Legislature(2025 - 2026)DAVIS 106
04/22/2025 03:15 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 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 52-MINORS & PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS
4:38:55 PM
CHAIR MINA announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act relating to the rights of minors
undergoing evaluation or inpatient treatment at psychiatric
hospitals; relating to the use of seclusion or restraint of
minors at psychiatric hospitals; relating to a report published
by the Department of Health; relating to inspections by the
Department of Health of certain psychiatric hospitals; and
providing for an effective date."
4:39:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 52, Version 34-LS0399\I, Radford,
4/12/25, as the working document.
CHAIR MINA objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:39:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE DIBERT, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, provided a brief recap of HB 52 and thanked the
committee for the support she has seen for the bill so far. She
emphasized that the goal of HB 52 is to protect the state's most
vulnerable youth receiving care from psychiatric facilities,
while also protecting the rights of their guardians.
4:42:01 PM
MATTIE HULL, Staff, Representative Maxine Dibert, on behalf of
Representative Dibert, prime sponsor, read the summary of
changes from the original bill version to Version I of HB 52
[included in the committee file], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1
Page 2, line 1
Following charge. Inserts: The minor, the minor's
parent or legal guardian, or another adult approved by
the professional person in charge may request the
confidential communication.
Page 2, line 4:
Following Communication. Deletes "May place reasonable
limits on the number of calls permitted,"
Section 4
Page 3, line 13:
Following subsection. Inserts: Unless the department
of health requests staff presence during the interview
to ensure safety.
Section 5
Page 3, line 19
Inserts 72 hours as a replacement for "one business
day", which is deleted.
Section 6
Inserts: AS 47.32.900 Is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(22) "chemical restraint" means a psychopharmacologic
drug that is used on a patient for restraint,
discipline, or convenience and that is not required to
treat a medical symptom.
Section 7
Page 3, Line 27:
Inserts "2026" as a replacement for 2025 which is
deleted.
4:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY, referring to page 3, lines 25-26, in
Section 6 of HB 52, Version I, pointed to the language "that is
not required to treat a medical symptom". He said that
increasing the dosage of a medication that is already prescribed
to a child could be used as a restraint. He asked if this
language would create a loophole to inappropriately administer
an already prescribed drug.
4:45:20 PM
MR. HULL responded that there must be "an assumption of good
faith" for these institutions and he was advised by Legislative
Legal Services to finalize this language.
4:46:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked about other legislation that
already governs the use of psychotropic medications in crisis
situations. He asked if HB 52 and that existing legislation
would conflict with each other.
4:48:17 PM
MR. HULL responded that HB 52 would require the reporting of
chemical restraint usage but would not prohibit institutions
from providing care. He said that the usage of chemical
restraints would need to be reported under HB 52, even is used
in a crisis situation.
4:49:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked about the difference between
requiring one hour versus two hours of communication between a
patient and their legal guardian.
4:50:04 PM
MR. HULL responded that HB 52 would create a minimum requirement
for communication allowed but would not create a maximum
requirement.
4:51:04 PM
CHAIR MINA asked how that hour of communication would be
monitored or recorded. She asked if that would be done by the
facility of by the Division of Health Services.
MR. HULL offered his understanding that it would be monitored by
the hospital.
4:52:06 PM
ROBERT NAVE, Operations Manager, Division of Health Care
Services, Department of Health, responded that the hospital
would track the one-hour time limit.
4:52:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that sometimes requiring a young
child to talk on the phone for even five minutes can be very
difficult. He asked about the possibility of a phone call
including that child engaging in their own activities while
their guardian simply stays connected on the line.
4:53:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked about the purpose of a
psychiatric hospital notifying the Department of Health (DOH) of
any use of chemical restraint. He said he does not know the
case of another healthcare entity that is required to report
their administered healthcare to DOH. He asked what DOH would
do with that reported information.
4:55:09 PM
MR. HULL responded that psychiatric hospitals have shown a
history of abuse of children in their facilities. He said that
HB 52, at its core, would seek more transparency from
psychiatric facilities.
4:56:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT added that she would often see the nurses
in her own schools writing up reports to send on to higher
supervision, creating transparency. She also stated that
requiring reports would create more timely responses to
inappropriate administration of chemical restraints.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE agreed that the timeliness of this
reporting, especially to the patient's family, is extremely
important. He asked what DOH is going to do with this
information. He asked how this reporting to DOH accomplishes
the intended goal of HB 52.
4:59:31 PM
CHAIR MINA clarified that DOH would be required to submit their
report to the legislature, which would also become available
online.
4:59:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY, in response to Representative Ruffridge's
question, discussed his experience reporting patient treatment
to DOH, adding that there is typically some level of follow-up
from DOH. He said that he believes requiring the report itself
may reduce the use of chemical restraints. He agreed that the
committee should consider who this report would be submitted to.
5:02:12 PM
MR. NAVE responded that currently when DOH receives reports of
chemical restraint usage, it determines whether that restraint
was justified or unjustified. He said if the determines that
the restraint was unjustified, it conducts an unannounced
investigation.
5:03:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked about the requirement to notify
guardians of chemical restraint use within 72 hours. He said
that guardians may want to know more immediately than that. He
asked about unintended consequences of this 72-hour requirement
and about how DOH responds to these notifications.
MR. NAVE responded that DOH triages the reports it receives to
determine the priority of conducting on-site investigations.
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT clarified that HB 52 originally asked for
a report within 24 hours of chemical restraint usage, but one
psychiatric hospital asked for 7 days, so 72 hours was a
compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if DOH agrees that this timeframe
would be a reasonable compromise.
MR. NAVE responded that 72 hours is a reasonable timeline.
5:08:14 PM
CHAIR MINA removed her objection to the motion to adopt the
proposed CS for HB 52, Version 34-LS0399\I, Radford, 4/12/25,as
the working document. There being no further objection, Version
I was before the committee.
[HB 52 was held over.]