05/08/2025 03:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB70 | |
| HJR9 | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2025
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Forrest Dunbar, Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel, Vice Chair
Senator Matt Claman
Senator Löki Tobin
Senator Shelley Hughes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 70(L&C) AM
"An Act relating to emergency medical services for operational
canines; relating to the powers, duties, and liability of
emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care
paramedics; relating to the practice of veterinary medicine; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9(HSS)
Urging the United States Congress to extend enhanced tax credits
for health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act.
- MOVED CSHJR 9(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to the placement of foster children in
psychiatric hospitals; relating to the care of children in state
custody placed in residential facilities outside the state; and
amending Rule 12.1(b), Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of
Procedure."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 70
SHORT TITLE: EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SCHRAGE
01/27/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/25 (H) HSS, L&C
02/18/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
02/18/25 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/13/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/13/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/20/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/20/25 (H) Moved CSHB 70(HSS) Out of Committee
03/20/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/21/25 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 2DP 2DNP 2NR
03/21/25 (H) DP: FIELDS, MEARS
03/21/25 (H) DNP: PRAX, SCHWANKE
03/21/25 (H) NR: RUFFRIDGE, MINA
03/31/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/31/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/31/25 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/02/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/02/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/25 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/07/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/07/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/09/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/09/25 (H) Moved CSHB 70(L&C) Out of Committee
04/09/25 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/11/25 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 5DP 2NR
04/11/25 (H) DP: BURKE, CARRICK, NELSON, HALL,
FIELDS
04/11/25 (H) NR: COULOMBE, SADDLER
04/28/25 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/28/25 (H) VERSION: CSHB 70(L&C) AM
04/30/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/30/25 (S) HSS, L&C
05/08/25 (S) HSS AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HJR 9
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TAX CREDITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MINA
02/12/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/25 (H) HSS
03/11/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/11/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/18/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/18/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/20/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/20/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/25/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/25/25 (H) Moved CSHJR 9(HSS) Out of Committee
03/25/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/28/25 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) 4DP 1DNP 2NR
03/28/25 (H) DP: FIELDS, GRAY, MEARS, MINA
03/28/25 (H) DNP: PRAX
03/28/25 (H) NR: SCHWANKE, RUFFRIDGE
04/28/25 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/28/25 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 9(HSS)
04/30/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/30/25 (S) HSS
05/06/25 (S) HSS AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/06/25 (S) Heard & Held
05/06/25 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
05/08/25 (S) HSS AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CHILDREN PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRAY
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) HSS, FIN
02/27/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
02/27/25 (H) Moved HB 36 Out of Committee
02/27/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
02/28/25 (H) HSS RPT 7DP
02/28/25 (H) DP: PRAX, GRAY, SCHWANKE, RUFFRIDGE,
MEARS, FIELDS, MINA
03/11/25 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
03/11/25 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/12/25 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
03/12/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/25 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/20/25 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
03/20/25 (H) Moved HB 36 Out of Committee
03/20/25 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/25 (H) FIN RPT 8DP 2NR
03/21/25 (H) DP: BYNUM, HANNAN, ALLARD, GALVIN,
JIMMIE, TOMASZEWSKI, FOSTER, JOSEPHSON
03/21/25 (H) NR: JOHNSON, STAPP
03/26/25 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/26/25 (H) VERSION: HB 36
03/28/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/25 (S) HSS, FIN
04/08/25 (S) HSS AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/25 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/25 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
05/08/25 (S) HSS AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, District 12
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 70.
JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff
Representative Calvin Schrage
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sectional analysis for HB 70.
BRIAN WEBB, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on HB 70.
MELISSA EDWARDS, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on HB 70.
MARY ANN HOLLICK, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns on HB 70.
NELSON PRIDDY, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns on HB 70.
MCKAYLA DICK, Member At Large
Alaska State Veterinary Medical Association
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 70.
SEAN MCPECK, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 70.
ARIELLE WIGGIN, Staff
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the summary of changes for HB 36,
version N to version T.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW GRAY, District 20
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave brief remarks on HB 36.
CHRISSY VOGELEY, Senior Policy Advisor
Department of Family and Community Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 36.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 36.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:59 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR called the Senate Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the
call to order were Senators Tobin, Claman, Giessel, and Chair
Dunbar. Senator Hughes arrived thereafter.
HB 70-EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES
3:34:43 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 70(L&C) am "An Act relating to emergency medical services
for operational canines; relating to the powers, duties, and
liability of emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedics; relating to the practice of veterinary
medicine; and providing for an effective date."
3:35:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, District 12, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 70 spoke to the
following summary:
[Original punctuation provided.]
House Bill 70 Version G.A "Rico's Law"
An act relating to emergency medical services for
operational canines.
House Bill 70 empowers Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) personnel to deliver on-scene point-of-injury
(POI) emergency care and transport for operational
canines (OpK9s).
Operational canines are essential members of law
enforcement, other government operations, and search-
and-rescue teams. These courageous animals amplify the
success of countless military, law enforcement,
search-and-rescue, and humanitarian missions. Their
roles even extend to police or fire chaplaincy during
crises.
3:37:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE continued with the introduction of HB 70:
This bill is named "Rico's Law" in honor of Alaska
State Trooper K9 Rico, whose end of watch occurred on
March 26, 2017. Rico was fatally shot while heroically
attempting to apprehend a suspect after a lengthy
pursuit on the Parks Highway in Wasilla, Alaska.
K9 Rico, like all operational canines, demonstrated
unwavering dedication to protecting and defending his
community. These animals are more than just assets or
propertythey are teammates, partners, and family
members who deserve emergency care and transportation
rights. Operational canines, especially those deployed
in tactical or high-threat situations, face
significant risks of injury or preventable death.
Currently, Alaska lacks statutory authority allowing
EMS personnel to apply life-saving care to these
animals. Under current law, providing such care could
be deemed "practicing veterinary medicine without a
license," a violation under AS 08.98.120, carrying
severe penalties. The super-rural nature of Alaska
adds another dimension of acuity for our operational
canines outside of Alaska's major urban centers.
Alaska's EMS professionals already possess the
equipment, supplies, and medications needed to adapt
existing prehospital standards of care for human
patients to operational canines. Training programs
like the K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (K9 TECC)
course provide additional training for clinicians to
confidently manage operational canine emergencies. The
passage of this bill would eliminate legal barriers,
enabling EMS personnel to administer life-saving care
and transport injured operational canines to emergency
veterinary facilities.
With minimal investment by our participating EMS
services, Alaska EMS can ensure that our operational
canines have a fighting chance at survival when
injured in the line of duty.
3:38:48 PM
JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the sectional
analysis for HB 70:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis
House Bill 70, Version G.A - "Rico's Law"
An act related to emergency medical services and
operational canines.
Section 1: Amends AS 08.98.125 to allow emergency
medical technicians and mobile intensive care
paramedics to perform emergency medical services on an
operational canine as authorized under AS 18.08.093
without a license to practice veterinary medicine.
Section 2: Amends AS 18.08.075(a) to authorize
emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedic to enter a building or premises where a
report of an injury or illness has taken place, or
where there is reasonable cause to believe an
operational canine has been injured or is ill, to
render emergency medical care and direct the removal
of a motor vehicle or other thing determined necessary
to prevent further harm to operational canines.
3:40:13 PM
MR. HOUSTON continued with the sectional analysis for HB 70:
Section 3: Amends AS 18.08.082(a) to direct the
Department of Heath to prescribe a course or other
requirements prerequisite to the issuance of
certificates or licenses that provide for
authorization for a licensed emergency medical
technician or mobile intensive care paramedic to
provide emergency medical services to an operational
canine as enumerated on a written document filed with
the department by the medical director and approved by
the department in regulation.
Section 4: Amends AS 18.08.086(a) to provide for civil
liability protection to providers, or a director of a
provider licensed under AS 18.08.082 who administers
emergency medical services to an operational canine
within the scope of the person's certification or
licensure and if the operational canine reasonably
seems to be in immediate danger of serious harm or
death.
Section 5: Amends AS 18.08.087 to remove language
limiting physicians, advanced practice registered
nurses, or physician assistants' permission to
disclose medical information of a patient to emergency
medical technicians and mobile intensive care
paramedics when the information is not for the purpose
of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical
technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or
physician.
Section 6: Adds two new subsections to AS 18.08.087.
The first allows licensed veterinarians to disclose
medical or hospital records of an operational canine
to an emergency medical technician or mobile intensive
care paramedic for the purpose of evaluating the
performance of an emergency medical technician or
mobile intensive care paramedic. The second adds
language restricting physicians, advanced practice
registered nurses, or physician assistants' permission
to disclose medical information of a patient to
emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedics when the information is not for the
purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency
medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or
physician.
3:42:08 PM
MR. HOUSTON continued with the sectional analysis for HB 70:
Section 7: Adds one new section to AS 18.08 with three
subsections. Subsection (a) allows emergency medical
technicians or mobile intensive care paramedics to
provide emergency medical services to an operational
canine if the emergency medical technician or mobile
intensive care paramedic reasonably determines there
is immediate danger of serious harm to or death of the
operational canine, determines that a veterinarian is
unavailable to provide emergency medical services to
the operational canine soon enough to address the
danger, is authorized to provide emergency medical
services to an operational canine, and has informed
consent from the owner or someone authorized to make
medical decisions about the operational canine or is
providing medical service in accordance with a written
protocol developed by a veterinarian. Subsection (b)
requires the emergency medical technician or mobile
intensive care paramedic to transfer the operational
canine to a licensed veterinarian at the earliest
practicable opportunity. Subsection (c) prohibits
emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive
care paramedics to provide care to operational canines
if a person requires emergency medical services.
Section 8: Amends AS 18.08.200 to define
"veterinarian" in this chapter the same as it is under
AS 08.98 and "operational canine" as a dog used by law
enforcement or other government operations; or in
search and rescue operations.
Section 9: Sets an effective date of January 1st,
2026.
3:44:23 PM
CHAIR TOBIN noted that some communities rely on service dogs or
sled dogs for transportation and assistance. She asked if the
definition in Section 8 includes working service animals.
3:45:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that there has been discussion
about expanding the definition of operational canines including
service dogs, though veterinarians have raised concerns about
the scope of HB 70.
3:46:31 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR asked for confirmation on the necessity of Section
4 on civil liability, asking who would be liable if a paramedic
unintentionally harms an operational canine owned by the police.
He noted that Section 1, which addresses unauthorized veterinary
practice, might already address these concerns.
3:46:50 PM
SENATOR HUGHES joined the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that privately owned search-and-
rescue dogs can meet the definition of operational canines. He
said if someone providing aid exceeds their veterinary skills
and harms the dog, it could create grounds for legal liability.
This potential for lawsuits is the source of concern.
3:48:23 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR stated that some operational canines are privately
owned and contracted by the government rather than being
publicly owned.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE noted that in some cases, volunteer
search-and-rescue dogs may respond independently. He said
emergency personnel on scene could be legally prohibited from
providing care if the dog is injured.
3:48:59 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR stated that he finds it surprising that a paramedic
could be sued for trying to save a dog and acknowledged that
such laws exist to address these situations.
3:49:16 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked how frequently someone has been sued for
trying to save an operational canine.
REPRESENATIVE SCHRAGE replied that this happens rarely.
3:50:05 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether the legislation included provisions
for disclosure and consent, allowing an emergency technician to
explain that, while they are not veterinarians, they do have
medical training when offering care.
3:50:31 PM
MR. HOUSTON replied that HB 70 does not include any requirement
for EMTs or paramedics to disclose their qualifications to the
owner or handler of an operational canine before providing care.
3:50:52 PM
CHAIR TOBIN noted that disclosure and consent are commonly used
to reduce liability and suggest that good-faith efforts to save
a life. She asked whether Good Samaritan protections apply to
dogs and argued the protection should apply in such
circumstances.
3:51:29 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that while the sponsor's statement
references a K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care course, HB 70
does not require EMS professionals to take it. She asked whether
the course would be incorporated into EMS training if HB 70
passes and why it was not mandated.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that HB 70 requires EMS
organizations to create an opt-in training program to ensure
their professionals are prepared, allowing them to use courses
like K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care or another program of
their choosing.
3:52:45 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if HB 70 passes could an EMS professional
face liability for choosing not to provide aid under the bill as
written.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that there is no obligation to
provide care. HB 70 allows EMS organizations to adopt policies
permitting care for operational canines though, does not require
EMS professionals to provide that care. HB 70 also requires that
human patients be prioritized over canines when both are
present.
3:53:46 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that HB 70 does mention consent on page 6,
line 4, "...the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive
care paramedic has obtained informed consent from the owner of
the operational canine or a person authorized to make medical
decisions about the operational canine..."
3:54:21 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced invited testimony on HB 70.
3:54:50 PM
BRIAN WEBB, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified by
invitation on HB 70 and explained his background in the medical
field and with canines. He stated that Alaska's operational
canines face the same dangers as human responders, though EMS
clinicians are not legally allowed to treat them, forcing some
to intervene at personal risk. HB 70 creates a voluntary, opt-in
process allowing trained EMS agencies to provide emergency care
and transport to veterinarians, prioritizing human patients and
accounting for Alaska's remote geography. He said that HB 70 is
modeled after laws in other states and supported by military
experience, peer-reviewed research, and a broad coalition of EMS
and veterinary professionals. HB 70 is not mandatory statewide
and applies only to agencies with the capacity and need to
participate.
3:58:26 PM
MR. WEBB stated that HB 70 is the first phase, with a proposed
accelerated second phase focused on designing policies,
protocols, training standards, and oversight through a
collaborative EMS and veterinary advisory panel. This process
would tailor national best practices to Alaska, strengthen
coordination with veterinarians, and ensure operational canines
receive appropriate emergency care, with the goal of passing HB
70 to provide legal clarity and save lives.
4:00:30 PM
MELISSA EDWARDS, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified by
invitation on HB 70. She stated that she supports HB 70 because
it establishes a clear legal framework allowing EMS providers to
deliver pre-hospital care to operational canines without relying
on Good Samaritan or owner-agent theories that often do not
apply to paid EMS personnel. HB 70 prioritizes human patients,
respects veterinary practice acts, and allows veterinarian-
directed, scope-appropriate EMS care near the point of injury to
reduce preventable deaths, using training and oversight
developed collaboratively with the veterinary community. The
bill leverages existing EMS skills within established scopes of
practice rather than expanding them. This approach has been
shown in other states and in military settings to improve
survival and reduce disability in injured operational canines.
4:04:56 PM
MS. EDWARDS stated that if HB 70 passes, veterinary and EMS
regulatory boards should jointly oversee protocol development,
training, and continuing education for EMS-provided canine care.
She said with veterinary-approved, protocol-driven oversight and
targeted training, EMS providers can safely deliver scope-
appropriate, pre-hospital care and transport for injured
operational canines. The skills largely translate from human EMS
practice with focused instruction in comparative anatomy,
physiology, and safe handling. Evidence from other states shows
this training can be completed efficiently while maintaining
provider and animal safety.
4:07:03 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR opened public testimony on HB 70.
4:07:36 PM
MARY ANN HOLLICK, representing self, Eagle River, Alaska,
testified with concerns on HB 70. She stated that she supports
animal welfare yet cautions that HB 70 requires strong
veterinary oversight, clear limits of care, and rigorous
training before EMS treats canines. She emphasized safety,
accountability, proper communication, and rapid transfer to
veterinary emergency care.
4:09:55 PM
NELSON PRIDDY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
with concerns on HB 70. He argued HB 70 should simply protect
first responders from liability when providing basic aid to
working or search-and-rescue dogs that are injured, rather than
creating a complex regulatory system. He urged keeping HB 70
simple so responders can offer lifesaving first aid without fear
of discipline, noting that while not all animals will survive,
some will be saved.
4:12:6 PM
MCKAYLA DICK, Member At Large, Alaska State Veterinary Medical
Association, North Pole, Alaska, testified in opposition to HB
70. She agreed with HB 70's original goal of saving injured
working animals through first aid and transport however, she
raises concerns about insufficient veterinary oversight. She
said she supports creating a task force or advisory board
including veterinarians and EMS to develop durable legislation
while ensuring veterinarians are included in the process.
4:14:27 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked Ms. Dick how she would recommend amending
HB 70 to make it workable and secure the association's support
if a task force was not an option.
4:14:52 PM
MS. DICK replied that first aid and transport for injured
canines should require direct guidance from a licensed
veterinarian, noting that emergency veterinarians are available
and willing to provide real-time consultation. She urged that
this requirement be explicitly included in the legislation.
4:16:06 PM
SEAN MCPECK, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 70. She stated that simple pre-hospital
interventions by trained medical personnel have repeatedly saved
the lives of working dogs in military and civilian settings.
Given Alaska's vast geography and time-critical injuries, she
argued that allowing EMS to provide basic, well-defined canine
emergency care, without unnecessary delays, can prevent
avoidable deaths and is practical with limited, targeted
training.
4:19:24 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR closed public testimony on HB 70.
4:20:09 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR held HB 70 in committee.
HJR 9-EXTEND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TAX CREDITS
4:20:19 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 9(HSS) Urging the United States Congress to
extend enhanced tax credits for health insurance premiums under
the Affordable Care Act.
4:21:09 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR solicited the will of the committee.
4:21:11 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report CSHJR 9(HSS), work order 34-
LS0490\I, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
4:21:25 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR found no objection and CSHJR 9(HSS) was reported
from the Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
HB 36-FOSTER CHILDREN PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
4:21:37 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to the placement of foster children in
psychiatric hospitals; relating to the care of children in state
custody placed in residential facilities outside the state; and
amending Rule 12.1(b), Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of
Procedure."
4:21:50 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR solicited a motion.
4:21:54 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 36, work order 34-LS0358\T, as the working document.
4:22:08 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR objected for purposes of discussion.
4:22:20 PM
ARIELLE WIGGIN, Staff, Senator Forrest Dunbar, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided the summary of changes for
HB 36, version N to version T and said:
This CS separates one statute into two sections.
Originally AS 47.10.087 was the statute that was
referred to throughout version N. [AS 47.10.O87], as I
came to understand through this process, refers to
adult residential psychiatric treatment centers.
This CS creates a new section, Section 105, for short
term psychiatric care for youth, for clarity.
There's a title update. It replaces the first two
lines, as terms are updated in this version.
Throughout the bill, there's cleanup that removes the
term "acute psychiatric treatment center" and replaces
it with "hospital that is not a residential treatment
center."
It adds, "and any other parties" to sections where the
child, parent, guardian of child or child's guardian
ad litem are listed. [This is] to cover parties that
may be engaged in these court cases.
Throughout the bill references are removed to two-way
video conferencing as that is standard within court
process and was unnecessary and can be determined
through regulation through court rules.
4:04:56 PM
MS. WIGGIN continued with the summary of changes for HB 36:
Section 1 is the piece that splits the statute. This
removes the word "secure" adds "other parties" and
adds a new definition of "acute psych treatment
hospital." A new paragraph explains why "secure" was
removed, and the new paragraph refers to the change in
residential psychiatric treatment center.
Section 2 is the new section pulling out "short-term
psychiatric care" from [AS 47.10.087], creating [AS
47.10.105]. This was Section 3 in version N. It mostly
follows HB 36, version N, with some updates. All the
subsection numbers are changed starting with (a). It
renumbers all of the following: [Section 2(a) allows
the department to place the child into a hospital that
is a not a residential psychiatric treatment center.]
Section 3, there's a new paragraph 6, replaces
"residential facilities" with "psychiatric residential
treatment facilities." This was just to help with how
this is referred to in other parts of statute. Those
are the changes that are made.
4:26:21 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR asked for an explanation of why a committee
substitute was brought forward.
4:26:26 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN replied that the committee substitute (CS) is
driven by concerns raised in the Kwinhagak case, which
highlighted the lack of timely judicial review when children in
state custody were placed in hospitals for psychiatric care. He
said to address this, HB 36 clearly separates long-term
psychiatric placements, which already require court review, from
short-term hospital placements, ensuring that due-process
hearings and reviews begin promptly when a child is admitted to
a hospital. He stated that the CS also makes statutory cleanups
to clarify definitions, particularly removing confusing language
around "secure" treatment facilities, and updates terminology to
align with how other states define psychiatric residential
treatment facilities. These changes improve legal clarity,
protect children's due-process rights, and ensure consistent
data collection for children placed in out-of-state psychiatric
care.
4:31:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW GRAY, District 20, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, gave remarks on HB 36 and stated
his belief that the committee substitute meets the Supreme
Court's directive in Kwinhagak and expressed strong appreciation
for Senator Claman's work on the bill.
4:31:46 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if there was ever a situation where a child
needing only short-term psychiatric care is placed in a long-
term facility due to available space, and if so, would that
raise due process concerns for what is intended to be a short-
term placement, or does that not occur in practice.
4:32:35 PM
CHRISSY VOGELEY, Senior Policy Advisor, Department of Family and
Community Services, Juneau, Alaska, answered questions on HB 36
and stated that placement in a long-term secure facility always
requires a formal process, including review by the Office of
Children's Services treatment team, involvement of legal
parties, and a court hearing to approve the transition from
short-term to long-term care.
4:33:23 PM
SENATOR HUGHES restated her question and asked whether short-
term cases could be placed in a long-term facility when short-
term space is full.
4:34:24 PM
MS. VOGELEY replied that she is not aware of short-term cases
being placed in long-term facilities, noting that statutes,
regulations, and court processes prevent long-term placement
without proper approval.
4:35:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY stated that the committee substitute
clarifies the statutes by separating long-term residential care
from short-term care, reducing confusion and preventing improper
placement.
4:35:44 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked why HB 36 uses the term on page 3, line 24,
"less restrictive setting" instead of the more common "least
restrictive setting," and sought clarification on line 28,
regarding who qualifies as "any other party.
4:36:35 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN answered that "any other party" refers to
existing parties in an ongoing child-in-need-of-aid case, most
commonly tribes, and not members of the public. The language was
chosen to ensure all recognized parties with standing in the
case receive notice.
4:37:54 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR repeated the question regarding "least restrictive
setting."
4:37:59 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN replied that while the goal is generally the
least restrictive placement, the term "less restrictive" was
likely chosen to emphasize moving children out of hospitals as
soon as possible. He suggested reviewing the language further
and following up at the next hearing.
4:38:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that HB 36, line 11, already
states the department must promptly seek the least restrictive
placement and does not see a substantive difference in the
wording. He suggested using consistent language throughout and
agrees the issue should be reviewed.
4:39:14 PM
SENATOR HUGHES suggested that "less restrictive" may be used
when the least restrictive option is unavailable and raises
concern about defining "any other party" to avoid including the
public. She proposed clarifying the language to specify parties
recognized by the court.
SENATOR CLAMAN stated he will circle back with Legislative Legal
and get an answer.
4:39:47 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR suggested holding HB 36 for another hearing to
consult with drafters about clarifying the language, noting that
"party" typically implies court-recognized standing. He
emphasized that the intent is not to allow random individuals to
become parties.
4:40:23 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted the importance of public committee
discussions for the legal record and asks for judicial
perspective on the bill's court-related provisions, particularly
given the lack of a judiciary referral.
4:41:06 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR noted that HB 36 does not have a fiscal note.
4:41:19 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, Juneau, Alaska, answered
questions on HB 36. She responded that the legislature can
change court rules with a two-thirds vote and noted that the
bill's court-related change has minimal impact because courts
already routinely appoint attorneys for children placed in
psychiatric hospitals.
4:42:57 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR noted that this is the first time all three
branches of the government are testifying simultaneously.
4:43:15 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for an explanation to be put on record
regarding why there isn't a fiscal note.
4:43:36 PM
MS. VOGELEY replied that the bill's fiscal impact is small and
believes the Office of the Administrative Director can absorb
the costs.
4:44:09 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked who removes the funding from the fiscal
note and what the process is.
CHAIR DUNBAR replied he was not sure. He asked Ms. Vogeley
whether her office submitted a new fiscal note.
MS. VOGELEY replied yes.
4:44:33 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked about the potential impact on the court
system given the estimate that the court change in HB 36 could
trigger approximately 110 additional hearings.
4:44:50 PM
MS. MEADE replied that the committee substitute broadens the
definition of hospital admissions requiring review, likely
resulting in more than the previously estimated 110 additional
hearings. However, the court does not assign a fiscal note for
this extra work, as it doesn't require new hires, so the bill
itself has no immediate fiscal impact.
4:46:00 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR removed his objection; found no further objection
and SCS HB 36 was adopted as the working document.
4:46:15 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR held HB 36 in committee.
4:46:36 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Dunbar adjourned the Senate Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting at 4:46 p.m.