Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
02/20/2014 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB301 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 301-AUTOPSIES AND DEATH CERTIFICATES
3:04:56 PM
CHAIR HIGGINS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 301, "An Act relating to duties and procedures
of the state medical examiner and the Department of Health and
Social Services; and relating to death certificates."
3:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 301, as the sponsor of the bill, and paraphrased from the
sponsor statement:
Each year, around the state, Alaskan families suffer
the unexpected loss of a loved one. Accidental death
is common in the course of work, play, and providing
food for the family table. Each loss is critical.
Each family's grief is real.
For many rural Alaskans, the natural grieving process
is further complicated by the fact that their deceased
loved ones' remains must be shipped into Anchorage, at
State expense, for review by the State Medical
Examiner (ME) in order to establish a cause of death
and obtain the death certificate required for legal
burial. On top of staggering loss and major life
changes comes the stress of more forms, more
requirements, and more confusion in a process that is
already difficult to navigate. In many cases families
have, without the knowledge required to make fully
informed choices, agreed to the use of expensive
funeral home services - and then found themselves on
the hook for thousands of dollars they do not have but
must somehow pay before the funeral homes will allow
their loved ones' remains to return home.
At the same time, the State of Alaska currently spends
General Fund dollars to transport remains of
individuals to and from Anchorage, when existing
technology in many regions could be used to reduce the
number of transports required.
HB 301 seeks to make minor changes to the law guiding
the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services'
current autopsy and death certificate issuance
process. Recognizing that good people oversee and
perform the work addressed in this bill, HB 301
approaches each change with an eye for treating
grieving Alaskans with greater compassion, maximizing
the use of quality existing resources, and saving
state funds - all while continuing to meet legal
obligations and ensuring the ME's office retains the
support and resources it needs to do the job right.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON explained that he was working with local
non-profit organizations in the Bethel region to hire a
navigator, who would help a family with advice on how to deal
with the medical examiner and the funeral home. He reported
that the fiscal note for $5,000 [a one-time cost to purchase and
install the necessary telemedicine/video conferencing technology
at the Medical Examiner's office] would save the state money, as
it would allow for a remote post mortem examination, and
decrease the costs for transportation of bodies to Anchorage for
examination.
3:11:37 PM
CHAIR HIGGINS asked for the bullet points to the proposed
changes resulting from HB 301.
3:12:14 PM
LIZ CLEMENT, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, directing attention to the Sectional Summary for HB
301 [Included in members' packets], reported that Section 1
amended AS 12.65.025(a)(2) and replaced "may" with "shall." She
explained that this allowed the State Medical Examiner (ME) to
ship the body to a community chosen by the family.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered an anecdote for the shipment of
bodies, noting that the proposed bill would sometimes result in
a savings for the state.
MS. CLEMENT stated that this would require the ME to ship the
body wherever requested, as long as there was not any additional
cost to the State of Alaska. She lauded the practice of the
current ME, noting that this proposed bill would ensure these
current practices beyond the tenure of the current ME.
3:16:43 PM
MS. CLEMENT explained an additional change in Section 1 of the
proposed bill which amended AS 12.65.025(a)(3). She stated that
embalming was not required by law, although it had previously
been, and this change would clarify it. She reported that some
air carriers mistakenly believed that embalming was always
required prior to transportation.
CHAIR HIGGINS asked for clarification regarding embalming by a
transporting entity. He asked whether a requirement by the
transporter for embalming would necessitate embalming by the
state prior to transport.
MS. CLEMENT replied that the state would then be financially
responsible for the embalming. In response to Chair Higgins,
she expressed agreement that this was new language.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, in response to Chair Higgins, said that
embalming had not been an issue in the past and that the
language had been added to the proposed bill as an "extra pair
of suspenders."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, noting the difference between the fiscal
notes in the House and Senate versions of HB 301, asked if there
was a mechanism for the state to pay for the transportation if
the family could not afford to pay the cost difference to the
requested final destination.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON expressed his support for the position by
the State of Alaska to pay for the return of a body, but not to
incur any additional expense. He declared that this was "a
fairness issue."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked about a situation where the family
could not afford to bring the body to a chosen place.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that the state did work with the
families, and he stressed the value for the assistance of a
navigator in a regional hub.
MS. CLEMENT directed attention to Section 2, which primarily
allowed the state the flexibility to consider working with high
quality, existing infrastructure in Rural Alaska. She pointed
out that the Alaska Tribal Health System (ATHS) had done "a
phenomenal job over the last years investing in tele-health and
tele-medicine equipment that allows them to do tremendous things
by a distance delivery." She acknowledged that the proposed
bill would allow Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
to work with ATHS and utilize the existing technology and
resources in the region. She offered an example for its use to
save time, money, and stress.
3:24:04 PM
MS. CLEMENT pointed out that Section 2 [subsection (g)] outlined
standards for fair, respectful written communication between the
ME's office and surviving family members. She reported that the
ME forms had been edited, that the proposed bill outlined the
necessary information for disclosure, and that it must be
offered "in a non-threatening and non-coercive manner."
3:25:05 PM
MS. CLEMENT directed attention to Section 2, [subsection] (h),
which added a standard practice into statute. She explained
that, currently, it was standard practice for the ME's office to
freeze the body as this was the best means of preservation for
transport.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reported that the ME had agreed as this
was a humane practice. He lauded the efforts by the air
carriers to return the remains.
CHAIR HIGGINS asked if [subsection] (h) was new.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that this was already the normal
practice.
3:27:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to page 2, lines 22-24,
and asked for clarification to the meaning for "otherwise."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON explained that this offered the family the
option of sending the body to a funeral home, whereas previous
language had seemingly required that the body be sent to a
funeral home.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed his support for the clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON declared that it was necessary for a
transparent process during a time of grief, without any
decisions being forced on the family.
3:30:13 PM
CHAIR HIGGINS directed attention to page 2, line 3, and
expressed his discomfort with giving the decision for embalming
to the transporting entity.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if deleting the phrase "or by a
policy of the transporting entity" on page 2, line 3, would harm
the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON deferred to the DHSS.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether page 2, line 29, offered a
choice of location or demanded the destination.
MS. CLEMENT, in response, referred to page 2, line 19, which
stated that "the notice must explain, in a form and language
that is designed to be easy to understand, the availability of
transportation to another location." She offered her belief
that this allowed a choice of destination to the family, other
than the place of death.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mused that the proposed bill suggested
that the body would be sent to a different location, which could
result in confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered to discuss this with the drafter
of the bill.
3:34:29 PM
MS. CLEMENT moved on to discuss Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the
proposed bill, which amended AS 18.50 "to facilitate the
declaration of death and issuance of a death certificate in-
region for cases in which transport to the Medical Examiner's
office is deemed unnecessary." She reported that part of the
process when bodies were shipped to the ME's office was to
establish a legal cause of death, which allowed a death
certificate to be filed, issued, and shared with the family.
She pointed out that, as bodies need a death certificate
regardless of a review by the ME's office in Anchorage, this
would provide DHSS the flexibility to work with entities in
Rural Alaska for issuance of a death certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reported that the navigator in the Bethel
region had assisted families for almost 20 years, without any
funding from the state. He suggested that the regional hubs,
which provided social services, could continue to help families,
and this proposal would put that in statute.
3:36:21 PM
MS. CLEMENT moved on to Section 6, which added a new subsection
(e) to AS 18.50.280. This would put into statute the current
practice by the ME's office for obtaining the Burial Transit
Permit to move the dead body.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON exampled that, when a family agreed to
embalm and to buy casket, there was a significant taxi fee due
when the body was moved from the ME's office to the funeral
home, and then to the airport.
3:38:15 PM
CHAIR HIGGINS asked about the use of "fetus" on page 3, line 21,
and asked if this should be used in addition to "body" in other
places in the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered his belief that it was conforming
language.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, asking about the proposed modifications
on page 2, line 1, questioned whether these provisions would be
eliminated and asked for clarification regarding the cremation
and internment option in AS 12.65.025.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that it was not changing.
CHAIR HIGGINS asked about the embalming requirement on page 2,
line 3, and asked if removal of the aforementioned clause would
affect the bill.
KERRE SHELTON, Director, Alaska Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services, said that there was
not any known policy by any transport companies which required
embalming. She said that the ME routinely shipped bodies
throughout Alaska using a variety of air carriers, and none had
required that a body be embalmed prior to shipping after the
post-mortem examination.
CHAIR HIGGINS asked if a body was lighter after embalming.
MS. SHELTON replied that embalming did not affect the body
weight.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked about the indeterminate costs in the
fiscal note and asked for any guidance for parameters.
MS. SHELTON expressed her agreement that there were some
indeterminate costs in the fiscal note. She clarified that
there was no current policy for transporting entities to require
embalming. However, she pointed out, should the proposed bill
pass, and if one or all of the transporting entities decided to
implement an embalming policy, then the state would be required
to pay for the embalming. She reported that the state did not
have embalming facilities, and the contract cost with a local
funeral home was about $1,000 per body. This would also prolong
the time period for return of the body to the family. She noted
that the ME did not have the capability to maintain temperature,
although freezing the body was an option in some circumstances.
She pointed out that there was no way to predict the costs for
enforcing temperature controls. She said that the rural
communities had made excellent use of the telemedicine equipment
for rural examinations; however, there would also be a
requirement for any medical, legal, forensic investigation to
have certain infrastructure for a proper examination and level
of care, which would include floor drains, exam tables, proper
radiology, storage, specimen collection abilities, body scales,
and body washing equipment. She declared that a manipulatible
HD camera was also necessary to deliver an accurate picture to
the forensic pathologist in Anchorage, and this would be a cost
to the community. She noted that the ME office would also need
to purchase telemedicine equipment to view the incoming
information.
3:48:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that telemedicine equipment was
already proven. He stated that the ideal situation was for
transport of a body to the regional hub where a doctor could
utilize the equipment and communicate with the ME, instead of
asking a state trooper on-site to describe the injuries and the
possible cause of death. He expressed his agreement that the
right equipment was necessary, and that technology could
decrease the cost and the times for dealing with these
situations. He suggested that the ME office buy the necessary
equipment to interface with every major hub in the state.
3:50:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the section on embalming should
be removed as it was not required.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that this was a technical question
for which he would seek the advice of others.
CHAIR HIGGINS, pointing to page 3, line 2, questioned whether it
was necessary for the state to provide temperature controlled
transport.
MS. SHELTON replied that the proposed bill did require
temperature and other controls, pointing out that the ME did not
have any means of control other than freezing the bodies. She
was not able to offer any cost estimate for this.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON relayed that although the testimony stated
that the department did not currently have those controls, once
available, it would be humane to use them.
CHAIR HIGGINS expressed his agreement, and offered his belief
that "the question boils down to what's the cost for us to do
this."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON suggested that people could testify for
the success over the past years.
3:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his belief that three things were
being committed to in the proposed bill for which the state had
no control. He pointed out that the state did not set the
standards for "shall provide for temperature and other controls
available to maintain the body," so that someone else would make
that determination. He declared that this was the same issue
with transportation costs, as the state had no control for the
embalming. He stated that any cost for cosmetology would also
be set by the entity. He asked to hear from the drafter for
help to identify these issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered his belief that it was not
necessary, but he wanted discussion by many people for "the
right thing to do."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked who Representative Herron would
recommend to include in the conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON declared his desire for inclusion of
testimony on the historic reality. He stated that, should a
family choose to embalm, they are now aware that they have to
pay for this. He stated his desire that the proposed
legislation would change the perception that the state was
dictating the family decisions. He expressed his desire to not
focus on the embalming, but to allow this to be a request by the
families.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee was the only committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that, as there was a fiscal
note, it would also be heard by the House Finance Committee.
3:58:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if air carriers were the only means
of transportation used by the Medical Examiner.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that this was the quickest means,
and was most often requested by the family, although the body
could sometimes be delivered by the road system.
3:59:14 PM
CHAIR HIGGINS opened public testimony.
3:59:25 PM
RAEBELLE WHITCOMB, Director, Workforce Development Center,
Bristol Bay Native Corporation, shared that they offered burial
assistance and they worked directly with the state and with
grieving families. Referring to AS 12.65.025(a)(3), she
declared that embalming was required by law. She reported that
they received 30 - 40 annual requests for services by tribal
community members. She acknowledged that costs had increased
dramatically, and that individuals without any resources would
contact DHSS. She stated that funeral homes were able to
leverage the services, noting that the cost of one way transport
from the ME office to the funeral home was $500. If the state
did not pay this cost, then the family or the tribe had to pay.
She stated that their burial assistance services were capped at
$2500, and any overages were not paid back by the federal
government for two years. She said that embalming had cultural
and religious concerns, and that these containers incurred
additional special handling charges by the air carriers. She
reported that a funeral home would charge for any restoration
after traumatic injuries, as well as for dressing, casketing,
and cosmetology. She declared that costs were rapidly
increasing. She reported that, as the ME had stated that the
body would not be washed, the family felt obligated to use these
additional services. She stated that it was always a struggle
between the ME and the DHSS for who would pay for which costs.
She pointed out that many families did not understand the
process. The cost for embalming was expensive, and during a
grieving period, the families were not thinking about the total
costs. She questioned the impact of embalming fluid on the
soil, noting that many cemeteries were in tidal waters, and
reported that embalming was not part of traditional use. She
shared some personal anecdotes regarding airlines and this
requirement for embalming. She declared that airlines believed
that embalming was required by state law. She suggested that
tribal communities should be used as a resource during the death
process. She questioned the relationship between the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the Alaska Statutes, as the two differed
on the requirements for embalming and transportation. She
stated that there must be weight changes after embalming, as
there had always been additional charges, and those charges were
required to be paid prior to any release of the body. She
questioned the need for restoration after a traumatic injury,
and any ensuing charges. She declared that the proposed bill
was important, but required further discussion. She asked that
the larger issues regarding embalming and the protocol be
considered before being removed.
4:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked which state trooper policies were in
contraindication regarding embalming.
MS. WHITCOMB directed attention to AS 12.65, the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if she was referencing AS 12.65.025,
which addressed embalming required by law. In response to Ms.
Whitcomb, he asked for clarification that if this was not
required by the law, then it should be removed from the proposed
bill so that the Alaska State Troopers were not confused.
MS. WHITCOMB replied that there was not any confusion among the
troopers, the family, and the airlines, as this was the practice
when bodies were transported. She reported that some airline
agents had allowed the bodies to be transported when not
embalmed, but there were also incidences when transportation had
been blocked. She said that the larger commercial air freight
transporters would use their freezer capabilities in lieu of
embalming. She offered anecdotes for other means of
transportation for bodies.
4:13:41 PM
JACKIE RUSSELL, Social Worker, Bristol Bay Area Health
Corporation Hospital, stated her support for the proposed bill
declaring that its impact on the families would be positive.
She said that families often called the hospital and the village
tribal council for assistance and financial support. She
offered her belief that embalming was unusual, as most requests
by families were for the traditional ways. She questioned the
additional cost for tele medicine. She suggested that the
hospital staff would cooperate in support. She concluded that,
as she was not in support of adding more costs or moving in
contradiction to family beliefs and culture, she endorsed the
proposed bill.
4:16:56 PM
NICHOLAS HOOVER, Director, Social Services, Association of
Village Council Presidents (AVCP), declared support by AVCP for
proposed HB 310. He reported that AVCP represented 56 federally
recognized Indian tribes in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, within a
region the size of the State of Oregon, none of which were
connected by road. He relayed that the area had the highest
unemployment rate and lowest per capita income in Alaska, and
that AVCP provided social services to more than 38 households
annually. He shared that burial assistance, a monetary
contribution toward burial expenses, was a program that AVCP
provided. He reported that tribal members often complained
about the difficulty of the state process, which included
issuance of a death certificate only after its authorization,
and required transportation of the deceased to Anchorage for
autopsy. As families were not aware of the many services in
Anchorage, they often incurred costs that were not necessary and
were often informed that the deceased would not be released
until payment was made in full. He reported that the costs for
any additional weight from either embalming or a casket were the
responsibility of the family, and he noted that few families had
these extra funds for transportation. He stated that multiple
calls by AVCP to the Medical Examiner to discuss alternatives
and resolution of these issues had not been returned. He
reported that a resolution was passed at the annual AVCP
convention in October, 2010, declaring this current system to be
a problem for Rural Alaska Natives. He relayed that subsequent
calls to the ME office the following year were still not
returned. He declared that AVCP fully supported the proposed
bill, as it would "provide a much needed fix and reduce the
unnecessary stress placed upon our grieving families."
4:22:55 PM
MARCIA DAVIS, General Council, Senior Vice President, Calista
Corporation, informed the committee that she had been very
involved with the drafting of the language for the proposed
bill. She shared that she had worked with the ME office to
discuss the policy issues. She stated that this was "an
opportunity to lower the overall transactional costs of these
deaths." She reported that an accidental death or a suicide
would set a chain of events in-motion, and the body almost
always went to the Anchorage ME office to ensure that no crime
had been committed. The ME office, with its alignment toward a
law enforcement mission, believed that Rural Alaska deserved the
same level of justice as urban Alaska. She reported that any
evidence acquired during autopsies would have evidentiary
status, and was provable in court. She opined that only one of
the last 5000 deaths in Rural Alaska had posed an intricate
staged suicide or some staged accidental death, and declared
that most rural deaths were "plain and simple. They come
generally from either truly difficult lifestyles... or they come
from hopelessness and substance abuse." She explained that the
families were ill-equipped to deal with the original [Medical
Examiner] forms, as "unfortunately, it was culturally tone
deaf." She shared that the tradition in Rural Alaska was for
the body to be washed by someone of the same gender, staged at
the family home, and then friends and family come to share food
and remembrances. The custom was, after three days, for the
body to be buried. When the body was sent to the ME, the family
was given a form which required the determination of who would
pick up the body. The language of the form relayed a different
connotation to Rural Alaskans, creating confusion, without any
disclosure for the costs involved. Most of the time, the
families signed the forms without fully understanding the
implications, and this failure of communication resulted in
"huge sums of money that have been shifted toward a system that
isn't needed." She emphasized that the families did not need
caskets, or embalming, and simply needed the bodies sent back
quickly once the ME had finished. She lauded the proposed bill
as it restored a balance to the communication by ensuring
clarity on the forms. She reported that the language of the
form was still being determined, and once it was finished, the
form would be translated into Yupik and other regional
languages. She said that navigators would also be available for
family guidance. Directing attention to the legal requirement
for embalming, she pointed out that the proposed bill also
allowed for policy by the transporting entity. She shared that,
as there was a burden to convince the transportation companies
that embalming was no longer required by law, hence the
language. She expressed her confidence that the ME office could
better convince an air carrier that the embalming was no longer
required than could a family in Rural Alaska, as the proposed
bill offered the ME office statutory cover. She stressed that
the family should not have to pay the additional cost for
embalming, and that the State of Alaska was in the best position
to ensure that there were not any additional costs.
4:31:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, directing attention to page 2, line 3,
suggested removal of "by law or", which would indicate that
embalming was only required by a policy of the transporting
company.
MS. DAVIS replied that retaining the "by law" would allow
coverage should any circumstance arise whereby bodies were
dangerous unless embalmed. She declared that, should embalming
remain required as a matter of law, the extra cost should be
paid by the ME, not the family. She emphasized that any costs
incurred while the ME had custody of the body, doing the
business of the state, should be paid by the state. The family
should only incur the costs which would have otherwise been
incurred.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his desire for clarification to
the transporting agencies and the state troopers.
MS. DAVIS pointed out that he was addressing the "inherent
ambiguity of the current existing language, and that could be
corrected by saying embalming if required by law."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER confirmed that there was a problem for
expanded risk for cost if an air carrier was making the
determination.
MS. DAVIS suggested that the language could be deleted. She
explained that it was necessary for the ME office and the state
to fully understand that the body in custody was their
responsibility until it was returned to its home. If there was
a situation where an air carrier had changed a policy or created
a problem, this would still be included with the state's burden
for return transportation. She wanted cost and duty to be co-
extensive, with an acknowledgement that no family would be left
"figuring out how to get a body back." She mentioned that the
current law stated that cosmetology was only required to make
the head, face, neck, and hands presentable if those parts had
been disfigured by the post mortem examination. She opined that
the concern expressed in the fiscal note reflected a need for
definition to the level of contract work performed in the rural
areas. She offered her belief that the proposed bill gave the
ME office latitude to step into the use of technology, as "the
State Medical Examiner shall designate a location if a facility
with adequate technology and personnel is available." This
would allow a judgment call by the ME office to determine
adequacy on a case by case basis, dependent on the
circumstances. In the state regions, the technology of each
agency would be able to evolve. She did not immediately foresee
"full-on autopsies out in the region."
4:37:37 PM
MS. DAVIS reported that the ME office did a great job of
controlling the temperature for bodies.
MS. DAVIS, in response to Representative Keller, explained that
the current cosmetology law was listed on page 2, lines 5-7.
She directed further attention to page 2, lines 9-12, regarding
the location for post mortem examinations and the adequate
facility.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification that the
department shall provide for the current temperature control
practices, which could include dry ice, during transport.
MS. DAVIS replied that, as the ME office was humane and kind,
and made efforts to do the right thing, the proposed bill
offered "cover" for the ME office to continue these efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if the problem could be mitigated with
an additional ME office in either Fairbanks, or closer to many
rural communities.
MS. DAVIS offered her belief that the ME office had a satellite
office in Fairbanks, which shouldered some of the work load.
She projected an evolution of the relationship between the ME
office and the local health care providers resulting in regional
offices.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for clarification that there was only
one ME.
MS. DAVIS expressed her agreement and said that this standard
was the same in many similarly populated states.
4:42:04 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:42:43 PM
CHAIR HIGGINS stated that HB 301 would be held over and public
testimony would be left open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB301 Sponsor Statement 28-LS1196.C.pdf |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
HB 301 |
| HB301 Sectional Summary 28-LS1196.C.pdf |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
HB 301 |
| HB301 Ver A 28-LS1196.C.pdf |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
HB 301 |
| Early Life Toxic Stress 1-14.pptx |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB301-Fiscal Note DHSS-SMEO-02-19-14.pdf |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
HB 301 |
| MHFA Presentation.pptx |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 301 Authorization for Release of Remains.PDF |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
HB 301 |
| HB 301 Hoover Tesimony 2 20 2014.PDF |
HHSS 2/20/2014 3:00:00 PM |
HB 301 |