Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/17/2025 10:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB104 | |
| SB54 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB132 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 132(FIN)
"An Act relating to insurance; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor to introduce the bill.
There would be a committee substitute (CS) forthcoming.
6:41:38 PM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE, SPONSOR, shared that the bill was a companion
omnibus insurance bill that had been heard multiple times
in the House Labor and Commerce Committee and elevated to
the House Finance Committee. He explained that SB 132
contained a number of provisions that were technical and
conforming changes throughout Title 21 including the
correction of drafting errors and updating insurance
technology to the National Association of Insurance
Controller Standards to ensure Alaska was "singing by the
same set of sheet music that other states are" when it came
to the world of insurance. He explained that the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED),
Division of Insurance director would take the committee
through the bill.
6:42:53 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
began with Section 1 of the bill. She explained that DCCED
asked to have the statute of limitations changed from five
years to 20 years because the Division of Insurance
received complaints and concerns from consumers who
discovered they had been taken on a life insurance or
annuity product after the statute of limitations passed.
She elaborated that it was typically an elder when they
went to cash it in or use it. Under the scenario, there was
nothing the department could do because the statute had
passed.
Ms. Wing-Heier moved to Sections 2 and 3. She stated that
she would talk about health maintenance organizations
(HMOs) throughout the bill. She explained that HMOs had
always been in the statute, but statute had been limited in
allowing the use of HMOs in Alaska. She elaborated that
because there was so much talk amongst employers, school
boards, municipalities, and individuals about the cost of
healthcare and healthcare insurance. She detailed that the
bill would put the teeth back in statute so an employer or
individual could choose to buy an HMO product to save a bit
of money. She expounded that it was a managed care product
that would cost a bit less than the common products
currently on the market in Alaska. She underscored it was
not a mandate. She relayed that the bill included a
provision that if there was a need for an out of network
provider in an emergency or that was not available to a
consumer, the HMO would be required to pay the bill as if
it were an in-network provider.
6:45:03 PM
Representative Hannan asked for clarification on which bill
version the committee was considering. She thought they
were looking at the Senate version of the bill.
Ms. Wing-Heir answered that bill version T [the version
passed by the Senate] was before the committee.
Ms. Wing-Heir moved to Sections 4 through 11 of the bill
pertaining to financial reporting, reinsurance credits,
taxes allowed on wet marine and transportation insurance,
and the use of principle-based reserving for valuation of
reserves. She explained that the sections would bring
Alaska into alignment with the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) model law 820. She would
elaborate on wet marine and transportation insurance later
in the bill. Sections 12 through 26 amended licensing
statutes. She explained that the applicable statutes had
been reviewed to determine primarily what was being
adjusted out of state. She explained it could include out
of state adjusters coming to Alaska to work (a non-resident
adjuster) or for example when a person had a claim on their
cell phone, and they had purchased the insurance package.
She provided a scenario where the person called the 800
number, which was answered by a non-resident adjuster in
Arkansas. She elaborated that the division had found there
was an issue with those not being licensed because all
states did not license adjusters. The bill would allow
those adjusters to use Alaska as their home state. She
detailed that the individuals would have to be
fingerprinted and go through background checks just like a
resident. They could receive a license from Alaska, but
they would still be a non-resident adjuster. The bill would
make the change throughout the title and would make things
easier for the consumer and licensing staff to implement
and regulate.
Ms. Wing-Heier turned to Sections 27 to 33 that amended
taxes on surplus lines. The change allowed a broker to pay
taxes on behalf of a non-admitted marine and transportation
insurer. The bill also adjusted penalties, less for late
filing and more punitive for egregious conduct on behalf of
the surplus lines broker. Sections 34 through 45 amended
the unfair trade practices and consumer notices
requirements by requiring notices of cancelation. The
notice of cancelation would give an individual 20 to 45
days to replace their policy if necessary. Additionally,
the bill would prevent the cancelation of a homeowner's
policy in the event a consumer filed a claim simply to get
a denial knowing there was no coverage, but knowing a
denial was needed in order to qualify for state, local, or
federal aid, primarily from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). She explained that the situation
had occurred recently in Juneau when the glacial dam burst,
and several consumers had called the division.
Ms. Wing-Heier continued that the bill also amended the
contractor controlled insurance programs (CCIP). She
explained that when there were large projects such as the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and the Anchorage
airport, the projects were OCIPs [owner controlled
insurance programs] or CCIPs where the owner or prime
contractor buys insurance for everyone on the site. The
insurance had to be a value of $50 million with a defined
location and site. The option saved the contractor and the
subcontractors money because it eliminated any possibility
of subrogation because it did not matter what insurance
policy a claim was filed under, everyone was insured. She
noted the method was very common in large projects. She
referenced the existing housing shortage in Alaska and
explained that in the hard insurance market insurers were
having a difficult time getting the insurance necessary for
projects; therefore, the bill extended the number down to
$20 million and 40 units for multi-owner residential with
defined site and location. The bill also added a provision
requiring health discount plans to disclose that they were
not insurance. She detailed that the plans advertised the
availability of a plan for one week for $50. She
underscored that they were not insurance plans. She
recognized the option may be good and provide a benefit,
but consumers should understand the option was not an
insurance plan.
6:50:13 PM
Ms. Wing-Heir moved to Section 46 of the bill pertaining to
workers' compensation. She began with assigned-risk
workers' compensation and explained that small employers or
employers with a bad claim history put in the assigned risk
there were many reasons an employer could be put in the
category after $3,000 in premium, the employer was
surcharged 25 percent. In light of inflation, workers'
compensation rates, and payroll, the bill increased the
amount to $6,000. She noted that she had worked for the
division for 40 years and the number had never gone up.
Section 47 allowed notices to be sent via email in addition
to mail. Section 48 expanded coverage for colorectal cancer
screenings. Section 49 amended the interest rate for
individual deferred annuities to comply with NAIC model
805. Section 50 amended requirements for group life
contracts. Section 51 amended the grace period by extending
the number of days a person had to replace an insurance
policy. Section 52 was a technical correction from
agriculture to agricultural. Section 53 stipulated that the
division would be responsible for approving forms of motor
vehicle service contracts. She explained that the division
had received complaints from people in scenarios where they
purchased a new car and were told there was a policy they
could purchase to bring the car back to be fixed in
perpetuity. The division had never looked at those policies
to see what consumers were being offered at what price. The
bill would require the division to do so.
Ms. Wing-Heier moved to Section 55 that would ban the
depreciation of labor in residential property claims. She
explained it had been a concern of some consumers. There
could still be depreciation, but the policy itself could
not depreciate labor. The broker could offer an individual
an amendment showing what the price differential would be
and the individual would be able to choose whether to
depreciate the labor or not.
Representative Bjorkman asked Ms. Wing-Heier to explain
what it would mean for a person who purchased a plan who
later experienced a loss and needed to make a claim.
Ms. Wing-Heier explained that if a person lost their roof
in a terrible windstorm and the roof was 20 years old, the
labor would be depreciated considerably to the point that a
person could not afford to put the roof back on. She stated
the division was increasingly seeing the situation. She
elaborated that it was horrible when it was a full loss on
a house built in 1970 and insurers were depreciating labor
back to that date. She stated it was a significant problem
to consumers for large losses.
Ms. Wing-Heier turned to Section 56 that included a
technical change to the Joint Insurance Association and the
way excess loss insurance could be purchased. She advanced
to a technical change in Section 57 and explained that
several years back a bill had passed pertaining to the Life
and Health Guarantee Association and the full Medicare and
Medicaid program had been inadvertently included. She
explained that the error meant that if the federal programs
were to go broke, the state would have to pay the claims
through the guarantee association. Section 58 amended the
HMO board. Sections 59 through 60 pertained to HMOs to put
teeth back into statute and specifically state that out of
network providers would be allowed. Section 61 required
risk retention groups to file reports of their premiums
with the division. Section 62 was a technical change
pertaining to Section 1332 innovation waivers with the
federal government Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS). The bill added the U.S. Department of
Treasury at the request of the federal government.
Additionally, if the state were to come up with another
idea similar to the Alaska Reinsurance Program, the
division could apply for it without seeking approval from
the legislature for the particular waiver. She detailed
that there would be public hearings and the legislature
would know about it, but the division did not want to wait
one to two years to start the process if the opportunity
presented itself.
Ms. Wing-Heier stated that Section 63 would add a
definition for motor vehicles. Section 64 included
repealers. Section 65 was uncodified laws of the owner
controlled insurance program.
6:55:25 PM
Ms. Wing-Heir gave a summary of version T to version W. She
began by explaining there were currently bills before both
bodies, with the one on the Senate being SB 134. She
explained that the legislature had passed HB 226 the
previous year relating to pharmacy benefit managers. When
the department went to draft regulations, it had been told
by the Department of Law it did not have the authority
because pharmacy benefit managers were registered, and they
should be licensed. She elaborated that the actions taken
in HB 226 had to be amended to change the statute to
clarify that pharmacy benefit managers and third-party
administrators would be licensed in Alaska as opposed to
registered. The change gave the division much more
authority to deal with problems when they arose from
pharmacists or consumers. She explained it was the crux of
the summary of changes [between the bill versions]. Another
change pertained to the OCIP and the reduction to $20
million and 40 units. The House Labor and Commerce
Committee made a change to cost sharing for colorectal
cancer, which eliminated the cost sharing for biopsies and
consultation for mammograms and for the screening of
colorectal cancer. The age for colorectal cancer screening
had been changed to meet the guidelines from the American
Cancer Society. There was an immediate effective date for
the OCIPs and CCIPs and the remainder of the bill had an
effective date of January 1.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Wing-Heier for her summary. He
asked for verification the explanation was for version T as
well as the new changes in version W.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded affirmatively.
Representative Stapp declared a conflict with Section 20.
He shared that the bill would allow him to get a license
notification of expiration via email as opposed to mail.
6:58:42 PM
Representative Galvin asked for some clarity about the
change related to agricultural. She asked if anything was
changed other than a word.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that the change was only the
correction of a word in statute.
Representative Galvin noted she had a question pertaining
to OCIP. She stated her understanding that the builders
would like to see the insurance plan modernized because the
ability to self-insure would enable them to get insurance
quicker and at a lower price.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that there was nothing in statute
that allowed builders to self-insure or buy policies. She
elaborated that she would expect rather large contractors
with the [financial] means to self-insure a certain portion
such as the first $1 million or $5 million of the loss and
purchase umbrella insurance above that amount.
Representative Galvin asked if they were changing how much
a project needed to be insured.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that it was not included in Title
21 and the bill did not change anything pertaining to the
amount of insurance required for a project.
Representative Galvin asked if it meant the state was
allowing contractors to come up with their own process. She
used an oil company as an example and stated companies had
to buy a large bond or something in case there was a
problem. She thought it was similar to insurance. She asked
if it was similar to the topic at hand where a builder
wanted to get their own insurance in order to protect
themselves in case something went wrong.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that it pertained to mega projects
such as the North Slope, Anchorage airport, and schools
that included framers, plumbers, dirt work, engineers, and
architects. She explained that a contractor could buy a
policy to insure all of the individuals. The option cost
less money and they could get higher limits because many of
the projects wanted limits of $100 million or more, which
was cost prohibitive for smaller contractors. She explained
that the owner or the prime [contractor] would purchase the
policy and name everyone so all of the workers had
insurance protection.
Representative Galvin stated her understanding that the
amount of protection was unchanged. She asked if it was a
modernization to keep up with what other states were
already doing.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded, "No." She relayed that the
division had believed Alaska's statutes already allowed the
option. She thought she was the only director of insurance
who had to approve the projects. She elaborated that the
division thought the state's statutes were correct until
someone applied for an OCIP. She had been told by the
Department of Law that statute did not allow contractors to
name an additional insured person. She explained that the
whole premise was to have everyone [on a project] insured
under the policy. She noted that subsequently, the division
had heard from contractors building residential projects
and they had been added as well. She pointed out that the
particular part of the legislation passed the House in
2024, but the bill did not make it out of the Senate Rules
Committee.
7:03:20 PM
Representative Bynum which version he should refer to when
asking a question.
Ms. Wing-Heir replied, "version W."
Representative Bynum looked at Section 76 that increased a
workers' compensation premium from $3,000 to $6,000. He
asked who the provision would impact monetarily.
Ms. Wing-Heir answered that the change would be a benefit
to the employer. She explained that employers were
currently surcharged at $3,000 in premium. The bill
specified the 25 percent surcharge did not apply until they
reached $6,000 in premium. She expected that many small
employers and sole proprietors may not even get to the
surcharge at a $6,000 level.
Representative Bynum noted that employers were currently
paying the surcharge. He asked if it would be a loss of
revenue to companies.
Ms. Wing-Heier explained that the surcharge went to the
National Council on Compensation Insurance. The division
had spoken with the council, and it did not believe the
change would result in a negative impact to the council.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee needed to adopt
the new bill version as its working document.
7:05:17 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 132(FIN), Work Draft LS0415\W (Wallace,
5/17/25) (copy on file).
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Schrage WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Tomaszewski wondered if Section 88
pertaining to motor vehicle service contracts pertained to
factory warranties or after market service contracts.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that the section applied to both.
She explained that if it was a new car with a factory
warranty where a business would replace the transmission or
provide a certain number of oil changes. She explained that
the division was finding that consumers were taking the
policies home and not receiving the anticipated coverage.
The division did not realize the situation was such a
problem until it started receiving calls. She noted that
the division had not reviewed the forms previously, but it
would start to do so.
Representative Tomaszewski looked at Section 96 pertaining
to federal agency waivers. He asked if the state would
automatically enroll into new types of regulations or
health insurance requirements. He asked if it would cost
the state money. He requested more detail.
Ms. Wing-Heir replied that in 2015 and 2016, healthcare
insurance had almost doubled in the individual market. She
noted it was right after the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Representative Tomaszewski noted he had lost his insurance
policy at the time.
Ms. Wing-Heier elaborated that health insurance had become
incredibly expensive in a number of years. She detailed
that Alaska lost Moda off the individual market for a
number of years and it was not a good time in Alaska for
individuals trying to procure insurance for themselves or
their families. She explained that the division had come up
with an idea and the legislature had allocated $55 million.
She detailed that the division took the highest cost claims
out and the state paid them. The idea was that because the
market was so highly subsidized, the division went to CMS
(that was already paying the subsidies) and offered to
lower the premiums through a reinsurance program. The
division had provided a scenario where CMS was paying
$200,000 in subsidies and the number was reduced to
$140,000 because the state took the highest claims out. The
division had asked if it could have the $60,000 if CMS was
only paying $140,000. She explained that the offer had been
accepted. She relayed that the program had been operating
for close to ten years and it had brought in over $800
million in federal funds from the advance premium tax
credits or subsidies. She explained that if the opportunity
presented itself to apply for another 1332 waiver to
address the cost of healthcare insurance, that the division
would have the flexibility to do so without having to make
the request to the legislature and possibly delaying the
project for two years.
7:10:09 PM
Representative Galvin asked if the state currently had
managed care. She asked how the new insurance section
played a role.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that Alaska had managed care in
"bits and pieces." She relayed that she was the director
under Title 21, and it included 118,000 Alaskans in the
individual market, small group, and some large group. She
explained there was not much managed care in those areas.
She expounded that self-insured such as AlaskaCare and
union plans with the coalition were managed care. The state
had not been able to offer managed care to the
aforementioned consumers under Title 21. The bill would
"put the teeth back into" an HMO as an option for employers
or individuals to choose a managed care plan. She remarked
that the Alaska did not have a Medicare Advantage program
and it could not get the program without some type of
managed care statute. She recognized there had been some
issues with how the programs were sold or distributed in
the Lower 48. The division was hoping to get some offers of
Medicare Advantage and to give consumers an option. She
reasoned it made sense to give consumers an option to
select a less expensive health insurance for employees and
their families.
Representative Galvin stated that hearing the context
around Medicare Advantage made sense. She thought Ms. Wing-
Heier had stated previously there would also be some
protections in place for individuals or an employer
choosing a managed care plan to ensure they receive
coverage for items like congenital conditions or cancer.
She asked for more details.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that she did not know of any
product under Title 21 that would do that. She knew there
had been some short-term limited plans with some
conditions, but most plans were pretty heavily regulated.
She explained that under an HMO, typically because it was a
managed care product, an individual went to a primary care
physician who would provide a referral to a specialist if
needed. She elaborated that they could do a capitated
agreement where they took a given number of people. She
noted there were all kinds of ways a managed care provider
could manage costs. She relayed that there were limited
medical resources in Alaska and some things that were not
available, such as a burn unit. The bill specified that if
an individual needed a specialist and there was not one in-
network or the HMO, the insurance agency could not deny
coverage. The same applied in the event of an emergency
when an in-network provider was not available, the HMO had
to accept and pay for a service as though it were in-
network.
7:14:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked his staff to review the fiscal note.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the zero fiscal note from DCCED, OMB Component
354, control code mnqAV. The note showed an increase of
$110,000 in receipt services collected. He deferred to the
department for additional details.
Ms. Wing-Heir clarified that the fiscal note reviewed by
Mr. Anderson was to version T of the legislation. There was
a bit of an addition to the fiscal note for version W. She
apologized that the committee did not have the updated
note. She explained that the fees and penalties on surplus
lines brokers and the wet marine and transportation tax had
been adjusted. The bill deleted a provision that allowed
the deduction for seating premiums and paid claims, which
was in line with other insurers. The result was an expected
revenue increase of approximately $110,000. She explained
how the fiscal note was impacted by version W of the bill.
She detailed that when HB 226 passed the previous year, the
division had been unable to get a fee in the new
regulations resulting from the bill. She expounded that
when the licensing bill had come back to the legislature,
the legislature added a biannual fee of $2,000 for third-
party administrators and $15,000 for pharmacy benefit
managers (there were 34 who did business in the state). She
believed the change added about $300,000 in revenue;
therefore, the total change in revenue under version W was
about $400,000.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that the House
had its own version of the bill.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Josephson asked how many hearings the House Labor
and Commerce Committee had on the bill.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that there had been four or five
hearings.
Co-Chair Josephson assumed that Ms. Wing-Heier had the
state's Aetna plan the way House Finance Committee members
did.
Ms. Wing-Heier responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if it was better than an HMO plan.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that it was probably better, but
she did not know for certain. She stated there was still
some directed or managed care within AlaskaCare. For
example, AlaskaCare set up the surgery center providers,
which was managed care. She believed AlaskaCare may be a
bit better, but the two should be close.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the bill would enable employers
in Alaska to opt out of a plan like Aetna's and move their
employees into an HMO, which they currently could not do.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that employers could currently do
it, but no one offered it because there were no teeth in
the current HMO statutes. Current statutes allowed
employers to have an HMO, but employees would get to go
wherever they wanted, meaning there was no benefit. The
bill would put the benefit back in. She stressed that it
was an option, not a mandate. Additionally, the bill
included language allowing for out of network services when
necessary.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if committee members should be
concerned about a race to the bottom in terms of quality of
care that employers might opt their employees into.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded, "I don't believe that at all." She
believed there would be the same fine doctors that were
currently providing services. She thought perhaps those
doctors would like the changes better. She compared it to
the direct health care agreement that was passed in the
prior year where more capitated agreements could be done.
For example, a clinic could agree to see all of the
employees of Joe's Plumbing for a given amount under an HMO
insurance plan. She noted that all of Joe's employees would
have to go to the same clinic.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the bill Ms. Wing-Heier was
referring to was former Senator David Wilson's bill.
Ms. Wing-Heier responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Josephson recalled that there had been controversy
associated with the bill.
Ms. Wing-Heier answered that the controversy was not so
much about the direct healthcare, but about whether
regulation should be taken on by the division. She
elaborated that "they wanted it to be regulated somehow,
somewhere," and it had ended up on the division's doorstep.
She clarified that the division had not asked to be
responsible for the regulation, but it had accepted it and
the bill passed.
7:20:32 PM
Representative Bynum wished there was a way to get three
more zeros added to the revenue projected in the fiscal
note, but he understood that was not currently possible. He
asked about a couple of hypotheticals that were not
included in the bill. He stated there had been many
conversations about having an opportunity for cities and
boroughs, particularly for employees in Teachers'
Retirement System (TRS) programs, to be able to partake in
health insurance in a different way. He asked if the topic
had been discussed or considered as part of the omnibus
package.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that Title 21 did not extend to the
NEA [National Education Association] plans school districts
were under and did not extend to AlaskaCare. She clarified
that relatively speaking, Title 21 pertained to 118,000 of
730,000 Alaskans and represented a small piece of the
insured market. She explained that Title 21 did not pertain
to unions, self-insured individuals, Medicare, Medicaid, or
Tricare.
Representative Bynum remarked that he would not provide
another hypothetical because he was certain it would not be
included.
Senator Bjorkman added that it was important to reiterate
what Ms. Wing-Heier had said about the private insurance
market and its ability to have managed care. He explained
that many school districts were self-insured, including the
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, the Mat-Su Borough
School District, and the Public Education Health Trust. He
detailed that all of the aforementioned entities had
managed care with a network and preferred providers. He
explained that the bill would set up HMO options for the
private market. He clarified that it was not a substandard
option and gave the private market an option that many
people in the public market already had.
7:23:15 PM
Representative Bynum stated there had been substantial
discussion over the past six months to a year in the
insurance market, specifically about Alaskan homeowners
being able to have their homes covered in the event of a
landslide. He noted it had been a big discussion for
Southeast Alaska. He asked if the topic had been under
discussion pertaining to the bill.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that it had been discussed almost
daily. She did not know if there was anything she could do
in statute. The division had spoken with insurers and there
was not currently a market or company for landslide
insurance. She elaborated that the property market was
shrinking and natural disasters including wildfires,
atmospheric rivers, and storms causing billions of dollars
of property damage worldwide were impacting the cost of
property insurance. She noted that landslides were on the
list among other including wildfires in Central Alaska and
melting permafrost. She emphasized that because of changes,
it was becoming harder and harder to insure. She knew that
Southeast Alaska had a huge problem with landslide and
mudslide insurance.
Representative Bynum stated it was difficult to tell
community members living in the middle of town that their
homes and live savings could be lost with no way to recoup
them. He understood there was insurance against fire and
other things. He stated that living right in the middle of
a community with no assurances made people lose confidence
in their ability to live in Alaska communities. He remarked
that it was a big concern for him.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the fiscal note would be
forthcoming later in the evening or the following day.
Mr. Anderson shared that he had been notified by DCCED that
it trying to get the fiscal note to the committee hopefully
for distribution during the current evening, so that if and
when the bill moved, the attached fiscal notes would
reflect the current version of the bill.
7:26:05 PM
AT EASE
7:29:19 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that a bill could be passed without
the updated fiscal note as long as the updated note was
received before the bill was sent on from the committee to
the House floor. He planned to have the updated fiscal note
by the time the bill was heard by the committee the
following day.
Representative Galvin referenced Ms. Wing Heier's earlier
discussion about changing some fees from $3,000 to $6,000.
She understood the fees had not been changed in many years.
She asked if the updated fees would fall in line with other
existing fees and move the target to the right number.
Ms. Wing-Heir responded that the $3,000 to $6,000 was a
threshold for a surcharge on a workers' compensation policy
and did not go to the state in any way. She explained that
there was currently a $300 biannual fee for third-party
adjusters and the legislature was asking to increase the
number to a biannual fee of $5,000. There was not currently
a fee on pharmacy benefit managers and the bill would add a
$15,000 biannual fee. She explained that those fees fell
right in the middle of fees charged in other states. She
relayed that Arkansas charged $40,000 for a pharmacy
benefit manager. She estimated that Alaska was probably on
the low end, but there were other states like New York with
a fee of $25,000 for three years.
Co-Chair Foster noted that due to the complexity of the
bill, some committee members had indicated they would like
to sleep on it. He discussed his schedule plan for the
following day.
7:33:25 PM
AT EASE
7:35:16 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster believed the soonest the bill could be read
across on the floor was Monday.
Co-Chair Schrage relayed that the soonest the bill could be
on the floor was Monday. He suggested holding the bill
until the following day to receive the fiscal note and
report it out.
CSSB 132(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the bill numbers for the following
day's meeting.