Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/15/2016 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 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB262 | |
| HB344 | |
| HB234 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 262-SENIOR BENEFITS PROG. ELIGIBILITY
3:30:29 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next 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." He reminded the committee that, on February
4, there had been discussion regarding the lack of an asset test
for this benefit program. The Division of Public Assistance had
agreed to compare these senior benefits recipients with the
recipients of those programs which did have an asset test. He
directed attention to the response, titled "Department Response
to 2-04-16 question on HB 262."
[Before the committee was the committee substitute (CS) for HB
262, labeled 29-GH2770\W, Glover, 2/2/16, which had been adopted
as the working draft on February 4, 2016]
3:31:59 PM
MONICA WINDOM, Chief, Policy & Program Development, Division of
Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services,
stated that the committee substitute, Version W, added a
citizenship requirement to the senior benefits program, which
had not been in the original bill creating this program.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the handout titled "Senior
Benefits Program" [included in members' packets] which compared
the programs for income limits and asset tests.
MS. WINDOM, directing attention to the senior benefits cases,
reported that, as 42 percent of the recipients were not
receiving another benefit, there was not any asset information
for those cases. She added that 27 percent of the recipients
were receiving adult public assistance and that 25 percent of
the recipients were receiving food stamps, both of which did
have an asset limit of $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a
couple. She noted that 610 individuals were receiving food
stamps and senior benefits, although the food stamp resource
limit was a bit higher for a household, $2,250; however, if one
member of the household was 60 years or older, the asset limit
was then $3,250.
CHAIR SEATON reflected that about 5,000 people only received the
senior benefits, whereas about 3,200 people received adult
public assistance and senior benefits. He questioned whether
there was a difference in the number of people receiving
benefits from a program with an income limit versus a program
with an income and an asset limit. He pointed out that 42.5
percent of those individuals receiving senior benefits did not
receive any benefits from programs with an asset test. He
acknowledged that it was unknown whether those 42.5 percent
would not qualify to an asset test or whether there was another
reason not to apply for the adult public assistance or food
stamps. He pointed out that, as there was not sufficient
funding for the senior benefits program, it would be necessary
for the department to reduce payments to those individuals with
the highest income levels, while maintaining the payments to
those lower income levels. He opined that the monthly cash
benefit of $125 had been reduced to $47 in the current fiscal
year. He asked to ensure that those who were the most in-need
were being reached, if this was the intent of the senior benefit
program. He pointed out that individuals with large assets, but
without much income, would qualify for this cash benefit
program. He stated that the intention for asking this question
was to make sure that the information surrounding the proposed
bill was forwarded to the House Finance Committee, as this
committee made the difficult decisions for the levels of
allowable payment.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the aforementioned Senior
Benefits Program worksheet.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ pointed to the dramatic difference in the
third tier resulting from the deduction effective March 1, 2016.
She acknowledged that, although 42 percent of the recipients
were not receiving adult public assistance or food stamps, those
programs had an extremely low asset limit. She proposed that
there should be a return to the prior monthly payment, noting
that it was "not a very good situation to be elderly and have
low income, that means they have low cash flow." She stated
that the price of food, housing, and energy all went up and were
higher than in other parts of the country. She reported that,
as the average recipient age was 75 years, it was difficult to
find a job to supplement income. She stated that this was a
particularly vulnerable age, and that many individuals in this
age bracket did not have the energy, stamina, and physical
fitness to do many jobs, and often had some sort of illness.
She pointed out that this money did not go far in Alaska.
CHAIR SEATON stated that the committee was not proposing to make
any changes, but was addressing the program because the Alaska
State Legislature had asked the department to offer a way to
reduce this highest asset group, as the program was not being
fully funded. He acknowledged that, although the income level
was eligible, statistics showed that the largest wealth was
accumulated in the senior population. He noted that there were
also a lot of not wealthy individuals, a lot of disparity in
this population. He stated his desire to have the information
to pass on to the House Finance Committee to make those
decisions, in order to target the desired population.
3:44:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 262, labeled 29-GH2770\W, Glover, 2/2/16, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 262(HSS) was moved
from the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.