Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
03/16/2023 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| HB43 | |
| HB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 52-NO PATIENT LEFT ALONE ACT
3:47:31 PM
CHAIR PRAX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act relating to the right of patients and
residents to have a support person in person during treatment
and during stays at certain facilities; and relating to a
requirement that health care facilities make certain information
available to the public."
3:49:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor, introduced HB 52. She stated that the proposed
legislation relates to patients' rights in regard to having a
support person available during treatment, and it would require
health care facilities to make certain information available to
the public.
[Public testimony was opened.]
3:49:54 PM
KRISTIN HILLS, representing self, provided testimony in support
of HB 52, on behalf of her grandmother and brother [because of
poor reception, parts of the testimony were indiscernible]. She
shared that her grandmother had repeatedly expressed the desire
not to die alone. Her grandmother had been diagnosed with a
brain tumor, and in 2020 she was placed in hospice care during
the COVID-19 pandemic. She expressed the opinion that because
of "unconstitutional" policies put into place during the
pandemic, her grandmother's friends and family were kept from
visiting during the five months before she passed. She
described her grandmother as being angry, depressed, and scared.
She acknowledged that the intention behind the policy was to
keep her grandmother from contracting COVID-19; however, her
grandmother was infected anyway, and it was the cause of her
death. She reported that her family had to say goodbye to her
grandmother online, and they were not able to grant the wish of
her not dying alone.
MS. HILLS asserted that both the legislative and executive
branches chose not to change any policies, and hospitals were
allowed to separate patients from their families. This further
affected her family, as she shared that her mentally disabled
brother caught COVID-19 in 2021 and was in the hospital for six
days without being able to see any family. She compared being
denied the ability to sit with your family while they are sick
or dying to "Nazi Germany." She expressed disbelief that this
could happen in a free society. She expressed support for HB
52; however, she suggested an amendment to increase the number
of people allowed to visit, positing that patients do not want
just one person with them. She argued that no one should be
denied the right to see family while on his/her death bed. She
argued that not being with a loved one at the end of life
impedes the family's grieving process because the family is
unable to say a proper goodbye.
3:54:05 PM
JENNIFER KADAKE, representing self, testified in support of HB
52. She stated that the proposed legislation would bring
attention to the rights of patients living in rural Southeast
Alaska. She expressed the understanding that there are no
policies or procedures in emergency facilities that require
patients be made aware of their rights, and this includes the
right to have a support person. She shared that she had
recently been involved in a severe motor vehicle accident;
however, she remained cognizant. She shared her belief that if
a support person were able to be with her during treatment, a
traumatic medical experience could have been avoided. She
stated that this experience continues to give her nightmares.
She explained that she has had professional experience in
emergency medical interventions, including the intraosseous
infusion (IO) procedure, which was conducted on her after the
accident. She explained the IO process, which involves
inserting a needle into the bone marrow of a leg, so medication
can be administered through a catheter. During her emergency
treatment she heard an IO order, which she vocally refused,
while begging and screaming. She stated that the IO procedure
had to be done twice, after which she passed out from the pain.
She asserted that if she had had the right to a support person,
her wishes to not have the IO procedure would not have been
ignored. She testified that she supports HB 52, as it would
include the right to deny medical advice, reduce patient fear
and anxiety, and improve the overall patient experience. She
posited that with the passage of HB 52 inhumane medical
practices, like the one she experienced, would be unlikely to
happen again.
3:58:05 PM
MS. KADAKE, in response to a question from Chair Prax, replied
that her accident occurred in August of 2020. In response to a
follow-up question concerning whether she was refused a support
person, she responded that she was not informed of the right to
have a person with her.
3:58:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to Ms. Kadake's claim that if
the bill had been in place her negative experience would not
have happened. He shared the understanding that the proposed
legislation would allow patients to have a support person
present; however, it would not fundamentally change the
authority of either party to accept or refuse medical treatment.
He asked whether she could point to a place in the bill where it
would change these rights.
MS. KADAKE shared her belief that if the bill were passed and
patients were allowed to have a support person present during
any medical procedure, informed consent would be more likely.
She suggested that if the patient were in a mental or physical
state of being unable to advocate for themselves, the support
person would be able to advocate for the patient.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER sought confirmation that passing HB 52
would allow patients who may not have medical training or be
affected by pain and fear to have an extra advocate in the room
to help make their case for or against suggested treatments.
MS. KADAKE confirmed the statement by using the example of her
grandfather who went into the hospital during the period when
visitors were restricted. She shared that he did not have a
strong understanding of medical language and his understanding
and ability to communicate was impacted because of the severity
of his sickness. She opined that codifying the right for
patients to have a support person would create a more overall
ethical treatment of patients.
4:01:37 PM
RITA TROMETTER, representing self, testified in support of HB
52. She shared that her adult son was diagnosed with a terminal
condition several years ago, and as part of his care she
promised he would never be alone. She stated that she had slept
in his hospital room overnight, and she shared her belief that
being able to give her son constant support helped both her and
her son cope with the many complex components of his treatment.
She argued that the policies put into place during what she
described as the "plan-demic" removed any opportunity for
families and patients to feel secure during treatments. She
expressed the opinion that any future controls set by the
government would further reduce the public's trust in medical
professionals.
4:03:51 PM
JARED KOSIN, President, CEO, Alaska Hospital and Health Care
Association, testified in opposition to HB 52. He acknowledged
that the stories of limited visitations during COVID-19 are
tragic, and patients were critically impacted. He pointed out
that visitation restrictions like the ones put into place for
COVID-19 have never happened before, and he argued that putting
an indefinite standard in place in reaction to this extreme,
once in a lifetime event would not make sense. He reported that
patient rights are already outlined in federal law, and
regularly surveyed. He stated that the requirement for written
disclosure in HB 52 already exists explicitly in federal law.
He noted that the necessary clinical exemptions included in HB
52 are also already provided in federal law. He argued that HB
52 is attempting to penalize visitor limitations through data
requirements, fines, and newly created cause of action claims,
even though the federal law already has an enforcement system in
place through a standardized survey, appeal, and penalty
process. He stated that every facility in the country is
already required to follow this. He expressed the opinion that
the main problem with HB 52 is that it attempts to regulate
something already regulated but with a new set of terminology,
enforcement mechanisms, and requirements. He argued that this
would lead to confusion and competing standards. He emphasized
that the experiences of patients and families were tragic and
something the medical field never wants to see happen again;
however, he explained that the policy decisions were made by
medical professionals and experts "on the ground" within each
facility and not by the government. He stated that his
organization does not support HB 52, as written, because of its
vague requirements and the civil liability it would create;
however, he reported that the association would be willing to
work with Representative Vance and the committee to make the
language more congruent with existing federal law.
4:07:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER stated that if visitation rights were
already protected by federal regulation, questioned how the
COVID-19 policy changes were put into place.
MR. KOSIN reiterated that the policy decisions made by hospitals
and other health care facilities were not made based on the
state or federal level emergency declarations. He explained
that both HB 52 and the current federal regulations include
language referencing situations where it is clinically necessary
and reasonable to limit visitation. He explained that
clinicians have always had the ability to use their judgment and
training to limit visitation. He gave the example of a doctor
limiting visitors for a patient who is recovering from an
overdose, as a visitor may attempt to bring the patient illegal
narcotics. He emphasized that all hospital policies are based
on current law, as it allows physicians to use their best
judgement to make visitation decisions. He explained that
during the pandemic, care teams had made visitation policies
based on the many factors faced with the COVID-19 virus,
including its high rate of transmission. He reiterated that
decisions had not been based on any disaster declarations or
statements from government officials.
4:09:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked Mr. Kosin to provide the committee
with written visitation policies for some of the hospitals in
Alaska.
MR. KOSIN said he would be able to provide copies of the
policies, which he reiterated were maintained and surveyed by
the joint commission.
4:09:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS shared his concern that HB 52 could cause
unanticipated consequences, such as the possibility a sex
trafficking victim could be accompanied by the trafficker. He
asked whether HB 52 would put a hospital under legal risk and
ambiguity when it makes a choice to admit the "support" person.
MR. KOSIN responded that in regard to HB 52 this concern is
something medical professionals are also struggling with. While
medical professionals agree with Representative Vance and
previous testifiers about the importance of visitors, he
reported that there are times when it is important for a visitor
to not be present, as the patient may not be comfortable
speaking up for themselves. He explained that under current
law, medical professionals can use their expertise to pick up on
signals when a patient may be in a sex or human trafficking
situation, and a visitation limit can be made based on this
clinical judgement to protect the patient. He stated that the
limit to visits must be documented and surveyed in accordance
with existing laws. He reiterated that HB 52 would create a new
ambiguous standard, with civil liability and state sanctions
attached. He posited that it would cause medical professionals
to question which standards should be applied and whether health
care facilities are allowed to "turn people away" at all. He
opined that denying hospitals the ability to limit visitation,
when necessary, could put patients in harms way and lead to poor
outcomes.
MR. KOSIN, in response to a follow-up question, stated that
hospital facilities do treat youth victims of domestic abuse or
sexual assault.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned whether the bill could create a
situation where a hospital would be forced to admit the
perpetrator of the abuse as the patient's visitor.
MR. KOSIN expressed concern that HB 52 could create a situation
where clinicians feel pressure to admit visitors who would
otherwise be denied access. He reiterated his belief that
creating a uniform standard based solely on a "once in a
century" event of the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to
lead to unseen consequences.
4:13:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out that this question may be
addressed on page 4 of the bill, as it states that a health care
facility may not separate a minor from their parent or guardian
unless abuse was suspected. He sought the confirmation that
during the pandemic there were no changes made to visitor
policy, rather there was an implementation of already existing,
but rarely used, policy.
MR. KOSIN reiterated that there has been no record of restricted
visitation to the degree seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, and
the written policy had not changed during this time. He stated
that the policies have always acknowledged there may be
situations when restricted visitation would be clinically
needed, and it would be up to the medical team to use reasonable
judgement to do so. He argued that during the pandemic
hospitals did not change their policies; however, policies were
exercised, as written, to create protocols in response to a
large-scale medical crisis. He emphasized that the concept of
the visitation policy did not change, but protocols were
implemented, and these were based on judgement calls afforded to
teams based on the situation created by COVID-19.
4:15:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation of how it was
possible for the policy to not change when the protocols
changed.
MR. KOSIN replied that federal policy written for the [hospital]
environment has always recognized there could be situations
where it is medically necessary for a medical team to limit
visitation; therefore, it allows for the medical professionals
to make these decisions based on their judgement. He asserted
that during the pandemic clinical leaders across the country
called upon this judgement because of the highly infectious
nature of the virus, and visitation was limited based on the
severity of the situation. He stated that the concept of
clinical latitude for the visitation policy existed before,
during, and after the pandemic, and how it is exercised is
contingent on the circumstances of the moment.
4:17:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER mentioned Mr. Kosin's acknowledgement of
the horrific situations families went through because of
visitation limits. He questioned whether the same procedures
would be implemented should there be another pandemic in the
future.
MR. KOSIN responded that the problem with trying to predict
procedure is the medical community has no way of knowing what
the next pandemic will look like and how it will need to be
handled. He explained that this is why policy allows for
judgements to be made when situations arise; this is so
decisions can be made based on the circumstances in the moment.
He argued that he cannot predict what the clinical judgement is
going to be for the next massive event, because it is not known
how severe the event will be. He maintained that putting a
mandate into place requiring visitation in all circumstances
circumvents clinical judgement. He expressed the opinion that
medical clinicians should remain in control of visitation policy
rather than the government. He advised the committee to "shore
up" the intent with HB 52 by comparing it to federal law. This
would ensure a new standard that deviates from existing federal
policy would not be created.
4:19:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA referred to the section in the proposed
legislation that would require care facilities to make
visitation policies available to the public online or in a
printed format. She questioned the current federal requirements
for making such policies publicly available.
MR. KOSIN stated that medical facilities already publish
visitation policies. He deferred to other experts.
4:21:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA shared her interest in the possibility that
the support person proposed in HB 52 could function as an
additional advocate for the patient's medical decisions. She
pointed out that there are preventative measures, such as power
of attorney, and this would be so a person could advocate on a
patient's behalf. She questioned what it would take to have a
person act as an advocate if there was a restriction on
visitation.
MR. KOSIN deferred to other experts to answer the question. He
reiterated that there is an understanding across the medical
profession that having visitors at the bedside is important, and
this includes advocacy. He continued that the desire to limit
visitation does not exist outside of extreme circumstances,
which explains the degree of limitations during COVID-19.
4:23:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether Mr. Kosin is aware of other
sections of state law that expose medical professionals to civil
liability in the same way HB 52 would.
MR. KOSIN asserted that introducing civil liability for medical
professionals like this is a new concept the medical field is
not used to seeing.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS posited that any costs such as this would
likely be passed on to the patients [through an increase in
health care prices]. He asked whether he was correct in this
assumption.
MR. KOSIN stated that he could not predict exactly how much
costs would increase or how it would be dealt with, but he
confirmed the assumption that extra costs traditionally get
passed on to the patient.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned what would happen if a low-
income litigant sued a health care facility and lost. He asked
whether the facility would be forced to "eat" the legal fees
even though it won the case.
MR. KOSIN opined that litigation would be the worst option for
all parties involved, no matter who wins. He posited that in
the event of increased lawsuits from patients who were unhappy
with visitation limits, valuable resources would be used, even
if the suits were handled quickly or dismissed.
4:25:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER posited that a conflict exists between
epidemiology and humanity. He questioned whether there would be
a way for the health care industry to issue an apology to the
families of patients who died alone during the COVID-19
pandemic.
MR. KOSIN shared his belief that all medical practitioners are
sorry for any families and patients who were denied visitation
during the pandemic. However, he stressed that the members of
the medical community are human, and everyone went through
significant loss and hardship. He stated that the doctors,
nurses, and other medical staff who worked through the pandemic
saw extreme trauma and experienced personal loss on a level
never seen before. He described the pandemic as the biggest
catastrophe anyone currently in the medical profession has had
to face and "nobody won, everybody lost." He apologized to the
families on his own behalf and expressed his sincere hope that
no one experiences similar trauma from visitation limits again;
however, he reiterated that creating reactionary regulations to
prevent issues with visit limitations would not solve the
problem.
4:27:46 PM
NATHAN DAHL, representing self, shared his longtime experience
as an administrator for multiple assisted living facilities in
Alaska, and he stated that currently he runs Maple Springs
Living in Wasilla. He stated that he is not testifying for or
against HB 52, rather he expressed the hope to provide context
for what staff at nursing facilities went through during the
pandemic. He reported that all skilled nursing facilities are
licensed and regulated differently, and the skilled nursing
program at Maple Springs Living is surveyed and regulated
through the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS),
which is a federal agency that provides policy updates on a
yearly basis. However, he stated that their assisted living
program is regulated by the Division of Corporations, Business,
and Professional Licensing at the Alaska Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). He shared that
during the pandemic he was in a unique position to see the
differences between how the two organizations reacted and how
this affected care facilities. He reported that at the smaller
assisted living facilities licensed by the state, policy was
changed to require reporting to the state epidemiology division
and to require masking to prevent the spread. He explained that
between the time visitation was allowed and the restrictions
were put into place, COVID-19 was introduced into the
facilities. He stated that at times the entire population of a
facility was infected. Because so many people across the state
were infected at the same time, he said he was getting calls
asking for spare caregivers, and caregivers had to work for five
or six days on end to provide coverage until others could return
to work.
MR. DAHL shared that he administrated one small facility with
only 12 bedrooms, and it experienced an outbreak that caused the
death of 5 residents, and this had been traced back to a single
visitor. He shared how hard it was to experience the loss of
these patients and the struggles of staff, many of whom
experienced pay issues because they were not able to come into
work. In contrast, he described the policies put into place by
CMS for the skilled nursing program at Maple Springs, which
included much stricter regulations, including a requirement of
testing for anyone coming into the building. He reported that
because of this difference, the skilled nursing program did not
have a single death for a year and a half. He acknowledged that
there were cases where patients passed away without anyone being
allowed to be with them because of the restrictions, and he
described the pandemic as a "terrible time." He stated that he
and the staff were tasked with protecting the residents in their
care, and he asserted that when more people were allowed access
to the care facilities, it increased the chance of spreading
COVID-19. He emphasized that knowing how to proceed with
providing services safely was difficult for everybody, and care
providers had done their best while combating work shortages and
experiencing loss themselves. He expressed the hope that any
new regulations would not be based solely on the two-year period
of the COVID-19 crisis, as this had been a time of extreme
uncertainty, and care providers were "flying by the seat of our
pants." He opined that there may have been a better way to do
things, but COVID-19 was a new, complex danger the medical
community did not fully understand. He shared that there was
trauma, hurt, and death on all sides of the pandemic experience.
4:34:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA thanked Mr. Dahl for explaining the
differences between how assisted living homes and skilled
nursing facilities are regulated. She questioned whether there
was any ability to restrict visitation within assisted living
homes during the pandemic.
MR. DAHL responded that in the case of any infectious outbreak,
each home has the ability to restrict visitation; therefore,
during COVID-19 it was up to each home to decide. He asserted
that the residents' rights and visitation policies were in place
throughout, but the facilities were told they were able to
restrict visitation if they chose to, and many did not.
4:35:59 PM
BARBARA TYNDALL, representing self, testified in support of HB
52. She shared the story of a woman who was refused access to
visit her husband when he was being treated for COVID-19. When
the woman was finally able to be with her husband, she had to do
so in "full hazmat." She suggested that the woman had been
treated poorly by the medical staff. She expressed concern over
the large fiscal note associated with HB 52 and suggested that
it would not be needed to stop impending lawsuits. She
suggested the reason for the bill is it would be a stop gap for
the creation of future policies. She stated that it also would
underscore the importance of visitation rights for medical staff
and administrators, as it has been her experience not all of the
medical field understand the critical nature of a patient's
right to visitors.
4:38:15 PM
DAVID WALLACE, CEO, Mat-Su Regional Medical Center Provided
testimony in support of HB 52. He argued that the proposed
legislation is in reaction to the extreme situation of the
COVID-19 crisis. He reiterated previous testimony that care
facilities are dedicated to their patients and an important part
of making patients better is incorporating visitation from
family and friends. Currently, he reported that guidelines
passed down from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) put into place
during COVID-19 have been lifted, and care centers can now allow
visitors if it is best for the patient. He echoed other
testimony by stating that the mystery surrounding how to combat
the spread of the disease caused unfortunate circumstances for
all who lived through it. He emphasized how helpful visitors
can be to a patient's overall care and for advocacy; however, he
noted some redundancies in HB 52, as patient visitation rights
are already in federal law, and all hospitals are required to
publicly post these rights. Concerning the availability of
visitation policies, he stated that most facilities post these
on their websites. He added that during the COVID-19 pandemic
his facility compiled a communication guide on the internet and
each patient was given a form to help communicate safety
procedures. He reported that his facility has left the guide
online because it continues to be helpful in connecting patients
with loved ones.
4:42:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether there is a "blanket"
visitation policy for an entire facility or separate policies
for each unit.
MR. WALLACE stated that there are facility-wide policies that
allow caregivers the ability to make decisions, but there are
differences in the policies for different units. He said that
the appropriate number of visitors a patient can have at one
time varies in every situation, which is why having a single
written policy would be hard. He gave an example of the varied
needs of patients, explaining that the number of people allowed
to visit could be different, depending on what is best for the
patient at the time. He reported that there are different rules
for specific units, and this is in order to meet the needs of
patients who would be in the unit. For example, he stated that
the rules for who can accompany a patient in the family birthing
unit for the entire time are different than the overall policy.
4:44:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the mechanisms for appealing
visitation limit decisions.
MR. WALLACE replied that care teams communicate to families as
situations happen because waiting until after the fact is not
beneficial for anyone. He reported that when a conflict arises
and a family feels the visitation limits are too strict, medical
staff work with them to help them better understand the reasons
for the restriction, often through a patient and family
conference. He stated that a policy implemented during the
pandemic, which continues to be used, is the designation of one
primary contact to receive information from caregivers. He
acknowledged that there can be conflict within families about
who to designate; however, once the primary contact is
established, this allows for better communication, ensuring
important documents are filed, such as the power of attorney or
an advance directive.
4:46:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER sought confirmation that there may be
consultation with the family, but it is the hospital's decision
and there is no formal way to appeal the decision.
MR. WALLACE replied that any appeal process would be internal
and usually originates with a nurse, and then the appeal would
move up the chain of command, as needed. He said that decisions
would be made in the best interest of the patient, and this is
done with as much consistency across the facility as possible.
4:47:35 PM
CHRIS TUCK, representing self, testified in support of HB 52.
He expressed the opinion that having a family member present
with the patient would be beneficial, as the family member could
act as an observer and answer questions for the doctor. He
shared that [prior to the pandemic] his cousin had gone to the
emergency room for an intense migraine, received treatment, but
returned two days later with the same symptoms. He said that
during the second visit, her husband had noticed she stopped
breathing. He suggested that if her husband had not been there,
she would not have been noticed as quickly. Although fatal
damage to her brain had already been done, he posited that if
her husband had not been present, she would not have been saved.
He shared that another close friend had been in the hospital
prior to the pandemic, and he had been able to stay with him at
the hospital, providing extra care overnight. By talking with
him through the night and helping him drink water, the next
morning his friend was better. He suggested that if he had not
been there, his friend would not have lasted more than five
months. He expressed the hope that in the future if safety
protocols do need to be put into place, protocols would still
include access to visitation. He shared his belief that
completely cutting people off from visitors hinders overall
care. He pointed to studies showing that patients heal much
quicker when deeper questions are asked and shown more personal
care. He opined that love, friendship, and the power of words
have a strong effect on healing and incorporating personal
connection should be taken into consideration for treatment,
rather than just prescribing medicine.
4:53:22 PM
LARISA FONOV, representing self, testified in support of HB 52.
She acknowledged the immense conflict and pain associated with
this issue. She shared that she is in support of HB 52 because
she was concerned about unnecessary overreach. She shared that
she gave birth in the Mat-Su Regional Hospital in 2021 and was
fortunate her supporting partner was not barred from being
physically present with her. She expressed her fear about not
having her partner present, especially as she came close to
losing the baby. She argued that most conflicts around
visitation limits could be resolved and avoided if unnecessary
overreach is addressed.
4:55:30 PM
KELLI TOTH, representing self, testified in support of HB 52.
She expressed the understanding of the necessity of medical
professionals to have latitude for decision making within the
written policy; however, she expressed the belief that this
latitude is not in the best interest of patients or families.
She shared her mother's experience in a hospital out of state
during COVID-19. She stated that the emergency room had the
same policies as Alaska. She reported that because of her
medical condition, her mother was pulling out the intravenous
medications, and this was very difficult to control. She shared
that the nurses expressed their appreciation for her help;
however, after 24 hours of supporting her mother, her mother was
transferred to a unit where she was unable to visit. She
asserted that her presence had been extremely important because
she was able to advocate for her mother to receive medication
for a previously existing condition, as the condition was not on
her chart. Without having knowledge of this medication, she
reported that the medical team was going to put her mother on a
feeding tube, which would have been detrimental. She emphasized
the importance of having access to a support person for the
purposes of advocacy and described the limitations put into
place as "unreasonable." She posited that HB 52 would help
reinforce the existing CDC and OSHA regulations, which give
family visitation rights. She recommended an amendment to the
proposed bill that would include long term care facilities.
5:00:06 PM
ALISON LIBBY, representing self, testified in support of HB 52.
She expressed gratitude for the health care providers who saved
her husband's life, and she expressed empathy for families who
lost loved ones during the pandemic. Although her husband
survived, she stated that her family experienced trauma and
psychological harm, and she argued that this should not have
been tolerated in Alaska, where freedom and caring for each
other are core values. She opined that the mistakes that
happened [with visitation limits] during the pandemic need to be
remedied so this does not happen again. She reported that her
husband was admitted to the hospital and intubated in October of
2021 and was not discharged until April of 2022. She had been
denied access to visit him, and it had been extremely difficult
to get information about his care. She stated that she was only
able to visit her husband after he had been labeled as "end of
life." When she was able to visit, she stated that he was
visibly malnourished, at which point she had her husband
transferred to another hospital. She stated that she continued
to experience visitation limits and denials at the new hospital.
She expressed the opinion that this had led to his decline. She
reported that she had spoken with medical staff who agreed
having visitors is necessary for the wellbeing of patients and
families; however, access to him was still not allowed because
of policies put forth by the administration. She implored that
the committee vote yes on HB 52 to keep health care choices in
the hands of patients and families and to prevent the traumas
she and many others experienced during the pandemic.
5:04:33 PM
CONNIE GRAFF, representing self, testified in support of HB 52.
She shared that her husband was admitted to Alaska Regional
Hospital [while restrictions were still in place] and during the
admission process she was denied access, and she was never
allowed access throughout his stay. Through daily contact, she
stated that he reported being hungry because no one would take
off his mask when he was given meals. She had requested that
the doctors give him medications, such as ivermectin, but they
refused. She stated that once her husband was taken to the
intensive care unit (ICU), there was no communication with him.
She shared that she was not able to see her husband until after
he had passed. She expressed the opinion that doctors had
murdered him with their choice of drugs. She stated that he had
fought against the treatments and had to be restrained. She
questioned why doctors and nurses were allowed to come and go
when her original request was to stay by his side without
leaving until he was able to be discharged. She described not
being able to sit by your loved one's side as a "sin" and
emphasized this should never happen to future families.
5:06:36 PM
PEGGY ROTAN, representing self, testified in support of HB 52.
She stated that in October of 2021 both her husband and she were
infected with COVID-19; she had gotten better while his
condition worsened. She stated that she had called an
ambulance, but after the initial admission she was not allowed
to see him. She said that he repeatedly reported to her that he
was hungry. She shared that he did come home but had a relapse.
Back in the hospital, she requested to have a visitation and
offered to follow the health and safety protocols by utilizing
personal protection equipment, but she was denied access. She
expressed confusion because hospital staff could be there under
these protocols. She expressed anguish over whether her husband
would have survived if she had been able to be by his side. She
argued that no one knows a patient better than family.
5:09:39 PM
EVELYN DUTTON, representing self, testified in support of HB 52.
She expressed the opinion that the regulations put into place
during COVID-19 went too far. She acknowledged that restricting
access at the beginning to contain the spread had been
reasonable; however, she argued that as understanding of the
virus improved, the restrictions should have been lifted. She
expressed the opinion that the extended use of visitation
restriction was a gross abuse of power by hospitals and
hospitals and medical practitioners should be held accountable.
She reiterated that this kind of regulation would have never
happened prior to COVID-19 because even during past pandemics
care providers chose to act humanely and not out of cowardice.
She referenced previous testimony that inferred that the
clinical judgement in the visitation policies was a "loophole"
used to criminalized people. She opined that hospitals should
not assume patients are drug addicts or victims of sex
trafficking, as the majority of patients are neighbors, friends,
and relatives, who are being negatively affected by the current
policy. She asserted that people should not have to give up
their power because of decisions made by medical agencies, as
there must be a more humane way to allow the use of clinical
judgment without persecuting and neglecting patients.
5:12:45 PM
BERNADETTE WILSON, State Director, Americans for Prosperity
(AFP) testified that her organization represents grass roots
advocacy movements for patients across Alaska and it is in
support of HB 52. She emphasized that the impetus of bringing
HB 52 before the legislature is because people do not feel
protected by hospitals. She expressed the opinion that the
testimony brought forth by people who work for hospitals proves
the medical care facilities oppose the idea of changing the
visitation rights. She argued that there needs to be an
intermediary between hospitals and patients. She commented that
the testimony from the hospital representatives expressing
importance of having visitors for the wellbeing of all parties
was directly in contradiction to actions that denied access
during the pandemic. She referenced previous statements that
the COVID-19 pandemic was a "once in a lifetime" event, and she
argued that the families affected by the limitations missed the
true "once in a lifetime" event of being with their loved ones.
She posited that hospital staff are just as susceptible to
catching and spreading infection as visitors. She suggested
that people used to come together with compassion and
understanding for each other during disasters of this magnitude.
She argued that the legislature needs to "run interference"
between the hospitals and patients. She expressed the opinion
that medical facilities should focus on providing medical
assistance and not acting as law enforcement. She continued
that the implication that the bill is not needed because of
federal law, is at odds with the reality seen in the thousands
of stories from Alaskans during the pandemic. She shared her
belief that it should be up to families to make decisions about
health care.
5:18:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether this was the first time AFP
has embraced sweeping regulations of the private sector.
MS. WILSON asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS shared that since he has been in the
legislature, he has not seen a bill with such stringent
regulations on the private sector. He expressed surprise that
AFP was in support of the proposed legislation.
MS. WILSON responded that AFP works to break barriers to empower
individuals and families and find ways to prevent "draconian"
governments or entities from standing in the way of rights.
5:19:18 PM
CHAIR PRAX, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 52.
5:19:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked the testifiers and stated that the
bill does not address the long-term trauma many families are
dealing with from the experience of not being able to be with
their loved ones. She suggested that many policies restricted
visitation for far too long during the COVID-19 crisis. She
emphasized that HB 52 would simply be asking for humane
practices by implementing reasonable policies, as Alaskans
should not have to exchange health care for seeing family. She
opined that quality of life should be the focus, as during the
pandemic people learned the importance of physical connection
with loved ones, and this was because hospital visitations were
restricted so harshly. She posited that if allowing the right
of a support person to a patient during a time of extreme
vulnerability is considered "sweeping," then something is deeply
wrong with our society. She expressed respect for health care
workers and the sacrifices made in the face of a nursing and
medical professional shortage; however, she emphasized Alaskans
should not have to forego health care out of fear of isolation.
She asserted that HB 52 is not a health care rights bill but a
patients' rights bill. As a state representative, she expressed
the duty to protect the people's rights, which is the intention
of the bill.
5:23:29 PM
CHAIR PRAX announced that HB 52 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 43 AK Public Media Article--Anchorage Assembly Passes Ban on Conversion Therapy 2.8.2023.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Associations Position Statements 2.8.2023.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Definition of Practitioner of Healing Arts 2.8.2023.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Family Acceptance Project Study Summary 2.8.23.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 NYTimes Article --Canada Bans Conversion Therapy 2.8.2023.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Version A.PDF |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Welch v. Brown 9th Cir. Opinion 2.8.23.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Blank Committee Substitute.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Explanation of Changes, Version B 2.14.23.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Ver. B Sectional Analysis 02.16.2023.pdf |
HHSS 2/18/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 52 - v.A.PDF |
HHSS 3/2/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HHSS 3/2/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HHSS 3/2/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 - Slideshow Presentation (03-01-23).pdf |
HHSS 3/2/2023 3:00:00 PM HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 43 Fiscal Note DCCED.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 43 Fiscal Note DFCS-OCS.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 52 Fiscal Note FCS-PH.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Fiscal Note DOH-HFLC.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Fiscal Note DOH-BHA.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Support Letters.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 43 Opposition Letter.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 43 |
| HB 52 Support Letters Redacted.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 AHHA Mark Up.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Support letters Omnibus_Redacted.pdf |
HHSS 3/16/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |