Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/11/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB68 || HB84 | |
| Overview: Supplemental Bills by Office of Management and Budget | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
"An Act extending the January 15, 2021, governor's
declaration of a public health disaster emergency in
response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic; providing for a financing plan; making
temporary changes to state law in response to the
COVID-19 outbreak in the following areas: occupational
and professional licensing, practice, and billing;
telehealth; fingerprinting requirements for health
care providers; charitable gaming and online ticket
sales; access to federal stabilization funds; wills;
unfair or deceptive trade practices; and meetings of
shareholders; and providing for an effective date."
2:44:59 PM
Co-Chair Merrick remarked that the legislature and the
public had talked extensively about the topic during the
current legislative session. She asked committee members to
recognize that each committee focused on different aspects
of legislation throughout the process. She recognized that
the bill would have significant impacts for the health and
safety of Alaskans. She reported that the House Finance
Committee's primary focus would be on the bill's fiscal
impact to the state and its residents. She relayed that the
House Health and Social Services Committee had heard the
bill several times over the past few weeks and the
committee's co-chairs would present the committee
substitute (CS). She asked members to hold questions until
the end of each segment.
REPRESENTATIVE TIFFANY ZULKOSKY, CO-CHAIR, HOUSE HEALTH and
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, introduced the CS with a
prepared statement:
Thank you for the opportunity to present Committee
Substitute for House Bill 76, extending the COVID-19
disaster declaration.
Throughout the last year, Alaskans and our global
neighbors have faced significant health and economic
impacts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. And
while the virus has proved unpredictable with some
infections resulting in no or mild symptoms, other
infections developed severe illness or led to untimely
death what is constant about COVID-19 is that it is
highly contagious, grows exponentially, and new
variants pose continued public health risk to
Alaskans.
Recognizing this threat to the health and lives of
Alaskans, on March 11, 2020, the Governor issued a
declaration of a public health disaster emergency in
anticipation of the spread of COVID-19 to communities
across Alaska and issued a number of new disaster
declarations for the on-going pandemic.
We have come a long way in this last year. The global
medical community has improved clinical resources to
help those with severe infections, our society has
adapted to how we live in ways that prevent
transmission, and the record-breaking development and
deployment of vaccines offers us hope on the horizon.
But we have heard decisively from Alaska's healthcare
and community leaders that we are not out of the woods
just yet and without an ongoing disaster declaration,
this prolonged area of limbo is hamstringing response,
which continues regardless of ideology in this
building about the severity of the pandemic.
The Health and Social Services Committee heard from a
wide range of stakeholders from across Alaska, from
businesses and local government to epidemiologists and
non-profit service organizations. Testimony was clear
and consistent, Alaska still needs the tools to fight
this pandemic, keep Alaska's businesses afloat, and
help families get back on their feet. We believe this
narrow and prescriptive disaster declaration offers
that necessary set of tools.
This declaration ensures local response in vulnerable
communities with limited healthcare resources can
continue, enables Alaska to continue surveillance
testing at airports to identify cases before
widespread outbreaks occur, offers certainty and
flexibilities for frontline health providers who
remain on the pandemic's frontlines, and ensures
Alaska remains nimble in its ability to respond.
Further, the declaration provides legal flexibilities
and meets the minimum criteria by the federal
government for Alaska to receive its share of federal
funding for a number of on-going relief and recovery
efforts, including vaccine deployment, expanded
allowances for telehealth, and alternate care sites
for testing, vaccination, and treatment.
Delaying or failing to renew the declaration to best
position Alaska to fight this pandemic and keep
families safe is like taking down an umbrella in the
middle of a rainstorm because you aren't getting wet.
2:49:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LIZ SNYDER, CO-CHAIR, HOUSE HEALTH and
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE thanked the committee for the
opportunity to present the CS. She provided prepared
remarks:
I'd like to make it clear that CSHB 76 does not extend
the disaster, it extends the declaration so that we
can definitively end the disaster. Further, the bill
should look very familiar. In an effort to build broad
support for the declaration and move expeditiously to
meet the needs of Alaskans, CSHB 76 is modeled after
the most current version of SB 56, bringing alignment
to the Senate companion that has been considered in
both the Senate Health and Social Services and Labor
and Commerce Committees. The primary difference is
reverting to the original sunset date of September 30,
2021, which this bill allows the administration to
evaluate as needed. CSHB 76 is very pared down
compared to HB 241, which as you recall was passed in
2020. Where HB 241 was a large workshop of a wide
variety of tools, CSHB 76 is a small efficient toolbox
of essentials to finish the job. We do appreciate that
there are alternative ideas and plans to CSHB 76, so
in my sectional analysis here, I'll highlight what is
unique and why it is important.
First, this bill contains important language in that
it declares a "public health disaster emergency." If
we were to move forward without disaster language we
are willingly operating in a gray zone of uncertainty.
We would be asking healthcare providers and
organizations to run alternate care sites for
vaccinations; testing, including at airports; and
treatment without the protections a declaration
affords. Verne Berner, Alaska Native Health Board, on
March 4, in the House Health and Social Services
hearing testified to this fact. There are already
healthcare organizations encountering more red tape
and bureaucratic hurdles to set up alternate care
sites without a declaration. We heard about this from
Jared Kosin from ASHNHA also on March 4. Alaska is
risking eligibility for extended federal SNAP benefits
without this language and these extended benefits
provide $8 million per month to Alaskan families. The
Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the federal
legislation which allows for the extended SNAP
benefits states "in the event of public health
emergency declaration by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under Section 319 of the Public Health
Service Act, based on an outbreak of Coronavirus
disease and the issuance of an emergency or disaster
declaration by a state based on an outbreak of COVID-
19, the Secretary of Agriculture" and it goes on to
explain the expanded SNAP benefits.
Without a declaration, our eligibility will expire on
April 1, we may find ourselves in a position of
forfeiting $8 million of support in April, another $8
million in May, and yet another $8 million in June for
a total of $24 million less in our economy and support
for Alaskan families. A disaster declaration gives us
the nimbleness to respond quickly if things change. We
have seen how quickly the trajectory of case rates can
increase as we also heard from Dr. Tom Hennessy on
March 4. Today, with 226 resident cases, plus an
additional 12 nonresident cases, this is our highest
count since the third week of January. Yesterday was
150 and the day before was 91.
2:53:40 PM
Representative Snyder continued to read from a prepared
statement:
The next four sections of CSHB 76 were also addressed
separately in individual Senate bills, SB 86, SB 77,
SB 78, and SB 24, with a focus on permanency in those
Senate bills. This may indeed be a good move for
Alaska, but this approach of separately legislating
key components of COVID-19 response is not efficient
and further delays response resources needed now.
Representative Snyder provided information on the four
aforementioned sections:
One, provisions for reasonable flexibility and
professional occupational licensing. Making licensure
quicker until the declaration expires, preventing the
raising of fees and waiving continuing ed
requirements. I'd like to note that SB 86, its
effective date is not until January 2022. Another
section continues expanded flexibility for telehealth
services in Alaska. Another section allows shareholder
and nonprofit meetings to be held electronically.
That's also reflected in SB 24, the previous SB 78.
Lastly, allowing certain online charitable gaming
activities, which we also see addressed in SB 77. The
remining sections of 76 included provisions for
requiring informed consent for vaccinations as amended
in Senate Health and Social Services; civil liability
protections for individuals; a financing plan as
amended in Senate Labor and Commerce, extending what
was issued by the governor on January 15, 2021; and
reporting requirements for OMB, these are reduced as
compared to HB 241.
In conclusion, Alaska has done a great job in
responding to the pandemic. We lead the nation in
vaccination rates and are the first state to open up
vaccine eligibility to anyone 16 and older. Case rates
have plateaued. These are cause for celebration but
not complacency. Individual and incomplete piecemeal
approaches with delayed start dates pared with
workaround approaches do not provide the certainty and
efficiency we need amidst an ongoing global pandemic.
I appreciate we are all emotionally fatigued by COVID-
19, but to be clear, Alaska has not been in lockdown
in months and when we had a declaration in place,
businesses were open, and people have been free to go
where they liked. Schools have opened. CSHB 76 won't
change this, instead it is a way that Alaska can
continue testing and vaccinating with efficiency and
certainty so that we can finally end the pandemic. It
is a way for healthcare providers to continue
providing needed services without unnecessary risk or
prohibitive costs and for them to adapt quickly as the
situation changes. It ensures Alaskans have access to
food and it ensures we can safely promote that Alaska
is open for business and welcome tourists who want to
help us jumpstart the economy this summer.
2:56:31 PM
Representative Zulkosky provided concluding remarks a
prepared statement:
We believe that Alaska has done an incredible job and
it is because of the hard work of many Alaskans,
especially by those in DHSS, Public Health, in Tribal
Health. What's important to us and this state is that
we have a way to continue this great work and stay on
the right path. We believe the committee substitute
for HB 76 is currently the fastest and surest way to
do this. Things are looking great, and we want to keep
it that way.
When the Legislature approved the state's first
disaster declaration in 2020, it was said that if we
look back and it feels like we did too much, the
safety precautions and interventions to protect
Alaskans from COVID-19 worked. As Foraker Group's
President Laurie Wolf eloquently said before the
Health & Social Services Committee, ending the
declaration now is akin to stopping a 7-day penicillin
prescription after three days because we're beginning
to feel better. Now is not the time to dismantle
resources that have helped to save lives, protect
businesses, and care for Alaskans over the last year.
CSHB 76 provides Alaska with the tools and resources
that our municipalities, health systems, and
businesses need to get Alaska from where we are today,
to where we need to go where Alaskans can frequent
local businesses without fear of getting sick, where
families and friends can gather in-person for life's
precious moments, and children can safely continue in-
person learning.
As anxious as we all are to return to a new normal,
inaction on this issue is consequential. Alaska has
been more successful in combating COVID-19 in part
because we have been proactive, decisive, and
responsive, and our communities, public health
professionals, and businesses have had the tools to
adapt to the world that we find ourselves in.
2:58:34 PM
Representative Rasmussen referenced an addition in Section
13 of the CS related to the personal objections to the
administration of COVID-19 vaccines. She asked whether
Legislative Legal Services had found no constitutional or
federal issues pertaining to the section. She asked if the
language applied only to state employees or to any
employees.
Representative Zulkosky believed the language had been
offered as an amendment in the Senate Health and Social
Services Committee. The intent was to provide statutory
protection for Alaskans who opt not to receive the vaccine.
Representative Rasmussen asked what type of protection the
provision provided.
Representative Zulkosky replied that the intention was to
ensure there were statutory protections that did not force
any Alaskan to receive the vaccination. She stated her
understanding that the language was not necessarily
required - there was nothing in statute requiring anyone to
receive any sort of vaccines. She reiterated that the
language had been offered on the Senate side with the
intention of making sure it was the case with the COVID-19
vaccine. She explained that the CS brought alignment
between the existing House bill with the changes that had
already been made on the Senate side.
Representative Rasmussen appreciated the language. She had
been hearing about cases where private employers in Alaska
were requiring employees to vaccinate and to show proof of
the vaccination. She thought it was a HIPAA violation. She
had been told that some businesses were requiring employees
to take personal leave or resign if they chose not to get
the vaccine by August. She had heard concerns about
airlines requiring vaccinations for people to fly. She
wanted to ensure Alaskans maintained the option to
vaccinate or not vaccinate.
3:01:35 PM
Representative LeBon referenced a provision related to
civil liability on page 10 of the legislation. He
highlighted that the language stated that "A person may not
be held liable for an action taken..." He provided a
scenario where an employee of a private sector business got
the virus. He asked if there was a liability protection for
the business. He pointed out that where the employee had
contracted the virus was not known and it could have been
somewhere outside of work or brought in by a customer or
client. He asked if there was an element of protection for
the small businesses in the bill.
Representative Zulkosky referred to the summary of changes
on the original Senate bill, where the section referenced
by Representative LeBon had been added. She communicated
her understanding that under the language a person may not
be held liable for an action that does or does not comply
with an order, proclamation, or declaration adopted by the
governor. She stated it was their understanding that the
language was a broad waiver of the liability. She remarked
that she was not an attorney and would run the question by
Legislative Legal Services for verification.
Representative Edgmon remarked that the bill was a
governor's bill. He stated that during his time on the
committee he had seen committee chairs from other
committees present personal legislation. He asked why there
was not a representative from the governor's office
presenting a governor's bill.
Representative Zulkosky deferred the question to the
administration.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee would hear from
the administration after the current presenters.
Representative Edgmon asked if the two representatives were
presenting the bill because it had most recently been in
their committee. He thought it was out of the convention of
presenting a bill. He wondered if it was an indication the
administration did not support the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick replied that the [House Health and Social
Services Committee] co-chairs had asked to present the CS.
The administration would address the bill after the co-
chairs had finished.
Representative Zulkosky replied that the assessment was
accurate. From her perspective as a co-chair of the House
Health and Social Services Committee - the topic was of
significant interest and concern to stakeholders that
routinely came before the committee - there had been a very
fast evolution of position on the issue by the
administration. She elaborated that the administration had
initially believed the legislature needed to extend the
disaster declaration and had introduced HB 76.
Subsequently, the administration had decided not to extend
the disaster declaration. The administration had then opted
to pursue a number of pieces of permanent legislation that
stood separate from a disaster declaration. She believed
the situation contributed to the awkwardness of the [House
Health and Social Services Committee] co-chairs'
willingness to present the bill. She believed it was an
indication the administration had wanted to distance itself
from the declaration. She did not want to put words in the
mouth of the administration. She communicated it had been
made clear by staff in Senator Lisa Murkowski's office that
standalone legislation that was not a disaster declaration
was not sufficient for leveraging the incoming federal
resources for COVID relief. She stated that because there
was not a statutory opportunity for a public health
emergency through Alaska statute, the co-chairs continued
to believe a disaster declaration was the best way to move
forward to ensure the state had the legal and financial
flexibilities to respond to the pandemic.
3:06:51 PM
Representative Edgmon remarked there seemed to be several
iterations by the administration. He stated that was fine
and acknowledged that things were happening quickly with
the distribution of vaccines and so on; however, the
governor had introduced HB 76 and a companion bill and had
then communicated that a disaster declaration was not
needed. Subsequently, there had been an abbreviated bill
under consideration. He highlighted that the House was now
considering the original bill. He wanted to know whether
the bill was supported or not supported by the governor,
who could ultimately veto the legislation if it was passed.
He believed the question was germane and intended to ask
the administration later in the meeting.
Vice-Chair Ortiz believed Representative Zulkosky had
stated the CS was a pared down version of the original
disaster declaration. He asked for a summary of the impact
of the CS compared to the original declaration.
3:08:43 PM
Representative Snyder answered that they could speak to
some of the elements in SB 241 that were not included in
the CS before the committee. The current bill no longer
included specific language that would have allowed the
commissioner [of DHSS] to declare health orders [on behalf
of the chief medical officer] if the chief medical officer
was unavailable. The bill no longer included the
requirement for some more detailed monthly reports to be
submitted to the Senate president and House speaker,
including detailed budgets and activities. She explained
that previously peace officers, EMTs, medical technicians,
paramedics, firefighters, and other healthcare providers
would have been presumed to have contracted COVID-19 at
work if they were exposed and tested positive. The former
bill had included some PFD ineligibility language, some
protections regarding rent, foreclosure, and utility
moratoriums. The former bill had also included rules
against price gouging and language related to financial
assistance to prevent homelessness as a result of COVID-19.
3:10:07 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the net effect of the fact
that the bill was a pared down version.
Representative Zulkosky responded that invited testimony
would zero in on the issues. She specifically highlighted
flexibilities related to testing at airports and detailed
that Alaska had identified 3,000 cases of COVID-19 through
airports. She referenced invited testimony to be heard from
Petersburg on the impact of the virus in the community
specifically since the lapse of the disaster declaration.
She reported that the community had seen some of the
highest numbers of the virus during the period of time
without a disaster declaration in comparison with the past
year. She noted that a Dr. Hennessy would speak to some of
the issues.
Vice-Chair Ortiz relayed that he had heard that morning
from a constituent who could no longer receive telemedicine
from an endocrinologist in Seattle because the disaster
declaration had ended. He asked if passing the current CS
would eliminate the problem.
Representative Zulkosky answered, "To our understanding,
yes."
Representative Carpenter identified three issues the
committee needed to hear from the administration or another
authority. The first was the federal money at stake. He had
heard rumors it was the case but talking with the
administration he believed it was not the case. He wanted
to definitively understand the specific issue from the
administration's point of view. Second, the committee
needed to learn whether the governor wanted or needed an
emergency declaration in order to resolve the issue. Third,
he wondered whether there were other bills in the pipeline
that addressed the issues raised in the CS, which were
acceptable and solved the problem without having to declare
an emergency.
3:12:55 PM
Representative Wool asked for verification that the CS
restored mandatory airport testing for people coming into
Alaska.
Representative Snyder answered that the bill provided the
flexibility. She elaborated that under the topic of
alternate care sites, it was how testing was facilitated at
airports. Currently, the flexibility was not available
without a disaster declaration. She explained that they
[the House Health and Social Services co-chairs] had heard
from healthcare providers and health organizations that
without the protection, some of the services were
continuing, but it was a gray area.
Representative Zulkosky added that in addition to the
alternate care sites, drive-thru testing sites had been
closed throughout the state. She detailed that the action
had closed the opportunity to do surveillance and
asymptomatic testing. She explained that wider testing
provided a better snapshot of where the virus was in Alaska
and could help public health officials predict how the
virus was moving. Additionally, it gave increased
opportunity for increased genomic sequencing to know
variants and the higher virulent versions of the virus
moving throughout the state. She stated it was fundamental
in being able to identify cases early before they caused
widespread outbreaks. She noted that invited testimony
would speak to the topic.
Representative Wool restated his question.
Representative Zulkosky replied that the bill provided the
authority to the administration to be able to mandate
testing at airports.
Representative Wool remarked that there had been a
quarantine period for travelers coming into Alaska. He
thought it had been a good program. He noted it was not
currently the case. He asked if there would be any
quarantining for travelers coming to Alaska under the bill.
Representative Snyder answered that it would not be
required, but the bill would allow for the flexibility
should the need be deemed necessary.
3:15:59 PM
Representative Wool asked if the language changed from a
disaster declaration to a disaster emergency. He asked if
it was an intentional word choice.
Representative Snyder believed some of the terms were used
a little loosely and disaster declaration was used as a
sort of shorthand. She stated that the bill retained the
phrase public health disaster emergency from prior
legislation.
Representative Wool asked for verification that using the
term emergency instead of declaration had the same legal
implication.
Representative Zulkosky answered it was their
understanding.
Representative Rasmussen circled back to comments made by
Representative Carpenter. She stated that the telehealth
issue highlighted by Vice-Chair Ortiz was a major issue.
She asked if the House Health and Social Services Committee
co-chairs were pursuing long-term permanent statutory
changes that would enable Alaskans to utilize telehealth.
She believed the bill was likely the quickest avenue. She
pointed out that even a couple of weeks was a long time for
some patients to not be able to see their provider. She
supported getting it moving along quickly.
3:18:20 PM
Co-Chair Merrick relayed the committee would next hear from
the Department of Health and Social Services on behalf of
the administration.
HEIDI HEDBERG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), thanked the committee for the opportunity
to provide comment on the legislation. She read from
prepared remarks:
House Bill 76 was introduced by the governor pursuant
of Alaska Statute 26.23.020. This provides that a
disaster proclamation may not remain in effect longer
than 30 days unless extended by the legislature. On
January 15, the governor issued a declaration of a
public health disaster and emergency in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic. A bill was transmitted to the
House on January 21, proposing to extend the public
health disaster emergency to September 30, 2021. This
is the bill before you today. Absent legislative
action and pursuant to state law AS 26.23.020, the
public health disaster emergency issued on January 15,
expired on February 14th.
In the time leading up to the February 14th
expiration, we met extensively with response partners
to include our federal agencies, local governments,
healthcare providers, tribal health entities,
healthcare facilities, and associations to discuss
operations and response efforts by the state and to
determine impacts if the disaster declaration was not
extended. Based off of the feedback, the
administration evaluated the current COVID response
plan, which includes elements which you are all very
familiar with, I am sure. They include widespread
testing, supporting non-congregate housing for certain
groups of individuals who need to quarantine or
isolate, providing alternate care sites, procurement
of personal protective equipment and testing supplies,
guidelines for Alaskans and nonresidents traveling to
and through Alaska, contact tracing, guidelines for
critical infrastructure workforce and employers, and
vaccine elocution, distribution, and administration.
To continue to keep Alaska one of the safest states,
we're requesting limited authorities as we maintain
the robust testing, contact tracing, vaccine
administration and distribution, and response to
community outbreaks. As part of our evaluative
process, we looked closely at the authorities that are
available to the governor under the Alaska disaster
declaration acts. I would like to review the
authorities under the Alaska disaster acts with you so
that we can walk through what it offers and how we
used them and what we need. AS 26.23.020(b) states
"the governor may issue orders, proclamations, and
regulations necessary to carry out the purpose of the
disaster acts." This was used to allow state agencies
to be nimble and flexible in response to the public
health emergency and disaster. It also provided
protections to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by
establishing guidelines for travel into Alaska, around
Alaska, and for our critical infrastructure workforce.
The AS 26.23.020(e) is a proclamation of a disaster
emergency activates the disaster response and recovery
aspects of state, local, and interjurisdictional
disaster emergency plans. This authority was used to
allow the unified command structure, which is the
Department of Public Safety, the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs, and the Department of
Health and Social Services to support local
jurisdictions, the healthcare system, and coordinate
the statewide response to the pandemic.
3:23:27 PM
Ms. Hedberg continued to read from prepared remarks:
It also allowed the establishment of the alternate
care sites, including the outpatient therapeutic
treatment centers and establishing the vaccine point
of dispensing clinics, and allowed for the state to
coordinate the logistics of supplies and materials. AS
26.23.020(f) the governor may delegate or assign
command authority for the National Guard by
appropriate orders or regulations. This allowed us to
utilize the National Guard for response purposes, such
as contact tracing and logistical support at our
warehouse.
AS 26.23.020(g) and there are many authorities under
this statute, a number of which we used in this
response. I'll go over the ones we used and the ones
we did not use. Number one was the suspension of
provision of regulations or statutes if compliance
would prevent or substantially impede or delay action
necessary to cope with a disaster emergency. We used
this statute for emergency procurement of supplies for
hospitals, clinics, and communities, and emergency
procurement for contracts for cold chain shippers and
testing and supplies. We also hired temporary
personnel to support public health response plans and
those were contract tracers, public health nursing,
microbiologists, and support for our data systems.
This statute also allowed for the increased
flexibility in how we care for and provide services to
our most vulnerable populations in congregate settings
and facilities.
Number three is the transfer of personnel or alter the
function of state departments and agencies or units of
them for the purpose of performing or facilitating the
performance of disaster emergency services. We
basically used this statute and repurposed the entire
Division of Public Health to respond to COVID-19.
Number seven is control ingress to and egress from a
disaster area. The movements of personnel within the
area and occupancy of premises. This is the authority
that we used to implement the pre-travel testing
requirements for travel into Alaska and to communities
off of the road system and the Marine Highway System.
3:26:17 PM
Ms. Hedberg continued with her prepared remarks:
Number nine, which makes provisions for the
availability of and use of temporary emergency
housing. This was used for non-congregate housing for
homeless and for travelers that arrived in Alaska with
a positive test result. Number ten, which is allocate
or redistribute food, water, fuel, clothing, medicine,
or supplies. This is the authority that is used for
allocation and distribution of our personal protective
equipment, testing supplies, vaccine, and therapeutic
treatments.
Now for the other authorities that are in section (g)
that we did not use. There are four areas that are
good to highlight for your awareness. The first is, we
did not use the available resources of the state
government and of each political subdivision of the
state as responsibly necessary. We did not commandeer
or utilize any private property, we did not suspend or
limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of
alcoholic beverages, explosives, or combustibles. We
did not use money from the oil and hazardous substance
relief response accounts to respond to a disaster
related to an oil or hazardous substance discharge.
In summary, not every single authority available under
the Alaska Disaster Act was used or needed for the
COVID pandemic response. Authorities that were used,
were not used necessarily at the same time. They were
some authorities that we used early on in the
response, but not later and there were authorities
that we used later but not earlier. There were a
number of authorities that we've used consistently
throughout the response. As we've evaluated this
process, we've realized that we do not need broad
authorities available under the Alaska Disaster Act to
continue the COVID response and transition into
recovery. The Department of Health and Social Services
believes that there's room to utilize a more limited
or targeted approach by using uncodified law to
establish specific authorities that we do need that
are important for our response and recovery plan and
for a limited period of time.
3:29:09 PM
Ms. Hedberg continued with prepared remarks:
Here are the authorities that we have identified, and
again, this is based off of feedback and as one of the
incident commanders I can tell you that this is truly
the authorities that we need to continue to respond
effectively to this response and transition into
recovery.
The first is to allow the Department of Health and
Social Services to continue to coordinate, allocate,
distribute, and manage the State of Alaska vaccine and
therapeutics for the COVID-19 response. These are
still scarce resources.
The second is to allow the Department of Health and
Social Services to cooperate with the federal
government with respect to the blanket waivers, the
1135 waiver, and appendix K authorities, and the
application and distribution of SNAP emergency
allotment (also known as EA benefits) as part of the
state's response to COVID-19.
Third is to allow the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs to support and assist the Department
of Health and Social Services.
Fourth, is to allow the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs to receive delegation of authority
from the governor, allowing activation of the Alaska
National Guard to assist with segments of the state's
response and recovery plan.
Fifth is allowing the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs to coordinate with FEMA to maintain
the funding for non-congregate sheltering capabilities
for local jurisdictions across the states.
Sixth is to provide the authority for the use of
telehealth and telemedicine for healthcare providers
currently licensed in good standing in another state.
Finally, to provide immunity from liability for a
governmental entity, employee, or person who's engaged
in performing duties as part of the state's response
to COVID-19.
We understand the sensitivity of using the disaster
declaration and a public health emergency to provide
such a broad authority. We also understand the need to
progress as we are in this response and starting to
pivot into recovery for Alaska. We need to have the
tools if we need to respond. As you will hear there
are some communities that do have outbreaks, but we do
have other communities that are moving into recovery,
which is why we want to make sure we have the
necessary limited tools and that we can use those
necessary limited tools if it's going in the wrong
direction.
3:32:01 PM
Ms. Hedberg finished her provided remarks:
It is possible to allow the appropriate authorities to
the Department of Health and Social Services and the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to
continue the state's response plan without providing
the broad authority of a public health emergency
disaster declaration under the Alaska Disaster
Declaration Act. We respectfully request the House
Finance Committee consider providing identified
limited authorities to continue Alaska's response and
recovery plan without the issuance of an extension of
a disaster declaration.
Ms. Hedberg thanked the co-chairs. She listed several other
staff available to help answer questions.
3:33:06 PM
Representative Wool noted that testing at the airport was
currently voluntary. He cited new COVID variants coming
from different parts of the country and world. He asked
where the administration stood on mandatory testing for
travelers coming to Alaska.
Ms. Hedberg replied that she had helped stand up the
testing at Alaska's ten airports receiving flights from the
Lower 48. She reported that it was a very good strategy.
She relayed that the sites had identified close to 3,000
cases through the testing option [at airports]. She
clarified there were many more options available. The
department continued to say that testing was an important
tool. The department recognized that many individuals had
recovered from COVID and within a certain time period those
individuals did not need to test. Additionally, individuals
who were fully vaccinated (meaning two weeks after their
last dose) did not need to be tested. She stated it was up
to the legislature to decide whether to include the
provision [related to airport testing] in the legislation.
She mentioned that when the disaster declaration expired on
February 14, all of the infrastructure had remained in
place. She elaborated that the health orders had changed to
advisories, and it was currently optional. She highlighted
how giving the option and educating travelers and Alaskans
played a role in early detection.
3:35:47 PM
Representative Wool stated his understanding of the answer.
He postulated that the testing of incoming travelers was
one of the reasons Alaska had decent COVID results. He
highlighted that other island or quasi-island communities
such as Hawaii, New Zealand, and Alaska that were able to
isolate people coming in had done pretty well. He remarked
that Alaska was currently only accessible by air and
possibly cruise ship in the coming summer. He knew people
who had flown in since the testing requirement was lifted
and very few people opt to get the test at the airport. He
was concerned about the issue. He speculated that new
variants coming in from out of state could be the source of
a future uptick. He thought the airport testing was a good
program to look into continuing for a period of time.
3:37:50 PM
Representative LeBon believed Ms. Hedberg had talked about
protecting state workers from liability from any COVID-
related incident or illness. He asked if it overlapped to
protect any private sector business that was operating
under the label of an essential business to protect the
business from claims that may originate from clients,
employees, or other individuals who frequent the business.
Ms. Hedberg deferred the question to the Department of Law.
SUSAN POLLARD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), asked for clarification on the
question. She understood the question to be about Section
12 of the bill and how it would potentially affect civil
liability for private employers.
Representative LeBon complied. He stated his impression
that Section 12 was primarily aimed at protecting the
state, departments, and employees. He asked if the
declaration included any private sector employer
protections.
Ms. Pollard stated that her understanding of Section 12 was
that it had been added in the other body to SB 56 and the
bill would have had an effective date of February 14. She
stated that if the bill had been effective on that date,
there would need to be a retrospectivity indication for
people who acted either in compliance with the health order
mandates or not because the disaster order had extended.
She did not believe the detail related to the private
sector had really been contemplated. She could not give a
clear and firm answer at present.
3:41:08 PM
Representative LeBon remarked on the apparent absence of
any protections for private sector employers who may
receive any claims from clients, employees, or others, when
trying to provide an essential service.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked Ms. Hedberg for her testimony. He
appreciated hearing a list of the things DHSS and the
administration needed going forward to control COVID. He
asked if the administration supported the bill because it
met the needs identified by the administration going
forward.
Ms. Hedberg answered that the administration believed a
public health emergency or disaster declaration was not
needed to continue on. The administration believed limited
authorities were needed. She confirmed that the bill, as
currently written, provided what the administration needed.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for clarification. He asked for
verification that the bill provided what the administration
needed, but the administration did not support it.
Ms. Hedberg answered that all of the authorities the
administration needed were included in the bill; however,
the bill contained some authorities that were not needed.
She elaborated that the state was a year into the response,
and it had built up many capabilities and worked
collaboratively with communities. The administration was
asking for a limited list of authorities that it believed
could be created in a separate bill in uncodified law.
3:43:56 PM
HB 76 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick stated the meeting was over time and would
adjourn.