Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1996 08:15 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 198 - PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCES TAPE 96-42, SIDE B Number 0035 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HB 198. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Kim Elton, sponsor of HB 198. REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said HB 198 provided for the exception of the 180 days of accumulative time limit for the purpose of caring for a terminally ill family member, and for the purpose of settling the estate of a deceased family member. "Family members" were defined as parent, spouse, sibling, child and stepchild. He called it a tight definition. He explained he introduced this bill after a constituent came to him who experienced a series of personal illnesses that required care outside of Alaska combined with a couple of situations where he and his wife provided hospice care for other family members outside of Alaska. As a result, he was denied the permanent fund dividend. Representative Elton stated that was unreasonable. Moreover, at the request of Representative James, the title was tightened and the effective date changed resulting in the committee substitute (9-LS0745/C). He said he would be available to answer any questions. Number 0133 CHAIR JAMES stated an excuse for being outside of the state beyond the 180 days currently allowed should be one that was beyond a person's control. The two reasons proposed in CSHB 198(STA) (9- LS0745/C) met that criteria. Number 0147 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Elton what was the attitude of the Permanent Fund Division regarding the bill? Number 0153 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied he did talk to the division to determine the associated problems ("heartburn") and the cost incurred. The division believed it would have a limited cost effect, a $0 fiscal note was attached. The division also believed it would not cause any problems or heartburn. Moreover, he explained the bill did not cover all the situations that it should. It would not cover, for example, a child that needed medical attention outside the state, unless he died. A definition of the term "illness" was needed before more exemptions were applied. The term "terminally ill" was already defined. He said he tried to broaden the bill to include other important family situations, and suggested the committee might want to consider that. Number 0225 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would error on the side of being more loose. It appeared the seriousness was primafacie if someone spent that much time outside of Alaska in a hospital. He did not have a problem including a serious illness as an exemption. Number 0245 CHAIR JAMES said she agreed with Representative Porter. Furthermore, she called this an Alaskan issue. It was not the amount of the permanent fund dividend that was at issue here, it was the idea of not being considered an "Alaskan," if one spent more than 180 days outside of the state. She agreed the door should be opened a little to allow protected exemptions in statute. She further believed, it was more proper to put the exemptions into law rather than regulations. Number 0332 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt CSHB 198(STA) (9-LS0745/C) for consideration. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted. Number 0351 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained she was a cosponsor of the bill. Therefore, she believed in the direction of the bill. She announced she would be willing to work with Representative Elton and others to include serious illnesses as well as terminal illnesses. It many cases Alaskans needed to leave the state for medical treatment to stay alive. She wondered if the bill could be amended to take those situations into consideration. Number 0414 CHAIR JAMES said she wanted to hear from the committee members further before establishing a subcommittee. Number 0440 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested language that addressed acceptable allowances for medical treatment outside of Alaska that were not available in the state, for example. Number 0457 CHAIR JAMES explained she asked Representative Elton to tighten to title of CSHB 198(STA) (9-LS0745/C) to prevent the "christmas tree" effect as it progressed through the system. Number 0480 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he appreciated the intent of CSHB 198(STA) (9-LS0745/C). He wondered about a terminally ill patient that had to leave the state for several years. Many times doctors could not determine the length of time necessary for treatment. Number 0506 CHAIR JAMES replied that concern needed to be answered. Number 0517 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said most would make an exception for the terminally ill. He explained there was a distinction between an individual that needed to leave the state for medical reasons and an airline pilot, for example, that needed to leave the state because of his job due to downsizing. Number 0570 CHAIR JAMES reiterated it was not just the money. It was the fact that a resident felt he was being "slapped in the face" for not being an Alaskan. Number 0598 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested adding to the language Representative Elton proposed to include "the intention to return to the state." He cited an example of a friend that was diagnosed with a brain tumor and moved to California to take advantage of the medicaid program there. He wondered where the line should be drawn. He reiterated there should be an intention to return to Alaska. Number 0669 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there were apparently two categories involved - an Alaskan resident that had to go outside accompanied by a resident for medical treatment, and an Alaskan resident that had to go outside to attend to an out-of-state resident. It was obvious the first category should apply as an exemption, but he was not so sure about the second category. Number 0718 CHAIR JAMES further added to the categories Representative Porter mentioned to include a child accompanied by an adult who turned 18 while out of the state. She suggested forming a subcommittee to work on the language further. She called on Representatives Porter and Robinson to participate. Number 0748 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he would assume that the subcommittee would run the committee substitute by the division and the legal department. CHAIR JAMES replied, "of course." That was part of the process. Number 0757 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said this discussion showed why he had decided to open the door just a little. CHAIR JAMES announced this was a good piece of legislation. She would sign on as a cosponsor. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied, "thank you Madame Chair." CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Nanci A. Jones, Department of Revenue. Number 0796 NANCI A. JONES, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Department of Revenue, said it was always interesting to see how knowledgeable every one was with the program. She appreciated the discussion today. She explained, currently, a person could be allowably absent from the state if he was receiving continuous medical treatment. "Continuous" was defined as a minimum of a weekly visit to the doctor to avoid a person leaving the state for a "medical vacation," in Arizona for example. Furthermore, a person could accompany that person for medical treatment as well. In the regulations, however, that person had to be defined as disabled. The division was undergoing a regulation re-write to define the term "disabled." Therefore, currently, a person could accompany another person out of the state for more than the 180 days. She called CSHB 198(STA) a noble idea. However, the division was concerned about the christmas tree effect that Chair James mentioned as it proceeded through the system. She announced she was in the process of compiling statistics to show how many people were paid that were actually outside of Alaska. She passed to the committee members a handout titled, "1995 Dividend Payments to Eligible Applicants with Absences." A disparity existed between the categories. She cited a person that won a bid outside to work could not receive the dividend. The division recognized the Peace Corp, but did not recognize any other volunteer organizations. She said she could go on and on about the disparities that existed and cautioned the committee it would face that issue once it opened the door. She said she would like to work with the subcommittee to produce an equitable and easily administered piece of legislation. She voiced her concern regarding the two year return provision and the five year presumption provision. Those provisions backed-up the appeal process because it was hard to determine a person's intent. She was concerned this might occur with the two new provisions as well. She explained HB 4 was in the House Finance Committee. The bill separated the issue of state resident and allowable absences. She reiterated it was hard to work with the disparities present in the program. She reiterated CSHB 198(STA) was noble, but suggested taking more time and looking further at the disparities in general. Number 1159 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Jones how many of the allowable absences were in statute and how many were in regulations? Number 1179 MS. JONES replied AS 01.10.055 defined the allowable absences and AS 43.23.095(8) defined "state resident." She suggested two statutes to define a state resident and guidelines for allowable absences. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Jones if HB 4 addressed the state resident issue. MS. JONES replied, "yes." The bill addressed the separation of those two definitions. The regulations further defined the allowable absences according to the statutes. Number 1247 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Jones if more categories were established under AS 01.10.055 (F), "other reasons which the commissioner may establish by regulation; (OR)?" MS. JONES replied, "no." The division, however, had expanded the allowances for the two year return rule and the five year presumption rule. She called subsection (F) a misnomer. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied he understood her concerns about subsection (F), but the division did have the statutory authority to do that. MS. JONES stated the subsection was included for room to grow. However, the division was very cautious about how it grew because it could not allow for every exemption. Number 1296 CHAIR JAMES shared a personal experience regarding the two year and the five year presumption provisions of a family returning to Alaska for only a few days to qualify for the dividend. It was a lot of money for a large family. CHAIR JAMES thanked Ms. Jones for her testimony today. MS. JONES thanked the Chair and the committee members. CHAIR JAMES announced she expected the subcommittee to report back shortly to move the bill forward.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|