Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/01/2012 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB219 | |
| HB40 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 219-FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
8:06:28 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 219, "An Act exempting certain emergency medical
and fire department services from regulation as insurance."
8:06:47 AM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Feige, first disclosed that he is an assistant chief of a
volunteer fire department and Representative Feige is a chief of
a volunteer fire department that could be impacted by HB 219.
Mr. Paschall opined that the last hearing on HB 219 became a bit
sidetracked pertaining to certification under Alaska statute.
The sponsor's opinion is that statute doesn't specifically state
that certification is required. He noted that the committee
packet should include a legal opinion from Legislative Legal
Services dated February 29, 2012, which relates the conclusion
that the language is ambiguous regarding certification. Mr.
Paschall pointed out that HB 219 isn't about certification, but
rather exempts nonprofit municipal organizations that provide
fire, ambulance, and emergency medical services (EMS) from the
requirements of Title 21 of statute.
MR. PASCHALL informed the committee that although the Division
of Insurance provides exemptions similar to those proposed in HB
219, those existing exemptions don't reach fire, ambulance, and
EMS providers that aren't a municipality, nonprofit association,
or nonprofit medical services corporation. He opined that the
provisions in AS 21.87, which were referenced at the last
hearing, were designed to apply to medical service corporations
that provide health care across a broad range such as Blue
Cross. He further opined that the intent of that statute wasn't
to deal with small municipal or nonprofit ambulance services.
He noted that creating a nonprofit medical services corporation
is much more difficult than simply creating a nonprofit. For
example, a medical services corporation has to have available a
minimum of $100,000 in assets to cover six months of operations
in order to be certified by the Division of Insurance. Most of
the organizations HB 219 seeks to help don't have the $100,000
and are struggling to get by. The goal is to provide a
mechanism for an organization, large or small, to entice
donations and financial support by allowing them to waive fees
to those who provide an agreed upon level of financial support
in advance of services. He emphasized that there is no
guarantee the organization will provide those services, just as
there is no guarantee today that the same organization would
provide those services. This legislation would allow the
organization to waive fees in order to literally keep the doors
open by paying day-to-day expenses. With regard to the concern
regarding these organizations receiving funds from multiple
sources, Mr. Paschall said that's already the case for many of
the ambulance services that are municipally run or funded
through tax revenue. For instance, when the City of Fairbanks
fire department, which is supported by city taxes, responds to a
wreck within the city, the owner of the vehicle will be billed
for the call. Therefore, the scenario of concern already occurs
and won't be changed by HB 219.
8:12:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it's possible for a fire
department that's supported by property taxes to also have
subscriptions.
MR. PASCHALL said that they would have to review a department
that's run by a municipality and one that's contracted through a
service area. For example, he presumed that the City of
Fairbanks could enact a program for subscriptions such that when
they run a call for which they would normally bill, they
wouldn't bill for [when there is a subscription]. In the case
of most service area departments, they are nonprofits under
contract with the municipality to provide services. Although
the revenue generates from property taxes, it's not necessarily
paid to them in the form of a percentage of a property tax but
rather is based on a budget that they submitted. He opined that
both fire and EMS would be able to do the aforementioned.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed concern with the aforementioned
because a property taxpayer is already paying for service,
albeit that it might be inadequate.
MR. PASCHALL acknowledged the concern, but pointed out that the
legislation doesn't change the types of funding [certain
emergency medical and fire department services] can obtain. The
legislation merely allows them to accept the funding upfront to
defer the fee, as a way to place more operating funds in the
department's budget in advance. "From a practical standpoint, I
think what you're looking at there is what works in each
individual community," he opined.
8:14:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the emergency medical and fire
departments keep records for those who pay for the subscription
service so that people only receive service up to the amount
paid.
MR. PASCHALL responded that he isn't aware of any subscription
service that is based on the amount of the subscription.
However, he suggested that the amount of funding [subscription]
could be based on the amount of property. Often, the
[subscription fee] for an average home is $100 while a home over
3,000 square feet would have a [subscription fee] of $150. For
a business, the [subscription fee] might be $200. The
[subscription fee], he said, is based upon the perceived level
of need in the event of an emergency or the likelihood of an
emergency. When the actual response occurs, the [level of
service] isn't based on the amount paid. From the prior hearing
on HB 219 he recalled the question regarding whether the
subscription department responds to everyone or only subscribers
and specified that it depends upon the department's structure.
8:16:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to how the department
establishes the amount of the subscription fee.
MR. PASCHALL confirmed that the amount of the subscription fee
is determined by the department's annual budget and the
estimated number of folks who will subscribe as well as what the
market will bear. Common subscription fee amounts that have
been in place for a number of years have been $75-$100.
8:17:25 AM
MR. PASCHALL, in response to Chair Munoz, said that the
certification issue only arose in terms of the current statute
and this proposed statute wouldn't require certification. He
maintained that the issue of certification is for a different
debate.
8:19:11 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:19:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to report HB 219 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 219 was reported from the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
8:20:13 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB40 sponsor statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 40 |
| HB040-DCCED-DCRA-02-24-12.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 40 |
| HB40 AML Comments.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 40 |
| HB40 support material_AK Taxable 2011.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 40 |
| HB 219 AFCA Support 2-27-12.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |
| HB 219 Question Responses.pdf |
HCRA 3/1/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |