Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/09/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB23 | |
| Amendments | |
| HB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to major medical insurance coverage
under the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska for certain surviving spouses and dependent
children of peace officers and firefighters; and
providing for an effective date."
1:41:07 PM
^AMENDMENTS
1:41:56 PM
Co-Chair Foster thought the amendment process could get
complicated, but the amendments would be rolled into a
clean committee substitute.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had been considering
Amendment 13 when the meeting concluded the previous
afternoon [see February 7, 2017 1:32 p.m. minutes for
detail].
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW his MOTION to ADOPT
Amendment 13, 30-LS0258\O.20 (Wayne, 2/6/17) (copy on
file).
Co-Chair Foster asked the committee to rescind its action
on Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to RESCIND its action in adopting
Amendment 1.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:43:01 PM
LISA WEISSLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
explained there was a desire to make the terms in the bill
consistent regarding types of insurance. There was an issue
around the term, "major medical." The term was very
specific and was not intended to be used in the bill. There
were 2 places where there was a reference to insurance. The
first was on Page 3, line 10 and again on line 16 regarding
eligibility requirements. She relayed that a person became
ineligible for premium payments if they were eligible to
receive major medical insurance coverage. In the remainder
of the bill the insurance coverage would be the same
coverage as if the employee was still alive. She referenced
Page 3, line 20. She explained that the use of major
medical narrowed the scope. Using the word "medical" on its
own kept things broader and in line with the intent of the
bill. The intent was a continuation of coverage.
Representative Wilson referenced Page 3, line 10 and asked
if the term "major medical" would remain in the bill. Ms.
Weissler responded that it needed to remain as it was. She
thought it matched up with Tier I major medical benefits.
The remainder of the bill reflected a broader term.
1:46:19 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the state would be paying
the premiums for health insurance until the insured had
other major medical insurance. She wondered if the policy
would have to be greater that what the state was paying
for. Ms. Weissler answered that it would depend on the type
of insurance the deceased had at their time of death. For
instance, a person might have premium coverage which would
continue. Someone else might have economy coverage. She
explained that because of the variation in coverage a
definitive term was needed for the ineligibility criteria.
Representative Wilson provided an example of a Tier IV
police officer killed in the line of duty. Their family
would continue to receive the same coverage until the
spouse had access to the same or a better level of coverage
from their employer. She continued to relay her example and
asked for clarification.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, explained
that there were many different policies available to peace
officers. Using the word "medical" insured that the level
of coverage the family members had remained the same.
However, there was a disqualifier for being in the program,
major medical, which could be the same or lesser coverage.
Representative Wilson asked whether Medicaid or Medicare
were considered major medical. She wondered why the
amendment changing from age 65 to a specific program was
offered the prior day. Ms. Pierson responded in the
positive. She relayed that qualifying for Medicare would be
a major medical policy. If the bill passed a person might
not qualify for Medicaid if they had insurance in place.
Representative Wilson voiced concerned with the
terminology. She wanted to make sure survivors were
covered.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was RESCINDED.
1:50:59 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1a (copy on file):
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page l, line 12:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 3, line 2:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 3, line 20:
Delete "health care"
Insert "medical"
Page 3, line 24:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:51:42 PM
AT EASE
1:52:54 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster summarized that the committee had just
rescinded Amendment 1. Currently, the committee was
considering Amendment 1a. There was an objection. He asked
his staff to walk the committee through the amendment.
Ms. Pierson explained that Amendment 1a replaced health
insurance throughout the bill with medical insurance. It
kept the term the same but was a broader term that
encompassed several different policies that were currently
in effect for a fallen officer. There might be different
policies in effect for different departments.
Representative Wilson thought major medical was higher than
the term medical. She understood that the term "medical"
was a higher standard than "major medical." She approved of
the change.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being further NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1a was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster remarked that there had been amendments
that were rolled from the previous meeting that would be
considered next.
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13a
(copy on file):
Page 2, lines 2 - 5:
Delete "appropriations designated for state
employees or employees of a small municipality.
The department shall create two separate accounts
in the fund, one account for state employees and
a separate account for employees of a small
municipality"
Insert "other money appropriated to the fund"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "the state account of'
Page 2, lines 17 - 19:
Delete "and to pay the department's costs
associated with administering the fund. The
commissioner may use money in the small
municipality account of the fund to pay"
Insert ","
Page 2, line 21, following "AS 39.60.040":
Insert ", and the department's costs associated
with administering the fund"
Page 3, lines 29 - 30:
Delete ", and the balance shall be paid from
available funds in the municipal account created
in AS 39.60.0lO(b)"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg read the amendment (see
above).
Representative Wilson requested an "at ease."
1:56:15 PM
AT EASE
1:59:16 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster invited an explanation from Ms. Pierson.
Ms. Pierson asked to call Ms. Cunningham to the table.
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
explained that the original purpose of the 2 accounts was
because the bill was set up as an "opt in and opt out." It
was cleaner to have a municipal account and a state account
to keep the funds separate. This bill was mandatory for
municipalities. The fund reflected the state's payments of
50 percent for the small municipalities or a state
employee. There was no need for 2 accounts due to the fact
there would not be an "opt out" option.
Representative Wilson provided a hypothetical scenario
asking for additional clarity about money going into only 1
fund. Ms. Cunningham responded using Representative
Wilson's example that for the Fairbanks officer the borough
would pay directly to the insurer. No money would flow
through the fund. Whereas, a small municipality like North
Pole would pay 50 percent directly to the insurer and the
state would pay the other 50 percent out of the fund. North
Pole would not be sending its 50 percent through the fund.
Representative Wilson asked if the state would be paying
the other 50 percent directly to the insurance company.
There was no pass through involved. Ms. Cunningham replied
in the affirmative.
Representative Pruitt asked Ms. Cunningham if she would
describe the amendment as a clean-up amendment since the
last time the committee was looking at the bill. Ms.
Cunningham asked Representative Pruitt to clarify his
question.
Representative Pruitt asked if the amendment was a clean-up
bill due to the amendments that were adopted in the prior
hearing on the bill. Ms. Cunningham agreed that the
amendment was a clean-up action. However, it had to do with
the "opt out" option not being available.
Representative Pruitt was reminded that the committee had
voted to make the provision and opt-in and opt-out option.
However, he thought the provision was turned down. He was
confused.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 13a was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster mentioned that Amendments 13, 6, 7 and 2
still needed addressing. Amendments 6 and 7 had been rolled
to the bottom of the agenda. They had been moved but
withdrawn. The committee's intent was to withdraw them, but
they had already been withdrawn. The committee would not be
addressing them. Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Pierson to
explain. Ms. Pierson relayed that the reason for
withdrawing Amendments 6 and 7, which defined police and
firefighter, were no longer needed. Amendment 10 defined
peace officers and was adopted. Co-Chair Foster explained
that no action would be taken on Amendments 6 and 7.
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW Amendment 9.
2:05:04 PM
AT EASE
2:05:38 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to RESCIND Amendment 5 (copy on
file):
Page 1, line 13, following, "firefighter.":
Insert "The department shall create in the fund
an account for state employees and an account for
employees of small municipalities."
Page 2, lines 3-5
Delete "The department shall create two separate
accounts in the fund, one account for state
employees and a separate account for employees of
a small municipality."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She thought the amendment
had been rolled to the bottom of the agenda.
Ms. Pierson clarified that Amendment 5 dealt with the fund
and there being 2 funds. She read a portion of the
amendment (see above).
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was
RESCINDED.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Foster instructed Legislative Legal Services to
draft another committee substitute for HB 23 as amended and
to make any necessary conforming changes to the document.
He invited Ms. Pierson to explain the withdrawal of
Amendment 2. Ms. Pierson explained that Amendment 2 tried
to set forth how money was deposited and withdrawn from the
fund. With the adoption of Amendment 13a, Amendment 2 was
no longer needed.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if Amendment 2 had already been
passed. Ms. Pierson responded that the committee had not
passed Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Foster reported that the amendments would be
incorporated in a clean committee substitute. He planned to
bring the bill back before the committee for committee
discussion and a vote.
HB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.