Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/26/2023 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 | |
| Governor's Appointments: Brett Huber, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; Robert Doyle, Regulatory Commission of Alaska | |
| SB57 | |
| SB58 | |
| HB28 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 26, 2023
1:37 p.m.
1:37:33 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Tony Newman, Director, Senior and Disabilities Services,
Department of Health; Emily Ricci, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Health; Dr. Anne Zink, Chief Medical Officer,
Department of Health; Representative Stanley Wright,
Sponsor; Allan Riordan-Randall, Staff, Representative
Stanley Wright; Lisa Purinton, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety; Lacy Wilcox,
Board of Directors, Alaska Marijuana Industry Association.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brett Huber, Commissioner Designee, Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission; Aubrey Wieber, Executive Director,
907 Initiative, Anchorage; Robert Doyle, Governor
Appointee, Regulatory Commission of Alaska; Alexis Rodich,
SEIU-775, Seattle; Vittorio Nastasi, Director of Criminal
Justice Policy, Reason Foundation.
SUMMARY
HB 28 ACCESS TO MARIJUANA CONVICTION RECORDS
HB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CSSB 57(FIN) am
ADULT HOME CARE; MED ASSISTANCE
CSSB 57(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
SB 58 MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY: POSTPARTUM MOTHERS
HCS SB 58(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two new
fiscal impact notes from the Department of
Health.
GOVERNOR'S APPIONTMENTS:
ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION: BRETT
HUBER
REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA: ROBERT DOYLE
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
^GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS: BRETT HUBER, Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission; ROBERT DOYLE, REGULATORY
COMMISSION OF ALASKA
1:38:52 PM
BRETT HUBER, COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, ALASKA OIL AND GAS
CONSERVATION COMMISSION (via teleconference), thanked the
committee for its time and attention. He read from prepared
remarks:
I was born in South Dakota, my family moved to
Colorado where I graduated high school and attended
some college before moving to Alaska in 1984 with my
wife and baby daughter. Like many, we hit the road
north cinching our future in the amazing outdoor
recreational opportunities in Alaska. I can tell you
that Alaska felt like home as soon as we crossed the
border. I'm a father of three, blessed to have been a
stepdad to four, and even more blessed by the many
grandchildren in my life. I'm an avid outdoorsman,
hunting, fishing, biking, hiking, you name it. This
state's been very good to me personally and
professionally and I have a deep love for Alaska and
her people.
One of my first jobs in Alaska was the Anchorage
branch manager of Alaska Tent and Tarp where among my
duties were the design and installation of
geomembranes, geotextiles, and tent liners on the
North Slope as well as on the Kenai Peninsula. This on
the pad, in the field contract work, while limited,
provided me my first actual close up exposure to the
industry here. It was big, busy, highly organized,
carefully maintained, and closely regulated. The
lion's share of my experience however, and my
experience and understanding of the oil and gas
industry came from my work right there in the Capitol
Building and in the course of my interim duties. I've
been fortunate to be involved in the public policy
arena since 1994 when I became a legislative staffer.
In each legislative office, in which I served,
resources, and specifically oil and gas policy was in
my portfolio. Including staffing the Senate Resources
Committee for Senator Halford in the late 1990s.
In addition to the understanding that I gained through
my legislative duties, I advantaged myself of
opportunities to participate in legislative
familiarization trips to the North Slope, as well as
the many training sessions and conferences relating to
the industry sponsored by groups such as AOGA, RDC,
and the Alliance. Between my two spans of service to
the legislature, I ran a statewide nonprofit and was
appointed to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council's public advisory committee, where I became
the chair. Serving in this role and then following as
EVOSS program coordinator for the Department of Fish
and Game provided me an important opportunity to gain
another perspective on the industry. Following my
second tour as legislative staff and his successful
2018 campaign, Governor Dunleavy asked me to serve as
his senior policy advisor where once again oil and gas
were an important component of my portfolio. This
position allowed me to deepen my knowledge of Alaska's
oil industry, as well as a chance to learn from and
work cooperatively with my oil and gas policy
colleagues in other states.
I first became aware of the work of the AOGCC in the
early 1990s with the unitization of Prudhoe Bay. I
followed it intermittently over the years when the
legislature had interest in AOGCC action warrant, and
I followed the commission's work again closely as they
deliberated and set new gas offtake rate for the North
Slope. I also had the advantage of meeting nearly
every year with former AOGCC Commissioner's Forrester
and Seamount as they made their visit to the
legislature and working with them even more closely as
we consulted on IOGCC issues while I was in the
governor's office. What I learned from them intrigued
me very much about the commission's work and service
to the public. I am very happy to have both of them
support my appointment. When the governor asked me to
serve on the commission I was both humbled and
instantly excited for the opportunity. As you know,
the AOGCC has an extremely important role in our state
as the independent, quasi-judicial agency tasked with
regulating the oil and gas industry in Alaska. In my
estimation, I've joined an agency with a long history
of doing good and important work that is fully funded
by the industry we regulate that has a knowledgeable
and dedicated staff and excellent and highly
experienced commissioners who occupy the dedicated
geologist and engineer seats and perhaps most
importantly, a mature and clear statutory underpinning
for the work we do.
1:44:03 PM
Mr. Huber continued to read from prepared remarks:
th
My first day on the job was January 9, a little over
3.5 months ago. I can tell you that while I've learned
a bit about the technical downhole side of business,
there is much more to learn, and I plan to do that.
That said, I realize I am not an engineer or geologist
but I do consider myself a reasonably quick study and
frankly, the commission has those fields well covered
with Commissioners Chmielowski and Wilson. I believe
as the public member my responsibilities include
asking a ton of questions, doing my homework,
approaching issues fairly and impartially, listening
carefully to our staff, to our fellow commissioners,
and to the public, and then making sound and fair
decisions on the merits of the issues presented, while
adhering to the statutory and regulatory guidance upon
which our work is grounded. In addition, I'm
responsible for the administrative management of our
agency and serve as lead in communication and
participation with the legislature. I'm sorry I'm not
there in person today, but I will be joining you for
your hearing on House Bill 50 on Friday.
Again, I can share with you that I'm excited to serve
Alaska in this capacity. I get up every day ready to
go to work and I've jumped in with both feet. I like
new challenges and I love to learn. Should the
committee see fit to forward my nomination and the
legislature confirm my appointment, I pledge my
continued hard work, commitment, and a willingness to
listen, learn, and lead to the best of my ability in
the service to the people of Alaska and with an eye
toward our future generations. Mr. Chairman, before I
conclude my testimony, I'd like to clarify that the
resume submitted is not a complete history of my
employment, but instead the positions most relevant
for this appointment. In addition, also not reflected
on the resume. I left service to the governor's office
briefly in 2020 and again in 2022 to participate in
statewide campaigns.
Mr. Huber thanked the committee and was available for
questions.
1:45:57 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted Mr. Huber's mention that the resume
he had submitted was more applicable to the position he was
being appointed to and there could be some gaps. He asked
Mr. Huber to comment about the period from 1986 to 1994.
Mr. Huber replied that he had moved to King Salmon where he
began a small sportfishing and hunting operation for about
1.5 years. He had returned to Fairbanks and had worked for
a radio station selling advertising and then working as the
sales manager. He moved back to Minnesota to have another
child to live near his parents. He returned to Alaska and
worked as a guide for a riverboat service until 1994. He
moved to Maui for seven years from 2005 and 2012. He
provided details on the time he spent in Hawaii including
working as a scuba instructor.
Co-Chair Foster stated his favorite was the period in Maui.
Representative Hannan stated that the position was highly
paid, and the legislature expected the person to be the
eyes and ears to ensure Alaska's oil and gas industry
complied with the laws and leases. She noted the position
was the public member position. She asked Mr. Huber to
affirm that he would be the eyes and ears of the industry
and would not act as a political appointee. She remarked
that he had a history of working directly in politics.
Mr. Huber confirmed that the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC) had the regulatory
obligation to oversee the oil and gas industry in Alaska.
For the most part, it was the underground portion, but
AOCGG was also involved with the inspection and metering.
The leasing activity was handled by the Department of
Natural Resources. The position was a purely regulatory
role and left no room for politics. He elaborated that it
relied on clear and concise statutory and regulatory
direction. He stated it put him in a position to rely on
his fellow commissioners and staff and the precedent set by
AOGCC over time. He understood he had served in political
and policy roles in the past and he knew the position was a
regulatory function. He also understood it was a good and
well-paying job. He elaborated it was a busy job involving
detail and homework. He believed he was up to the task.
1:51:07 PM
Representative Ortiz asked what the day to day duties
entailed for a commissioner of the AOGCC.
Mr. Huber replied that the days were quite varied and busy.
He shared that earlier in the day he had worked on notice
of information requests on a potential issue with an
operator on the North Slope, he had attended the
engineering and geologist check in held twice weekly, and
he and the other two commissioners had approved two permits
to drill. He detailed that AOGCC was in charge of oil wells
from "cradle to grave" including permitting, any changes to
the program, and through plug and abandonment. The position
involved approving, researching, and talking with staff
about sundries and permits. The previous day they had
meetings with industry folks currently involved in the
industry and others with an interest or opportunity in the
field. He shared that the commission had been involved with
House Bill 50 (carbon storage) and House Bill 74
(geothermal legislation) in the current year.
Co-Chair Foster noted there was an individual online to
testify.
1:53:20 PM
AUBREY WIEBER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 907 INITIATIVE,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to Mr.
Huber's appointment. He stated the commission explicitly
required protection of the public interest. He highlighted
that Mr. Huber had a long history working in politics and
deep ties to Governor Dunleavy. He believed Alaskans needed
someone who would rise above politics to represent the
public interest. He was concerned Mr. Huber would not fill
that role. He remarked that Mr. Huber's professional record
included dishonest statements to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission under oath. He reiterated his opposition to Mr.
Huber's appointment.
Representative Josephson asked Mr. Wieber if he was a
primary or secondary source on the information he had
provided.
Mr. Wieber answered secondary.
Mr. Huber thanked the committee. He was looking forward to
being in town for a bill hearing later in the week. He was
available to meet with individual committee members if so
desired. He appreciated the committee's time.
Co-Chair Johnson stated that the House Finance Committee
had reviewed the qualifications of the governor's appointee
and recommended that the following name be forwarded to the
joint session for consideration: Brett Huber, Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission. She noted that it did not
reflect an intention by any member to vote for or against
the designee during any further session for the purpose of
confirmation.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster noted the name would be advanced to the
House floor for a full vote.
1:56:28 PM
AT EASE
1:57:01 PM
RECONVENED
ROBERT DOYLE, GOVERNOR APPOINTEE, REGULATORY COMMISSION OF
ALASKA (via teleconference), reviewed his resume. He shared
that he had graduated from East Anchorage High School and
had attended the University of Oregon. He had worked for
Alaska schools in various communities throughout Alaska for
the past 31 years. He had served as the superintendent in
Mat-Su for his last five years after receiving his master's
degree from the University of Alaska Anchorage. He retired
in 2007 and volunteered in various community service
projects. He provided details. He had served on the
Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) Board of Directors for
12 years and had served as board president the last two
years. He had resigned from the board when he had been
asked to serve on the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA). After joining the RCA, he worked on many dockets as
a part of a team of five commissioners.
Mr. Doyle reviewed work done by the RCA. He explained that
the RCA made sure the Alaska electrical grid and energy
sources were reliable and affordable. The commission worked
on the public interest of all of its rate payers by
assessing the capability to utilities and pipeline
companies. The commission made sure its decisions were
based on a clear public record and due process while
keeping the rate payers first and foremost in mind. He
remarked that he had the question "is it good for all rate
payers?" posted in his office. The commission evaluated
applications to become utilities to determine whether a
company was fit, willing, and able to provide technical,
managerial, and financial support. The commission conducted
financial reviews for the Power Cost Equalization (PCE)
program. The RCA worked with all utilities, some of which
needed some assistance such as the Middle Kuskokwim
Electrical Cooperative, to ensure the rate payers were
being well served.
Mr. Doyle relayed that public regulations could help
prevent a lot of unnecessary duplication of service,
inefficient use of energy resources, stranded investments,
and unfair practices. The legislature had passed a law
enabling an electrical reliability organization that was
called the RRC, which would work on grid efficiency,
availability, and affordability. He stated that Alaskans
required robust and secure sources of generation that would
keep their lights and heat on throughout the year. He
accepted the opportunity for community service and had come
out of retirement. He appreciated the legislature's
consideration.
2:01:04 PM
Representative Hannan asked if Mr. Doyle had read the
statute on the requirements to serve as a commissioner for
the RCA.
Mr. Doyle replied affirmatively.
Representative Hannan cited the requirements to qualify as
a commissioner under AS 42.04.020. She read from the
statute that in order to qualify as a commissioner "the
person must be a member in good standing of the Alaska Bar
Association or have a degree in an accredited university
with a major in engineering, finance, economics, business
administration, accounting, or public administration." The
statute also specified that experience of five years in the
practice of those fields could substitute for the
requirement. She thought it appeared that Mr. Doyle did not
qualify. She asked why Mr. Doyle believed he qualified to
serve on the board.
Mr. Doyle answered that the master's degree program from
the University of Alaska enabled him to become a
superintendent and that fell under the category of
educational administration. During his 25 years in Mat-Su,
he started in business administration running the human
resources department for approximately seven years and had
run the finance department for the entire school district.
He estimated the school district had 1,800 employees,
16,000 students, and a budget of $183 million. He later
served as superintendent for five years. He detailed that
during his time as superintendent the district had met its
board goals for student achievement and learning and had
reduced achievement gaps between racial groups. He was
proud of the educational degree he had received and of the
opportunity to use the degree in administration. He
believed the aforementioned items qualified as public
administration.
2:03:45 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Doyle to submit his testimony in
writing including the years he had worked at MEA.
Mr. Doyle agreed.
Representative Ortiz asked about the primary responsibility
of the RCA. He asked how Mr. Doyle's skills and abilities
would contribute to fulfilling the primary responsibility
of the commission.
Mr. Doyle replied that there were five commissioners on the
RCA who were assigned dockets to prepare for hearings. For
example, if a company wanted to become a utility, it would
apply for certification. Per statute, the RCA determined
whether a company was fit, willing, and able to provide the
technical, managerial, and financial support required of a
public utility. He detailed that a public utility had to
serve a minimum of 10 customers or taking over for a
utility leaving the area or doing wholesale power. He
stated there were statutory and regulatory definitions that
had to be met. He shared that any opposition and
information was included in a hearing on the record and
eventually the RCA determined whether it was in the public
interest to grant the certificate. The RCA also had purview
over pipelines, utilities, refuse, water, gas, and
electricity.
2:06:5 3 PM
Representative Galvin had heard Mr. Doyle state that energy
security was first in mind. She appreciated that remark.
She asked what Mr. Doyle would uniquely bring to the
leadership position.
Mr. Doyle responded that the state needed all hands on deck
and all options on the table. He believed it was necessary
to take a look at new options that had not been used and to
be as diverse as possible. While at the same time, the
option per statute needed to be affordable and reliable. He
spoke to the importance of reliability in Alaska, in
particular with long, cold, dark winters, which could be a
life and death situation. He shared information about his
past work with the Matanuska Electrical Association. The
organization had started the first large wholesale through
an IPP in the form of a solar project in Willow. The
project had been expanded into the Meadow Lakes area. He
discussed looking at hydro and wind energy. He thought
people did not think enough about the demand side. He
believed people needed to take a look at conservation. He
remarked that natural gas would not disappear in the next
five years. He thought the pertinent question was whether
utility contracts could be renegotiated and guaranteed at
the same or greater levels. He believed the state needed to
participate in an alternative energy conference in May. He
thought it was important to get the information out to
people on both sides of the issue and talk about pros and
cons and then do what was best for the rate payers. He
brought an open mind to the table and team leadership. He
could work with diverse groups of people with differing
opinions to come up with what was best for future
generations.
2:10:13 PM
Co-Chair Johnson stated that the House Finance Committee
had reviewed the qualifications of the governor's appointee
and recommended that the following name be forwarded to the
joint session for consideration: Robert Doyle, Regulatory
Commission of Alaska. She noted that it did not reflect an
intention by any member to vote for or against the designee
during any further session for the purpose of confirmation.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were three additional bills to
hear during the meeting.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 57(FIN) am
"An Act relating to home- and community-based services
under the medical assistance program; relating to
medical assistance for recipients of Medicaid waivers;
establishing an adult care home license and
procedures; providing for the transition of
individuals from foster care to adult home care
settings; and providing for an effective date."
2:11:25 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from the Department of Health
(DOH) on changes made to the legislation by the Senate. He
noted the bill was the Senate version of HB 58 related to
Medicaid assistance for adult homecare.
TONY NEWMAN, DIRECTOR, SENIOR AND DISABILITIES SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, thanked the committee for hearing the
bill. The bill was the companion bill to HB 58, which he
had presented to the committee the previous week. He
reviewed the differences between the two bills. He
explained that SB 57 included new language that would allow
certain family members and others with a legal duty to
support an individual to be allowed to be paid to provide
personal care services to the individual under one of the
Medicaid programs. The program was called Community First
Choice (CFC) authorized under a subsection of the federal
Social Security Act known as the 1915(k). Currently, under
department regulations, certain family members including
spouses, parents of minor children, and adult children of
parents who were assigned guardianship, were prohibited
from being paid to provide Medicaid funded personal care or
home and community based waiver services unless a court
order allowed it. He detailed that the prohibition had been
lifted under the public health emergency out of concern
that people would not be able to find caregivers during the
pandemic.
Mr. Newman continued to speak to the bill. He explained
that the workforce shortages seen throughout the healthcare
sector had been especially acute for providers of home and
community based services. The experience the department
gained offering the flexibility [under the public health
emergency] as well as the findings from a provider survey,
conversations with stakeholders, and national experience,
had all suggested that with the proper safeguards the
change could be continued on a permanent basis. The bill
would allow a limited subset of people receiving Medicaid
funded personal care to have a spouse or guardian be paid
to help them with their bathing, feeding, or other
activities of daily living.
Mr. Newman relayed that if the bill passed and was signed
by the governor, the department would write regulations
that would enable it to ensure the program was done in a
way that would ensure the safety and wellbeing of
individuals receiving care. He emphasized that the original
adult homecare aspects of the bill and the additional new
pieces, would both be administered by the Division of
Senior and Disabilities Services, but the bills did not
directly impact each other otherwise. He detailed that
adult homecare would be a waiver service, not a 1915(k)
service; therefore, legally responsible individuals would
not provide adult homecare to someone in their care. He
stated that more details would have to be worked out
through a careful regulatory development process that would
include stakeholders. He noted an individual available
online for questions and/or comment.
2:15:04 PM
Co-Chair Foster stated his understanding that another bill
had been rolled into the legislation. He which Senate Bill
had been added to the legislation.
Mr. Newman responded that SB 106 had been rolled into the
legislation.
Co-Chair Foster asked for verification that the fiscal
notes had not changed.
Mr. Newman replied that the fiscal notes had been prepared
to reflect the new narrative, but there was no change to
the amounts.
Representative Josephson referenced Mr. Newman's statement
that adult homecare would be a regular waiver and not a
1915(k). He asked for clarification.
Mr. Newman responded that the original adult homecare bill
referred to a Medicaid waiver service. The allowance for
legally responsible individuals to provide personal care
that had been added to the bill was not a waiver service
and was referred to as a Community First Choice 1915(k)
service.
Representative Tomaszewski noted that Mr. Newman had used
the term "legally responsible individuals." He asked for a
definition of the term.
Mr. Newman replied that Alaska regulations referred to
individuals with a legal duty to support another
individual. He detailed that it included a spouse of a
recipient of services, the minor child of a parent, and an
individual with the legal duty to support the recipient
under state law (a guardian assigned by the court to an
individual). He explained they were the three types of
individuals needing care that would need to be amended
under the regulation.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Friday at
5:00 p.m. He requested any amendments to be sent to his
office.
Representative Josephson asked if the fiscal note was small
because the cost would primarily be borne by the federal
government. He noted he liked the bill. He asked how the
state would pay the people who had not been paid before. He
wondered if there would be additional fiscal notes
forthcoming.
Mr. Newman responded there were a couple of reasons there
would not be an increase in the Medicaid services bill to
the state. First, the bill would represent a very small
number of individuals. Currently, the CFC program served
around 850 people. He explained that a small subset of
those individuals would be seeking to have care provided by
a legally responsible individual. Second, the state was
seeing a "slow bleed of providers" of home and community
based services. There had been a decrease in the number of
people served because of a loss of providers. He did not
believe the bill would increase the pool of providers so
much that it would stop the bleed of providers. He reported
that the state had been offering the service under the
pandemic and had not seen an increase in cost. The bill
would mean maintaining flexibility for a small subset of
people.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
slow bleed Mr. Newman was referring to meant that some of
the non-familial providers were no longer providing the
services and the bill would mean familial connections would
get reimbursed for their good efforts.
2:20:50 PM
Mr. Newman agreed.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Co-Chair Edgmon joined the
meeting. He remarked that Alexis Rodich was available
online. He asked Mr. Newman if the individual was available
for questions or had testimony to provide.
Mr. Newman relayed that Ms. Rodich had worked closely with
the sponsors in the development of the bills. He noted she
may have a comment and was also available for questions.
Representative Coulombe asked if the bill covered foster
parents and adults taking care of their elderly parents.
Mr. Newman replied that the bill covered adults taking care
of their elderly parents if they were assigned guardianship
of the parent. He remarked that the adults would currently
be allowed if they were not assigned guardianship because
they were not guardians. He noted it was not currently a
prohibition in place. Under the regulation 7 AAC 127.015, a
foster parent was not considered an individual with a legal
duty to support a recipient. He noted it would remain
unchanged.
Representative Coulombe thought the bill aimed to fix a
situation pertaining to disabled foster children through
adulthood.
Mr. Newman agreed that the original adult homecare bill was
designed to provide better service to foster children aging
out of foster care. The two bills were not connected in
that way. He elaborated that the legally responsible
individual portions of the bill would not be related to the
adult foster care portions of the bill. Both would be
administered by the Division of Senior and Disabilities
Services, but they were two different services.
2:23:34 PM
ALEXIS RODICH, SEIU-775, SEATTLE (via teleconference),
relayed that she was available for questions.
Co-Chair Foster restated the amendment deadline.
CSSB 57(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to Medicaid eligibility; expanding
eligibility for postpartum mothers; conditioning the
expansion of eligibility on approval by the United
States Department of Health and Human Services; and
providing for an effective date."
2:24:17 PM
EMILY RICCI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
relayed that Dr. Zink was currently in another committee
meeting and would join as soon as she was able.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a quick summary of the bill.
Ms. Ricci replied that the bill would extend Medicaid
coverage for postpartum mothers from 60 days to 12 months.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-
GS1583\A.1 (Dunmire, 4/25/23) (copy on file) [note: due to
the amendment length it has not been included here. See
copy on file for details].
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment. The amendment
would increase eligibility of postpartum coverage from 200
percent to 225 percent of the federal poverty line. He
explained there was a certain population of individuals in
between income requirements who did not quite make enough
money to afford health insurance, but during the expansion
of the postpartum coverage they may fall into a category
with no health insurance coverage. He stated it was his
goal to help make Alaska one of the most pro-family states
in the union. He thought the best way to do so was to
ensure certain coverage was extended to segments of the
population who were unable to get quality healthcare
because they effectively made $3 more an hour. The
amendment would cover more of those women and would allow
them to have quality healthcare.
Co-Chair Foster asked what the impact to the fiscal note
would be.
Representative Stapp answered that so far the amendment
would add an additional $1.5 million to the bill and would
cover up to 450 more women.
Co-Chair Foster observed that the federal portion was $6.4
million and the state portion was $2.6 million. He asked
about the federal/state funding breakdown.
Representative Stapp answered it was the state GF, which
leveraged substantial federal funding through the Medicaid
program. He detailed that the Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP) was 70 percent with 30 percent funded by
the state.
2:28:54 PM
Representative Galvin fully supported the amendment. She
did not think it was possible to do enough given current
data with regard to children and pregnant moms and rates of
issues downstream. She asked about any assessment on the
savings given upstream healthcare costs.
DR. ANNE ZINK, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
answered that savings would be hard to calculate for the
bill. However, the department had submitted data showing
the best return on investment for kids and moms would
result in the first year of life. She highlighted the
importance of supporting the mental and physical health of
mothers, which in turn impacted adverse childhood
experiences. She shared statistics indicating that 26
percent more children would receive their first well child
checks if their mom had access to health insurance. There
was evidence of dental care and immunizations being able to
move upstream along those lines. She relayed that the
national CBO [Congressional Budget Office] looked at the
long-term savings and included the service as an option due
to its importance moving forward as a country. She stated
that it was challenging to calculate the savings for Alaska
and therefore it was not included in the fiscal note. The
fiscal note only included the cost associated with people
using care. She noted the number of people using the care
would be very small.
2:31:46 PM
Ms. Ricci spoke to the proposed amendment. Initially the
department had looked at the number of women between the
ages of 15 and 45 in Alaska and based on the community
population survey, the department determined there were
about 7,000 women with an income between 200 and 220
percent of the federal poverty level. There were
approximately 64.3 births per 1,000, resulting in
approximately 450 births per year in the population. The
department had then applied the $566 per mother per month
to the 450 births per year that would be covered under the
amendment. The calculation applied coverage to nine months
of pregnancy and 12 months of postpartum coverage. The
estimate was still being dialed in, but it was
approximately $5.3 million. The state would be responsible
for 20 percent, estimated at $1.5 million.
Representative Galvin appreciated the responses, which were
helpful for the committee to understand the full picture
when thinking about how to expand and provide better
services, particularly in light that the implementation
could not take place for over a year. She considered the
opportunity to provide additional coverage to 450 women and
believed it would result in less emergency care.
Additionally, she thought about the importance of early
identification of learning issues with regard to the
education system. She highlighted the downstream cost
associated with remedial work within education and how the
costs had been considered on a national level. She believed
there may be some available numbers for national savings
with regard to making the investment early. She looked
forward to hearing how the program went and was interested
in local Alaska data. She could not think of anything more
important in terms of an investment.
2:34:46 PM
Representative Hannan referred to Representative Stapp's
explanation that Amendment 1 would move from 200 to 225 of
the federal poverty line. She noted the brackets in the
amendment specified the number 175. She presumed the figure
reflected current statute.
Representative Stapp replied that Alaska's effective
statutes regarding many of the Medicaid rates were not
accurate. Following the passage of Medicaid expansion, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) required
the state to cover people at higher levels of poverty line.
He explained that most of the statutes did not reflect the
change. He deferred to the department for additional
detail.
Ms. Ricci responded that in 2014 there had been nationwide
changes in the Medicaid program and income levels were
calculated based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI).
States were required to adopt the change for certain
Medicaid categories, resulting in an effective 200 percent
rate of the federal poverty level.
Representative Hannan highlighted the importance of
ensuring babies' safety. She noted the increase [proposed
in the amendment] was much smaller in reality than when
compared to statute. She supported the amendment and the
bill.
2:36:58 PM
Representative Ortiz thanked Ms. Ricci for her explanation
of how the department arrived at the 450 [births per year
in Alaska within the particular population].
Representative Coulombe thanked Representative Stapp for
proposing the amendment. She appreciated the detailed work
to ensure the bill covered many women as possible.
Representative Josephson referenced Ms. Ricci's statement
that the department was still vetting the number included
in its fiscal note. He asked for verification the number
would be in the range of $1.5 million.
Ms. Ricci replied that it was what the department believed
based on the numbers. The department was currently working
with its divisions to ensure it had contemplated any
additional unintended cost. The department was also working
actively with CMS to ensure it understood any changes that
the federal agency may require. She confirmed that the
department anticipated the cost would be approximately $5.3
million total cost including approximately $1.5 million in
undesignated general funds.
Representative Josephson asked for verification there was
nothing under Title 42 (the U.S. code) or CMS that would
prohibit going to the proposed rate.
Ms. Ricci confirmed there was nothing she was aware of that
would prohibit the change. She noted there were several
other states that had implemented rates at the same level
or higher. She noted it was a matter of clearly
understanding the process CMS required in order for the
state to make the changes.
2:38:57 PM
Dr. Zink emphasized that the estimates looked at previous
services a mother needed and used. She clarified it did not
mean it was the amount that would be spent or had to be
spent. There was a lot of work being done by the Department
of Health to decrease the need in order to be able to move
upstream to create preventative services outside of the
specific area.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Edgmon MOVED to REPORT HCS SB 58(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS SB 58(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes
from the Department of Health.
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act restricting the release of certain records of
convictions; and providing for an effective date."
2:40:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the legislation. He shared that he
wanted to talk about hope and why the bill was important.
He stated that the bill gave people the hope they needed to
move on with their lives. First, the bill would remove
names from the CourtView website and make them
inaccessible. The bill would mean individuals would not
lose job opportunities based on a CourtView search.
Additionally, the bill would enable individuals to rent an
apartment without receiving a call back that the place was
already rented. Second, the bill would limit accessibility
to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) database records.
The bill created hope for individuals trying to move on
with their lives. He stated the individuals had paid their
debt to society and the bill provided opportunity to move
forward. He asked his staff to provide further details.
ALLAN RIORDAN-RANDALL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY
WRIGHT, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He
explained that the bill recognized there were still
convictions on the books, which would not exist by current
statute. The convictions could be burdensome on individuals
and could be deceiving to the untrained eye when viewed
online. He explained it could cause adverse action for the
individuals. The bill contained provisions for certain
organizations and agencies to access records in whole or in
part under certain circumstances listed in the legislation.
Mr. Riordan-Randall reviewed the sectional analysis (copy
on file):
SECTION I: It is the intention of the legislation to
reduce barriers to employment and other basic daily
functions for individuals who under past statute were
convicted of low-level marijuana related crimes.
SECTION II: Describes when, why and to what agencies
or organizations information protected in this bill
may be released.
SECTION III: Persons aged 21 years or older shall in
the provisions of this bill have records of low level
marijuana convictions as detailed in this section,
which by today's statutes are not a criminal act, made
to be inaccessible other than as listed in section II.
Individuals having this action taken shall pay a fee
of not less than $150.
SECTION IV: Records relating to the individuals and
occurrences in this bill shall not be publicly
published by the Alaska Court System. Information
shall be made available on how to obtain information
removed from public view.
SECTION V: An effective date for this act shall be 1st
of January 2024.
2:46:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
VITTORIO NASTASI, DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY,
REASON FOUNDATION (via teleconference), introduced himself
and read from prepared remarks:
The academic research is clear, people with criminal
records face significant difficulty engaging in
productive activities such as finding a job and
securing housing. House Bill 28 would help address
these barriers for Alaskans who have low level
marijuana possession convictions. People who have been
convicted for behavior that is no longer considered
criminal in Alaska. The bill would not result in the
expungement of any criminal records. In other words,
the records won't be erased, they will still be
available to some extent. The legislation simply
places limitations on the release of these records if
eligible individuals formally request that the records
be withheld.
The additional requirement of $150 for this privilege
will likely reduce the positive impact of the bill.
Research suggests that requiring petitions and the
payment of fees greatly reduces the efficacy of
policies aimed at sealing or expunging criminal
records. A recent study published in the Harvard Law
Review found that only 6.5 percent of those who are
eligible under Michigan's expungement program pursued
expungement when they were required to apply and pay
fees. Similarly low participation rates have been
observed in other states where release is not
automatic. It is for this reason that a growing number
of states have established automatic record release
programs.
Given the experiences of other states it is likely
that only a small fraction of eligible Alaskans will
be aware that their records may be withheld and will
actually request that they not be released.
Consequently, the fiscal note on this bill likely
overstates the administrative burden that DPS will
incur. Moreover, requiring a $150 fee creates an
additional barrier to low income individuals who tend
to benefit the most from record release. The fee will
also likely fail to raise substantial revenue.
Despite being a relatively small step compared to the
actions of other states, House Bill 28 would provide
much needed relief to those who make the effort
request that their records be withheld. However, the
minimum $150 fee was an unnecessary complication to an
otherwise good bill. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Representative Galvin thanked the bill sponsor for putting
the bill forward. She believed the bill was an important
step for individuals to move towards becoming whole. She
wondered why the fee had been put in place and if it was
truly to cover costs. She asked if there had been
conversations about savings if the opportunity was in place
to take away challenges the individuals were experiencing
with jobs, housing, and healthcare. She reasoned if
individuals were able to have access to the aforementioned
items, the state would not have to pay unemployment costs
for individuals without access to a job. She thought it
would far outweigh the state's ability to collect a few
dollars to pay for administrative costs, which sounded like
they would not be very high.
Mr. Riordan-Randall replied that the purpose of the fee was
to offset the cost to the state. He deferred to DPS for
further detail pertaining to the fiscal note.
Representative Galvin reiterated her question for the
department.
Mr. Riordan-Randall clarified that the fee had been added
by the House Judiciary Committee.
LISA PURINTON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, replied that the fee had been
added by the House Judiciary Committee as a policy
decision. She explained that DPS had submitted a fiscal
note to the original bill to pay for a change to the
programming in the state's criminal history repository. She
detailed that DPS maintained the official state criminal
history record and DPS was the repository for individuals
to come for background checks for the official record. She
noted it was separate from the Court System CourtView
database. The state's criminal history repository was a
mainframe database from the 1980s and the programming cost
to make the change had been included in the original fiscal
note. The department also anticipated part-time temporary
funding for a two-year position because it anticipated the
bulk of the requests (to have a conviction restricted from
access for certain background check processes) to come
during that timeframe. The department estimated there were
roughly 8,500 records that could potentially fall under the
criteria under HB 28 for the limited marijuana convictions
because the state's repository went back to statehood for
those convictions.
Ms. Purinton explained that the database did not always
have a straight statute to indicate the definition for the
conviction. She elaborated that sometimes the database only
included a four letter code indicating a marijuana
conviction. She detailed that the amount listed in statute
had sometimes specified one ounce and other times the
amount had been up to eight ounces; therefore, it would
require the department to do some research when individuals
came in to petition to have their information removed. The
department did not have the resources to do research for
potentially 8,500 records. The House Judiciary Committee
had added the fee to help offset the potential cost. The
department had not projected out beyond two years because
the number of individuals who would make the request was
unknown.
2:55:33 PM
Representative Galvin thought she heard that somehow the
way the department was collecting data made it more
complicated and would require extra research time. She
assumed that going forward the bill looked at collecting
the data differently so it did not require extra research.
She wondered if the House Judiciary Committee had
considered the savings that would come to the state if even
one person was given the opportunity for a job, housing,
healthcare, and mental healthcare.
Ms. Purinton answered that the only thing DPS fiscal note
considered was the cost to the department. The department
had not looked at any broader impact to the state. The bill
was specific to AS 11.71.060 subsection (a)(1) or (a)(1)(a)
and some of the court judgements received for a conviction
did not always have granularity at the subsection level.
The department had been working closely with the Department
of Law and the Alaska Court System to ensure there was
unification in how the specifics of the subsections were
used. Historically that had not always been the case, which
made historical records more challenging.
Co-Chair Foster hoped to get through the invited testimony.
He asked members to hold their questions for the bill
sponsor and department until the next hearing on the bill.
LACY WILCOX, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA MARIJUANA INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, appreciated Representative Galvin's comment
about taking into account the cost that had already been
incurred for a 6A possession (a single possession of
marijuana). She relayed that Alaska had a pretty strange
relationship with legalization. She noted that from 1975 to
1990 marijuana had been decriminalized in Alaska. She
believed the state recriminalized marijuana from 1990 to
1998 and during the war on drugs the state had assessed a
$100 fine for simple citation or up to 90 days in jail. She
underscored that those impacted had paid the price already.
She did not support the $150 fee included in the bill to
make the state whole. She believed the state had made money
on the back of a cycle of legalization, decriminalization,
simple possession citation, and 90 days in jail. She
supported the bill and policy but requested a look at
removing the fee for people who had already paid their
debt.
HB 28 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
3:01:25 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.