default under AS 14.43 or AS 14.44; relating
to the duties of the recorder regarding those liens; relating to
defaults under the Western Regional Higher Education Compact;
relating to the prohibition on discrimination regarding programs
under AS 14.43; relating to fees for the review of certain
postsecondary institutions; making conforming amendments; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 155 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 135
"An Act relating to mental health information and records; and
providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 86 - See HESS minutes dated 3/16/01 and 3/19/01.
SB 116 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 155 - See HESS minutes dated 4/2/01.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Bob Labbe, Director
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110660
Juneau AK 99811-0660
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in Medicaid presentation.
Mr. John Sherwood
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110660
Juneau AK 99811-0660
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in Medicaid presentation.
Ms. Nancy Weller
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110660
Juneau AK 99811-0660
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in Medicaid presentation.
Senator Pete Kelly
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 86.
Dr. Bruce Johnson
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports the concept of SB 86 but prefers that
new teachers be required to partake in a teacher certification
program when employed.
Mr. Jim Nordlund, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
PO Box 110640
Juneau AK 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 116.
Kristen Bomengen
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 116.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-30, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRWOMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present were
Senators Davis and Green. Senator Wilken arrived shortly afterward.
Chairwoman Green informed the committee that representatives from
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) would give a
presentation about the Medicaid program; a very complex program
that is a driver in the cost of doing business for DHSS.
MR. BOB LABBE, Director of the Division of Medical Assistance,
introduced John Sherwood and Nancy Weller from the division. He
referred to a handout entitled, "Medicaid Directions," which his
presentation would be based on. He explained the Medicaid program
is part of the Social Security Act (Title 19), created in 1965.
The Medicare program was established at the same time. The state
administers Medicaid and shares in the funding while Medicare is
administered by the federal government. States were given some
flexibility with the Medicaid program and can choose options;
therefore each state's program is a little bit different.
The Medicaid regulations are contained in 42 CFR.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if 42 CFR contains the regulations for both
Medicaid and Medicare.
MR. LABBE said it contains the regulations for both.
MR. LABBE continued.
The state plan is Alaska's contract. It is a preprinted document
of several volumes. The federal government requires that a single
state agency be designated to run the program; in Alaska that is
DHSS. The Division of Medical Assistance coordinates and manages
the program but a number of other agencies participate in it.
Clients apply through the Division of Public Assistance. The
program was traditionally linked to welfare payments.
Historically, the old age, blind and disabled cash payments were
also administered by the state until 1974.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if eligibility could be moved.
MR. LABBE said the eligibility determination has to be administered
either by the agency that does the cash assistance or the Medicaid
agency, but the state has a choice.
MR. LABBE continued. The federal government requires there be an
advisory committee. The Alaska committee meets quarterly and is
comprised equally of a broad array of providers, consumers, and
public members.
SENATOR WILKEN asked the name of the pediatric dentist from
Fairbanks.
MR. LABBE said that is Greg Johnson and that he was the former
Chair.
SENATOR WILKEN asked who the disability advocate is.
MR. LABBE said that is Sam Bush.
MR. LABBE continued. The federal government has a number of
requirements that must be followed: the program must be operated
statewide; it must cover certain groups of people; it must cover
certain services; benefits must be comparable among groups; the
program must provide enough of a service to meet the purpose of the
service; and it must offer a freedom of choice of providers.
Medicaid is considered the payer of last resort with a few
exceptions. The program must be operated with certain due process
considerations for the client. The division may request waivers of
some of the rules; the typical one is freedom of choice of
providers. That type of a waiver often occurs with managed care
arrangements. The state joined the program in 1972 after enabling
legislation was enacted and services were expanded in 1976. A rate
advisory commission was established in 1983 and, in 1988, the
program began covering pregnant women and children under age 5 with
household income not exceeding 100 percent of the federal poverty
level and added case management for nutrition services. Between
1990 and 1998, the following services were added:
· home and community based waiver services;
· rehabilitation services for mental illness, alcoholism and
drug abuse;
· children in subsidized adoptions;
· TEFRA;
· coverage for pregnant women up to 200 percent of the poverty
level;
· continuous eligibility for children beyond five years of age.
Number 720
MR. LABBE explained the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
(TEFRA) option is for children who would be institutionalized but
instead stay at home with the parents. Usually income is a factor
in eligibility, but under the TEFRA program, the parents' income is
not considered. This option came about during President Reagan's
era and was based on an individual case situation where the parents
wanted to bring their child home who was on a ventilator. If they
did so, they would lose coverage and could not provide the needed
support on their own. From that case, Congress enacted the TEFRA
option in 1984, which the state picked up in 1993.
MR. LABBE informed the committee that there are many categories of
eligibility under the federal rules; Alaska covers 32, many of
which are mandatory.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if there are 18 other optional programs
offered through Medicaid that the state could choose to participate
in.
MR. LABBE said that is a rough estimate and that number changes
every year.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if Mr. Labbe has a grid of the 50 eligible
categories and which categories each state covers.
MR. LABBE said he does not have one but could put one together. He
noted he has seen a grid that the federal government has produced
on optional services by state but he is not aware of a
comprehensive chart on eligibility. He offered to provide Senator
Wilken with the available material.
MR. LABBE continued with his presentation. The mandated groups of
eligible persons include:
· families and children;
· children in foster care;
· pregnant women and children under age 6 up to 133 percent of
the federal poverty level;
· infants born to women on Medicaid;
· children up to age 18 with family incomes up to 100 percent of
the federal poverty level; and
· certain aliens for emergency services only.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the federal poverty level rate of $1,475
per month for a family of three is based on net or gross income.
MR. LABBE said it is based on gross income.
MR. JOHN SHERWOOD, Division of Medical Assistance, explained that
it is applied as a gross income test.
SENATOR WILKEN asked whether that number is adjusted for different
areas of the state.
MR. LABBE said it is statewide but there is a difference between
Alaska and the Lower 48.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if 250 percent of the poverty level in
Alaska equals 275 percent elsewhere.
MR. LABBE said he is not sure. He continued. Two other mandatory
groups, the aged and disabled, are tied to those who receive
supplemental security income (SSI). Some people continue to be
eligible for Medicaid who would have lost their coverage because of
an increase in their social security benefits. That group was
"grandfathered" in by Congress.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that eligibility applies for life.
MR. LABBE said it does unless something else happens, such as
additional income from another source.
MR. LABBE said one of the bigger categories of qualified
individuals is qualified Medicare beneficiaries. Some of those
clients are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare, but of those
clients who only have Medicare, the Medicaid program pays their
premiums, co-insurance, and deductibles, depending on certain
factors. DHSS gets a federal match toward the premiums.
Regarding the optional services, Alaska has elected to cover
pregnant women and children at a higher income level of up to 200
percent of the poverty level. Alaska also covers services for
children who are not receiving cash assistance. Alaska does not
cover the people who would fall in the medically needy category.
That category is for people whose income is above the level for the
cash programs but who have medical expenses. Those people pay up
to a certain level, above which Medicaid pays. All of the other
groups are considered to be categorically needy. The medically
needy category would cover people who have catastrophic costs due
to illness and prescription costs for seniors and disabled clients.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the state ever opted to cover that
category.
MR. LABBE said not to his knowledge but he thinks it was analyzed
in the past.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Labbe to elaborate on the higher income
level for that category.
MR. LABBE explained the income of people in that category could not
be more than 133 percent of the cash standard for a welfare
recipient. If their income, minus medical expenses, brings them
below the 133 percent level, they would be eligible. Recently, the
Health Care Financing Administration reinterpreted its policy and
decided to allow a higher income for the medically needy. The
income level was liberalized so that those people would not have to
"spend down" so far. One of the problems with the program is that
people have to almost impoverish themselves to be eligible.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that is true of all categories.
MR. LABBE said he was referring to the medically needy as that is
the group where a big "spend down" occurs. He pointed out that the
medically needy category was created by Congress in 1965.
MR. LABBE said Alaska has an option to use 300 percent of the SSI
payment level, which is about $1500 per month, as the eligibility
level for individuals in need of an institutional level of care.
That category of people does not receive SSI cash payments but has
a higher income. A few years ago the Legislature opted to
participate in coverage for persons who are disabled but work.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that option was done through a waiver.
MR. LABBE said no, it was a new option established by Congress that
states could elect to participate in.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said DHSS pays a premium for some of its clients
covered under Medicare and asked if there is a similar opportunity
to pay a premium under CHIA - comprehensive health insurance.
MR. LABBE said he was not sure. Under Medicaid, DHSS has an option
to pay health insurance premiums if payment is cost effective.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Labbe to look into that and report back
to the committee. She commented it may be a way to get insurance
for people who would participate in the cost.
MR. LABBE described the income levels for the different categories
of eligible groups. He pointed out there is not much comparability
between the groups regarding eligibility, with the exception of
children, because they receive full coverage because of federal
directives. He stated that persons ages 12-64 with no children,
who do not meet the disability test, are not eligible for any
services.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if a woman who needs prescreening for early
detection for breast or cervical cancer in that group would qualify
for that service.
MR. LABBE said not unless she was in another category.
Historically, there has been no coverage for the middle aged,
single person but under some of the new programs there are new
groups of eligible people.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that is a Medicaid program.
MS. NANCY WELLER, Division of Medical Assistance, said it is.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is
morphing into a Medicaid program regarding treatment of breast and
cervical cancer.
MS. WELLER said the CDC program covers screening only. The new
eligibility option under Medicaid is for people who are screened by
the CDC program and diagnosed with cancer. Eligibility is tied to
screening by the CDC program.
MR. LABBE continued his presentation by reviewing federally-
mandated services and the optional services.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the state receives a federal match for
the optional services it provides.
MR. LABBE said it does. He finds it interesting that prescription
drug coverage is an optional service that states can choose. The
Medical Rate Advisory Commission (MRAC) sets a fair rate for
reasonable costs. DHSS recently changed its system to simplify it.
Over the years it became very complicated and numerous appeals over
rates were filed. He hopes the simplified system reduces that
workload.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the appeal process was recently changed.
MR. LABBE said a bill was introduced to change the appeal process
but he does not believe it passed. The changes made to the rate
setting system were a result of that legislation. DHSS worked well
with the Alaska Hospital and Nursing Home Association on that
issue. Regarding the Disproportionate Share Hospital program, a
federal allotment does require a state match but it can be used to
pay certain hospitals. It was designed for those teaching and
public hospitals in the Lower 48 that provide a lot of charity
care. Most states with state institutions directed those
additional allotments as their financing mechanism. The Alaska
Psychiatric Institute was funded in this way until the federal
government restricted the amount of the allotment that could be
used for API. DHSS is now looking for other things to use the
allotment for.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Labbe to describe the Medicaid cost
report.
MR. LABBE said it is a cost report that facilities are required to
submit to the Medicaid program. DHSS also requires that it receive
a copy. The report lists the facility's cost for various
procedures, charges for patient days and other costs.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the figures contained in those reports
are the published rate for the general public.
MR. LABBE said he thought it contains total annual costs for the
different aspect of hospital operations and revenue. When the
rates are set, the MRAC looks at the costs and conducts audits.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she is trying to find out whether the report
is based on what the hospital charges everyone or a Medicaid rate.
MR. LABBE said it should be based on the hospital's general rates
and costs. He informed the committee that DHSS implemented a
Resource Based Relative Value Scale (RBVS) that contains a
conversion factor for each unit. Therefore, if a procedure is
worth two units, the reimbursement amount can easily be determined.
This scale is relatively easy to adjust across the 10,000 physician
codes. The initial implementation was difficult but it has been
well accepted. It also allows DHSS to easily compare Alaska's
rates with other states' rates.
MR. LABBE explained the calculation used to reimburse providers for
prescription drugs. Reimbursement for laboratory services,
ambulatory surgery and rural health clinics are based on rates set
by Medicaid. A function named Surveillance and Utilization Review
(SURS) is used to review program accountability. User services and
claim patterns of providers are reviewed and random letters are
sent to recipients to determine if services billed were actually
received. In addition, DHSS uses a software program to audit
claims, evaluate billing information and coding accuracy, and
review for compliance. He noted that DHSS has a contractor who
works on identifying other payers and to make sure that third party
coverage is identified for billing.
TAPE 01-30, SIDE B
DHSS also has prior approval records for certain services and it
refers cases to the provider fraud unit in the Department of Law,
which is federally funded. DHSS started a pilot project a few
years ago in which high cost cases are identified and individual
case management takes place to provide for more efficient
management of complex medical cases. DHSS would like to expand
that program.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN announced that the committee would recess to a
call of the Chair so that members could return to the Senate floor
session. The committee would reconvene after session to take up
the bills on its agenda. She thanked Mr. Labbe and asked him to
complete his presentation on Wednesday.
TAPE 01-31, SIDE A
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services Committee back to order at 4:37 p.m. Present were
Senators Leman, Davis, Wilken and Green. The first order of
business to come before the committee was SB 155.
SB 155-STUDENT LOANS/ COMN. ON POSTSECONDARY ED.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN reminded committee members that SB 155 was heard
in committee for the purpose of providing committee members with
time to prepare amendments, if desired. No amendments have been
proposed and no further concerns have been expressed about the
legislation.
SENATOR LEMAN moved SB 155 from committee with individual
recommendations and its accompanying fiscal notes. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
SB 86-TEACHER EMPLOYMENT & SUBJECT EXPERTISE
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Senator Pete Kelly, sponsor of SB 86, if the
amendment before the committee has been incorporated into the
proposed committee substitute.
SENATOR KELLY said it was not.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if, regarding the provision that allows the
substitution of five years of work experience in the subject
matter, any type of experience in that subject that is not work
related would apply.
SENATOR KELLY said he would not object to deleting the word "work"
on page 2, line 19, so that five years of any experience in the
subject matter is required.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN referred to Sec. 3(d) and asked if Senator Kelly
would object to using the term "experienced educator" instead of a
"tenured teacher" (page 3, line 10).
SENATOR KELLY said the idea of the mentor, although he agrees with
it, did not come from him. The idea of a tenured teacher may have
been used because it assumes a certain level of experience.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN pointed out that an experienced teacher may not be
tenured in a certain district. She said the sectional analysis
says that Section 5 pertains to teachers coming off retirement and
lay off status and requires them to have practiced within the prior
five years. She asked for an explanation.
SENATOR KELLY said he thought that provision is in existing law.
DR. BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Education and Early Development (DOEED), said the only thing he can
think of is that teachers are required, when renewing certificates,
to have six additional credit hours over a five-year period. He
said he is not sure whether that provision refers to the mentor.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN indicated that an explanation of that provision
was included in the sectional analysis, even though that provision
is in current law. She moved to remove the word "work" from page
2, line 19 (Amendment 1), and to substitute on page 3, line 9, the
word "tenured" with the word "experienced" (Amendment 2). There
being no objection, the motion to adopt Amendments 1 and 2 carried.
SENATOR LEMAN stated that he has two minor amendments to propose.
The first (Amendment 3) is on page 2, line 16, and is to insert the
words "or national" after "regional". He informed the committee
that while most colleges are accredited by a regional association,
some are accredited by a national association and the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) considers both
associations to be comparable.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if there was objection to Amendment 3.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Senator Leman to explain his intent.
SENATOR LEMAN said that inserting that language will make sure that
all qualified institutions are covered and that both associations
have comparable standards.
There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, in which the word "or
minored" would be inserted after the word "majored" on page 2, line
18. He said that a person could minor in a subject and have
considerably more expertise in an area than he or she may have
under a typical education degree.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if a minor requires 18 hours of coursework.
Number 178
DR. JOHNSON said that a minor usually consists of a minimum of 18
hours of coursework.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Dr. Johnson his opinion of Amendment 4. She
noted that many teachers already teach in their minor area but the
focus was toward teaching in the area they majored in.
DR. JOHNSON said DOEED has concerns about this bill regarding
having individuals in the classroom who are not making a general
commitment to teacher education. DOEED would prefer that the
individual be enrolled in a teacher education program at the same
time the individual is teaching for many reasons, not the least of
which is that evidence in other states strongly suggests that
teacher education preparation programs really help support a
subject matter specialist capacity to be successful over the long
term. Those teachers tend to stay in their assignments longer.
Knowing content is an important ingredient of teaching but knowing
how to work with students is also important. DOEED does not object
to allowing these people to enter as teachers but it would prefer
that they immediately be enrolled in a teacher education program
that is similar to the Masters in Art of Teaching so that they can
receive a teaching credential in a one year period of time.
Regarding the question of whether teachers should be able to teach
in a field they minored in, he doesn't think that would be a big
problem for DOEED. Again, DOEED would rather have the focus be on
supporting the credential aspect. He pointed out the district
would be making the decision on whether a person with a minor is
qualified.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN noted that a person might have a major in
chemistry and a minor in physics, in which case teaching physics
would not be foreign.
There being no further objection to Amendment 4, CHAIRWOMAN GREEN
announced it was adopted.
SENATOR WILKEN moved Amendment 5, by Senator Kelly, which reads as
follows.
A M E N D M E N T 5
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KELLY
TO: CSSB 86( ), Draft Version "L"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "and"
Page 2, line 26, following "certificate":
Insert "; and
(4) completed, within the two years before
beginning to teach as a subject-matter expert teacher, the
six-week introductory course to prepare subject-matter expert
teachers for the classroom"
Page 2, following line 30:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) The department shall establish the requirements for
a six-week introduction to teaching course for persons
interested in becoming subject-matter expert teachers. A
school district or regional educational attendance area may
not employ a person as a subject-matter expert teacher under
this section unless the person has successfully completed the
course within the two years immediately preceding the person's
initial hire by the school district or regional educational
attendance area or unless the person has been employed as a
subject-matter expert teacher in another school district or
regional educational attendance area immediately preceding
employment in the school district or regional educational
attendance area."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 3, line 11, following ".":
Insert "At the end of the subject-matter expert teacher's
first year of teaching, the mentor, the teacher, and the principal
of the school in which the subject-matter expert teacher is
teaching shall meet for an evaluation of the strengths and
weaknesses of the teacher's performance as a teacher during the
past year."
SENATOR KELLY explained that Amendment 5 incorporates, into the
qualifications for a subject matter teacher, a six-week pre-course.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the pre-course would be required before
the person begins.
SENATOR KELLY said it would take place before the person begins
teaching.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the name "six-week introduction" is
something that has already been developed by the University and is
known or whether that is the expected length of the class.
SENATOR KELLY said it is not something that has been developed.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if a person could compress that course and take
it in half the time if need be.
SENATOR KELLY said he had the same thought. He asked, because four
of the members are also on the Senate Finance Committee, whether
this amendment could be addressed by the Senate Finance Committee
to give him more time to work on it.
SENATOR WILKEN asked for unanimous consent to withdraw Amendment 5.
There being no objection, Amendment 5 was withdrawn.
There being no further discussion or questions, SENATOR LEMAN moved
CSSB 86(HES) from committee with individual recommendations and its
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
SB 116-AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN noted that a proposed committee substitute to SB
116 was before the committee.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt Version F as the working draft of the
committee. There being no objection, the motion carried.
MR. JIM NORDLUND, Director of the Division of Public Assistance,
said SB 116 makes amendments to the Alaska Temporary Assistance
Program (ATAP), which was created when Alaska's welfare reform act
was enacted in 1996 [SB 98 by Senator Green]. SB 98 is a very
robust law that has enabled the division to reform Alaska's welfare
system and to successfully move welfare recipients from welfare
into the workforce. SB 116 is the first attempt to make any
amendments to that law. One section of SB 116 is important; the
others are minor modifications.
MR. NORDLUND said the section that was in SB 116 that was removed
from Version F dealt with the 60 month lifetime limit on benefits.
Both the federal and state laws allow 20 percent of the caseload to
be exempt from the five-year limit. Congress and the Legislature
recognized that, inevitably, some welfare recipients will have to
receive benefits beyond 60 months because certain conditions
prevent them from working and providing for their families. He
pointed out the 20 percent waiver applied to the original caseload,
which amounted to about 12,000 families at the time, before welfare
reform was instituted. The division has projected that when the 60
month limit hits in July of 2002, the caseload will be below 6,000
so the 20 percent waiver will only apply to about 1200 clients. He
explained that if 20 percent originally applied to the 12,000, one
can assume those families have severe problems that will not go
away. The division predicts that in future years (2003 and 2004)
it will have to cut people off of the caseload who all would agree
should continue to receive assistance.
MR. NORDLUND said the bill as introduced by the Governor simply
repeals the 20 percent cap. Instead of using that arbitrary
figure, the division suggested establishing objective, strict
criteria by which families would be allowed to receive assistance
beyond 60 months. The families that fit the criteria would receive
an extension rather than a lifelong exemption. He explained that
section 2 would have repealed that cap [AS 47.27.015(f)].
MR. NORDLUND said he discussed alternative solutions with Senator
Green and Representative Dyson. Senator Green was concerned that
putting the criteria in regulation was too loose of an approach.
On proposal was to put the criteria in statute. Representative
Dyson suggested applying the 20 percent waiver to the original
number of recipients, which would give the division enough room to
cover the number of families that need continual assistance. After
further discussions with Senator Green, she decided to pursue a
solution to that problem next year so Section 2 was removed
altogether. Because that section was the heart of the bill, it
will have to be dealt with at some point.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Nordlund to review the provisions of
Version F.
MR. NORDLUND said that Section 1 of Version F deals with the
conformity issue with federal law. Under federal law, families
that live in Native villages with unemployment rates over 50
percent, as determined by state data, are exempt from the 60 month
limit. Alaska law does not contain a similar provision so Section
1 will bring Alaska's statute into conformity with the federal law.
It was not in the original version of SB 116 because removing the
20 percent cap would have taken care of the problem.
SENATOR WARD asked what qualifies as a Native village.
MR. NORDLUND said that definition comes from the list of federally
recognized villages.
SENATOR WARD asked if this applies to the 226 villages recognized
by the Ada Deere case.
MR. NORDLUND said he believes so.
SENATOR WARD asked if it applies to the federally recognized tribes
or whether it applies to a place like Egegik.
MR. NORDLUND offered to get an answer for the committee.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN said she did not realize this bill applied to the
federally recognized tribes.
Number 428
MS. KRISTEN BOMENGEN, assistant attorney general, Department of
Law, said she does not believe the federal welfare reform law
referred to the federally recognized tribes. She offered to
provide the definition to the committee at a later date.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if that originally applied to a Native
village or a rural village.
MR. NORDLUND said the federal law uses the word "reservations" so
it was trying to replicate that in Alaska. He again offered to get
the specific language for the committee.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN commented that the economy of the village was
supposed to trigger the waiver.
MS. BOMENGEN said she believes Alaska's statutory language simply
refers to that provision in the federal law.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if Section 1, as written, addresses that
concern.
MS. BOMENGEN said it does.
MR. NORDLUND said Section 2 is in response to a lawsuit that DHSS
lost.
MS. BOMENGEN explained the case was a challenge to DHSS regulations
that were generated under the statute as it formerly read. Under
those regulations, the basis for the 50 percent reduction was an
evaluation of the employment of the family's principal wage earner.
That language was borrowed from the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) statute in effect at the time. That program had
three different categories based on deprivation. The third category
was created for two-parent families that had an attachment to the
workforce. If the wage earner was unemployed, the family could
qualify for the AFDC benefit. That terminology was borrowed
because the AFDC statute was in effect when this law was being
written. DHSS then made, in regulation, an attempt to distinguish
two-parent families in which one of the parents was incapacitated.
The court determined that the plain language of this statute
indicated a different kind of evaluation than the one used by DHSS
and overruled the regulation.
MR. NORDLUND said when he researched why this provision was
originally chosen, he found that language was chosen before federal
welfare reform was on the horizon. DHSS took two approaches:
Senator Green's waiver approach, which assumed that law would not
pass and the Governor's approach, which assumed that it would. The
language had to be consistent with AFDC if it was to be in effect,
assuming federal welfare reform didn't occur. Borrowing that
language made sense at the time, but the problem now is that the
court interpreted that language literally when the law intended it
to apply to two-parent families despite the unemployment status or
who was the principal wage earner. The danger is, if this part of
the law is not changed, DHSS might have to go back and pay benefits
to two-parent families in the summer, which he does not think was
the Legislature's intent.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the language in Section 2 addresses the
crux of the problem.
MR. NORDLUND said the language does address the court case but the
language in the committee substitute does not contain language from
the original bill that exempts a two-parent family from the benefit
cut if one parent is incapacitated. ATAP has exempted such
families for the last four years so the committee substitute would
make a policy change. He was not sure that was the Legislature's
intent.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if the committee substitute would treat the
two-parent family of which one parent is incapacitated the same as
a "whole" two-parent family.
MR. NORDLUND said that is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Nordlund what the court directed DHSS to
do and whether the original bill contains the minimum language.
MS. BOMENGEN said the language proposed in the original bill would
maintain the status quo. It provides for the fourth category of
eligibility that is provided for in ATAP with one exception for the
incapacitated parent. The language in the committee substitute
sets a clear line that establishes that all two-parent families are
subject to the reduction and DHSS could not change that.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if DHSS prefers the language in the original
bill regarding the provision.
MS. BOMENGEN said it does.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked if anything in that language is superfluous
and is not required for DHSS's needs.
MS. BOMENGEN said no.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked what has been added to address the lawsuit.
MS. BOMENGEN explained the question is what has been subtracted.
CHAIRWOMEN GREEN asked if she was speaking of the phrase, "the
unemployment of the family's principal wage earner."
MS. BOMENGEN said that term is no longer examined by the department
and is no longer useful because it doesn't really give the public
fair notice of what is being established. She thought the court
felt that the law contained plain language while DHSS was telling
the court it did not have to look at unemployment because it does
not use that as an eligibility factor any longer.
Number 599
SENATOR WARD asked if the committee substitute as is would not
satisfy the court.
MS. BOMENGEN said, "This language is beside the fact. The court
didn't address this. What the court addressed was that we had
language that didn't clearly state what we were doing in the
language that we've extracted. It's good to extract it. The
language here is a policy change. It does not keep the program at
the status quo, it instead changes so that more families will
receive the two-parent - the 50 percent reduction during those
summer months because it ...
TAPE 01-31, SIDE B
[MS BOMENGEN continued.] ... the exception that the division was
able to recognize because it was borrowed from the AFDC concept.
The court doesn't have an opinion about what the policy is that is
adopted here. If that is the policy that this committee chooses,
that's beside the point for the court."
SENATOR WARD asked what, in Ms. Bomengen's opinion, the court has
asked the legislature to do, if anything.
MS. BOMENGEN said the court has asked DHSS, as long as the statute
contains the language "unemployment of the family's principal wage
earner" to make an evaluation of the employment status of the
principal wage earner. The court has not asked the legislature to
change the law, it has only said this is what DHSS must do under
the existing law.
SENATOR WARD commented that DHSS must write new regulations then.
MS. BOMENGEN said it will and it will have to analyze each family's
relative unemployment status.
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN asked Mr. Nordlund and Ms. Bomengen to provide the
committee with a definition of Native villages and she asked for a
side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the bill. She
commented that the less language that must be added to create
additional exceptions the better, and that it is her intent to
perfect that language.
SENATOR WARD asked, regarding the people who will never be able to
get off of public assistance, at what point in time they should be
transferred to another program. He asked if there has been any
discussion about other possible programs that might be addressed in
this bill.
MR. NORDLUND said a number of states have done that. Some ATAP
clients have disabilities or incapacities that are not severe
enough to qualify for social security income but they are severe
enough to prevent those clients from holding a job. He agrees that
finding a way to transfer those clients to a different program is a
good idea that needs to be explored as DHSS learns more about how
many clients will fall in this category. For now, they can
continue to be served under ATAP as long as there is room under the
cap but as more people hit the 60 month limit, that cap will be
reached.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRWOMAN GREEN adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|