Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/11/2002 03:40 PM Senate STA
| 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 STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 11, 2002
3:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 374
"An Act naming the David Douthit Veterans' Memorial Bridge."
MOVED HB 374 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 254(FIN)
"An Act relating to the teachers' retirement system, the judicial
retirement system, and the public employees' retirement system
and to the tax qualification under the Internal Revenue Code of
those systems; amending the definition of 'actuarial adjustment'
in the teachers' retirement system and the public employees'
retirement system; repealing certain provisions of the teachers'
retirement system and the public employees' retirement system;
amending the statutory limitation on payment of warrants to make
an exception for warrants making benefit payments or refunds
under various state retirement and benefit programs; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 15
"An Act requiring that the cost of contraceptives be included in
certain health care insurance coverage."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 355
"An Act establishing an account in the general fund to receive
general gifts, donations, and bequests to the State of Alaska."
MOVED SB 355 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 374 - No previous action to record.
HB 254 - No previous action to record.
SB 15 - No previous action to record.
SB 355 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Ken Lancaster
Alaska State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor HB 374
Barbara Cotting
Aide to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Capitol, Room 214
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 254
Guy Bell
Department of Administration
Division of Retirement & Benefits
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254 and SB 15
Chief Monegan
Anchorage Police Department
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254
Sergeant Rod Huen
President, Anchorage Police Association
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254
Will Aitchison
Anchorage Police Department Employees Association
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254
Del Smith
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254
Senator Johnny Ellis
Alaska State Capitol, Room 9
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 15
Ann Harrison
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Claire Noll
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Sherry Jaeger
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Deatrich Sitchler
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Jennifer Rudinger
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Cindy Norquest
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Pauline Utter
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Robin Smith
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Regina Montoufel
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Jane Angvik
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Katherine Davey
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Bob Lohr
Haines, AK 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Sherry Goll
Haines, AK 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Dr. Colleen Murphy
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Deborah Williams
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Karen Pearson
Director of Public Health
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Caren Robinson
AK Woman's Lobby
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Lilo Ives
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 15
Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Capitol, Room 125
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Anchorage, AK 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 355
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-20, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. Present were Senators
Davis, Stevens and Chairman Therriault. Senators Halford and
Phillips arrived shortly thereafter.
HB 374-NAMING DOUTHIT VETERANS' MEMORIAL BRIDGE
Representative Ken Lancaster, bill sponsor, explained this bill
names the bridge that spans the Kenai River in Soldotna the David
Douthit Memorial Bridge. While serving in the U.S. Army as a
staff sergeant during the Gulf War, he died for his country on
February 27, 1991.
The community of Soldotna and the local veterans support the
bill. The city passed a supporting resolution and called it to
his attention. The Douthit's have been close friends of his for
many years and he was pleased to sponsor the bill.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he had no questions. There was no
prepared CS and no amendments were offered. There was a zero
fiscal note attached to the bill.
SENATOR DAVIS made a motion to move HB 374 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 254-STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS/WARRANTS
BARBARA COTTING, staff to Representative Jeannette James,
introduced the legislation to keep the State of Alaska retirement
system in compliance with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code
changes. It allows buy-ins with pre-tax dollars. The fiscal note
is zero. It is a technical bill that is not intended to and does
not enhance benefits in any way.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Mr. Bell to comment on whether the bill
addressed this single issue.
GUY BELL, Director of the Division of Retirement and Benefits,
explained that everything else in the legislation is confirmation
of current practice. The only substantial change is the allowance
of pre-tax payment of indebtedness in the retirement system for
public employees and teachers. The new language needs to be put
into state law to comply with provisions of the IRS code to
ensure continued tax qualification.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT called for teleconferenced testimony.
CHIEF MONEGAN from the Anchorage Police Department said he wanted
to speak to Senator Halford's proposed amendment.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT made a motion to adopt amendment #1 for the
purpose of discussion.
CHIEF MONEGAN said the amendment would provide local option for
local governments to enhance or offer a series of enhancements to
existing public employee retirement systems (PERS). The Anchorage
Police Department is experiencing difficulty recruiting and
retaining personnel because people are looking elsewhere for
retirement and benefits packages. Other departments are similarly
affected. The amendment would allow local municipalities to
bargain individually and bear the cost for their own enhancements
to the basic state retirement package. The fiscal impact to the
state would be nominal.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT questioned why this needs to be incorporated
into the state system. Why couldn't a municipality just as easily
offer an attractive option that is controlled and operated
entirely at the local governmental level?
CHIEF MONEGAN replied they may end up bargaining no increase, but
they need this kind of legislation before they can even get to
the table. They haven't found any options that would be as
attractive as this one.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT questioned the statement that there would
only be minimal administrative costs to the state. If the
municipality isn't able to make it work separately, it sounds as
though there would be reliance on the overall state system and
probably have associated costs.
CHIEF MONEGAN said there was none they could tell. Their police
union contacted Mr. Bell and they thought they received a
favorable response from him initially. When they were in Juneau
the previous week to explore this further, Mr. Bell was somewhat
cool. He indicated there might be a more complicated
bookkeeping/administrative situation than they originally
thought.
The Anchorage mayor was also supportive of the legislation.
SERGEANT ROD HUEN, President of the Anchorage Police Department
Employees Association, said he shares the same concerns that
Chief Monegan has regarding recruitment and retention. It is a
statewide problem.
Amendment 1 addresses the issue of the legality of when an
officer is moved from an area with an enhanced PERS program to an
area without an enhanced PERS program by increasing the employer
contribution. The amendment makes it clear there would be no
expectation of any enhanced benefits. The goal is to have the
local government bear the burden of any enhancement that is on
top of the basic PERS program through employer contribution. This
could become a piece to a long-term recruitment and retention
program, which is the goal. They want to work with the state, but
place the burden and control at the local level.
WILL AITCHISON said the difficulty with doing this as a
supplemental program at the local level is that when going to a
local option some governmental bodies that might want to take
advantage of this might have existing retirement systems while
others might not and would be solely reliant of PERS. Anchorage
falls into a category in which there are retirement systems in
place that are closed. The possibility of doing this at the local
level is too complicated with the variety of retirement systems.
Even those with a retirement system that could potentially handle
supplemental benefits would find it difficult to administer only
supplemental benefits. The types of benefits range from the
calculation of basic retirement benefits to the administration of
death benefits and occupational disability benefits. Setting up a
system like that at the local level rather than changing the
benefit level as an optional plan under PERS would be far too
expensive. When put into PERS it is a matter of no new benefit
being added rather different benefit levels are being offered.
Put into PERS, the additional cost would be the minimal
administrative costs associated with keeping track of the
optional benefits and doing the initial actuarial assessment to
determine what the employer would pay.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted Senator Halford handed out a copy of a
memo that suggested additional language to the amendment to deal
with the concern.
He ran through a brief description of the current system and
noted that adding additional governmental bodies could result in
a very cumbersome system. While there may be little impact or
cost individually, collectively it could be burdensome.
MR. AITCHISON replied it is not at all unusual to see retirement
systems with a variety of different options. One of the purposes
of this legislation is to meet a challenge that large city police
departments are facing because of the existence of such a local
option in California. On a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis,
the agencies in California are able to elect a 3 percent benefit
and 50 years of age. This sort of optional benefit, is a
relatively common feature of state retirement systems and is
manageable within the context of those retirement systems. He has
not heard any complaints about administration difficulties from
PERS type administrators that have gone to this sort of
supplemental retirement benefit.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how many agencies in Alaska employ peace
officers that could be eligible for this option.
DELL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public
Safety, replied there are probably about 35 municipal police
departments.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether there would be any that would not
be eligible to participate.
MR. SMITH replied this is an option for municipalities so state
troopers, fish and wildlife protection officers, airport security
police and village public safety officers wouldn't be eligible.
It appears to be for municipal firefighters and police officers
only.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he has heard that the state has
retention problems and frequently loses troopers to the Anchorage
Police Department.
MR. SMITH said some have transferred over but his experience is
that there are transfers both ways. Within the last six months,
three Alaska State Trooper transferred to the Anchorage Police
Department.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether there are individual negotiations
for each employee's benefit package.
CHIEF MONEGAN said there is one bargaining unit and they would
negotiate for the enhanced benefit for all police officers
covered under that contract.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether passage would make the benefit
packages for municipal officers and state officers similar or
would one be more enticing.
SERGEANT HUEN said anyone in Anchorage who was hired after 1994
is in PERS Tier III. Anyone hired before 1994 is in the local and
closed retirement plan. Those in PERS Public Safety Plan III who
were hired in Anchorage after 1994 reflect the people who have
been hired on to the troopers.
SENATOR STEVENS said the trooper plan and municipal plan after
1994 are the same.
SERGEANT HUEN said they are as far as the retirement plan is
concerned.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if this would allow municipalities to offer
incentives and make the plan more attractive than the state
incentives.
SERGEANT HUEN said this language doesn't exclude, it simply says
"employer" so it would be up to the state. The intent was to
localize the control of the work force.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the money would come from a local
revenue source and that is why it wouldn't be a cost to the
state.
SERGEANT HUEN said that's correct. The retirement contribution by
the employer would cover that cost and that would vary with the
employer. Employer contributions range from six percent in Long
Beach, California to 12 or 13 percent in Eugene, Oregon.
Anchorage is now at seven percent.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if he would object to the statement that if
the same option were available to state law enforcement it would
be an expense to the state.
SERGEANT HUEN said if the state chose to do that for their law
enforcement personnel it would incur whatever the relative
employer contribution would be to ensure those enhancements were
funded.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Mr. Smith whether the department had
taken a position on the concept. What would the department do if
local systems became more enticing than the state system?
MR. SMITH said he became aware of this very recently but he does
have concerns and believes it would put the state at a
disadvantage. In fact, they are already at a disadvantage to some
degree.
CHIEF MONEGAN said they don't currently have the Supplemental
Benefits System (SBS) so the troopers actually have a better
system than they have. They believe this legislation would bring
some parity.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT replied SBS is similar to a 401K and APD
could add that rather easily.
SENATOR PHILLIPS noted the state replaced social security with
SBS about 20 years ago.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Chief Monegan whether local officers
got social security benefits.
CHIEF MONEGAN replied some do; those that were in the police and
fire departments were told they were no longer eligible, but the
new hires under PERS Tier III do pay in and will receive social
security.
SENATOR DAVIS thought the federal government determined SBS was
no longer an option and everyone was going to eventually have to
return to the Social Security System. She asked if there was
anyone present that could tell her whether or not that was
correct.
GUY BELL, Director of the Division of Retirement and Benefits,
explained that SBS is closed to other options, but there are
other options such as 401K available to local governments. The
federal government is making more pension options available to
government than in the past through reform legislation that was
recently enacted. Although he isn't an expert on all the options,
he can provide information on other options that might be
available other than social security and SBS.
He noted the state contributes 6.13 percent to SBS while the
social security contribution is 6.2 percent so the state saves a
bit through SBS.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether it would be available for the
state to take advantage of since the bill says "employer."
GUY BELL said it is placed in AS 39.35.655, which is under the
political subdivision and public organization portion of statute.
It is Article 7 of the PERS statute, which doesn't include the
State of Alaska. This could be changed but, as written, they
interpret it to exclude the state.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether he had seen the memo to Mr.
Bravo (ph).
MR. BELL had not seen the memo and was given a copy to read.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether he had an opinion from the
Attorney General's office.
GUY BELL replied it would probably help clarify that one issue.
The question is if you're in a higher tier area and are with an
employer that opted for higher tier benefits then move to a lower
tier employer, are you entitled to the higher tier benefits with
that new employer? The language says you cannot take that higher
level of benefits with you. However, this is just a legal
opinion, it has not been litigated. "In the benefits/entitlement
world we do have a constitutional prohibition against the
diminution of retirement benefits and that's being tested all the
time." Currently there are three separate lawsuits relating to
retirement and benefits and he couldn't be sure this wouldn't be
tested at some time in the future. This is a cafeteria plan for
retirement benefits that can shift between employers and under
(c) of the amendment the optional benefits could change each
year. That might mean that newly hired employees may be entitled
to less after a certain point in the year than employees that
were hired in the previous year. An employer would have different
benefits for employees depending on their year of hire. There is
a great deal of variety and complexity as currently drafted. The
three-tier system is difficult to administer now and this would
more than double the number of tiers because of the number of
choices an employer could make.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced he would hold HB 254 in committee
while they reviewed the wording of the amendment.
4:20 p.m.
SB 15-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTIVES
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, bill sponsor, described the bill as the
Prescription Fairness Act of 2002. It would require health
insurers in Alaska that cover prescription drugs to include
coverage for all FDA approved prescription contraceptives. There
is a companion bill in the House sponsored by a bi-partisan group
of women legislators. To date, 24 states have a similar provision
in law and pending legislation for the measure in 17 other
states.
A large impressive coalition of individuals and organizations
from across the state support the bill. There are many good
reasons to support this legislation and without this change in
law it is clear that:
· Women will continue to pay more and get less in health
insurance in Alaska
· Women will not receive equal health care treatment that they
need and deserve
· Alaskan law should be modified to avoid an expensive legal
challenge that it would surely lose
· Unintended pregnancies have enormous financial, personal and
social costs and this legislation provides the opportunity
to positively affect the numbers of unwanted births,
abortions and child abuse cases in this state
· Facts show that contraceptive coverage pays for itself
SB 15 is fair, cost effective, respects the religious beliefs of
employers, protects the state from legal action and is long
overdue.
ANN HARRISON from Fairbanks testified in support of SB 15. She
was representing herself as a retired nurse practitioner with 30
years service in women's health care.
CLAIRE NOLL testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15. Many
women need contraceptives for reasons other than to protect from
pregnancy. They should be available and affordable to all women.
SIDE B 4:30 p.m.
SHERRY JAEGER testified from Anchorage as a representative from
the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) in support of SB
15. The bill addresses the current inequities in women's health
care plans and would require equity in the workplace. It would
affect 140,000 women of childbearing age in Alaska and would not
burden insurance providers.
DEATRICH SITCHLER testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15.
Although all women deserve this coverage, she has a medical
condition that makes it necessary for her to avoid pregnancy.
Because it would be medically dangerous for her to become
pregnant, she must take birth control pills whether insurance
covers the cost or not.
She then read a statement from Jennifer Rudinger in support of SB
15. Although most insurance plans cover prescription drugs they
typically exclude prescription contraceptives and outpatient
contraceptive services. This gap in coverage has a
disproportionate impact on women.
CINDY NORQUEST testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15. She
said she was a concerned citizen representing the average woman
in Alaska who is tired of being treated unfairly. Gender
discrimination is the only explanation for this legislation not
having already been passed. It is in both the public interest and
the business interest to pass the legislation.
PAULINE UTTER testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15. She
presented a petition that was signed by 1,008 women that attended
the last Woman's Political Caucus and stated women want equality.
If prescription drugs such as Viagra are covered, then
prescription contraceptives should be covered as well.
ROBIN SMITH testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15. She
said there might be religious beliefs that run counter to
covering contraception. Although some religions don't believe
that humans should receive blood products, it is unimaginable
that insurance companies wouldn't cover that treatment. The
Catholic Church doesn't believe in vasectomies and tubal
ligations, but insurance companies cover them. Providence
Hospital covers birth control pills for their employees yet the
Catholic Church prohibits contraception. This is an issue that
needs to be addressed because it is a health care issue. Women
can become pregnant for 30 to 40 years of their lives so
something must be done to prevent unintended pregnancies. She
urged members to move SB 15 forward.
REGINA MONTOUFEL testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15.
She owns and operates a rooming house and has found fair
insurance coverage for women and small business owners to be a
huge problem. She works with many minimum wage individuals that
have policies with huge deductibles and minimal coverage. To be
treated unequally on prescription drug coverage is an injustice
that low-income women shouldn't have to endure.
JANE ANGVIK testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15. She was
representing herself. The cost of unintended pregnancies is
enormous. She said, "As the Legislature faces the challenge of
dealing with the fiscal crisis, don't ignore the fact that one of
the biggest challenges comes from assisting individuals whose
births were unintended and or not wanted." There is a public cost
and a personal cost to everyone and it is an issue that belongs
to both men and women and impacts communities tremendously.
Additionally, there is a basic civil rights question that deals
with equity in providing equal access to men and women in
prescription healthcare.
KATHERINE DAVEY said she is a lifelong Alaskan and is speaking
for herself. She testified from Anchorage and was pleased to add
her voice in support of SB 15. This is an equity issue that
should be addressed. The ability to plan pregnancies is basic to
health care and should not be overlooked any longer. She echoed
Ms. Angvik's testimony regarding the cost of unintended and
unwanted pregnancies. Forty two percent of births in Alaska are
unwanted or untimed.
4:45 p.m.
BOB LOHR testified that the Alaska Division of Insurance supports
SB 15. It is a different stance than the division has taken in
the past, but in December 2000 the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission made a key ruling reinforced by a federal
district court decision in the state of Washington. That ruling
told employers they need to offer this coverage if they offer
prescription coverage or they would be in violation of anti-
discrimination statutes.
The division recommended the following technical amendment: Page
3, lines 7 - 13 should be deleted. That reference is unnecessary
because health care insurance plans already exclude these types
of products as defined in AS 21.54. Deletion wouldn't change the
meaning of the bill.
Traditionally the division expresses concern about health
insurance mandates because they may have the potential to
increase the cost of health insurance. However, in the case of
this type of mandate, the overall benefits to society are such
that they are so far in excess of the additional cost on the
policy that the change makes good policy sense. Other states have
successfully included coverage and it has not been disruptive to
the insurance plan involved.
SHERRY GOLL testified from Haines as an Alaskan woman in support
of SB 15. The legislation offers the Legislature an opportunity
to do something important to end gender discrimination by
reforming the state's insurance laws.
DR. COLLEEN MURPHY, a board certified obstetrician and
gynecologist practicing in Alaska since 1987, testified in
support of SB 15. During her career in Alaska, she has worked in
the tribal health care system, in a large practice group and is
now in private practice. Each exposed her to different insurance
realities.
The average American family now has 2.1 children and America
women are of reproductive age for approximately 39 years. Having
two children during that 39 year period requires women to
contracept for 37 of those years so the need for contraception is
enormous during the majority of a woman's life.
Current national statistics indicate that 50 percent of all
pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Half will result
in a termination of the pregnancy and many of the other half will
become live born. These pregnancies are quite high risk with poor
social and family outcomes. Alaska statistics are similar to the
national average.
When she talks to her patients about the most effective method of
family planning, she must warn them that their insurance company
may not cover the cost. The reaction to this news is consistent;
the women are incredulous and they overwhelmingly say, "You mean
they'll pay for a normal pregnancy but they won't pay for my
birth control?" Unfortunately, the answer is yes; they won't pay
for birth control.
She urged the committee to look closely at the medical and social
affects of unintended pregnancy in Alaska and the real costs to
the individual and society.
DEBRA WILLIAMS testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15.
Alaska has a proud history of being progressive on women's
issues. Unfortunately, the failure to address prescription equity
is not in keeping with this proud heritage. There are thousands
of compelling stories by women who need this basic medical
prescription coverage. On behalf of all those women she urged the
Legislature to pass SB 15.
GUY BELL, Director of the Division of Retirement and Benefits,
said they administer the select benefits plan for about 4,700
state employees in the retirement and benefit plan. The select
benefit plan does include coverage for prescription
contraceptives so the bill would have no cost impact to the state
health plan if enacted. The retiree plan does not include
prescription contraceptives at this time, but that fiscal impact
would be modest.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether the decision to add coverage in
the state plan was a policy call or was driven by recent
litigation.
GUY BELL replied it was a policy call but they were aware of the
litigation.
KAREN PEARSON, Director of Public Health, described SB 15 as good
public health policy. Approximately one half of the live births
in Alaska are unintended each year and about half of those women
were not using a contraceptive at the time of conception for
reasons such as lack of access or expense. Every child should be
wanted and children should be planned. The inability to access
contraceptives through health coverage puts choice in grave
danger. It costs about $1.43 per month to offer contraceptive
services, which is a very small cost for insurance companies to
make the kind of contribution they can to the quality of life of
the women they serve.
Caren Robinson, Representative from the Alaska Women's Lobby,
said they want to go on record in strong support of SB 15. They
believe that the decision to exclude contraception from the
prescription drug coverage imposes an undue financial burden on
women.
On December 20, 2001 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ruled and June 2001 the federal district court decision declared
the exclusion of contraception to be discriminatory.
5:10 p.m.
LILO IVES testified from Anchorage in support of SB 15. It is a
matter of common sense to include prescription contraceptives in
health care coverage.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT closed public testimony on SB 15 and
announced the bill would be held in committee. He told Senator
Ellis he would like to discuss the advisability of dropping
paragraph (1), subsection (e), Section 3 on page 3 and he would
like review the recent Washington court case.
SB 355-LET ME HELP ACCOUNT
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, bill sponsor, explained she has received many
letters from citizens that are urging the Legislature to pass tax
legislation. Since there is so much interest in this issue, this
legislation would allow individuals to provide greater support to
government voluntarily. Individuals could decide how much they
want to pay then make that payment to government. The amount
contributed would be deductible from federal income tax and it is
her understanding that there are established state accounts where
this money could be placed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked how the contribution would be
deductible on federal tax forms.
SENATOR GREEN replied she wasn't sure, but thought it would be
some sort of donation.
SENATOR DAVIS asked whether there was anyone from the state to
speak to the bill.
SENATOR GREEN replied there was no one available.
TAPE 02-21
5:12 p.m.
SENATOR DAVIS said it would be helpful to hear from someone who
could provide support of the explanation for the legislation.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it would be beneficial for Senator Green
to provide information on the tax mechanism by which individuals
could get a tax benefit before the bill was heard in the Senate
Finance Committee.
SENATOR GREEN agreed to provide the information.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted he had not prepared a CS and committee
members didn't offer any amendments. He referenced a zero fiscal
note from the Department of Administration then asked for the
will of the committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to move SB 355 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Senate
State Affairs Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|