Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/08/2019 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB1 | |
| SB58 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 58-REPEALING SENIOR BENEFITS PAYMENT PROGRAM
1:37:20 PM
CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting and announced that the final
order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 58, "An Act repealing
the senior benefits payment program; and providing for an
effective date."
1:37:58 PM
SHAWNDA O'Brien, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Juneau,
reviewed the two DHSS fiscal notes attached to the bill, which
would repeal the senior benefits payment program effective June
20, 2019. The fiscal note from the DHSS, Public Assistance
appropriation, Public Assistance Field Services component would
delete funding for three fulltime eligibility staff who perform
eligibility determinations and case reviews for the program
recipients. The fiscal note from the DHSS, Senior Benefits
Payment Program appropriation, and Senior Benefits Payment
Program Allocation, would delete the program's original
authorization of $19,986.1 [in thousands] for FY 2020, and
$24,044.0 for out years with repeal of the program. She said the
department would have some minimal costs for printing warrants
and sending out notifications.
CHAIR WILSON asked for the reasoning behind the bill.
MS. O'BRIEN replied that the governor's budget proposed to
reduce or eliminate the senior benefits payment program [often
referred to as the senior benefits program]. The governor's
amended budget has a decrement to the funding sources for the
senior benefits. In order to implement that reduction, the bill
is needed to eliminate the senior benefits program from statute.
1:39:42 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for a better explanation of who the bill
would impact and the effect it would have on those individuals.
MS. O'BRIEN directed attention to three handouts in members'
packets. The information and fact sheet [titled "senior benefits
program, Updated January 2019"] includes demographic information
about senior recipients being served in each payment category.
The overview explains the program administration, where
recipients reside statewide as of December 2018, the program
criteria eligibility, and historical information since the
program's inception in 1972.
SENATOR STEVENS said that the public needs a fuller explanation
of the impact of eliminating the senior benefits program.
MS. O'BRIEN explained the benefit tier amounts were $76, $[175],
and $250 a month. The program serves just under 12,000
recipients per month. The funding has been insufficient to fully
fund all three tiers of the program, so this year the lowest
payment tier of $76 a month was funded. The division reviews
eligibility each year and as the criteria for eligibility
changes, different income levels will be adjusted. Some
recipients will move into other payment categories, which bumps
up some costs annually. The division has not seen a significant
growth in the number of people eligible for the program. It has
stayed consistent over the years, but the program has increased
costs for the higher payment categories. She referred to a
handout [Table 7. [Senior Benefits] Average Monthly Caseload by
Census Area] shows how many recipients are in each payment
category. Another handout [Alaska Department of Health and
Social Services, Division of Public Assistance, senior benefits
program as of December 2018] provides demographics for the
number of recipients in each benefit year by age and gender.
MS. O'BRIEN said the majority of the recipients are female. The
program serves people 65 and older and the oldest recipient is
over the age of 85. Eligibility for the program is based on the
income level and assets, but not on savings. The income levels
are updated annually based on federal poverty levels. Payments
are not available to seniors living in institutions such as
prison or jail, the Alaskan Pioneer Home, Veterans Home, a
nursing home, or a private institution for mental disease.
1:44:28 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said this program was created as a compromise
when the longevity bonus program was eliminated. The decision
was to make it a needs-based program. The longevity bonus was
based on the length of time recipients lived in Alaska. Part of
the argument was the adult public assistance used different
criteria than the Senor Benefits Payment Program. He asked how
many seniors receive both benefits and what impact eliminating
the program would have on them.
MS. O'BRIEN replied that some populations are being served by
multiple programs. Most commonly, recipients of senior benefits
are also eligible for adult public assistance and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as
food stamps. Some recipients receive energy assistance benefits
or federal supplemental social security income. As of December
2018, 3,000 recipients solely receive the senior benefits.
SENATOR COGHILL asked whether that meant around 10,000 receive
other benefits.
MS. O'BRIEN answered that it would be around 8,000 to 9,000.
1:47:10 PM
SENATOR BEGICH said he was troubled. The service array available
for seniors may alleviate concerns about eliminating this
program. He recalled that she mentioned that the number of
seniors in the higher tiers of those most in need has increased.
He related his understanding the projects showed more people
would slip into the higher-needs program, but this bill would
eliminate the program.
He said this is a philosophical issue for him. He recalled
Senator von Imhoff in the Finance Committee said it best, that
it was not a question of money being available, but it is a
question of priorities. He asked if the department's priority is
that this program be cut.
MS. O'BRIEN replied that the department reviewed areas that
received general funds not tied to federal dollars, since the
department has more flexibility to implement reductions. Since
this program is a state-funded program, it is examined more
closely, even though the impact is significant, she said.
SENATOR BEGICH said that she should understand his reluctance to
support this kind of bill. This is the wrong way to address the
state's fiscal responsibility in the Constitution of the State
of Alaska and in statute. The longevity bonus program existed
for many years prior to its repeal and replacement in 2003 by
the very compromise that Senator Coghill described. For the last
two years, the committee has listened to much testimony in
support of the senior benefits program and the positive impact
it has on their lives. The legislature has rejected requests to
increase the program. He said he will not support this bill or
any effort by the administration to solve the perceived fiscal
crisis by cutting senior benefits. He said he is adamantly
opposed to this bill.
SENATOR COGHILL said that Senator Begich brings up a good point.
He expressed concern about reducing the program since all of
these seniors are on some kind of fixed income. He asked whether
this reduction would change senior's eligibility in other
arenas. He asked whether any refinancing could happen for those
who need it or if this is the last stop.
MS. O'BRIEN answered that by eliminating this program, some
recipients may be eligible for increased benefits for food
stamps or adult public assistance. If the program is eliminated
July 1, 2019, the division will review recipient eligibility at
that time.
1:51:42 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he would consider eliminating the senior
benefits program if the program recipients could be covered by
other programs. One concern he has is that public assistance and
this program each write checks to the same recipients. Although
the committee does not wish to harm people during the escalating
health care cost environment by reducing their cash, it might be
possible for the state to assist them with less government,
especially if the department is conducting separate eligibility
determinations. If so, this might be acceptable. He expressed an
interest in hearing public testimony.
CHAIR WILSON asked whether the administration has considered
Senator Coghill's idea of combining senior payments within the
adult public assistance program for cost savings.
MS. O'BRIEN asked whether he was suggesting the department
combine programs to serve the same population rather than to
have distinct programs, or if he was speaking to the eligibility
determination itself.
CHAIR WILSON replied that as a subset of a program within adult
public assistance, a senior could quality for an additional
benefit.
MS. O'BRIEN responded that the purpose of the adult public
assistance program is to satisfy federal requirements for
serving the aged, blind, and disabled. It has a different
demographic need than the department's senior benefits program.
Some of the same population is being served through both
programs by the nature of some of the criteria. The aged, blind,
and disabled program is administered through the Social Security
Administration and is also used to satisfy the maintenance of
effort requirement to receive Medicaid funding. The senior
benefits program has a distinctly different purpose. For it to
become a subset of the adult public assistance program would
require partnering with the Social Security Administration to
determine if the state could expand on the rules and regulations
around that program to include another tier of recipients. She
said she is not familiar enough with that process to answer that
question.
CHAIR WILSON responded that it was plausible.
MS. O'BRIEN said it is always worth asking.
1:55:32 PM
SENATOR STEVENS recalled the turmoil the legislature had when
the longevity bonus program was eliminated. Everyone over 65
received the longevity bonus, regardless of income and the
seniors were very angry. At the time it was hard to go to a
needs-based program, but it probably made sense. He asked if a
study is being done so the legislature will know the real
implications of deleting the program.
MS. O'BRIEN replied that the department knows overlap between
programs exists. The department is currently preparing to notify
all recipients that the program will no longer be funded. The
3,000 recipients who only receive senior benefit would need to
apply for other programs to determine their eligibility for
other programs.
SENATOR STEVENS related his understanding that she was saying
that the department cannot predict the overall effect of the
program until it is eliminated.
MS. O'BRIEN answered the department will automatically review
recipients' eligibility for benefits under the other two
programs and make adjustments to their benefits. For example,
once the program is phased out, the Senior Benefit Program
recipients who also receive benefits under the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would be eligible for
increased SNAP benefits due to lost income. The amount would
vary on a case-by-case basis.
1:58:33 PM
SENATOR BEGICH asked whether the division could examine the
impacts of all the cuts affecting the senior population instead
of limiting the review to a specific program. He expressed
concern that the vulnerable senior population will be impacted
by multiple budget cuts. He suggested that the administration
should understand the overall impact of the budget cuts prior to
making any decisions about eliminating the senior benefits
program.
MS. O'BRIEN explained that eligibility determination process is
complex, and each individual will have a different outcome. The
division has examples to show the impact of each budget cut for
those receiving all the benefits and for others who participate
in only one or two programs.
SENATOR BEGICH asked if the division would look at the impact of
proposed Medicaid cuts on the senior population.
MS. O'BRIEN answered that the division would include the
proposed Medicaid reductions.
CHAIR WILSON asked if there is a hold harmless clause for senior
benefits.
MS. O'BRIEN answered no. She asked whether he was speaking about
the permanent fund dividend hold harmless provisions.
CHAIR WILSON asked whether the senior benefits program had
something similar.
MS. O'BRIEN answered no.
2:00:42 PM
CHAIR WILSON opened public testimony on SB 58.
2:01:34 PM
LORILYN SWANSON, representing self, Juneau, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. She said that for the last 25 years she has managed
Fireweed Place, an apartment building for seniors. She has
served on the Alaska Medical Care Advisory Committee and the
Juneau Commission on Aging. She urged the committee to not pass
SB 58, which would repeal the program and to fully fund the
program in the operating budget.
She recapped the program. The initial senior benefits program
was established in response to Governor Murkowski's cut to the
Longevity Bonus Program in 2003. The Longevity Bonus Program
supported all Alaskans 65 and older with a payment of $250 a
month. The legislature created the senior benefits program to
assist those 65 and older under who fall under the federal
poverty law for income and who are among the most vulnerable
seniors in the state. Currently, 11,597 Alaska seniors are
recipients of the program. The program evolved over time to a
three tier needs-based program for seniors. These senior
citizens depend on this program for basic essentials and
deleting the program could adversely affect their financial
security. Tier I seniors who receive $175 per month would have
their income cut by 26 percent if the program is eliminated.
2:04:09 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self, Kodiak, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. She said she is going to be one of the seniors
affected by the bill. She currently lives on $279 a month and
lives in federal low-income housing. She expressed concern that
this will affect the most vulnerable people in Alaska.
2:05:49 PM
BOB HARRISON, representing self, Nikiski, spoke in opposition to
SB 58. He said he is a Nikiski senior on a fixed income
receiving the benefits of this program and many people need it
more than him. Seniors are the most vulnerable Alaskans to a
reduction of income. Seniors are a valuable community resource
since he and his wife volunteer their time and services. He
urged members to find other ways to cut the budget and to vote
no on SB 58.
2:07:38 PM
CHARLES MCKEE, representing self, Anchorage, offered to provide
a 34-page document detailing a court case and fraud, not related
to SB 58.
2:10:27 PM
JAVEN OSE, representing self, Anchorage, spoke in opposition to
SB 58. He expressed frustration that the legislature wants to
reduce his income and benefits after reducing the permanent
fund. He arrived in 1956 during the territorial days, worked his
whole life, and receives about $12,000 annually in federal
social security benefits.
2:13:28 PM
D.J. BLATCHFORD, representing self, Soldotna, spoke in
opposition to SB 58. She said she has worked her whole life, up
to four jobs at one time, while raising nine children. She said
that elders set the trail and would appreciate the senior
benefits that legislators are trying to deny them.
2:15:12 PM
DELICE CALCOTE, representing self, Sutton, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. She said she worked for the tribes of Alaska and many
elders need this program. She expressed concern that this bill
will increase poverty in Alaska.
2:17:07 PM
KEN HELANDER, Alaska Director of Advocacy, AARP, Anchorage,
spoke in opposition to SB 58. He recalled attending an informal
legislative listening session two years ago by Representatives
Spohnholz and Kawasaki during the reauthorization of the senior
benefits program. For three hours, more than 50 people described
how the program helped the recipients to live independently, to
maintain their own health, and to make a difference in their
communities. For example, one woman said that the $76 monthly
senior benefit payment made it possible to keep her car running,
enabling her to provide friends and neighbors transportation to
doctor appointments or to grocery stores. Others told similar
stories of working to help others. These payments help seniors
avoid feeling poor in spirit, he said. The small monthly
payments are the state's investment in elderly Alaskans. It is
not handout, but a program with great returns.
2:19:45 PM
JIM HORNADAY, representing self, Homer, spoke in opposition to
SB 58. He said these recipients are the neediest people. He
expressed concern that if the legislature eliminates the program
a number of people will miss meals. He also asked the
legislature not to close schools and college campuses but to
consider revenues and not just budget cuts.
2:20:32 PM
ART GRISWOLD, representing self, Delta Junction, spoke in
opposition to SB 58. He said he will be 85 years old in ten
days. He and his wife are active in the senior housing program,
bringing food boxes to seniors, which gives them an awareness of
seniors' needs. He said that seniors depend on their monthly
benefit checks to survive and that many seniors could not afford
to stay in senior housing without the program. These seniors
need the money to fulfill their needs, he said.
2:21:45 PM
GINGER FORTIN, representing self, Ketchikan, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. She said that she belongs to a group of people who
have suffered traumatic brain injuries, most of whom are unable
to work and depend on the senior benefits program to survive.
She expressed concern that the governor was cutting benefits
from the neediest Alaskans.
2:22:36 PM
ROSEMARY RUOFF, representing self, Wrangell, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. She expressed concern that legislators cannot
understand the circumstances or feelings of many seniors because
legislators have good salaries. In her experience once someone
gets gray hair and wrinkles it is difficult to find employers
who will hire them. She described the difficulty for seniors to
stretch their dollars because of inflation and costly
prescriptions. She said that the senior benefits program is not
only appreciated, but it is vitally important, so she did not
understand the reason to cut it.
2:24:49 PM
ALBERT NINNGEULOOK, representing self, Shishmaref, spoke in
opposition to SB 58. He said many seniors in Alaska pioneered
and helped Alaska grow. The governor should appreciate the
sacrifices and dedication of his own grandfather and father-in-
law. The state honors its elders and seniors by helping them
financially. Seniors depend on the program to survive in their
golden years, especially given the high cost of goods in rural
Alaska. For example, in Shishmaref a loaf of bread costs $4 and
heating fuel is $5 per gallon. He said he hoped the legislature
and governor would come to understand that the program is
needed. He referred to earlier testimony that seniors could
apply for other programs, but how could recipients use food
stamps to pay for medicine, because many seniors currently use
their senior benefits to buy medicine.
2:27:29 PM
DAVID BLACKETER, Member Alaska Commission on Aging, Kodiak,
spoke in opposition to SB 58. He described how he and his wife
use their $76 monthly senior benefits checks for emergencies,
such as car repairs, and to pay their rent timely and avoid
penalties since his social security benefits arrive after the
rent is due. He said the chair on the Commission on Aging asked
them to testify against SB 58. Last year the legislature
wholeheartedly passed House Bill 236, which extended the senior
benefits program by six years, so he found it strange that the
state now would like to eliminate the program.
2:29:49 PM
JONATHAN STRONG, Island Cove Director, Senior Citizens of
Kodiak, Inc., Kodiak, spoke in opposition to SB 58. He said he
is the program director for an adult day care center and day
rehabilitation program. He described a person referred to the
program as someone who had been panhandling and shoplifting to
meet basic living needs. He helped that person apply for senior
benefits and the senior benefits gave this person a better
quality of life.
2:31:19 PM
JON ZASADA, Policy Integration Director, Alaska Primary Care
Association, Anchorage, spoke in opposition to SB 58. He said
the health centers his organization represents oppose
elimination of the senior benefits program. He expressed concern
how HB 58 would affect the social determinants and patient
health. Social determinants of health are the conditions in
which people are born live, grow, and age and include financial
resources, food security, and access to affordable housing.
While modest in size, the senior benefits program provides basic
income for seniors. He expressed concern that cutting the
program would have adverse impacts for seniors who use their
monthly benefit checks to cover medicine and other health
related costs to treat chronic conditions. Without the monthly
senior benefit checks, these seniors would be forced to use
emergency rooms and higher acuity emergency centers to treat
their illnesses. In turn, it would raise health care costs and
reduce positive health outcomes in Alaska.
2:33:19 PM
JAYNE ANDREEN, Volunteer Advocate, AARP, Juneau, spoke in
opposition to SB 58. She said that the senior benefits program
allows low-income seniors to live independently in their own
homes and avoid moving into higher-cost categories. She
suggested that the legislature should keep the senior benefits
program as a cost-effective measure. She recalled hearing
numerous testifiers speak in support of the program in the
sunset bill last year. She found it painful to reiterate the
importance of the program since it provides positive impacts the
most vulnerable population in Alaska.
2:35:03 PM
DENISE DANIELLO, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Aging,
Juneau, spoke in opposition to SB 58. She said that the Alaska
Commission on Aging reflects the view of its members, not of the
administration. The commission has advocated for the senior
benefits program since its inception in 2007. In 2018, the
senior survey indicated that financial and economic security was
the second most important issue for seniors in Alaska, with
access to health care their first priority. She offered her
belief that the program is good public policy because it puts
money directly in the hands of seniors who use the money to
improve their health and welfare. She reported that about one in
eight seniors in Alaska participate in the program.
2:37:50 PM
LAURA BONNER, representing self, Anchorage, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. She said she is retired and fortunate not to need the
program. She expressed concern that repealing the senior
benefits program would cause Alaska's vulnerable seniors to fall
further into poverty, many of whom are women who worked in low-
paying jobs or left employment to care for others. She
questioned whether committee members could live on $1,000 a
month, especially with chronic medical conditions. She
highlighted the choices senior must make each month, including
whether to pay for medicine, rent, heat, transportation, or
food.
She said it is unconscionable to eliminate this program and not
eliminate oil tax credits for the wealthiest corporations in the
world. Little or no analysis was done to determine how SB 58
will impact those who need the benefit, she said. When HB 60,
the companion bill, was presented in the House, the presenters
said it was easier to cut this program than other programs. In
closing, she said that SB 58 hurts those who need the benefits
and it is not good for Alaskans.
2:39:57 PM
WILLIAM HARRINGTON, representing self, Anchorage, spoke in
opposition to SB 58. He said he is 70 years old and lived in
Alaska before the pipeline was built. He found it reprehensible
that a government so rich could be so foolish in its spending
and then remove the program that allows Alaska's most vulnerable
seniors to live healthy and independently. He does not qualify
for this benefit [since it is based on income], but it is
morally reprehensive to abandon the state's elderly population.
2:40:58 PM
MARIANNE BURKE, representing self, Anchorage, spoke in
opposition to SB 58. She said her family cared for her father
who received minimal social security benefits and has severe
dementia. The $250 a month helped them provide him with food,
medication, and clothes. Now that he is in assisted care living,
the benefits provide for his care. Medicaid denied his benefits
for a year because the program had deemed to have too many
assets, even though the assets had little value. She said the
senior benefits program helped cut through the issues.
2:43:07 PM
GARY MCDONALD, representing self, Anchorage, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. He said he will turn 65 years old next year. He asked
the committee not to pick on senior citizens. He suggested the
legislature should investigate fraud in the food stamp program
and leave senior citizens alone. He said he found it appalling
that seniors had to call in to support the program.
2:44:21 PM
HERMAN MORGAN, representing self, Aniak, spoke in opposition to
SB 58. He said he is 65 years old, and that eliminating the
senior benefits would hit people hard. He expressed concern
about the budget, and that money should not be spent on programs
that don't work, but the senior benefits program works. He
suggested the legislature should cut the education budget
because Alaska's students rank the lowest in the nation and the
University of Alaska Anchorage lost its accreditation. He
emphasized the high cost of living in rural Alaska. For example,
in Aniak a jar of mayonnaise costs $17.99. He said that cutting
the permanent fund and senior benefits is irresponsible and can
force thousands of people to live below the poverty people. He
urged members to listen to people who are not state employees
and need the money.
2:47:17 PM
ELIZABETH MOE, representing self, Houston, spoke in opposition
to SB 58. She expressed concern that the legislature is not
making the right decisions. Senior citizens are knowledgeable,
and the state should utilize their knowledge. She said the
legislature should take the oil tax credits to pay for social
services and senior programs, but not take money away from the
people who built the state.
2:50:05 PM
LARRY SLONE, representing self, Homer, spoke in opposition to SB
58. He suggested the legislature should retain the program but
make serious modifications. He argued that the program is
crucial for a decent quality of life for some seniors who are on
the edge of poverty. He did not think all the recipients need
the senior benefit. He and others like him who own their homes,
have savings in the bank, and health care provided by the
Veterans' Administration do not need the program. Although the
senior benefit is not a crucial need for him, he is still
afforded the opportunity to access it. He surmised that about
half the users needed the program and the other half were
basically taking money out of the state coffers that could be
used for more important purposes.
2:51:33 PM
CHAIR WILSON noted that people can submit written testimony to
[email protected]. He closed public testimony on SB 58.
2:52:19 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL thanked all the seniors who called in. She said
it might be helpful for the testifiers to know that 4 of 20
senators in the Alaska State Senate are seniors, and three serve
on this committee. Two senators have parents in the Pioneer
Homes. Six senators are territorial kids who were born in Alaska
before it was a state. She assured those who called in that
there is longevity in the Alaska Senate. If her mother were
still lucid, she would be calling in today to see this program
continue, she said.
She said she would like the department to explain the
ramifications of repealing the senior benefits program. She
expressed disappointment that the administration would offer a
policy bill without thoroughly investigating the implication of
eliminating this program and its effect on other programs. She
expressed interest in the data, including how many people would
lose other benefits if this program was repealed. She offered
her belief that if SB 58 does not pass, the program would
continue because the administration would need statutory
authority to repeal the program.
SENATOR BEGICH echoed the comments of the Senate president. He
remarked that he was born in the state, but his sister was born
in the territory. As he listened to testimony today, he
understood that a cut could have an impact on independent living
and the state could be faced with greater costs if seniors could
no longer live independently. The state has spent decades moving
its most vulnerable populations toward independent living, not
only because of the dignity involved, but because it is less
expensive for people to live in their own homes than to become a
ward of the state. The legislature should be informed about the
impact before being asked to make this policy decision. He asked
whether the committee could get that information. He said the
testifiers should know that this was not a proposal that came
from the Alaska State Senate. A number of those who testified
who said, "You people are doing this." This is a proposal from
the governor that members are considering in committee, he said.
He said he hoped that the committee would deliberate the bill
and make the right decision. He asked Director O'Brien if the
division could provide information on the effects of SB 58,
including the impact of taking people off independent living and
consequently placing them on greater public assistance because
these seniors cannot live independently. He acknowledged that
the division could not provide the committee with the social
costs, but the division should be able to quantify the monetary
cost.
MS. O'BRIEN answered that the division would need to review some
detailed case information to determine what might happen to
people who may not be eligible for other programs. She offered
to put together some scenarios that will provide a more detailed
review of the impacts.
2:57:42 PM
CHAIR WILSON commented that when he was 18-years-old, he bought
a plane ticket to come to Alaska because he knew where he wanted
to spend his life. He said he hoped this will be his home now
and forever.
[CHAIR WILSON held SB 58 in committee.]