Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/09/1996 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 493
"An Act relating to involuntary commitment for
alcoholism or drug abuse."
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN testified in support of HB 493,
noting that he introduced the bill as a solution to assist
with the public inebriate problem faced by many communities
throughout the State.
Under current statute, AS 47.37.190, provisions allow for
the involuntary commitment of alcoholics. Those provisions
allow for 30 day commitments followed by a recommitment
length of 90 days. Current law has been found to be
unwieldy, expensive and treatment options are not readily
available. According to a community survey report by the
City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), communities use the
commitment policy sparingly, if they use it at all. The
report also emphasized that the current commitment process
is not working.
Representative Ivan continued, under HB 493, the involuntary
commitment process would be similar to those found in the
involuntary mental health commitments. Drug abusers were
not included in the definitions of incapacitation or
intoxication. According to the Division of Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse, many public inebriates are ingesting not only
alcohol but drugs. The bill would change the definition of
intoxicated persons to include drugs which are defined under
the controlled substances statutes in Title 11.
DR. GILBERT SANDERS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
PSYCHOLOGIST, DIRECTOR, CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY UNIT, MT.
EDGECUMBE HOSPITAL, SITKA, voiced concern with the
legislation. Particularly in reference to language proposed
on Page 2, Lines 5 & 6, "physician". He suggested that
psychologists should have the same authority as the
physicians. He requested Committee members make that
change.
5
He added, language in the bill references the individuals
"health and safety". He recommended that reference clearly
include the mental health as well as the physical health.
He stressed that the problem of drug abuse is clearly a
mental health disorder.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-105, Side 2).
DONALD DAPCEVICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY
BOARD ON ALCOHOLISM & DRUG ABUSE, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
noted that the Board was an advocate for the individuals who
are subject to the provisions of the legislation and for
services statewide with regard to substance abuse. He
stated that the Board strongly supports the legislation.
The current situation has created an unworkable law placing
pressure on municipalities, courts, police and the medical
facilities around the State. He stressed that current law
is confusing.
Mr. Dapcevich thought that the legislation could provide
better treatment options. He pointed out that the "hope" is
that the legislation could educate communities of the
"clinical" rather than "social" definitions of those subject
to the statute.
Mr. Dapcevich spoke to the civil rights of involuntarily
committing someone against their will. Current statute
allows for involuntary commitment. The changes would create
a longer time span for recommitment when the initial phase
had been completed and more time is considered to be needed.
He referenced the cost/benefit analysis. [Copy on file].
Mr. Dapcevich suggested that a cost savings could exist,
pointing out that marginal costs differ from real costs.
Mr. Dapcevich reiterated that over a long term "real cost
savings" would exist.
Representative Mulder asked Mr. Dapcevich if the definition
on Page 7, Section #14, was adequate. Mr. Dapcevich stated
that it was. Often times people get caught up in the
definition of "intoxification" using is synonymously as it
applies to motor vehicle accidents, whereas, in a law of
involuntary commitment, very different issues are regarded
for incapacitation. The statute as proposed is correct.
Mr. Dapcevich interjected that he disagreed with Dr. Sanders
request to add "mental health" issues to involuntary
commitment. He pointed out that there exists a mental
health commitment law for issues dealing with mental health
6
concerns. Mr. Dapcevich added, the fiscal note which had
been submitted was too high. The Board supports reducing
it.
In response to Representative Martin's statement, Mr.
Dapcevich explained that times are changing, people are
realizing that involuntary commitment is not an evil
process. Representative Martin asked if there has been
discussion with the Native people throughout Alaska. Mr.
Dapcevich stated that there has been constructive dialogue
with the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN).
Representative Martin questioned how the proposed program
would differ from the many alcohol programs that have
preceded it. Mr. Dapcevich replied that for the referenced
population, all treatment programs are effective on some
level. Long term treatment is the only treatment that is
effective for late stage chronic alcoholics or addicts.
Representative Martin pointed out that HB 493 and HCR 26
address the same concern. Representative Brown inquired the
rate of success of late stage alcoholics going through a
treatment program. Mr. Dapcevich advised that the rate of
success is measured in the cost benefit analysis. To
measure long term sobriety, it would be far less effective.
He added that most studies find a 12% - 15% recovery, a
"good" rate of recovery for the late stage alcoholic.
Representative Brown asked why the Board felt that it should
be easier to commit someone with the proposed condition than
the already existing standard used to commit someone with
mental illness. Mr. Dapcevich replied, it was the intent to
make the legislation consistent with the mental health
commitment.
Representative Brown asked if the municipalities would be
involved in providing the treatment facilities. Mr.
Dapcevich responded that all facilities currently used are
joint State and municipality funded. Representative Brown
questioned the fiscal impact to the municipalities. Mr.
Dapcevich suggested that eventually there would be a fiscal
savings to the municipalities.
ELMER LINDSTROM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
(DHSS), explained the fiscal note for the Department. The
funds associated with the FY98 portion of the request would
cover legal training and treatment programs for the
municipalities. The out-year projections include an
expected need for additional residential treatment beds. No
treatment impact is expected for FY97.
7
Representative Kohring asked why Juneau had been chosen as
the pilot city for the program.
BARBARA CRAVER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, CITY AND BOROUGH OF
JUNEAU (CBJ), JUNEAU, responded that Juneau was not the
pilot program, but rather, Juneau has been using this system
since the local treatment facility has been in operation.
There will be no changes to the Juneau facility with passage
of the legislation, although, it is anticipated that the
bill would provide clinically based definitions which will
make everything at that operation run more smoothly. Mr.
Lindstrom reiterated, the Juneau facility was not a pilot
program, instead a program that has been using the
recommendations now put forth.
Representative Brown asked the difference in Section #7,
being incapacitated by alcohol and being at risk for serious
illness. Ms. Craver stated that language had been added
because involuntary commitments require serious harm of some
kind. She continued, incapacitation is being redefined in
the definition section, Section #14. CBJ does support the
new definition and standard. Representative Brown asked if
all heavy drinkers would be at risk of fitting into the
category. She suggested that the definition of who was
eligible for involuntary commitment was too broad.
SHANNON O'FALLON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, noted that the legislation was attempting to make the
standard similar to the mental health commitment statute, AS
47.30.700. Under the mental health commitment statute, the
person must be suffering from a mental illness and be of a
danger to themselves and/or others, and/or gravely disabled.
Representative Mulder referenced the Alaska Court System
fiscal note and questioned the long term impact.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-106, Side 1).
ARTHUR SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, stated that he would check with the administrative
director for the Court System. He explained, when a bill is
initiated under the context of addressing a person
incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs and taken into
possession by a police officer, the Court System assumes
that most of these persons would be indigent. Thus, they
will need an attorney and the Court System will be
responsible for that cost. He remarked that the communities
will stand by the statute. Mr. Snowden thought that the
Court System fiscal note was correct, although volunteered
to further research that information.
8
Representative Martin MOVED to report CS HB 493 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 493 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal notes by the Department of
Administration dated 3/19/96, the Alaska Court System dated
3/19/96, the Department of Health and Social Services dated
3/19/96 and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Public
Safety dated 3/19/96.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|