05/09/1994 09:50 PM House RLS

  CHAIRMAN CARL MOSES called the meeting to order at 9:50                      
  p.m., noted the members in attendance and informed the                       
  committee that SB 362, "Relating to insurance, and the                       
  licensing and accreditation of those involved in the                         
  insurance business," was on the calendar.                                    
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS MOVED to adopt the work draft of HCS                  
  CSSB 362(), dated 5/7/94 by Ford, numbered 8-LS1757\J.                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY objected.  He said he had voted                        
  against the amendment in the Finance Committee, and would                    
  rather have the version without the amendment.                               
  CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if there were people who wanted to                      
  testify.                                                                     
                                                                               
  PAUL FUHS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC                 
  DEVELOPMENT, noted that "the main thrust of the bill changes                 
  the way we look at solvency of insurance companies to make                   
  sure that we don't end up with a Savings and Loan or an                      
  executive life type situation.  The two provisions that are                  
  different from what came to you from Labor and Commerce is                   
  1) any willing provider, that means any provider who is                      
  willing to provide the service at the same price an                          
  insurance company, will be required to allow their patients                  
  to go to that provider without any penalty on payment of                     
  those services.  The other one is appointment of independent                 
  council.  It's a codification of a court case                                
  (indiscernible) in which the policyholder is entitled a                      
  representation independent of the council, proposed by the                   
  insurer defending the case on behalf of the insured.  On                     
  both of these, while we're neutral on the substance of the                   
  provisions, you have a letter here from Governor Hickel and                  
  we ask that these amendments not be included, and that you                   
  use the Labor and Commerce committee substitute."                            
                                                                               
  Number 082                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if there were questions.  There were                    
  none.                                                                        
                                                                               
  CHARLIE MILLER, LOBBYIST, ALASKA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, advised                  
  members that he would first address the "any willing                         
  provider" portion of the legislation that "deals with a                      
  problem that we've run into being excluded without any form                  
  of bid process for these PPOs (Preferred Provider                            
  Organizations) and so we've not had an opportunity to share                  
  in some of them.  Currently the Aetna PPOs that we deal with                 
  pay full price without any problem."                                         
                                                                               
  He further stated that "the Medical Service Corporations in                  
  the area we deal with doesn't allow us to bid either, and                    
  we'd just like to make sure that we have access to the                       
  patients and the physician referrals for our facility in                     
  Anchorage.  The doctors and dentists in the community also                   
  support it, I can speak to that a little bit.  For them,                     
  it's more of an access issue as far as they don't want to                    
  lose patients that they have or patients that want to                        
  utilize their services because the patient is put into one                   
  of these PPO's, most people that have insurance don't chose                  
  their insurer.  It's provided at the work place and they are                 
  put into one of these.  They don't have a choice if they're                  
  in a PPO, they're just given that option, I mean they're in                  
  there.  If they don't get the doctor they like, that's, they                 
  either have to pay a penalty, or its just not available to                   
  go there.  So the doctors would rather see this provision                    
  in."                                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 086                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MILLER then noted that "our understanding is that                        
  medical insurers, other than medical service corporations                    
  now already have language similar to this in law, in AS 21.                  
  So they're covered already.  This would just bring the rest                  
  of the medical insurance community under the same                            
  provisions.  We feel that if that if there were competitive                  
  bidding allowed, that that would foster much more                            
  competition and bring the market forces to bear a lot more                   
  than the current situation where discounts under these                       
  programs but without the competitive bid you don't really                    
  know how big a discount is available in the community.  So                   
  we don't think this will hurt the cost and we think it will                  
  help access.  We'd hope that you would include this measure,                 
  include this provision in the measure.  If there are any                     
  questions, I'd be happy to answer them."                                     
                                                                               
  Number 136                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN MOSES asked if there were questions. There were                     
  none.                                                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS reminded members that there was a                    
  motion on the floor to adopt the HCS CSSB 362(RLS), and that                 
  Representative Hanley had objected.                                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN MOSES asked that a roll call vote be taken.                         
  REPRESENTATIVES PHILLIPS, SANDERS AND MOSES voted `YEA'.                     
  REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY voted `NAY.'  So the HCS CSSB 362(RLS)                 
  was adopted.                                                                 
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY MOVED to pass HCS CSSB 362(RLS) FROM                   
  COMMITTEE with individual recommendations.  IT WAS SO                        
  ORDERED.