Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/15/2021 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 | |
| HB76 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
"An Act extending the January 15, 2021, governor's
declaration of a public health disaster emergency in
response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic; providing for a financing plan; making
temporary changes to state law in response to the
COVID-19 outbreak in the following areas: occupational
and professional licensing, practice, and billing;
telehealth; fingerprinting requirements for health
care providers; charitable gaming and online ticket
sales; access to federal stabilization funds; wills;
unfair or deceptive trade practices; and meetings of
shareholders; and providing for an effective date."
1:34:37 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked Commissioner Crum if he had an
opening statement.
ADAM CRUM, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), replied that he did not.
Representative Wool asked the commissioner if the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) was in
support of the legislation. He asked if the administration
was still trying to pass HB 76 as it had been several weeks
earlier.
Commissioner Crum replied that the department had
identified authority that would help it continue the
response as well as specific language approved by the Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) to receive the EA [emergency
allotment] of SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program] benefits. He stated it was up to the legislature
to determine the policy.
Representative Wool surmised that the department supported
some of the policy in the legislation, but it was
ultimately up to the legislature. He recalled that Heidi
Hedberg, another representative from the Department of
Health and Social Services, had stated she supported an
uncodified bill. He stated his understanding that the term
referred to regulation and meant a bill would not be
necessary. He asked if the administration supported HB 76.
Alternatively, he asked if the administration would prefer
to see some of the language in a regulatory framework.
1:36:58 PM
Commissioner Crum replied that some of the authorities the
administration had identified to continue the response were
included in HB 76. He remarked that if the bill was the
vehicle to get there, the department wanted to ensure it
had the authority to continue doing so. He confirmed the
bill would provide a solution. He noted there were other
avenues, but the bill was an option.
Representative Wool asked if the administration still
supported mandatory airport testing for a period of time
going forward, especially for people traveling to Alaska.
Commissioner Crum answered that the airport testing program
had been beneficial to the state's response. He detailed
that when the administration lost the authority to continue
requiring testing, it had made sure the infrastructure was
still in place and contracts were in place until the end of
June. He added that the nonresident testing barrier had
been removed. The bill would give the state authority to
reimplement requirements for travel testing. He explained
that if it were to occur, the department would have to talk
with the governor and partners around the state to
determine whether to enact the requirement. He added that
the program had been beneficial.
Representative Wool stated his understanding that the bill
included language that would allow mandatory testing and
whether it would be required was a conversation that would
have to take place with the governor.
Commissioner Crum agreed.
Representative Rasmussen asked what other avenues the
department had determined could be possibilities if the
legislation failed to pass.
1:39:37 PM
Commissioner Crum answered that the primary authority
needed to continue the current response related to the
state's ability to allocate and distribute vaccines and
therapeutics, some of the immunity for public health
officials and the discharge of their duties, non-congregate
sheltering under FEMA [Federal Emergency Management
Agency], and some particular items around telehealth to
ensure the state was maximizing the flexibility allowed
under the federal health public emergency. He shared that
when February 14th had come and gone, the administration
had worked to identify the narrowest possible way to
continue the response to keep Alaska on top. The
aforementioned list of items were the things needed.
Representative Rasmussen asked if Commissioner Crum could
walk the committee through the sections that would be
important for the administration to continue to execute a
response going forward.
Commissioner Crum looked at the sectional analysis of the
bill. He identified AS 26.23.020(e) as the authority used
to allow the unified command, the establishment of
alternate care sites, and the use to coordinate logistics,
supplies, and therapeutics. He offered to provide the exact
language and sections in a document.
1:41:49 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that a key point of discussion
in HB 76 was Section 2, the public health disaster
extension. He thought he had heard the commissioner say it
was not necessary. He believed the committee would hear a
desire to have the language kept in the bill during public
testimony. He noted there would also be opposition to the
inclusion of the language. He asked about the downside of
keeping the language in the bill. He reasoned that at some
point the legislature would not be in session. He
considered a scenario where an uptick in COVID cases
occurred due to variants or other reasons and the governor
needed to declare a public health mandate. He asked why the
legislature should not give the administration the
necessary tools while in session to give the governor
discretion to use or not. He believed the emergency
disaster declaration played a compliance roll with federal
programs for providers providing service in Alaska. He had
yet to hear a compelling reason why the legislature should
not provide the administration with the tool just in case
it was needed.
Commissioner Crum answered that the administration had
pushed for the disaster declaration extension during the
beginning of session into early February. He explained that
once the declaration had not been extended, the
administration had reevaluated and talked to its partners
about what was necessary. He elaborated that the
administration had worked with federal partners on cleaning
up language for some items that did not require a state
disaster declaration. He noted the state disaster
declaration was the only vehicle the state had to declare a
formal public health emergency. The administration had
identified the limited authorities it needed. He stated
that under a scenario where there was a mass resurgence of
the disease due to variants or other, the governor had the
discretion to declare a new disaster for the 30-day
timeframe in order to access all of the necessary tools. He
relayed that the administration had been tasked with
continuing the response for the public and identifying what
was needed to continue on. He believed it had been
accomplished.
Representative Edgmon stated that he was not trying to
invite controversy or have an unnecessarily adversarial
position; however, he did not know why the administration
would not want the legislature to provide a tool the
administration could use later on. He stressed the
impossibility of knowing what would happen. He highlighted
the unknown factors including many nonresidents traveling
to the state during the summer and the large influx from
the seafood processing sector. He elaborated that many
nonresidents would be traveling to the state to enjoy
everything it had to offer. Until he heard otherwise, he
would continue advocating to include the language in the
bill. He did not know of a compelling reason to leave the
language out other than the administration did not think it
was necessary at present. He underscored that the
legislature was in session and working on the bill. He
believed many people in the provider community would
ardently argue to include the language in the legislation.
He stated that the administration had filed the bill and
filed a letter of transmission on January 21, but in the
middle of February it had backed away from the legislation
stating it was not needed. He stated that he was not
connecting all of the dots.
1:46:20 PM
Commissioner Crum understood the remarks. He agreed that
the administration had submitted the bill and had pushed
hard to try to move forward. He stated that the
administration had been unsure of the support in the
legislature for a full disaster declaration; therefore, the
administration had changed course to try to continue its
responsible ongoing response for Alaskans. He agreed that
the tools were included in HB 76 and some of the minimal
tools could be identified in other authorities as well. The
administration was trying to [inaudible] help Alaskans know
it was working toward some solution. He reiterated that the
administration was unsure of the level of support on the
issue. He thanked the committee for continuing the
discussion. He noted the situation was a precarious
position.
Vice-Chair Ortiz shared that he had a constituent who was
concerned about being able to access telehealth medicine
outside the state. He detailed that the constituent's
provider had told the patient they could no longer provide
the services because Alaska had not extended its disaster
declaration. Whether or not the particular provider was
interpreting regulations correctly or if the issue was
telehealth regulation in the provider's state - he asked if
Commissioner Crum could see where the issue may be a
problem. He remarked that the state may not be doing the
most it could for its constituents, specifically in
telehealth services, by not including the emergency
declaration.
1:48:49 PM
Commissioner Crum replied that one of the authorities the
department had identified to help remove some confusion was
related to telehealth. He explained there were some
particular items aimed at removing the ambiguity from
providers working to provide the service to Alaskans,
particularly those providing a service without first having
an in-person visit. The administration agreed it needed
clarity.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there would be more clarity if
the emergency declaration was part of the bill.
Commissioner Crum answered that he believed so and there
was a separate provision in the bill covering the
telehealth item. He clarified that the disaster declaration
itself did not allow the telehealth flexibilities, but a
separate section of the bill did.
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to his question related to his
constituent and particular provider. He asked if it would
be necessary for his constituent and their provider to look
at the specifics of the bill to determine whether they
could provide services. He thought it sounded like the
provider thought they could not provide the services
because there was no disaster declaration extension. He
asked if it would be up to providers around the nation to
look into the details of the bill prior to responding to
constituents.
Commissioner Crum answered that when HB [SB] 241
[legislation passed in 2020 extending the governor's
original disaster declaration in response to COVID-19] had
first passed and the governor had issued subsequent
disaster declarations, particular items were included in a
separate provision outside of the disaster declaration that
was tied to the issue. He believed it was Section 6 in HB
76, which allowed for telehealth items. He explained that
as with HB [SB] 241 and subsequent disaster declarations,
if the provision came out, the administration would
communicate the information to ensure providers understood
what they could provide to constituents. He elaborated
there were various means to get the information out through
DHSS and the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED) via professional licensing boards.
1:51:55 PM
Representative LeBon referenced Section 6. He provided a
scenario where the emergency extension did not occur. He
asked if there would be a default back to state law
requiring a practitioner to examine their patient in person
first and, once they were licensed in Alaska, they could
provide full telehealth services. He asked if it was a
proper understanding of the situation.
Commissioner Crum believed so. He clarified that while he
advocated for the flexibilities of telehealth; however,
most of the rules about delivering services in Alaska fell
under DCCED.
Representative LeBon thought that at some point in time
when considering telehealth and an outside provider caring
for an in-state patient, the legislature must have
concluded the provider had to give a physical examination
first and then be licensed in Alaska. He stated that
currently, the state was allowing some providers to avoid
the in-person examination and licensing in Alaska. He
remarked that if the provision were extended, the state
would allow outside providers to treat Alaskan patients
without conducting a physical exam or paying a licensing
fee to practice medicine in Alaska.
Commissioner Crum answered while health care professional
boards and licensing had done significant work on courtesy
licenses, he deferred to DCCED for additional detail. He
noted the numerous provisions involved, such as whether a
provider was licensed in Alaska and in-person visits.
1:54:50 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked what type of liability the
state had if it continued the telehealth visits. She asked
if the provider or the state were liable if something went
awry with treating a patient. Alternatively, she asked if
the state would be held liable if a provider was unlicensed
in Alaska.
Commissioner Crum answered that he did not know the
specifics regarding liability. He clarified the immunity he
had discussed earlier under separate authorities was for
healthcare professionals or public health officials
discharging their duties for the public health response. He
deferred to DCCED in regard to the specific care of
individuals.
Representative Rasmussen asked about the number of travel
nurses the state brought in during the height of the
pandemic. She stated her understanding that Alaska
struggled to find travel nurses who wanted to come to the
state versus going somewhere like Hawaii. She believed the
biggest issue Alaska had faced with hospital capacity was
not necessarily about bed space but related to personnel
and staffing.
Commissioner Crum responded that the department could
follow up with the specific numbers. He confirmed there had
been a race for intensive care nurses and respiratory
therapists. He detailed that due to a high demand, the
individuals had been able to command high dollar prices. He
reported it had become an issue for physicians and other
nurses coming up. He relayed there were fantastic
individuals from Alaska Respond (retired nurses and
healthcare professionals) who stepped up to help.
1:56:57 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked whether the state could
mandate testing in airports only in unorganized boroughs
where there was no government in place to make the
determination. Alternatively, she wondered if the
department had heard a preference from stakeholders for one
statewide testing policy.
Commissioner Crum replied that the response had been mixed.
He detailed that some localities including Nome and
Kotzebue had been able to have testing policies. He
believed AML [Alaska Municipal League] had spoken about a
statewide preference. The administration had used the
authority that included language about ingress and egress
into disaster areas for its testing requirement.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there were local
governments that could still choose their own guidelines to
restrict travel or testing if the state issued a travel
testing mandate. For example, she asked if Anchorage could
exceed the rules put in place by the state if they chose to
do so.
Commissioner Crum replied that if the administration had
the authority to require testing, one of the policies the
governor had throughout [the pandemic] was working with
local governments to set a standard on testing requirements
for incoming travelers. He shared his understanding that
without the authority from the state to require testing at
the airport, the Municipality of Anchorage could require
it. He believed the City and Borough of Juneau was
currently doing so for travel into the airport.
1:59:34 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what power the
administration was seeking with the disaster declaration
that could not be provided legislatively. He referenced the
fiscal notes and saw additional telehealth benefits,
authority for corporate shareholder meetings to occur
electronically, expedited fingerprint processing,
continuation of online gaming, and other.
Commissioner Crum answered that the four primary items the
administration had identified to continue the response
included the ability to allocate and distribute vaccines
and therapeutics (scarce resources). The provision was
included under the disaster declaration and could also be
available under separate legislation. There was an immunity
clause about the discharge of duties in a public health
capacity. He detailed that the FEMA non-congregate shelter
and reimbursement and the telehealth was a separate
provision.
Representative Carpenter clarified he was asking which of
the items could only be provided with a disaster
declaration and not legislative authority.
Commissioner Crum answered it was his understanding that
all of the items could be provided via a separate mechanism
other than a disaster declaration.
Representative Carpenter read from the language section of
the fiscal note:
Extending the public health disaster emergency period
to September 30, 2021, or until the commissioner of
Health and Social Services certifies there is no
longer an outbreak of COVID-19 or an imminent threat
of an outbreak in the State of Alaska, whichever is
earlier.
Representative Carpenter asked what conditions needed to be
present in Alaska for Commissioner Crum to certify there
was no longer a persistent outbreak of COVID-19.
Commissioner Crum answered that it was a long and nuanced
discussion because every region of the state was looking
for something a bit different. The department wanted to
ensure vaccines were available for distribution statewide
to all interested Alaskans. Another major metric the
department was looking at was the population getting sick
and hospital capacity. He reported large steps in some
areas such as administering the vaccine to adults aged 65
and older. The individuals accounted for 50 percent of
hospitalizations and 70 percent of deaths. He reported a
decrease in hospitalizations to the 20s and 30s down from
151 in December. The items included some of the primary
metrics the department was looking at to ensure it had the
available tools. He added it was at the discretion of every
Alaskan whether they wanted to access [the vaccine].
2:03:34 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if in order for there to no
longer be an outbreak and for Commissioner Crum to certify
to the governor there was no longer the threat of an
outbreak it would require there to be vaccines available to
all Alaskans and no population getting sick.
Commissioner Crum answered it would not require that no
population was getting sick, but the availability of
vaccines and testing in hospitals. He stated that the
availability of the tools and the education aspect was one
of the big metrics the department was looking at to be able
to determine it had done its part to help and it would then
be up to every individual Alaskan. He relayed there was not
a magic number the department was looking to hit; it was
about ensuring resources were available.
Representative Carpenter asked if the state currently had
sufficient resources to adequately respond to all areas of
the state.
Commissioner Crum answered that the state was rapidly
approaching the point where resources were readily
available. He reported that PPE [personal protective
equipment] was available and the state had been able to
work with hospitals. He reported that certain areas around
the state that had done a good job keeping the virus out
were getting hit with small surges because they had not had
to deal with it before. He reported that the state was
rapidly approaching having the vaccine distributed around
the state as it became more available.
Representative Carpenter was trying to get to a fundamental
question about when the situation was going to end. He
could understand if the answer was not known. Additionally,
he could understand if the answer was "when A, B, and C
conditions are met." He did not understand the "squishy"
area in between where "we're saying one thing and doing
another." He asked what needed to happen before the state
was no longer under a disaster. He remarked that the
committee was discussing extending a disaster and based on
Commissioner Crum's answer, he did not know whether the
extension was necessary or not. He surmised that either
there were areas that did not have an adequate response and
a disaster declaration was necessary to achieve the
adequate response or not.
2:07:06 PM
Commissioner Crum answered that it had been a long year for
Alaskans and the goal posts had moved a bit, which was
something the governor had been mindful of in conversations
with the health team. The governor mindful of trying to
take care of Alaskans and give hope in sight. He discussed
that the availability of the vaccine was rapidly
increasing. He explained that the availability of the
vaccine statewide was one of the main metrics for the
governor to determine that the state had done its job to
protect and educate Alaskans. He clarified that a disaster
declaration was not necessary to do the work. He explained
that the specific authority the administration had
identified for the distribution of vaccines could be done
separate from a disaster declaration.
Representative Edgmon looked at Section 2 of the bill and
observed that if the disaster declaration portion of the
bill were deleted, it would remove the administration's
ability issue a proclamation specifying that the end of the
pandemic had occurred. He asked for the accuracy of his
statement.
Commissioner Crum replied that he was trying to read the
section and did not have it memorized.
Representative Edgmon stated it was the way he read Section
2, subsection (c). He asked if there was a connection
between the SNAP program and the state's ability to access
the benefits without having a disaster declaration in
place. He stated his understanding that the program was
good until the end of the month. He believed that on April
1, without a disaster declaration in place, the state's
abilities to acquire $8 million per month in benefits would
go away.
2:10:21 PM
Commissioner Crum answered that Representative Edgmon was
referencing the emergency allotment of SNAP benefits of $8
million per month in enhanced benefits to Alaska. He
discussed that when February 14th had come and gone
[without an extension of the disaster declaration by the
legislature] the department had worked with the western FNS
regional manager on specific language related to the
ongoing response to COVID-19. The language mentioned the
federal public health emergency and disaster declaration
that occurred at the federal level. The state had been
given approval through FNS and the USDA for the monthly
benefits if it was included in a preamble of limited
authorities. Absent a disaster declaration, the department
believed the state would continue to receive its EA
benefits under a limited authorities bill that included the
language.
Representative Edgmon remarked that the discourse in the
Senate Finance Committee seemed to suggest otherwise, and
that the emergency disaster declaration was needed. He
stated that the declaration would give the state a level of
assuredness that would not exist in the absence of the
declaration. He explained that the disaster declaration
provided a relationship with the federal bureaucracy that
had myriad rules and regulations the state had to comply
with. He had not heard a clear delineation, which he
believed was an argument to include the provision in the
bill to ensure something was not being overlooked. He
remarked on his desire to hear public testimony on the
bill.
2:12:54 PM
Commissioner Crum responded that earlier in the day during
testimony in the other body, a testifier failed to mention
the department had approval from FNS when talking about the
major disaster declaration and federal public health
emergency. He explained that the specific items had to be
in place on the federal side to receive the benefits. He
reported that the department had email approval specifying
that the inclusion of a specific sentence in a preamble of
authority or bills related to the COVID response, the state
would receive approval on a month-to-month basis for EA
SNAP benefits.
Representative LeBon looked at Section 11 of the bill. The
latest news he had heard from the administration was that
the vaccine would be available to any Alaskan who wanted
it. He asked for verification that the vaccine would be
available to all Alaskans within the next couple of months.
Commissioner Crum agreed. He relayed that the
administration had opened the vaccine to all individuals
aged 16 and over the previous week. He detailed that as
more and more vaccines came into Alaska - there were
numerous doses coming in March and April - all Alaskans who
wanted to take the vaccine should have the opportunity to
do so.
Representative LeBon asked for verification that the
availability and supply was not predicated on extending the
disaster emergency.
Commissioner Crum responded affirmatively. He relayed that
the vaccine was a federal resource and would continue to
come to the state. He detailed that the state could
continue to distribute and reallocate the vaccine to areas
of greatest need. He noted it was one of the authorities
the administration had identified it would need.
Representative LeBon discussed the future when all Alaskans
who wanted the vaccine would be able to get it around mid-
June. He accounted for individuals who may not get the
vaccine due to personal or religious reasons. He reasoned
there may still be COVID positive test results in June
because some people would not get the vaccine and because
the vaccine efficacy rate was not 100 percent. He noted
there was risk of getting COVID even for fully vaccinated
individuals. He asked if the potential of positive test
results in June was a reason to continue the disaster
declaration.
Commissioner Crum answered that once all Alaskans who
wanted to get vaccinated had the ability to do so, the
administration expected to continue seeing positive COVID
cases. He stated that at that point, the administration
would have to evaluate the situation. He reported that
vaccine availability for all Alaskans was one of the
primary goalposts the administration was aiming for.
2:16:57 PM
Representative Wool asked for verification that
Commissioner Crum had stated the administration did not
have a target number for percentage of vaccinations.
Commissioner Crum replied affirmatively.
Representative Wool stated he had heard Commissioner Crum
say the administration wanted to offer the vaccine to any
Alaskans who wanted it. He remarked that the state had
recently led the nation in percent vaccinated. He
highlighted that Alaska was the first state to lower the
vaccination eligibility age to 16. He provided a scenario
where a certain percentage of Alaskans had received the
vaccine by June, but the number was not near herd immunity.
He asked if it would be a point when the state may begin
encouraging Alaskans to get the vaccine for the health of
the community. He asked if the lack of a target percentage
meant the administration did not really care about working
toward herd immunity.
Commissioner Crum answered that as with the influenza shot,
the state would not require the vaccine. The administration
wanted to make the vaccine available and would continue to
educate Alaskans on the topic. He stated that the
administration would continually encourage Alaskans to get
the vaccine. He shared that the administration's strategy
for removing barriers to get the vaccine was constantly
evolving. The administration was trying to meet Alaskans
where they were and was talking with them individually. He
stated that once the vaccine was available to all Alaskans,
it would be a choice. He noted that some level of hesitancy
had changed over time because the vaccine had been
distributed for a number of months. The administration
expected the number of people getting the vaccine would
continue to grow. He stated that the idea of herd immunity
and what percentage it was versus the number of people who
had already been infected was an ongoing dialogue amongst
public health experts. The administration's goal was to
make sure the vaccination was available for all Alaskans.
He remarked there were any number of reasons including age,
religion, and other why a person may choose not to get the
vaccine. The primary goal was to provide vaccines to all
Alaskans who wanted them.
2:19:58 PM
Representative Wool understood that the vaccination program
was voluntary. He thought it seemed Alaska had a good
supply of vaccines. He speculated that there could end up
being a demand problem where not enough people were wanting
the vaccine. He thought it would be in the interest of
public health to encourage, but not require, people to get
the vaccine. He noted there were similar programs being
done with other populations around the country and perhaps
around the world. He hoped the state would be interested in
doing so. He asked if the emergency declaration helped with
vaccine distribution in any way. He asked if it would lower
barriers to set up distribution centers around the state.
Commissioner Crum responded that the administration would
continue to educate on the value of the vaccine and try to
address hesitancy where it arose. He stated that HB 76 and
the limited authority identified by the administration both
addressed vaccine distribution. He stated that the City and
Borough of Juneau was a home rule city and could use
Centennial Hall in Juneau for vaccine distribution. There
was an alternate care site in Fairbanks the state had for
use under contract. The state was paying for the use of the
space to make sure it was accessible to use as mass
vaccination sites were needed. The administration would
continue to work to make sure vaccines were available all
over. He shared that most pharmacies were tied to the
federal program and received direct shipments from the
federal government instead of the state.
2:22:22 PM
Representative Wool surmised that the vaccination center in
Fairbanks had been set up with the help of the disaster
declaration. He thought Commissioner Crum had stated the
administration was trying to figure out ways to keep it
going absent a disaster declaration. He speculated that
perhaps it was a political issue, and the administration
was afraid that if a disaster declaration were attached to
the bill, it may not pass the finish line. He thought if
the disaster declaration was left in the bill and codified
in law, the state would not have to try to find a
workaround for places like the Carlson Center in Fairbanks
or for the $8 million in SNAP funding. He thought a
significant amount of time, energy, and capital could be
saved. He understood Commissioner Crum had stated the work
could be done without the disaster declaration; however, he
thought the declaration would make life easier. He asked if
the administration believed the bill may not pass if the
declaration was included.
Commissioner Crum replied that the alternate care sites
like the Alaska Airlines Center and the Carlson Center were
not tied to the disaster declaration. The locations were
ongoing contracts that DHSS had with the municipality or
university. He clarified that it was a large administrative
burden and cost to maintain the contracts. He detailed that
the administration was consistently weighing the benefits
of having the facilities available and evaluating whether
the facilities were needed in order to continue the
response. He clarified that by the USDA standard, the EA
SNAP benefits were a month-to-month program that the
department had to apply for monthly. He stated that with
the language identified by the administration through a
limited authorities bill or HB 76, the administration would
still have to apply monthly.
Co-Chair Merrick recognized Representative Mike Cronk in
the audience.
2:25:07 PM
Representative Josephson asked for verification the
executive branch had received expedited procurement
authority under HB [SB] 241.
Commissioner Crum replied in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
executive branch no longer had the special procurement
authority subject to a separate bill passing on procurement
authority.
Commissioner Crum agreed that the department would not have
expedited procurement authority. He shared that the
department had found the standard state procurement process
was a long drawn out process. He corrected his statement in
a previous answer and clarified that the expedited process
was not specifically under HB [SB] 241; it was emergency
procurement allowed under the disaster declaration (AS
26.23). He shared that the standard process took a lengthy
amount of time and involved a minimum number of RFPs and a
review committee. Comparatively, the expedited process was
the disaster declaration emergency procurement that enabled
the department to do sole source and identify a need,
followed by putting out an RFP. He shared that the
department was working with the Department of
Administration and had found it had a middle ground process
that was faster than the standard process but not as fast
as the emergency procurement. The department had found a
way to work with the middle ground process over the past
four weeks.
2:26:43 PM
Representative Josephson stated that SB 76 had a scaled
down version of the civil liability provision in HB [SB]
241. He highlighted that outside of exercising gross
negligence, people who provide imperfect PPE had been
expressly covered under HB [SB] 241. He asked for
verification that civil liability protection could not be
offered to the same degree without a disaster declaration.
Commissioner Crum answered that the topic of civil
liability was outside his purview. He clarified that most
of the immunity he was discussing related to discharge of
public health duties.
Representative Josephson asked for the percentage of
Alaskans who had received two vaccine shots.
Commissioner Crum answered that he believed it was above 20
percent. He would follow up with the exact number.
Representative Josephson stated that the CDC director Dr.
Anthony Fauci had adjusted his herd immunity number and
been criticized for it about a month or so back. He stated
that Dr. Fauci believed herd immunity required about 75
percent vaccination or infection. He observed that Alaska
was doing well, better than most states, but it had a long
way to go. He asked if having a disaster declaration would
close the rather substantial gap.
Commissioner Crum responded that the department had learned
throughout the response it was a very nuanced approach on
how it could work with Alaskans. He stated that Alaskans
being an independent minded people, the department had been
most successful in getting individuals to comply with
mitigation measures by making resources available,
providing the story, and encouraging people to help out
their neighbors. He did not believe the disaster
declaration itself created a level of compliance. He
believed it was a combination of making sure people were
identified as knowing where they fell on the risk factor
for severe illness of COVID-19 and making sure they
understood the efficacy and benefit of having the vaccine.
He explained it was the reason much of the department's
effort was going into making sure people understood the
information. The administration understood the importance
of getting the vaccine in people's arms. He elaborated it
was the reason the governor had opened up the vaccine to
all Alaskans once he had discovered there were appointments
going unfilled the previous week.
Commissioner Crum recognized there would be a saturation
point where individuals would not want the vaccine. He
stated that once that point had been reached, it was
difficult to do anything about other than continue the
education campaign. The administration was doing all it
could to ensure the available vaccine doses were used as
quickly as possible.
2:30:51 PM
Representative Carpenter thought the committee would be
provided some insight into the public's perception of the
need for an emergency declaration in regard to the ability
for the state to accept SNAP or FEMA related federal funds.
He remarked that the fiscal notes for the bill did not
address the aforementioned federal funds. He asked the bill
sponsor to update the fiscal note statements to accurately
reflect the two funding questions.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if there was anything in the bill
that instituted a mask mandate, occupancy restrictions, or
business shutdowns.
Commissioner Crum answered in the negative. He clarified
that the bill only provided authorities to the state. He
elaborated it was at the discretion of the executive branch
to decide how to implement the authorities. He believed the
administration did a good job trying to get the maximal
effect.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the commissioner. She OPENED
public testimony.
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
2:32:27 PM
KATI CAPOZZI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA CHAMBER, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), introduced herself and provided
information about the Alaska Chamber that was made up of
over 700 members representing businesses of all size
statewide. She read from a statement:
The Alaska Chamber supports the passage of HB 76.
Businesses in Alaska have suffered immensely over the
course of the COVID-19 pandemic and one year into this
public health and economic crisis, many are struggling
to keep their doors open. Despite the twists and turns
the business community has endured, we are beginning
to see a light at the end of the tunnel and plotting
our course for recovery. Economic recovery however,
hinges on our continued vigilant response to COVID-19.
The true economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to
Alaska is yet to be determined, especially considering
recent policy actions outside of Alaska's control that
effectively shut down the largest portion of our
tourism industry for at least another season.
What we do have concrete data on are our job losses.
According to the Department of Labor there were 44,000
jobs during peak employment months in 2020 than there
were in 2019. Virtually every industry in Alaska was
negatively impacted, some far more significantly than
others. The oil and gas and hospitality industries
were hardest hit, each ending 2020 with nearly 30
percent fewer employees in their workforce than the
year prior. It's never been clearer that healthy
people are the foundation of a healthy economy.
Addressing public health concerns contributes to
Alaska's ability to recover. While Alaska has had
lower case counts and hospitalizations and we lead the
nation in vaccinations per capita, it's more important
than ever we keep the tools in place that allow for
this positive trend.
The Chamber wants to be clear that from the business
community's perspective, providing the state with the
appropriate authorities and tools to continue COVID-19
response recovery does not represent more restrictions
and burdensome mandates. Quite the opposite. Before
the emergency declaration expired in February, the
Chamber expressed concerns that any lapse in the
state's ability to receive and extend healthcare
resources immediately impedes the progress we've made
and adds unacceptable uncertainty to our collective
recovery, both from a health and economic perspective.
Without some of the regulatory flexibility provisions
provided in HB 76, operations throughout the state and
across many industries, particularly the healthcare
industry, are forced to do their best to comply with
confusing, unclear guidance. This unnecessarily adds
increased uncertainty to the business community.
Ms. Capozzi emphasized the need for action. She reiterated
the Alaska Chamber's support for HB 76 or any legislation
providing state authority to address ongoing COVID-19
response and recovery efforts. She stressed that the
state's economic health was depending on it. She thanked
the committee for its time.
2:35:48 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if the chamber supported the
current version of the bill.
Ms. Capozzi replied in the affirmative.
Representative Edgmon asked for verification it included
the disaster declaration intact.
Ms. Capozzi answered affirmatively.
Representative Rasmussen asked if the chamber would support
the bill if it was amended to cover the four areas the
administration needed in order to continue disaster
recovery efforts.
Ms. Capozzi replied that the chamber would have to take a
look but based on what it had heard and seen thus far, she
believed the chamber would be supportive.
Representative LeBon asked if the chamber would support a
provision to protect a private sector business from civil
liability if it was deemed essential and asked to provide
services for the public.
Ms. Capozzi replied that liability was a top concern for
the chamber as it pertained to COVID-19. She stated that
the chamber would need to review the language, but it was
supportive of the concept.
2:38:06 PM
TIM HINTERBERGER, PRESIDENT, ALASKA PUBLIC HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. He stated that because of
previous emergency orders, the state was able to access
federal resources and assistance as well as expedite
purchasing, contracting, and hiring. He detailed that it
had enabled testing sites in airports, communities, and
healthcare facilities. He elaborated that Alaska had been
much better able to procure supplies, rent warehouse space
and receive, store, and ship supplies than it would have
been without the declaration. He furthered that the
declaration had expanded telehealth and made emergency
hires to meet the increased workload and expedited
licensing of the healthcare workforce. He stressed that the
state could not afford to jeopardize the advantages that
catapulted Alaska to first place nationwide in the fight
against the Coronavirus. He strongly urged the committee to
pass the bill.
2:39:28 PM
ASHLEY KASO, OWNER/OPERATOR, TALKEETNA RIVER GUIDES,
TALKEETNA (via teleconference), supported the bill. She
stated that as a business owner and community member of the
Mat-Su Borough, she believed the renewal of the disaster
declaration would give the message that the state took
public health seriously. She had not had any visitors
express dissatisfaction over a mandatory COVID test at the
airport. She stated that quite conversely, visitors felt
that Alaska was prioritizing the health of residents and
visitors. She stated that mandated airport testing or proof
of vaccination allowed Alaska to stay open, businesses to
operate safely, and prevent a potential shutdown due to an
overwhelmed healthcare system. She remarked that it had
been close to happening the past fall and there had been no
visitors during that time. She believed safety protocols
should continue into the summer with the anticipated influx
of visitors. She reasoned that without mandatory airport
testing, the state could end up where it had been the past
fall. She highlighted that Alaska had been leading the
nation during the pandemic and she believed it was
shortsighted to stop mitigation efforts when the finish
line was within sight.
2:41:26 PM
CARA DURR, FOOD BANK OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in favor of the bill. She stated
that a huge area of concern was the potential loss of the
SNAP emergency allotment, which was tied to a state public
health emergency or disaster declaration. She stressed that
the additional benefits provided critical hunger relief for
individuals and the Food Bank network. She reported that
hunger during the pandemic had increased dramatically. The
Food Bank and its partners had worked incredibly hard to
distribute more food than ever before. She remarked that
things did not seem to be slowing down and the Food Bank
had seen record numbers within multiple programs in the
past several months. The Food Bank was deeply concerned
about what the loss of SNAP funds would mean for food and
security in Alaska and for the additional burden the loss
of the funds would place on the charitable food network.
Ms. Durr elaborated that the emergency allotments were 100
percent federal benefits provided to the state at about $8
million monthly (the equivalent of approximately 2.2
million meals). She provided further detail on food
distributed monthly by the Food Bank of Alaska. She
underscored that losing the funds would mean an inability
to fill the need gap. She noted that while alternative
options existed for preserving emergency allotments, they
would require legislation. She urged the committee to move
forward with the bill given the rapidly approaching April 1
USDA deadline.
Representative Carpenter asked why Ms. Durr believed SNAP
funds were tied to the disaster declaration and that the
benefits would be lost without the passage of HB 76.
Ms. Durr answered that the information came from the USDA.
She detailed that the emergency allotments were a special
provision that required federal and state disaster
declaration.
Representative Wool stated that the committee had just
heard from Commissioner Crum that without the disaster
declaration the department could apply for a waiver on a
monthly basis to receive the $8 million in supplemental
benefits. He asked if it gave Ms. Durr any comfort. He
highlighted her testimony that a state and federal disaster
declaration was needed [to receive the benefits].
Ms. Durr responded that what she understood Commissioner
Crum to say that as a workaround for the disaster
declaration, authority could be granted using language
vetted by the USDA, but it would have to be included in
legislation. She understood that the state had to apply for
the benefits monthly as long as the authorization
conditions were in place. She explained that the conditions
could either be in the form of the disaster declaration in
HB 76 or specific authorities could be granted in
legislation. She was concerned there was not enough time to
make that happen.
2:46:10 PM
MIKE COONS, PRESIDENT, MAT-SU CHAPTER OF AMAC, PALMER (via
teleconference), testified that the group had initially
supported the extension of the disaster declaration;
however, the emergency order had expired. He stated that
the governor had still gotten the job done, seniors had
received vaccines, and the therapeutics and care needs were
still being addressed. He supported the work by the other
body on getting the non-COVID issues in the emergency order
done via legislation. He stated that the governor was
showing the cities that were still closing economies by
mandating masks and lockdowns in guise of a fabricated
emergency were not needed. He believed the government
needed to get out of the way. He thought the governor had
done an excellent job. He thought the Whitehouse was
claiming credit for what Alaska's governor had done almost
one month earlier. He elaborated that the absence of a
disaster declaration would not hinder the ability to get
out vaccines. He stressed there were currently over 135,000
vaccinated Alaskans. He provided statistics about the
vaccination rate in Alaska. He stressed that the state's
herd immunity was rising rapidly. He emphasized that Alaska
was in a recovery phase. He asked the legislature to avoid
stepping in front of the recovery. He opposed the bill
because it was no longer needed.
Representative Edgmon remarked that Anchorage had lifted
many of its restrictions and asked which communities were
shutting down their economies. He did not know of any.
Mr. Coons stated that Anchorage was still in a major
lockdown compared to the rest of the state. He specified
that Mat-Su had no restrictions and was doing fine.
2:49:16 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), supported the bill. He shared that Alaska
Municipal League's membership was comprised of Alaska's
cities and boroughs. He read from a prepared statement:
Over the last year, Alaska's local governments have
diverted a large amount of their attention to disaster
response and management to responding to the needs of
their residents and businesses and to fill the gap
where the state wasn't acting at the local level.
Without a state declaration in place or with, if it's
extended, local governments remain committed to acting
in support of the state's public health, residents'
public welfare, and the rebound of Alaska's economy.
The loss of the declaration means that local
governments have been scrambling to fill holes created
in the absence of the state's declaration. Many have
seen declarations expire since they were tied to the
state and they've either been renewed or were now
fully expired. Many have had to reconsider their own
travel quarantine and testing restrictions. Many are
in the midst of operating testing or vaccination
clinics with questions about available resources,
training, and authorities, some are now racing to
address spikes in cases. Many are looking at an
uncertain future. Ultimately, it's this uncertainty
that ends up most challenging.
The Alaska Disaster Act, which within HB 76 is really
Sections 2 and 3, allows the state to allocate,
distribute, and manage scare resources including
vaccine and testing supplies, much of this in
cooperation with and at the request of local
governments; allows it to suspend regulations that may
prevent or impede the provision of health services or
COVID response, including many that businesses and
organizations have depended on to ensure continued
operations; allow DMVA and DHSS to work together
within the unified command structure, which has met
weekly or biweekly with our members; and its allowed
to coordinate with FEMA and non-congregate shelters,
which is also intersected with municipal interests.
Mr. Andreassen highlighted that FEMA reimbursement was
currently being met at 100 percent by the federal
government. He added that multiple agencies had submitted
zero fiscal notes and additional federal assistance was on
its way. He stated that actions taken under the declaration
were likely to be covered by federal resources, which may
be better leveraged with a declaration in place. The
declaration enabled resources to be moved where they were
most needed.
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to Mr. Andreassen's reference to
areas with recent outbreaks. He was aware of an outbreak in
Petersburg. He asked how many other areas were experiencing
recent surges.
Mr. Andreassen replied that other surges may have come from
nonresidents in Unalaska and Cordova. He elaborated that
the surges had been sporadic but were tied to travel
restrictions that had previously been in place.
Representative Josephson asked for a picture of a
municipality that relied on the state's disaster
declaration and had coopted it or borrowed from it. He
asked for details.
Mr. Andreassen responded that local governments had issued
their own disaster declarations, which had allowed them to
operate more effectively during the pandemic. He elaborated
that many had referenced the state's health orders and
mandates when they had been in place. Mostly, local
government disaster declarations had allowed local
governments to act quickly in response to the needs of
residents and businesses. He detailed that many had
expiration dates tied to the state's and had seen their
declaration expire or had taken up a new date on their own.
Since the expiration of the state's disaster declaration,
some communities, such as Juneau, had mirrored and mandated
the state's optional health orders at the local level
(including travel, which had been loosened in recent days).
He explained that it was pretty varied. He stated that for
every local government it had been in response to needs of
the community and recognizing and building off of items in
place at the state level.
2:55:27 PM
Representative Wool stated that Fairbanks did not have
health powers. He relayed that the community had set up a
testing and vaccine program at the Carlson Center. He
referenced Commissioner Crum's testimony that the program
had been done through the university. He highlighted that
earlier on in the pandemic, the Fairbanks mayor had stated
he did not have health powers to institute a mask mandate.
He recalled that the governor had told the mayor he did
have health powers under the disaster declaration. He asked
if Fairbanks had used the declaration and associated health
powers to set up testing and vaccine abilities.
Mr. Andreassen answered that the disaster declaration did
not confer powers upon second class boroughs if they did
not already have them. He explained it could only be done
via statute or by a vote of the people. He was not aware of
any second class boroughs that had been utilizing the
disaster declaration as part of their vaccination or
testing processes. Some may have emergency management teams
trained to support the state, but those were separate from
the public health powers under ongoing debate.
Representative Wool recalled the governor's office saying
the boroughs had health powers through the declaration, but
he understood what Mr. Andreasson was saying.
2:57:25 PM
JARED KOSIN, PRESIDENT and CEO, ALASKA STATE HOSPITAL AND
NURSING HOME ASSOCIATION (ASHNHA), ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in strong support of the bill. He
read from prepared remarks:
ASHNHA strongly supports House Bill 76. Alaska's
hospitals and nursing homes are extensively on record
at this point as to why this legislation is important.
So, I will offer the committee our takeaway. There is
no harm or unintended consequences to passing this
legislation. In fact, there are only unintended
consequences and harm if this legislation is not
passed. This legislation is needed to fully deploy
airport testing, which continues to be critical, it is
needed to secure $8 million in monthly federal food
assistance payments to Alaska. There may be
workarounds possible but think about how inefficient
that is to just passing this bill. It is needed to
expedite specialty care with out-of-state providers
through telehealth. Finally, it gives our hospitals
and nursing homes the compliance certainty we have
been aggressively seeking on our own for a month now.
A disaster declaration is a legal mechanism. Alaskans
may not see it or experience it in everyday life, but
Alaska's healthcare providers do. Please pass House
Bill 76. Thank you.
2:59:03 PM
TREVOR STORRS, ALASKA CHILDREN'S TRUST, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in full support of the bill. The
organization understood the importance of reducing stress
on the family, which decreased the possibility of child
abuse. He reported that due to COVID, Alaska's children
were missing meals. He stated that an average of 13 percent
of Alaskan adults living in households with children
sometimes or often did not have enough food to eat in the
past week. Individuals were also struggling with housing,
access to healthcare, and overall stress of COVID. He
highlighted the importance of continued access to federal
SNAP funds to support food access for families. He
discussed that the disaster declaration in the bill
outlined the commitment to addressing COVID. The
declaration helped lessen stress to families and provided a
light at the end of the tunnel. The economic aspects
ensured that families were getting necessary supports to
gain or maintain employment, which reduced stress on
families and decreased the risk to children and the family
being part of the child welfare system. He reiterated the
organization's support for the legislation, which supported
families, children, and all Alaskans.
3:01:20 PM
LEE HENRICKSON, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), urged
the committee to pass the bill. She shared that she
attended the monthly Mat-Su COVID response meetings and the
previous week one of the topics had been on the lapse of
the disaster declaration. She highlighted that the absence
of the disaster declaration involved more work for the
school district and making sure schools received accurate
information and more work for the EMS department as it had
to deal with federal disaster requirements and reporting.
She stated it made more work for people already working
very hard. She had heard testimony from the Food Bank and
had learned that food banks in Alaska were already working
at or above capacity. She stressed that if the SNAP program
was jeopardized many people would be hungry and food banks
may not be able to meet the need. She asked why they were
making it harder for people to do good work. She wanted to
keep the process simple and keep things working via the
passage of the legislation. She added that the COVID curve
in the state was no longer decreasing - it was currently in
a holding pattern. She agreed with giving the governor the
flexibility to respond. She believed current case counts
indicated it was a very good idea. She thanked the
committee.
3:03:37 PM
HERMAN MORGAN, SELF, ANIAK (via teleconference), asked
where the liability was regarding the vaccine. He stated
there had been no long-term testing. He thought the federal
government was going to take over. He spoke to businesses
that were destroyed. He stated that the restrictions were
crimes against humanity. He stated that the legislature was
destroying Alaska. He remarked that the state was taking
federal money and did not see the consequences. He thought
Alaska should be given back to the people. He thought
giving a vaccine to people who did not need it meant there
was blood on the government's hands. He spoke about false
positive test results. He did not think the virus was the
problem, but politicians. He stated that God saw
everything. He did not believe the legislature listened to
the people. He did not think the bill was needed.
3:06:17 PM
DR. TOM HENNESSY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), supported the bill that would extend the
emergency disaster declaration. He shared that he is a
medical doctor and infectious disease epidemiologist for
the University of Alaska. He had been disappointed to see
the emergency declaration expire. He stated the declaration
had provided important tools to help fight the COVID
epidemic. He highlighted that after recent gains, the state
had reached a plateau in COVID case rates. He reported that
cases had increased in Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Anchorage, and
the northern Southeast region including Petersburg. He
stated that clearly the epidemic in Alaska was not over. He
pointed out it had already been seen that the virus was
capable of causing illness in the spring and summer. He
reported that several important tools had been lost when
the declaration expired including elements allowing
flexibility and speed such as expedited purchasing,
contracting, and ease of setting up alternative care sites.
Mr. Hennessy relayed that other lost tools had diminished
the healthcare capacity such as out-of-state medical
licensing reciprocity and telehealth options. Additionally,
the state had lost required traveler testing at airports.
He reported that the current voluntary program had seen
much less participation, which increased the risk of
introducing cases and new variants into the state. He
stated that without the emergency declaration it sent the
message incorrectly to Alaskans that all was well. He
stressed it was too soon to let down the guard and pack
away tools. He supported the bill, as the fastest way to
regain the tools. He thanked the committee.
3:08:44 PM
EVE VAN DOMMELEN, ALASKA FOOD COALITION AND ALASKA PUBLIC
HEALTH ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in favor of the bill. She read from prepared
remarks:
Thank you for the opportunity to express support for
HB 76 and extending the public health disaster
declaration. While public health is often viewed
through the lens of physical health, the field also
focuses much more broadly on the many social
determinates of what leads to a long and quality life,
including many community factors such as economic
wellbeing, housing, education, and food access. While
we may be moving away from a health crisis, the
economic impacts of the past year are undeniable. As
we move towards recovery and begin to address the
economic crisis, it is imperative that we are still
able to access vital resources that will allow us to
continue to support our communities. For example, the
loss of the SNAP emergency allotments means that many
households that have been struggling to make ends meet
over the past year will face a resource cliff on April
1. Even as individuals go back to work, many have
exhausted other savings and resources that have been
helping them get by.
Food insecurity has risen by an estimated 32 percent
in the past year, more than a quarter of our kids now
live in households where access to food is not a
given. I hear from Alaska Food Coalition members every
week about the huge increases in need they are still
seeing. Many seeing their highest client numbers in
the last few weeks. These organizations worry about
how they will continue to sustain meeting this need as
emergency resources begin to ebb. The emergency
allotments are 100 percent federal benefits that are
equivalent to 2.2 million meals. That's a huge gap
that the anti-hunger network in Alaska cannot fill. We
urge you to pass HB 76 to reinstate the public health
emergency declaration to ensure that frontline
organizations do not have to carry the full burden of
the recovery phase of this past year and pandemic.
Thank you so much.
3:10:53 PM
BILL POPP, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ANCHORAGE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
supported the bill in its current form. He listed other
organizations he was part of related to impacts of COVID on
the economy and health. He stated that reopening Anchorage
safely would require support for assuring a safe
environment for visitors from out-of-state. He stressed
that airport testing was a key tool. He reported there
would be continued hard work to ensure Anchorage offered a
safe place to travel. The corporation was also concerned
for the Anchorage workforce. He cited unemployment
statistics of just over 11,000 people on first time or
long-term unemployment in Anchorage. He emphasized that 71
percent of the 11,000 individuals were making $30,000 or
less prior to losing their jobs. He underscored that the
SNAP program was an incredibly important tool in keeping
individuals safe and healthy during difficult times. He
stated that maintaining the SNAP benefits quickly via HB 76
would be an incredibly important step as opposed to
alternative legislation which would be difficult to pass
prior to the end of session. He urged the legislature to
pass HB 76.
3:13:53 PM
KELLY FISHLER, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke
against the extension of the bill. She did not believe the
disaster extension was necessary. She thought focusing only
on the one aspect of health was tunnel vision. She stated
that the emotional, mental, social, educational, and
economic needs of Alaskans were just as important. She
believed extending the declaration further starved the
state's economy by keeping businesses at reduced capacities
or empty. She referenced testimony in support of a disaster
extension because of the benefits food banks received. She
stated that no one would refute that food banks were doing
everything they could. However, she believed extending the
declaration would drive more people to the benefits because
they would not have jobs. She stated that when the free
market was hindered, social difficulties increased. She
thought everyone in favor of the extension wanted the
federal money and benefits. She believed if the government
stepped away it would enable Alaskans to maintain personal
responsibility to steward their own freedom.
3:16:16 PM
DEAN CANNON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He thought the emergency declaration had
become another industry in Alaska. He believed most of the
people in favor of the extension were entities that stood
to benefit financially. He did not believe the state was in
an emergency. He thought COVID was very well understood at
the current time. He stressed there was a culture of state
dependency forming. He thought the crises were resulting
from the emergency declarations and endless edicts by local
governments. He opined that people needed to stop depending
on the state and start leaning on each other to get through
the situation. He thought it was a falsehood that the
healthcare system had ever been near to being overrun. He
stated that positive cases of COVID did not reflect
imminent death and there would continue to be positive
cases in perpetuity. He did not support the idea of living
under emergency declarations permanently. He urged the
committee to vote against the bill.
3:18:25 PM
ALLY BRATLIE, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), was
opposed to the extension of the disaster declaration. She
believed thousands of Juneau residents had suffered under
the government's abuse of power. She stated that Alaska's
government had assumed residents could not self-govern,
which resulted in the closure of businesses and families
struggling to care for themselves. She believed the year-
long lockdown would have lasting negative impacts. She
highlighted the negative social impacts including greater
suicidal tendencies and depression in youths. She thought
it was time to let Alaskans determine how to move forward.
She did not support the state extending emergency powers in
the name of COVID-19. She did not think it was the
government's job to create greater understanding and access
to the vaccine. She believed the virus had a 99 percent
survival rate. She asked the legislature to allow Alaskans
to operate at their own discretion.
3:21:08 PM
NANCY FREDERICKSON POPE, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference),
did not support the bill. She did not believe Alaska was in
a state of emergency. She thought the continued state of
emergency was very bad for people's emotional and mental
state. She shared a personal story about her father
refusing to go to the hospital for high blood pressure
because of the current hospital measures in place. She
believed the government had overstepped its reach. She
thought people in support of the bill would benefit
financially from the declaration. She did not believe there
was any reason to continue the declaration.
3:23:23 PM
CAROL CARMAN, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), was
opposed to the bill. She was disappointed to hear
substantial testimony from organizations that benefitted
from a constant state of emergency. She thought the
emergency powers reflected abuse against individual
Alaskans. She thought it appeared to be organizations
versus the people. She believed Alaskans were ready to get
their lives back to normal. She stated that extending the
declaration forced Alaskans into a constant state of
emergency that interfered with recovery. She added that
discontinuing the disaster declaration made organizations'
support less necessary. She highlighted that the governor
had withdrawn the disaster declaration and had moved
forward without it. She stated that Alaskans did not want
to go backwards. She remarked that the Senate was currently
working on bills needed to relax ordinances for businesses
in the absence of the declaration. She stated a declaration
was not needed for federal assistance. She stressed that
local governments did not need state emergency declarations
to enact their own declarations. She thought some used the
declaration to enact oppressive mandates. She asked the
committee to vote against the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick noted that there were about 10 more
testifiers. They would not accept any more due to time
limitations.
3:26:23 PM
STEWART THOMPSON, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), was
against the bill. He stated that the Alaska Disaster Act
limited an emergency declaration to 30 days without special
extension authorized by the legislature. He discussed that
law required the governor to submit law making
recommendations for the prevention or reduction of the
harmful consequences of a disaster. He asked why the
legislature had not done its law making job; thereby
eliminating the need for any disaster declaration on COVID.
He stated that scientific dissent was the lifeblood of
scientific advancement. He believed the suppression of
scientific dissent in the past year was proof of the lack
of confidence of the official directing response to COVID-
19. He stated that money handouts encouraged suppression of
scientific dissent. He suggested having the university and
citizens study economic measures on behalf of the
legislature. He did not know how the legislature thought
citizens would follow the law when it was demonstrating
reluctance to follow the constitution. He asked the
legislature to convene a committee of the whole to do its
full job related to COVID-19.
3:28:39 PM
GEOFFREY CANUTH, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He did not think the bill was needed and
he believed Alaskans needed to get back to work. He
believed the bill would harm tourism and could stop people
from traveling and spending money in Alaska. He echoed the
comments of the past couple of testifiers.
3:29:56 PM
DR. SARAH SPENCER, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She discussed the
nationwide opioid epidemic and reported that overdose
deaths reached the highest level ever in the past year with
over 80,000 deaths. She noted it was the number one cause
of death for people under the age of 50. She elaborated
that substance abuse had increased during COVID due to
isolation and a lack of access to treatment. She relayed
the federal and state governments had lifted a restriction
and allowed doctors to prescribe a treatment medication
through telemedicine in the past year; however, the
restrictions were specifically linked to the disaster
declaration. She explained it meant doctors had been unable
to prescribe the life-saving treatment over telemedicine
for the past month. She shared there were still remote
villages with travel restrictions in place. She detailed
that travel was difficult when trying to maintain privacy
regarding substance use treatment. She highlighted the
severe shortage of addiction specialists working in Alaska.
She reported that out-of-state providers were severely
restricting their ability to help due to the lifting of the
emergency order. She requested the emergency order to be
enacted in order to provide lifesaving addiction treatment
via telemedicine.
3:32:15 PM
APRIL ORTH, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), opposed the
bill. She did not believe COVID was an emergency any
longer. She stated that restrictions on communities had
caused more harm than good. Her family had suffered from
losing employment. She was skeptical about how some of the
federal funding was being spent and noted it was not being
monitored. She wanted businesses to be allowed to open and
people to go back to work. She stated separating families
should never have happened. She thought it had given
hospitals the perfect opportunity to separate family
members. She highlighted children had lost out on a year of
education. She stated that COVID was survivable and there
were treatments available.
3:35:38 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), was in
opposition to the bill. She thought the bill was causing
more harm than good. She thought the state needed to quit
"suckling on the hog in D.C." She thought the money was
being squandered. She remarked on the number of businesses
closed. She questioned holding the state's feet to the fire
over the $8 million in SNAP funds. She stressed that the
Permanent Fund should be used that had been created for
times like the present. She did not want any federal
mandates. She thought the communities should be allowed to
do their own thing.
3:38:08 PM
SHERRY EICHENLAUB, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), was
against the bill. She thought it was time to let people get
back to work and to allow communities to get back on track.
She thought the government was out of hand with the
mandates. She supported giving the Permanent Fund Dividend
to people to allow them to care for themselves. She was
against the bill and any more mandates.
3:39:07 PM
JOHN ZASADA, ALASKA PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He
shared that the association and Alaska's federally
qualified health centers strongly supported the swift
passage of the bill to extend the public health emergency
order. He shared that the legislation was vital to continue
administrative, regulatory, and statutory flexibilities
that had allowed Alaska to successfully respond to COVID-
19. He detailed that health centers had relied on the
emergency order to swiftly stand up telehealth, engage in
testing and contact tracing, and vaccine administration.
The centers were scaling up to address vaccine hesitancy
and to identify specific communities needing special
attention to maximize vaccine acceptance. He reported it
was much easier with a coordinated state command made
possible by the emergency order. The organization believed
there were far too many uncertainties surrounding impacts
caused by the lapse of the emergency order to address in
piecemeal legislation. He stated that the passage of the
bill was the easiest and fastest way to continue access to
SNAP benefits, maintain telehealth waivers, and to allow
the Division of Public Health to continue to respond to
unforeseen circumstances and continued challenges.
3:41:01 PM
WILLY KEPPEL, SELF, QUINHAGAK (via teleconference), opposed
the bill. He shared that the village had reopened its
schools. He stated that people in the village had had
enough. He highlighted the village's dependence on out of
state fishermen in the summer, which it had lost out on the
past year. He stated that the village did not believe the
numbers coming out of the Yukon Kuskokwim Health
Corporation. He reported that the corporation had
discovered over 200 positive COVID tests in one week;
however, no one in the village knew anyone who was sick. He
wanted to see the numbers. He stated villagers were sick
and tired of the situation and wanted their lives back. He
did not want any more restrictions.
3:42:53 PM
AT EASE
3:43:29 PM
RECONVENED
TEEA WINGER, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), was against
the bill. She had seen the effects of the shutdown and
mandates on small business owners and fishermen. She
thought Anchorage was a great example of how mandates
collapsed an economy. She thought it was time to open the
state back up. She remarked that a good portion of the
state had been vaccinated and another large portion had
been exposed to the virus. She stated that Alaska did not
have tens of thousands of people dying. She believed they
could not afford to continue to cripple the state. She
shared that her daughter should be going into first grade,
but she was not prepared by distance learning. She would
have to hold her daughter back to ensure she was prepared.
There would be long lasting impacts of the mandates. She
stated the extension ultimately boiled down to getting
money from the federal government. She reiterated her
support for opening up the state and avoiding dependence on
the federal government. She did not believe the funds were
helping the people. She stated future generations were
being hurt.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. Amendments were
due to her office by Wednesday at 9:00 a.m.
HB 76 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 76 Public Testimony Pkt 2 031521_.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 76 |