Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/04/2016 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB23 | |
| HB226 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB262 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 262-SENIOR BENEFITS PROG. ELIGIBILITY
3:52:36 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 262, "An Act relating to eligibility requirements
of the Alaska senior benefits payment program; and providing for
an effective date."
3:52:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 262, labeled 29-GH2770\W, Glover, 2/2/16,
as the working draft. There being no objection, Version W was
in front of the committee.
CHAIR SEATON noted that there were three levels of senior
benefits referenced in the proposed bill. He asked if the
numbers were available.
SEAN O'BRIEN, Director, Director's Office, Division of Public
Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
offered his belief that those numbers were available.
3:54:13 PM
MONICA MITCHELL, Chief, Policy & Program Development, Division
of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), stated that, although she did not have the exact
numbers, at the highest income level there were about 5300
recipients, at the mid income level there were about 4000
recipients, and at the lowest income level there were about 2000
recipients. In response to Chair Seaton, she explained the
senior benefits program and its three income levels. She
reported that the senior benefits program was a cash benefit
program for individuals over 65 years of age. She stated that
the different payment levels were based on income up to a
specific percentage of the federal poverty level. She detailed
that individuals with incomes up to 75 percent of the federal
poverty level receive the highest monthly benefit amount, $250;
between 75 percent and 100 percent of the federal poverty level
receive a monthly benefit amount of $175; between 100 percent
and 175 percent of the federal poverty level receive a monthly
benefit amount of $125.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged that benefits were being cut in many
programs, and he questioned whether the monthly cash payments to
individuals with income of 175 percent of the federal poverty
level should be reconsidered. He noted that the House Finance
Committee should review this, but he "wanted to open up that
policy discussion for us to have here since in all of the other
committees that we're in, we're talking about raising taxes..."
He stated that, as this was revenue sharing to individuals
beyond the Permanent Fund Dividend, it should be open for
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ stated that the total number in the
program statewide was only 11,300 individuals. She said that
this was "more of a safety net" and that the income limits were
very low. She reported that to qualify for the highest amount
of monthly benefit, $250, an individual's annual income could
not exceed $11,040, about $920 each month. She went on to
report that, for a married couple to qualify for the highest
monthly benefit, income could not exceed $14,940, about $1,245
each month. She emphasized that this amount of money "doesn't
go far." Moving on to the monthly benefit of $175, an
individual could not have an annual income of more than $14,720,
or $1,227 each month; whereas, a married couple could not have
an annual income to exceed $19,920, or $1,660 each month, which
she declared was "doing marginally as far as income in light of
the cost of living in Alaska." She relayed that for the monthly
benefit amount of $125, an individual could not have an income
which exceeded $25,760, or $2,146 each month; whereas a married
couple could not have an income which exceeded $34,860, or about
$2905 per month. She emphasized that it was necessary to
understand each level of income.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the question was not for the lower
end of the scale, as those were "poverty and need." He relayed
that there was a question whether the state could afford a
subsidy for a couple earning $35,000 each year. He asked if
there was also an asset test along with the income test.
MS. MITCHELL replied that there was not an asset test. She
pointed out that these regulations for senior benefits allowed
for an adjustment based on the appropriation, and that the
current regulation package allowed for a cut to the highest
benefit level first, and then to subsequent benefit levels, if
not enough money had been appropriated for the program.
CHAIR SEATON reflected that the discussion was on policy,
whereas the adjustment was for a budgetary constraint. He asked
if this adjustment for budgetary constraint was good policy or
whether it was better to address the upper level of benefits.
He pointed out that a lack of asset limitation allowed an
individual to own a home and other things, yet the individual
would be subsidized with a benefit if the direct income was
below a certain level. He declared that it was necessary to
have a discussion for what levels the state could afford.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her personal opinion that these
were modest benefits, even at the lowest level of payment. She
reported that her constituents were considered moderate to low
income, and the average rent in the low income neighborhoods was
$1,200 to $1,500 per month. She pointed out that this meant
more than half of a monthly income was spent for rent, with
utilities above this. She observed that most of these
subsidized individuals were on a fixed income and in retirement,
so there was not a lot of opportunity to supplement their
income. She suggested a gradual change to these benefits to
allow for any adjustments to living arrangements. She reminded
the committee that there had been a strong response against
change during the last year, "in large part because people just
didn't feel like they had time to make any adjustment." She
requested some transitional time period, noting that a loss of
housing which forced an individual into institutional housing
would have a have an even greater cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged some of the difficulties with
asset qualifications, pointing out that assets did not guarantee
expendable income. He expressed support for the lack of an
asset test.
CHAIR SEATON stated that, without an asset test, there was a
very broad group of people who qualify for benefits. He noted
that people could have homes and "a lot of stuff," but an income
that did not exceed the benefit limits. He opined that they
might not be spending much, either. He questioned whether the
higher income definition for poverty was too high, and he
emphasized that no one was talking about eliminating the program
entirely. He expressed his own discomfort for having a program
which could then be underfunded, although he was glad that the
regulation stated that payment at the highest income levels
would be stopped first. He shared that, although he did not
plan to introduce an amendment, he wanted to have this
discussion regarding benefits to higher income individuals given
the current budget deficit. He noted that it was unclear of an
individual's real needs without an asset test, although he
acknowledged that the cost to administer the program would then
become more expensive than the cost of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if dividends and reverse mortgages
would be considered income.
MS. MITCHELL replied that a reverse mortgage was considered a
conversion of an asset, and would not be considered income. In
response to Representative Wool, she said that a regular monthly
payment would be considered income.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER opined that the profit from the sale of a
home was income, but a reverse mortgage was not income.
MS. MITCHELL explained that the house was considered an asset,
and the cash from the sale was also an asset, as it was not a
regular monthly income.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that these assets were not counted, yet
the income could be low enough to qualify for the benefit. He
noted that it was necessary to review the system to determine
whether it was accomplishing the intended goals without having
any unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked about the cost to implement an
asset test to the highest income tier, and expressed her
agreement that this could cost more than the payment.
MS. MITCHELL explained that, in order to implement the asset
test, it would be necessary to change the application and
reprogram the legacy system, and, although she did not have an
exact dollar amount, it would have a big financial impact.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ acknowledged that it was also necessary
to train staff and send notifications to present recipients,
noting that this was all part of the cost when determining the
feasibility. She pointed out that there was not an asset test
for other programs, including Denali Kid Care or Medicaid
expansion enrollees, and that this same argument could be made
for those programs.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked to confirm that the minimum age for
these benefits was 65 years, and how often was it necessary to
enroll for the program.
MS. MITCHELL replied that there was a yearly review process.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if it was possible for "some kind of
spot check" to attain a sample snap shot for information, which
was not very expensive. She pointed out that an asset test was
required for an elderly person with a need for Medicaid
services. She acknowledged that there had been similar
criticism for the Alaska Longevity Bonus program as it did not
have any income guidelines.
MS. MITCHELL offered that there could be a cross match for
individuals who were also eligible for other programs that did
have an asset test for benefits. In response to Chair Seaton,
she explained that an individual with senior benefits who also
received food stamps and/or adult public assistance would have
been required to have an asset test to qualify for either of
those programs.
CHAIR SEATON asked to see this information if it was not too
onerous to collect, as it offered a potential mechanism for
reviewing the programs. He stated that it was necessary to
effectively target resources for what they were intended. He
noted that a review of wealth across the state pointed to
concentration among those over 65 years of age, that this group
was the wealthiest population in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if the program could be adjusted to be
parallel with social security benefits.
MS. MITCHELL agreed that there was an age requirement in the
statutes for senior benefits, and this could be amended to
reference the federal statute for social security.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if there was an age breakdown of the
current recipients to this program.
MS. MITCHELL reported that the average age of the recipients was
75 years, and the maximum age was 104 years.
CHAIR SEATON asked for any other helpful information that was
readily available.
MS. MITCHELL said that she did not have any other information
that had not already been discussed.
CHAIR SEATON reported that this proposed bill was trying to
tighten up the eligibility standards for this program to include
a requirement to be a citizen of the United States, or a
qualified alien. He offered his belief that the program needed
some refinements. He said that the proposed bill would be held
over until the cross check information could be obtained from
DHSS for further discussion. He stated that his intention was
to move the bill out of committee at the next opportunity.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if it made sense to likewise
tighten the qualification criteria to a program like the heating
assistance program.
MS. MITCHELL asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if this program should be made
similar to the criteria for a general fund program, similar to
the heating assistance program.
MR. O'BRIEN clarified that, as the heating assistance program
was a federal and state program, there was a distinction between
the funding and the qualifications.
4:24:33 PM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony. After ascertaining no one
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
[HB 262 was held over.]