Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/27/2025 03:30 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 | |
| SB95 | |
| SB121 | |
| SCR2 | |
| SB122 | |
| SJR15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 122-HEALTH INSURANCE NETWORK STANDARDS
4:16:04 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 122 "An Act relating to
insurance; establishing standards for health insurance provider
networks; and providing for an effective date."
4:16:27 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR opened public testimony on SB 122.
4:16:55 PM
GARY STRANNIGAN, Vice President, Congressional and Legislative
Affairs, Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Everett,
Washington, testified in opposition to SB 122 and paraphrased
the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
At Premera, we feel that efforts to promote the
affordability of our products are key to continuing to
be able to provide care for our customers. This is
because affordability has become the highest bar a
person must clear, in order to gain access to health
insurance and health care services.
SB 122 would put in place the most restrictive network
adequacy system of any state in the United States. If
(a big if) a carrier could actually comply with the
measure's provisions, it would certainly be at a very
high cost.
Invited testimony from Mr. Jeff Davis indicated that
this bill is intended to address a problem that does
not yet exist: narrow networks in Alaska. Premera has
the broadest network of any carrier in the state and
we don't foresee a narrow network in our future.
Further, from what we can tell, our competitors don't
employ narrow networks either. This bill is not
needed.
4:17:59 PM
MR. STRANNIGAN continued with his testimony for SB 122:
Mr. Davis also suggested to the committee that there
are no network adequacy requirements in place in
Alaska. While it is true that Alaska is one of 18
mostly rural states that does not have a state-
specific set of requirements for network adequacy, the
federal government does have network adequacy
requirements for Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) under
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) including those that
serve Alaskans. Premera complies with these
requirements for our individual health plans, and by
extension, the rest of our lines of business do so as
well. This is because we essentially have one
(compliant) network for all our products
To touch on a few of the bill's problematic
provisions:
-In the case of both the 100 percent threshold for
facilities, and the 95 percent threshold for specialty
providers, virtually every provider will have the
opportunity to hold a health plan hostage. The
provider will be able demand whatever rate they want.
If the health plan would like to do business in
Alaska, the health plan must agree. This provision
will have an upward spiraling effect on costs, if not
completely crash the health insurance marketplace
all it would take to disqualify a carrier is for one
provider to refuse to contract and that carrier does
not comply. This is to say nothing of the small subset
of providers to do not, under any circumstances
contract with insurance companies. Would they also
carry a veto over health carriers? Under the bill,
carriers would need to contract with 95 percent of
specialty and subspecialty providers in an area. In
many instances, the number of specialty and
subspecialty providers in an area can be counted on
one hand. Mathematically, a carrier would need to
contract with five out of five providers and if just
one declines, that carrier does not meet the 95
percent threshold and is disqualified from doing
business in Alaska.
-There is no exception in the bill for poor quality
providers/facilities or those providers who have
previously been excluded from a carrier network due to
fraud concerns. By requiring carriers to contract with
them, it will subject members to potentially low-
quality care and/or fraudulent behavior. In
conclusion, we urge the legislature to set SB 122
aside and instead focus on the countless other, in
many cases, serious, pressing problems currently
confronting the Alaska legislature. There is no sense
investing effort in a problem that is purely
theoretical; especially when the proposed solution is
so costly.
4:19:29 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that the proposal may impose one of the
strictest network adequacy standards in the nation and asked
what the federal requirements are for the Affordable Care Act.
4:19:51 PM
MR. STRANNIGAN said he is hearing two questions. One question is
about the network adequacy requirements under the Affordable
Care Act and the second question is about the state
requirements.
4:20:14 PM
SENATOR HUGHES replied that she primarily wants to know the
federal requirements and how Alaska compares to other states if
SB 122 is passed.
4:20:34 PM
MR. STRANNIGAN said the proposal would set uniquely strict
network adequacy standards, including a 100 percent requirement
for facilities and a 95 percent requirement for specialties,
effectively forcing insurers to contract with nearly all
providers. He noted that no other state has comparable
requirements and offered to provide information on Affordable
Care Act standards if requested.
4:21:56 PM
SENATOR HUGHES requested the additional information.
4:22:00 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN said the bill is often described as a narrow
network bill. He asked whether there are states with narrow
network laws that are acceptable from an insurance perspective,
or as a representative of Premera are all narrow network bills
unacceptable.
4:22:28 PM
MR. STRANNIGAN replied that Premera operates in Washington and
Alaska, with Washington's insurance department proud of its
robust network adequacy laws. He suggested there is currently no
need for narrow network laws in Alaska if there are no narrow
networks. He offered to research narrow network laws to provide
a clearer overview of available options.
4:23:33 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if he could provide an overview in a couple
of days.
MR. STRANNIGAN replied that he could deliver some data in a few
days.
4:24:10 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR closed public testimony on SB 122.
4:24:23 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR held SB 122 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 121 Support Emails Batch 2 3.25.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Support Batch 3 3.25.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB121 Opposition AK Chamber 3.20.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Opposition Olson 3.18.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Opposition NABIP AK 3.19.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Opposition Lamp 3.20.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Opposition Izer 3.20.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Comparison Then and Now.jmc.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| SB122 Health Insurance Networks Opposition Letter SHSS 3.25.25.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| Alaska SB 122 Comment Letter Premera.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| N.1.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |
| N.2.pdf |
SHSS 3/27/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 121 |