Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/16/2017 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 | |
| Overview: Governor's Fy 18 Budget Amendments | |
| HB57 || HB59 | |
| HB23 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 23 | 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."
2:32:35 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 23, Work Draft 30-LS0258\U (Wayne,
2/10/17).
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, discussed
the changes in the committee substitute (CS):
The first change occurred when the committee passed
Amendment 1(a), which changed "health" insurance to
"medical" insurance throughout the bill, insuring that
the surviving dependents of a fallen officer is
granted the same level of medical insurance benefits
the deceased employee was receiving at the time of the
employee's death as directed by the bill (see, page 3,
lines 14-16).
The next amendment the committee passed was Amendment
3, as amended. These changes can be found on page 3,
lines 14 through 26, which clarify the level of
insurance that is required, how payments of premiums
shall be paid. Additionally, on page 4, lines 7
through 9 and 13 through 15 large and small
municipalities are defined.
The next amendment that passed was Amendment 4, on
page 3, line 7 that changed age 65 to eligible for
Medicare.
The committee in passing Amendment 10 changed police
to peace officer throughout the bill and defined a
peace officer on page 4, lines 10 through 12 to mean
an employee occupying a position as a peace officer,
chief of police, regional public safety officer,
correctional officer, correctional superintendent, or
probation officer.
The final changes to this bill were made when the
committee passed Amendment 13(a) simplifying how money
is appropriated to the fund.
2:35:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed the committee had passed a number
of amendments the previous week, which had been rolled into
the current CS. He listed people available to answer
questions. He noted that Representative Kawasaki had joined
the meeting.
Representative Guttenberg pointed to the definition of a
peace officer on page 4 line 10. He wanted to ensure there
were no unintended consequences caused by the change to the
definition.
Ms. Pierson answered that the committee had expanded the
definition and had not eliminated anything that had been
previously in the bill.
Representative Guttenberg clarified his question. He wanted
to ensure there were not unintended consequences in other
places.
Co-Chair Foster recognized bill sponsor Representative Andy
Josephson in the audience.
Ms. Pierson deferred the question to Legislative Legal
Services.
DANIEL WAYNE, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), summarized his understanding of the
question. He asked for verification that Representative
Guttenberg was asking whether anyone had been dropped from
the definition of peace officer.
Representative Guttenberg replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Wayne answered that he did not believe the change would
have any unforeseen consequences. The previous definition
had included Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities employees and University of Alaska employees who
had general police powers to arrest and so forth. He
believed the individuals would qualify as peace officers
under the bill's updated definition.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for verification that Medicaid did
not count under the legislation, but Medicare did.
LISA WEISSLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
replied that medical, throughout the bill, referred to the
level of coverage at the time of an employee's death, while
major medical came into play for ineligibility. She
addressed whether Medicare was considered major medical and
did not believe it mattered for the purpose - the bill set
the criteria and made it quite specific in terms of
becoming eligible for major medical or Medicare.
2:40:35 PM
Vice-Chair Gara surmised it was the level of health
insurance a person had previously and once an individual
reached the Medicare eligibility age, they received
Medicare.
Ms. Weissler replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson noted Alaska's Medicaid program
covered much more than in some other states. She stated
that Medicaid would be medical insurance. She believed that
it probably would not happen for most of the population
impacted by the bill. She surmised that Medicaid would be
the same as if the state were providing other insurance.
Ms. Pierson replied that she did not believe anyone covered
under the policy would qualify for Medicaid because the
policy would be in effect.
Representative Wilson noted Medicaid did not have anything
to do with whether or not a person had insurance. She
stated that it was related to the individual's level of
income. She detailed that a person qualified for Medicaid
if their income was low enough. She noted that Medicaid was
an insurance policy and because of the extras provided in
Alaska, she wondered if Medicaid would cover the
individuals.
Ms. Weissler replied she did not know how to answer the
question. She referred to a document that had been passed
out [by Co-Chair Foster's office] to the committee that
included definitions for health, medical, and Medicare
(copy on file).
Representative Wilson referred to the definition and
believed Medicaid would fall under the medical insurance
category.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Charisse Millett
in the audience.
2:43:15 PM
Ms. Pierson deferred Representative Wilson's question to
Mr. Wayne.
Mr. Wayne replied that the definition of major medical,
which was included on the handout. He detailed that the
document listed Medicare as a major medical plan under AS
21.55.500 (a definitions section relating to health
insurance, but not necessarily about health insurance being
discussed in the bill); it was the only statutory
definition Legislative Legal Services had found. He asked
for a repeat of the question.
Representative Wilson clarified she was speaking about
Medicaid, not Medicare. She specified that Medicaid is
based on a person's income - a person could apply for
Medicaid at any time. She continued that if a person was
eligible, Medicaid covered health insurance, dental, and
other extras. She was trying to determine that if a person
qualified for Medicaid they would not be eligible for the
other insurance under the bill.
2:45:21 PM
Ms. Pierson answered that Medicaid was usually the payer of
last resort, as long as another insurance was available the
person would not qualify for Medicaid.
Representative Wilson explained that she had been concerned
that an individual may end up going back and forth and
could become disqualified when their income changed. It
would be a hardship on families if they were passed back
and forth between plans. She asked someone to double check
that if a person had a health plan that they may be able to
receive the supplements and would not be disqualified for
the insurance under the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara believed Medicaid did not count as the kind
of insurance a person would receive under the bill. He
reasoned that major medical was defined in AS 21.55.500 as
an expense incurred insurance. He relayed that Medicaid was
not an expense incurred insurance.
2:46:51 PM
Vice-Chair Gara spoke to the three fiscal notes associated
with the bill. The first was a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). He explained that DPS
would manage the fund that funded the benefits provided
under the legislation at no cost with existing staff. The
next fiscal note had no OMB component number because it was
the creation of a new fund called fund capitalization. The
note reflected the cost of the program, estimated at
$70,100 in FY 18 through FY 23. The last note was for the
Department of Administration, Division of Retirement and
Benefits and had zero fiscal impact. The Department of
Administration would help DPS manage the new fund with
existing staff.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 23(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Pruitt noted he WITHDREW his OBJECTION to
the adoption of the CS.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 23(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with
one new zero fiscal note from the Department of
Administration; one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety; and one new fiscal impact note
from the Office of the Governor for Fund Capitalization.
Co-Chair Foster addressed the schedule for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN Governor's Amendments 2-16-17.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 HB 58 HB 95 |
| HB 23 NEW FN FUND CAP 2-16-17.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 23 |
| OMB Response to HFIN Questions 2-16-17.pdf |
HFIN 2/16/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 57 HB 59 HB 95 |