Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/12/2000 01:55 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 FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 2000
1:55 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 113, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 113, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 00 - 114, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 00 - 114, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:55 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Representative Austerman Representative Moses
Representative Bunde Representative Phillips
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative G. Davis
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg; Janet Seitz, Staff,
Representative Norman Rokeberg; Alison Elgee, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Administration; John Cyr,
President, National Education Association (NEA), Juneau;
Dwight Perkins, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development; Paul Grossi, Director, Division of
Worker's Compensation, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development; Dale Anderson, Staff, Representative Eldon
Mulder; Mitch Gravo, Lobbyist, State Homebuilders'
Association, Juneau.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Colleen Savoie, Health Care Consultant, Brady & Company,
Anchorage; Jim Jordan, Executive Director, Alaska State
Medical Association (ASMA), Anchorage; Mary Marshburn,
Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of
Administration, Anchorage; Mark Pfeffer, Architect,
Brookings, Oregon; Collen Savoir, Anchorage; Paul Lyle,
Fairbanks; John Athens, Fairbanks; Kevin Daughtery,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 211 An Act relating to liability for providing managed
care services, to regulation of managed care
insurance plans, and to patient rights and
prohibited practices under health insurance; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 211 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 324 An Act requiring written consent by the person who
is the subject of the information before releasing
personal information contained in motor vehicle
records, to comply with 18 U.S.C. 2721; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 324 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by
Department of Administration dated 2/2/00.
HB 419 An Act relating to the weekly rate of compensation
and minimum and maximum compensation rates for
workers' compensation; specifying components of a
workers' compensation reemployment plan; adjusting
workers' compensation benefits for permanent
partial impairment, for reemployment plans, for
rehabilitation benefits, for widows, widowers, and
orphans, and for funerals; relating to permanent
total disability of an employee receiving
rehabilitation benefits; relating to calculation
of gross weekly earnings for workers' compensation
benefits for seasonal and temporary workers and
for workers with overtime or premium pay; setting
time limits for requesting a hearing on claims for
workers' compensation, for selecting a
rehabilitation specialist, and for payment of
medical bills; relating to termination and to
waiver of rehabilitation benefits, obtaining
medical releases, and resolving discovery disputes
relating to workers' compensation; setting an
interest rate for late payments of workers'
compensation; providing for updating the workers'
compensation medical fee schedule; and providing
for an effective date.
CS HB 419 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with fiscal notes by the
Office of the Governor dated 3/29/00, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development dated 3/29/00
and the University of Alaska dated 3/29/00.
HB 439 An Act relating to the compensation of certain
public employees and officials not covered by
collective bargaining agreements; and providing
for an effective date.
HB 439 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 445 An Act relating to a rural school construction and
planned maintenance pilot program; and providing
for an effective date.
CS HB 445 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with a zero
fiscal note by the House Finance Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 211
An Act relating to liability for providing managed care
services, to regulation of managed care insurance
plans, and to patient rights and prohibited practices
under health insurance; and providing for an effective
date.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG stated that patients need
assurance that the quality of their health care will not be
compromised as managed care expands. CS HB 2II (L&C)
requires managed care entities to provide a reasonable
standard of health care, and holds them civilly liable if
they do not. It also establishes requirements for contracts
between managed care entities and their health care
providers, patients and their group managed care plans,
health care insurers and the insured, providing patients
with the following:
• Access to emergency room services;
• Availability of medical services or adequate referral
options;
• Full disclosure of treatment options;
• Choice of health care providers, including specialists;
• Clear descriptions of covered items and services,
benefits, procedures, compensation methods,
availability (and exclusions) of prescription
medications and the availability of translation or
interpreter services;
• A point-of-service plan option;
• Follow-through of preapproved payment;
• Quick utilization review decisions;
• Opportunity for appeals of utilization review
decisions; and
• Added protection from denial, reduction, or termination
of payment for health care services.
Representative Rokeberg noted that in addition, the
legislation would provide health care providers the freedom
to share all testing and treatment options with their
patients, and would let them advocate for their patients
without the risk of being penalized or terminated by the
managed care entity they contract with. It also prohibits
contracts between managed care entities and health care
providers from including "hold harmless" clauses for the
managed care entity or financial incentives for providers to
withhold medically necessary services.
Representative Rokeberg noted that while the legislation
streamlines the health care system, managed care might also
increase the vulnerability of patients and doctors,
resulting in a lower quality of care. The legislation is
necessary to ensure continued quality health care in the
face of a growing managed care industry.
Representative Rokeberg continued his analysis of the
legislation before Committee members.
· Section 2: Imposes civil liability on managed care
entities for certain health care acts. Creates a defense
to the civil action and certain exclusions to liability.
· Section 3: Imposes certain provisions that must be
included in a contract between a health care provider and
a managed care entity. Specifies that certain provisions
cannot be included in a contract between a health care
provider and a managed care entity. Prohibits an
indemnification clause in a contract between a provider
and a managed care entity. Requires that group managed
care plans include certain contract provisions. Imposes
certain requirements regarding a covered persons choice
of a health care provider, including a non-network
option, continuing treatment by a health care provider
whose contract is terminated, and notification when a
provider contract is terminated for cause. Specifies that
medical and financial information concerning a covered
person or applicant is confidential. Establishes an
external appeals mechanism for covered persons. Adds a
provision regarding religious non-medical providers.
· Section 4: Makes a violation of AS 21.07 an unfair
insurance trade practice.
· Section 5: Prohibits a health care insurer from limiting
information on care or treatment. Requires that treatment
decisions are made by a licensed health care provider
trained in the area in question and that denial of
coverage occurs only after consultation.
Representative Rokeberg spoke to the handout distributed
addressing the federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) which was passed in 1974. [Copy on File]. That
piece of federal law regulates employee pension and welfare
plans.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the letters from the medical
association had been drafted to the "M" version of the
legislation. He asked the differences between the two
versions. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that the
April 12 letter from the Alaska State Medical Association
(ASMA) addressed the "W" version. [Copy on File].
COLLEEN SAVOIE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), HEALTH CARE
CONSULTANT, BRADY & COMPANY, ANCHORAGE, noted three areas of
concern with the proposed legislation. She commented on the
conflict with ERISA. Ms. Savoie suggested placing language
in the bill which would clarify that ERISA supercedes
language contained in the bill. That action could remove
all conflict. She added that there are several items of
concern regarding conflict resolution such as removing the
fiduciary responsibility from the planned fiduciary. Such
an example would be the controversy over medical necessity
language which should be included in the plan and decided by
the plan's fiduciary. Ms. Savoie pointed out that language
had been included in several versions of HB 211 and defined
by the medical community.
Ms. Savoie noted, an additional concern that the bill does
not protect client participants. The bill is a "physicians
advocate" bill. She emphasized that in the end, it will
have an adverse affect on all the participants. This
legislation was not requested by the Alaskan public, but
instead it was drafted by the Alaskan physician
organizations. Ms. Savoie stated that members and families
belonging to the organizations represented by her, do oppose
the passage of HB 211 many of which are labor organizations.
Ms. Savoie continued, the third area of concern is that the
legislation would be detrimental and costly to health care
plan sponsors and the participants. She pointed out that
health care costs in Alaska are the highest in the nation
and that these costs will continue to increase over the
years. The costs will be passed down to the plan
participants. Ms. Savoie stressed that it is the
"physicians" who will be receiving the additional income if
the bill passes.
JIM JORDAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (ASMA),
ANCHORAGE, advised that the proposed version does contain
protection for the Alaska clients. He voiced opposition to
comments made by the previous speaker. Mr. Jordan added
that ASMA feels that the ERISA pre-emption of various states
regulating "quality of care" issues, has been significantly
narrowed through recent court decisions and it is expected
that the National Patients Bill of Rights will address that
issue. Mr. Jordan noted that the current version of the
bill would provide an important patient protection. The
issues of liability and medical necessity need to be
addressed by the Legislature during the next session.
Representative Rokeberg requested Mr. Jordan explain the
importance of inclusion of ERISA in the bill. Mr. Jordan
replied that there is a question as to how ERISA is
currently constructed and how far the State can go in
regulating that. He noted that this is a complex issue and
up until the last couple of years, the courts have narrowly
interpreted ERISA. In recent years, there have been several
court cases that have moved away from that decision. At
this time, it is important to determine the quality of care
issues versus quantity. The court has specified that in the
decisions regarding the quality of care, the State will
regulate. That area would still be dependent upon
interpretations made by the court. There are three issues
in the midst of the debate. The first two are medical
necessity and liability and the third deals with the ERISA
concerns, expected to be clarified through federal
legislation.
Vice Chair Bunde inquired what would happen if a situation
was not an emergency, and how then would the appeal be
addressed. Representative Rokeberg replied that there are
two tracks of response. The first is the 24-hour track and
the second would be eighteen-days to appeal.
Vice Chair Bunde voiced concern with the payment and that
itemizing the qualifications of the appeal process would be
paid for by the participants. He questioned how the appeal
would come to resolution. Representative Rokeberg replied
that it would be through a third party external review
system. Representative Rokeberg advised that it would cost
nothing. In response to Representative Bunde,
Representative Rokeberg stated that if the person did not
like the appeal, that person could go to court, which would
create an arbitration situation.
Representative Rokeberg stated that the legislation provides
for truly independent review and judgement which is the
centerpiece of the legislation. Representative Bunde
clarified that the last review would rest with the
independent third party before it goes to court.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 113, Side 2).
Representative Rokeberg pointed out the letter included in
member's packets from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alaska
indicating their support of the bill. [Copy on File].
JOHN CYR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (NEA),
PRESIDENT OF NEA-ALASKA HEALTH TRUST, JUNEAU, noted that NEA
Health Trust insures the health of about 15,000 Alaskans,
and is an ERISA trust. He voiced concern when he heard that
the ERISA trust interpretation would be decided by the
court. He asked what this would cost the NEA Health Trust
down the road in legal fees. If a person were insured with
the NEA Alaska Health Trust, there exists only a question of
whether or not the procedure you need would be covered in
the health plan. There is an appeals procedure that is
built into that process. He stated that the main concern
now is if a service is covered or not.
Mr. Cyr requested that language be added to the bill which
clearly states that ERISA trusts are not covered by this
bill. He emphasized that by litigating some sections of the
bill would mean that ultimately, NEA members would bear
those costs.
Additionally, Mr. Cyr asked what the proposed legislation
would do to health care costs. At this time, the school
districts across the State are looking at a 15-20% increase
to health care costs across the board. As an employer, the
cost of health went up 44% last year. Small businesses can
not afford any future raises in the health care costs.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if ERISA indicated that State law
does not apply, would there need to be language added which
clarifies that State law does not apply to the federal law.
Mr. Cyr commented that he did not believe so until previous
testimony regarding the courts being the final decision
making body. Co-Chair Therriault advised that the Committee
would hold the bill to determine if that concern was valid.
Representative Rokeberg stated that the testimony from Mr.
Jordan indicates that the line of cases has to do with
quantity and quality. Only if it were a quality care issue,
would case law come down. He emphasized that the bill would
not apply to Mr. Cyr's organization.
Representative J. Davies questioned how removing the ERISA
concern would "hurt" the bill. Representative Rokeberg
stated that it was a quality of care issue, and should be
applicable. Representative J. Davies stated that could
exclude an entire section of actions of quantity.
Representative Rokeberg replied that would not be
appropriate; he noted that there are a large number of
people that would not be affected by the bill.
Mr. Cyr reiterated that NEA Health Trust does not oppose the
bill, however, they currently have an ERISA trust, which
insures about 15,000 Alaskans. He stated that he would like
to see continue in the future. If the passage of the bill
meant that health care costs would increase for members that
are insured, then NEA would oppose the legislation.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the risk of litigation
which NEA is fearful of, is regarding whether they are
included in the bill or not. Representative J. Davies asked
if Mr. Cyr understood the distinction between quantity and
quality and if it would be appropriate to State regulate
that.
Mr. Cyr replied that if it is the quality of health care
that is the issue, and NEA is not a "player", then it would
not be a concern. If there is a question regarding the
quality of the service that NEA provides, he pointed out
that there already exists a major appeals process within
their system.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the services that NEA provides.
Mr. Cyr replied that NEA serves all the teachers in the
Anchorage area school district and all the outlining
districts. NEA is self-insured and pays health care costs
for all their covered employees. The issues of quality are
the timeliness of return, and are handled internally. Those
issues are covered under ERISA and it is preferred that they
stay that way. When the Health Trust was established, it
was set up under that set of guidelines.
Representative J. Davies stated that he did not understand
the difference between quality and quantity. Mr. Cyr
stressed that under ERISA, there is a fiduciary
responsibility to their membership to have enough financial
savings and insurance to meet their medical needs.
Representative Rokeberg noted that a definition of ERISA
does exist. He stressed that NEA is exempt because they are
self-insured. It is only those ERISA groups that are
currently covered by insurance companies that would be
impacted by this bill. The potential impact may have
provisions at the federal level which would effect ERISA.
Representative Rokeberg requested Mr. Jordan to provide case
examples.
Mr. Jordan stated that there had been an extensive legal
analysis provided to the Chair of the House Judiciary
Committee. He spoke to the quantity versus quality concerns
voiced by Representative J. Davies. When the court makes a
determination of the privacy of regulation of the regulatory
authority that would be a mandated benefit such as the State
mandating that there be coverage for diabetes, would be a
quantity type issue. It appears that would be preempted
from having the State regulate the interests.
Mr. Jordan continued, the quality concern is more difficult
to explain. He stated that the definition assumes that an
item would need to be covered under the health plan. That
could have to do with a particular service that a patient
might want that the health plan determines is not medically
necessary. It is the type of discussion of what is "not
medically necessary", which is a quality issue concern.
This area is where the court would decide whether to allow
more regulatory authority. Mr. Jordan noted that these
types of cases are being brought forward by the people
enrolled under these plans. He acknowledged that this is
one of the key issues being discussed on the federal
legislation level. Currently, the ERISA plan participants
are not necessarily covered because of the ERISA pre-
exemption language. Federal law does have priority over
State law.
Representative J. Davies asked further clarification of
"medical necessity". He questioned the consequences of not
being able to come to an agreement in Committee.
Representative Rokeberg replied that a common law definition
of medical necessity has been used since statehood. Medical
necessity is either defined or indicated in all provided
contracts. Whether it is fully defined or not is the issue.
The medical profession wishes to redefine it and are working
their way around the system. They believe this is
justifiable. He assumed that the issue is how to have cost
containment and place constraints on them. Every plan is
different and the standards will be different. He noted
that the review process created in the bill, uses the terms
medical necessity and sets out the scope of the contract.
Additionally, it will determine the perimeters of the
external review board definition.
Representative J. Davies summarized comments made by
Representative Rokeberg, pointing out that it is determined
in the external review process and then ultimately in court.
Representative Rokeberg agreed.
Vice Chair Bunde asked if cost was a factor considered in
the medical judgement. Representative Rokeberg replied that
sometimes cost should be a factor and that being aware of
cost makes all providers more sensitive to that concern.
Representative J. Davies asked if the bill touched the issue
of whether the doctors were aware of these costs and their
interest in that. He suggested that the decision for the
medical group to prescribe would mean more money in their
pockets. Representative Rokeberg exclaimed that there is a
prohibition to giving incentives.
HB 211 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 114, Side 1).
HOUSE BILL NO. 419
An Act relating to the weekly rate of compensation and
minimum and maximum compensation rates for workers'
compensation; specifying components of a workers'
compensation reemployment plan; adjusting workers'
compensation benefits for permanent partial impairment,
for reemployment plans, for rehabilitation benefits,
for widows, widowers, and orphans, and for funerals;
relating to permanent total disability of an employee
receiving rehabilitation benefits; relating to
calculation of gross weekly earnings for workers'
compensation benefits for seasonal and temporary
workers and for workers with overtime or premium pay;
setting time limits for requesting a hearing on claims
for workers' compensation, for selecting a
rehabilitation specialist, and for payment of medical
bills; relating to termination and to waiver of
rehabilitation benefits, obtaining medical releases,
and resolving discovery disputes relating to workers'
compensation; setting an interest rate for late
payments of workers' compensation; providing for
updating the workers' compensation medical fee
schedule; and providing for an effective date.
Representative J. Davies noted a change to Amendment 1, 1-
LS1418\I.2, Ford, 4/12/00. [Copy on File]. The change
would be to Page 1, Line 14, inserting "sub" before
"contractor".
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. Co-
Chair Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative J. Davies commented on the intent of the
amendment. Present law states that the contractor is
responsible for providing workmen's comp insurance for the
employees of the subcontractor. The law was written to
protect those employees. It was not written to require the
contractor to provide insurance for the subcontractor. At
present time, it is the practice to interpret it that way.
That in fact makes the subcontractor an employee of the
contractor. The amendment would clarify that the statute
means insuring just the employees and not the subcontractor,
himself. Representative J. Davies pointed out that there
currently are court cases over this issue. The proposed
language provides clarification. The consequences of
leaving the language vague, creates circumstances where
there would be people working without being insured. He
reiterated that the proposed language would clarify the
understanding.
Vice Chair Bunde asked why the contractor would be
responsible for the subcontractor's employees.
Representative J. Davies advised that this is a public
policy issue decided in the past. The question lies in
regard to where the subcontractor with no employees "falls".
This needs to be defined one way or another.
Representative Phillips stated that was already contained in
state law. She understood that the contractor does take
care of insurance for the employees but not for an
independent subcontractor. Representative G. Davis
addressed that the language of the amendment would clarify
the conflict.
DWIGHT PERKINS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, agreed that there does exist a
problem and recognized that there is a timing issue in the
legislation. He noted that there had been discussion in HB
378, a similar bill, previously. Mr. Perkins noted that the
Labor Union does have a concern with the legislation. He
noted that the Department would defer to the ad hoc
committee's recommendations. Mr. Perkins interjected that
the Department wanted to work with the homebuilders. He
noted that there is concern that the legislation could weigh
down the worker's comp fee bill, which previously passed the
House floor.
PAUL GROSSI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, stated that
the Department does not have a major position on the
amendment. He additionally deferred to the ad hoc committee
recommendations. He emphasized that the Department did not
want to stop the bill.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the proposed problems
presented from organized labor. Mr. Perkins responded that
those concerns were along the line of why a subcontractor
was not considered an employee and why shouldn't that
individual be covered by the contractor's worker's
compensation insurance. Mr. Perkins pointed out that law
requires that if there are employees, that they must be
covered by worker's comp. The conflict arises within the
Division of Insurance.
Representative J. Davies noted that the law states that the
contractor is responsible for the subcontractor's employees
if the subcontractor does not have insurance. The
assumption is that the subcontractor will carry the
insurance.
Representative Phillips stressed that would be a separate
issue from employee insurance. Mr. Grossi interjected that
the general contractor would have liability; a sole
proprietor subcontractor is not required in current statute
to have worker's compensation insurance.
Vice Chair Bunde stated that any subcontractor who did not
have the insurance would have a competitive advantage over a
subcontractor who did pay the insurance costs. Mr. Grossi
agreed that their costs would be less.
Representative J. Davies pointed out the Letter of Intent
which provides further clarification of the amendment.
Co-Chair Therriault WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the amendment.
He advised concern that it could change the title. He
requested further information from the ad hoc group.
KEVIN DAUGHTERY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
explained that he did have concern with the amendment. He
noted that there has always been concern when traditional
business practices change. He stated that the amendment
would provide a modification to current law.
Mr. Daughtery commented that when an owner/operator works as
a subcontractor, then the general contractor must insure
that proper worker's comp insurance is available. If that
were removed, it would change the current process.
Mr. Daughtery spoke to the seriousness of this problem. He
suggested that language be added to the fee bill. He noted
that there is currently an ongoing disagreement with the
Department. He acknowledged that this is serious business
and that these problems in the construction industry are
being addressed on the national level. He reiterated that
he was opposed to the amendment as drafted.
Representative Phillips stressed that the provision is not a
modification to current law but rather a clarification of
current law. She emphasized that the amendment clarifies
the existing practice.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that the amendment was drafted
to address the subcontractor who does not have employees.
Mr. Daughtery argued that the amendment would be a
modification to current practice. In the construction
industry, if there is a situation where everyone on a job
claims to be an owner/operator, the problem is the safety of
the workers. They would be disadvantaged by the process.
He reiterated that it would be a statutory change and would
impact the industry. Co-Chair Mulder asked if this was a
subversion of what was intended.
Mr. Daughtery explained that there are rules, which start on
the federal level. He noted that this language would be
wrong, and would "loosen" the law. Co-Chair Therriault
suggested that making it tighter would be a clear
modification to the existing law.
MITCH GRAVO, LOBBYIST, STATE HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION,
Juneau, testified on the amendment. He stressed that the
amendment would restate Section #1 in the statutes in a
different manner. The amendment only addresses if the
contractor would be required to cover with insurance for a
subcontractor with no employees. There is no statutory
authority for the contractor to cover the subcontractor. He
added that there currently are a couple of homebuilders
dealing with a dispute regarding coverage with an insurance
company. Mr. Gravo stressed that the intent of the
legislation clarifies that if a contractor has hired a
subcontractor and there are no employees, the contractor
would not be required to purchase workmen's compensation
insurance for that worker.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the House Finance
Committee Letter of Intent.
Representative G. Davis spoke in support of the Letter of
Intent. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, 1-
LS1418\I.1, Ford, 4/11/00. [Copy on File.] Mr. Grossi
discussed Amendment #2. He stated that the amendment would
mitigate concerns regarding the waiver of reemployment
benefits and that a doctor would have to recommend
reemployment benefits. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 419 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 419 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a House Finance Letter of Intent
and fiscal notes by the Office of the Governor dated
3/29/00, Department of Labor and Workforce Development dated
3/29/00 and University of Alaska dated 3/29/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 445
An Act relating to a rural school construction and
planned maintenance pilot program; and providing for an
effective date.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the proposed
committee substitute, work draft 1-LS1596\G, Ford, 4/12/00.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
DALE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MULDER, discussed the
committee substitute and the changes made to it from the
original version of the legislation. He observed that
changes had been made in response to concerns regarding sole
source bids.
MARK PFEFFER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ARCHITECT,
BROOKINGS, OREGON, spoke in support of the legislation. He
stressed that the legislation would streamline the schedule
and produce savings. He stated that the legislation would
allow all the traditional methods of design process between
architects and owners and between owners and contractors,
while at the same time, allows for a management process that
provides accountability.
Representative J. Davies referenced Line 19, Page 2. He
questioned if including "price" would be redundant.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to delete the second
occurrence of "price" on Line 19, Page 2. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Vice Chair Bunde provided members with an email from a
constituent regarding the bill. [Copy on File]. Co-Chair
Mulder noted that there was a zero House Finance Committee
fiscal note.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 445 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 445 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with a new zero fiscal note
by the House Finance Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
An Act requiring written consent by the person who is
the subject of the information before releasing
personal information contained in motor vehicle
records, to comply with 18 U.S.C. 2721; and providing
for an effective date.
MARY MARSHBURN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV), ANCHORAGE, stated that the
reason for HB 324 was to bring statewide law into accordance
with the past federal legislation regarding confidentiality
of vehicle records. The information is confidential under
current State law and would continue to be so.
Ms. Marshburn pointed out that current State law mirrors the
former federal law and would release vehicle records for a
limited amount of uses. One of those permitted uses would
be for marketing and telecommunications. For that use,
recently passed federal legislation directs the states to
update their regulations and the penalty for not being in
st
compliance is a $5000 dollar per day, beginning June 1.
Vice Chair Bunde asked if it would be prohibited to use that
information in political campaigns. Ms. Marshburn replied
that the personal information could not be used.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 114, Side 2).
In response to Representative Williams, Ms. Marshburn
reiterated that the penalty would be $5000 dollars a day.
She noted that the loss of revenue expected by the State
would be approximately $200 thousand dollars a year. She
pointed out that the fiscal note had been drafted to the
worst case scenario and indicated that the Department could
submit a revised fiscal note.
Representative G. Davis MOVED to report HB 324 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 324 was reported out of Committee with "individual
recommendations" and with the Department of Administration
fiscal note dated 2/2/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 439
An Act relating to the compensation of certain public
employees and officials not covered by collective
bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective
date.
ALISON ELGEE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, stated that the bill provides for cost-of-
living increases the same as those provided in the
collective bargaining agreements that the Administration has
reached with the twelve unions representing State employees,
which would be a lump sum payment of up to $1,200 (prorated
at $50 per pay period) for fiscal year 2001, a two percent
increase in fiscal year 2002, and a three percent in fiscal
year 2003.
Ms. Elgee noted that the bill was modified in the House
State Affairs Committee to remove legislators. She pointed
out that the fiscal note accompanying the bill, incorporates
the cost of including the legislators. That cost was
provided to the Committee as part of the budget amendments
submitted in February 2000 from the Governor's Office.
PAUL LYLE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS, asked
to waive testimony on the bill until amendments had been
proposed.
JOHN ATHENS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS,
requested to waive his testimony on the bill until the
amendments had been submitted.
Representative G. Davis advised that he supported the
legislation should the other labor contracts be approved.
Representative Bunde stated the only change that he would
suggest would be to draw a cut off the increase at Range 24
and higher.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to include legislators as
well as State employees. Representative Austerman OBJECTED.
He questioned what that action would really represent in
regard to pay increases. Ms. Elgee explained that the
legislators would then become subject to percentage
increases as proposed for other employees.
Representative Austerman maintained his objection,
indicating that until there was a clear message from the
Legislature that the employee contract would be funded, he
found it difficult to vote for such an amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: J. Davies, G. Davis, Foster, Moses
OPPOSED: Williams, Austerman, Bunde, Grussendorf
Representative Phillips, Co-Chair Mulder and Co-Chair
Therriault were not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-4).
HB 439 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|