Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/2009 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB45 | |
| SB32 | |
| SB96 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 96
"An Act relating to nonpayment of child support;
relating to certain judicial and administrative orders
for medical support of a child; relating to periodic
review and adjustment of child support orders;
relating to relief from administrative child support
orders; relating to child support arrearages; relating
to medical support of a child and the Alaska Native
family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an
effective date.
LYNDA, ZAUGG, STAFF, SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS,
In July 2008, the federal government issued new
medical support regulation that require states to have
guidelines addressing how either or both parents will
provide for a child's healthcare needs through
accessible health insurance coverage, cash medical
support, or both. Failure to satisfy these
regulations jeopardizes federal funding for the
state's child support programs.
Under the federal regulations, states must order
either or both parents to purchase reasonably-priced,
accessible health insurance coverage, cash medical
support, or both. Cash medical support may be
required in those cases where no reasonable-priced
health insurance coverage is accessible to the child.
If a parent is ordered to pay cash medical support,
the Child Support Services Division must enforce the
ongoing cash medical support obligation as well as
collect any cash medical support arrears.
9:27:36 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if medical payments were retroactive
applying to past orders.
GINGER BLAISDELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE introduced two members of
the Child Support Enforcement Division. She provided the
choice of either hearing a sectional analysis by John
Mallonee, or asking questions directly of her. Co-Chair
Stedman requested the presentation by Mr. Mallonee.
JOHN MALLONEE, ACTING DIRECTOR, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (testified via
teleconference). He explained that the federal government
provides greater than 66 percent of the funding needed for
the program. In order to secure funding, the state must
comply with requirements of the Social Security Act and
federal regulations. Failure to meet the requirements
places federal funding for the child support program at
risk. The funding amounts to approximately $17 million per
year. This legislation addresses three areas where state
statutes require change to federal requirements and ensure
federal funding for the child support program. The first
area is the Uniform Family Support Act. The purpose of the
act is to provide efficient procedures to collect child
support in interstate cases and to eliminate multiple
support orders permitted under child support laws. In 1995,
Alaska enacted a version of the act that contained a
different definition of "state" than contained in the
Uniform Act. The following year, Congress passed
legislation mandating the states adopt the Uniform Act for
eligibility for continued receipt of federal funds for the
child support program. Alaska's definition of "state" does
not encompass two entities included in the uniform act.
These two entities are the "United States Virgin Islands"
and an "Indian tribe." The bill eliminates the differences
by incorporating the two entities in the Alaska Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act Statute.
Mr. Mallonee discussed the topic of child support. He
mentioned that the state child support program efforts to
secure an enforced medical support order met with limited
success. Congress enacted the Child Support Performance
Incentive Act of 1998. The act directed the establishment
of medical support working groups. The group includes 30
members representing federal and state child support
programs employers, payroll professionals, health plans,
and the children's advocates. The working group's report
was delivered to Congress in 2000. In July of 2008, in
response to several of the working group's key
recommendations, the federal office of child support
enforcement issued new medical support regulations. These
regulations require a state to have guidelines
necessitating that both parents provide for the child's
healthcare needs through accessible health care insurance
coverage, cash medical support or both. Under the federal
regulations, a state must order either or both parents to
purchase reasonably priced accessible health insurance
coverage, cash medical support or both. While health
insurance coverage is preferred, cash support is required
in cases where no reasonably priced health insurance
coverage is accessible to the child. If a parent is ordered
to pay cash medical support, the child support division
must enforce the ongoing cash medical support obligation as
well as collecting any medical support. The bill adds
existing authority to order either or both parents to pay
the cash medical support if warranted. While meeting
federal requirements, the bill assures that children
receive medical support to which they are entitled.
Mr. Mallonee stated that the third area involves review and
modification of support orders. Clients may request review
at any time. If no request is made, a review is not
performed. Current federal regulations require the state to
have procedures of which child support orders must be
reviewed and appropriately modified every three years. The
bill requires the agency to perform the reviews in
compliance with the review cycle; however this in no way
limits a client's ability to request a review at any time.
He explained that an automated system collects income
information from each party once a year and performs a
calculation determining whether the case meets the criteria
for modification. If it appears that modification criteria
are met, notices are sent to both parties informing them
that a modification may be warranted. In addition to these
federal required provisions, the bill also removes the
language limiting who may request the correction of a
clerical mistake in an administrative order or who may
request the vacation of an administrative order.
9:34:38 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the changing of the definition
of state and the impact the change has in undermining the
state's sovereignty. Ms. Blaisdell informed that assistant
attorney general dealing directly with tribal affairs from
the Department of Law (DOL) was available to answer
questions.
PETER PUTZIER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW spoke to the amendment. He
opined that the changes are procedural in how child support
orders are enforced. The changes do not affect a
substantive change either expanding or limiting tribal
jurisdiction and conversely neither expand nor contract the
state's jurisdiction with respect to child support
enforcement authority.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the change might potentially
affect future court challenges. Mr. Putzier opined that the
change would not impact future court challenges. He stated
that the change only affects procedural changes in the law.
The issue of tribal jurisdiction will remain unresolved.
The bill does not expand or restrict jurisdiction that
tribes have on one hand or the state on the other.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the administration supports the
bill. Ms. Blaisdell answered yes.
Co-Chair Stedman noticed the request to change the
definition of state and the amount of $17 million per year.
He asked the impact of the bill if the legislature takes no
positive action. Ms. Blaisdell answered that the
administration received a letter regarding the definition
of "state." She cited a section reporting that the funds
are at risk if the state is not involved in a block grant
for The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF),
which requires the state to certify that it will operate a
child support enforcement program under the state plan
under Section d. Therefore Alaska should be aware that TANF
funds may also be at risk if the state does not enact
conforming child support legislation. She informed that $17
million is the amount of federal funding that goes to the
child support services division. Unfortunately the TANF
grant is also used widely in the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS). If the federal government were to
restrict the entire federal TANF grant, it would equate to
$85 million in negative impact to the state.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the "strings attached" to SB
96 as suspected with the economic stimulus bill. He asked
how to specifically reconcile the issue of "strings
attached."
9:38:51 AM
Ms. Blaisdell confessed that she did not understand the
connection of "strings attached" and SB 96. Co-Chair
Stedman replied that the federal money is contingent on
changing the definition of "state." He asked how the
committee might reconcile decisions regarding the stimulus
bill. Ms. Blaisdell informed that SB 96 was not directly
related to the federal stimulus package. She explained that
SB 96 informs that Alaska must be in compliance with the US
act. If the state is not in compliance, we are at risk of
losing significant federal funding. The federal economic
funding child support section allows child support to
utilize some of its federal funding as a general fund match
providing a benefit. She did not believe that there is a
direct correlation between this bill and the federal
economic stimulus package other than child support is
impacted by both.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the legislation was not
the stimulus bill. He was confused about the message that
was coming from the administration dealing with bills or
requests to the state with "strings attached." He asked how
to separate the two issues.
9:41:22 AM
Ms. Blaisdell offered to return to the committee with the
needed answers regarding SB 96 and "strings attached".
Senator Olson asked about native tribes and health care
beneficiaries. He asked if any changes compromise native's
access to healthcare. He explained that Indian Health
Service (IHS) beneficiaries have health care provided for
them. He asked how services are affected by having "Indian
tribes" included in the legislation's language on Page 2,
Line 24.
Mr. Putzier believed that the amendment's change regards
the method of child support orders between jurisdictions.
He did not believe that the amendment would have an impact
on IHS beneficiaries.
9:43:37 AM
STACY STEINBERG, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (testified via
teleconference) stating that IHS beneficiaries will not be
affected. She informed that the cash support provision of
the bill adds to the existing law the requirement to
consider and determine if health care is available to the
children. This bill adds an additional piece stating that
during instances where health insurance is unavailable to
the children, the agency report would consider whether cash
medical support is then appropriate. Under the current law,
if the children are eligible for IHS, then the requirement
is met.
Senator Thomas asked about the addition of the language and
its impact on employers in relationship to payment of cash.
He opined that difficulty in tracking wages earned might
provide a problem. He wondered if the legislation might
hold the employers more responsible.
9:46:41 AM
Mr. Mallonee responded that an underground cash economy
exists where people work for unreported wages. The wages
are attached to cash medical support. He thought it
impossible to withhold the income or take it out of an
individual bank account.
Senator Thomas asked if the state or federal governments
are erring by neglecting to approach the issue. Mr.
Mallonee stated that the federal government and child
support directors across the nation have struggled with the
problem for some time. A reporting mechanism does not exist
to address the problem, but to date a solution is
unavailable.
Ms. Blaisdell restated previous questions, whether cash
medical assistance is used strictly for medical payments.
The second question was whether the legislation was
retroactive to preexisting orders or forward funding only.
9:48:50 AM
Mr. Mallonee discussed the retroactive question. With this
legislation a modification to child support order to
include the cash medical support would not go retroactive
to previous times. The money does not require proof of use
for medical expenses. Once the money is received, the
custodial parent is then responsible for spending the
money. There is no reason to report the use of the money to
the state.
Senator Thomas asked about Page 1, Line 10 stating "when a
person commits a crime of aiding the nonpayment of child
support in the second degree". He asked about the penalty
for the crime.
Mr. Mallonee answered that the penalty is felony
prosecution for aiding and abetting the nonpayment of child
support. For the acts of nonpayment of child support the
penalties are either misdemeanor or felony charges. The
legislation simply places the cash medical support as a
portion of that periodic cash support in that statute.
9:51:56 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for specific examples addressing the
inclusion. Mr. Mallonee replied that the inclusion was
simply for cash medical support inserted in the definition
within the particular statute.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the language change was required
for the legislature to remain in conformance. Mr. Mallonee
stated that the language change is not required.
9:53:02 AM
Senator Bettye Davis
SB 96 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
9:54:14 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSD_Fed_Compliance_letter_16mar09[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 96 |
| 2009 FNSB Resolution.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 45 |
| Mallonee leter.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 96 |
| SB96 DORCSSD Letter 032009.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 96 |
| SB96 DORCSSD Letter 032709.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 96 |
| SB96 sectional .pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 96 |
| sponsor statement SB 96.doc |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 96 |
| New SB032CS(FIN)-DHSS-RR-03-19-09.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 32 |
| New SB032CS(FIN)-DHSS-SDMS-03-19-09.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 32 |
| Proposed CS for SB 32 Version M.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2009 9:00:00 AM |
SB 32 |