Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2003 03:15 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 30, 2003
3:15 P.M.
TAPE HFC 03 - 71, Side A
TAPE HFC 03 - 71, Side B
TAPE HFC 03 - 72, Side A
TAPE HFC 03 - 72, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 3:15 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joel Gilbertson, Commissioner, Department of Health & Social
Services; Bob Labbe, Deputy Director, Department of Health
and Social Services; Karen Pearson, Director, Division of
Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Social
Services; Tim Barry, Staff, Representative Bill Williams;
Virginia Breeze, Division of Elections; Cheryl Jebe,
President, League of Women Voters; Stuart Thomson, Self,
Juneau; Alvin Anders, Secretary, Alaska Libertarian Party;
Patricia Zimmerman, Douglas Advisory Board, Juneau; Marie
Darlin, Alaska Association of Retired Persons (AARP),
Juneau; Portia Parker, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; Senator Tim Kelly, Substance Abuse Association
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dick Bishop, Alaska Outdoor Council, Fairbanks; Jim Sykes,
Co-Chair, Green Party of Alaska, Mat-Su; Karen Bretz,
Attorney, Alaskans for Efficient Government, Anchorage;
Linda Ronan, Alaska Hemp, Anchorage; Ken Jacobus, Attorney,
Anchorage; Jed Whittaker, Anchorage; Steve Con, Alaska
Public Interest Research Group and Consumer Advocacy
Organization (AKPIRG), Anchorage; Marie Lavigne, Executive
Director, Alaska Public Health Association; Marie Lavigne,
Executive Director, Alaska Public Health Association,
Anchorage; Ann Hopper, Program Director, Family Focus
Program, Fairbanks
SUMMARY
HJR 5 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to initiative and
referendum petitions.
HJR 5 was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with fiscal note
#1 by the Office of the Governor.
HB 209 An Act relating to municipal property tax
adjustments for property affected by a disaster.
HB 209 was WAIVED from Committee.
HB 229 An Act relating to special medical parole and to
prisoners who are severely medically and
cognitively disabled.
CS HB 229 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal
notes by the Department of Health and Social
Services and one new note by the Department of
Corrections.
CS SB 105(HES) am(efd fld)
An Act relating to eligibility requirements for
medical assistance for certain children, pregnant
women, and persons in a medical or intermediate
care facility.
HCS CS SB 105 (HES)am(efd fld) was reported out of
Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with
a new fiscal note by the Department of Health and
Social Services.
SB 109 An Act repealing the statute that sets priorities
for the Department of Health and Social Services
to apply to administration of the medical
assistance program when there are insufficient
funds allocated in the state budget for that
program; authorizing the department to make cost
containment decisions that may include decisions
about eligibility of persons and availability of
services under the medical assistance program; and
providing for an effective date.
SB 109 was SCHEDULED but not heard.
SB 124(efd fld)
An Act relating to grants for alcoholism and drug
abuse programs.
HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "individual" recommendations and with four
fiscal notes, #1, #2, #3, & #4 by the Department
of Health and Social Services.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum
petitions.
TIM BARRY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, stated that
HJR 5 was a resolution to put a constitutional amendment on
the ballot in the fall 2004. The amendment would change the
requirements for getting an initiative on the ballot.
Currently, the constitution requires getting signatures from
at least 10% of the number of people who voted in the most
recent general election statewide. Those signatures must be
from at least 27 of the 40 House districts or 2/3 of the
House districts.
Mr. Barry added that the fiscal note is for $1,500 dollars,
which would be the costs to the Division of Elections for
printing the additional page in the election pamphlet. He
noted that Virginia Breeze from the Division of Elections
was present to answer questions of the Committee.
Mr. Barry advised that because the amendment proposes a
constitutional amendment, it only becomes law if it is
supported by 2/3 + 1 of both Legislative members and is
approved by the majority of voters at the ballot box in
2004. He referenced the letters of support in the packets
and statistical data on the signature petitions from recent
years. The spreadsheets indicate that no hardship for
initiative supporters in the last few years meeting the
requirement for HJR 5.
Representative Croft asked if there were any initiatives in
that past few years that would not have qualified under this
amendment. Mr. Barry replied that information would be
difficult to access. The way that the process is done is
that the Division of Elections counts signatures until they
hit the needed number, 10% statewide and assuring that there
is at least one signature from each of the districts. The
signature gatherers always gather more than are needed. In
most cases, when counted, the requirements of HJR 5 and HB
31 would have been met.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the resolution would require that
10% of those that voted in the preceding general election,
must reside in at least ¾ of the election districts. In
those ¾ election districts, there must be a minimum of 7% in
each. Mr. Barry agreed that was essentially correct and
that it would be a number equal to 7% of the number of
people who voted at the most recent election in that
district. In order to sign the petition, the person would
not have had to vote but would have to be registered.
Co-Chair Harris suggested that the reason for the proposed
legislation was to guarantee that more of the election
districts in the State have at least some representation in
a statewide petition. Mr. Barry noted that it is the
sponsor's intention that democracy, through the initiative
process, be exported to more parts of the State than is
currently happening.
Representative Joule questioned how many districts could be
accessed on the current road system. Mr. Barry did not
know. Representative Joule pointed out that it would be
difficult to get this to rural Alaska, while still being
possible to get to the needed ¾ along the road system. Mr.
Barry explained that the way in which the system works, the
sponsor of the petition makes signature packets. They could
be sent through the mail, with signatures gathered and sent
back. Mr. Barry stated that the Division of Elections has
numbered booklets and that emailing was not possible at
present time.
DICK BISHOP, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA OUTDOOR
COUNCIL, FAIRBANKS, stated that initiatives are not a bad
tool when used to protect people's rights; however, most
initiatives are used to restrict rights. He noted that the
founding fathers of this country were wary of the impact of
the initiative system on minority rights.
Mr. Bishop commented that hunters, fishers and trappers are
a minority in Alaska. Wildlife initiatives have promoted
restriction of sound, lawful hunting, trapping and wildlife
management.
Mr. Bishop stated that HB 31 would help to defend against
"the tyranny of the majority" by requiring broader
representation of Alaskan minorities in order to put an
initiative on the ballot
Mr. Bishop stressed that HB 31 would not ban the initiative
process. He noted that 26 states now do use this system.
Initiatives on wildlife issues are widely condemned by
professional fish and wildlife biologists in Alaska and
across the nation because they've proven a poor substitute
for the legal framework developed over the last 100 years
for managing fish and game
Mr. Bishop continued that with wildlife, it is easy to sell
bad idea advertising. People mostly like wildlife and don't
want to check out the facts, so they react to the emotional
appeal of a ballot campaign. Alaska has an outstanding
legal framework for fish and game management. HB 31 & HJR
5would improve the working climate of the system.
STEVE CON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA PUBLIC
INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP AND CONSUMER ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
(AKPIRG), ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the
legislation. He noted that in the past 30 years, his
organization has used the initiative tool. The use has not
involved fish, wildlife or environmental matters but rather
the alliance to set in place campaign finance reform law.
He pointed out that the Legislature had passed the campaign
finance reform law. The Constitutional Convention saw the
initiative process as a critical tool to express the will of
the people and to curb the power of special interests on the
legislative process.
Mr. Con stressed that the initiative tool has worked. He
stated that the legislation should be opposed. If passed it
will make it difficult for individuals except for high-paid
special interest groups to place initiatives on the ballot.
KAREN BRETZ, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
ALASKANS FOR EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, ANCHORAGE, testified in
opposition to the legislation. She noted that she has been
involved in the initiative process as a proponent of ballot
initiatives, a collector of initiative signatures, and
counsel to litigants involved in the initiative process.
Ms. Bretz urged that members not pass HJR 5. She pointed
out that the right to petition the government is guaranteed
in the State constitution and tangentially in the federal
constitution. The net result of HJR 5 will be the curbing
of rights.
HJR 5 will effect outside interests and local people. The
outside interests will always have the funds to get their
issues on the ballot regardless of the roadblocks placed
before them. In contrast, Alaskans would be dissuaded from
participating in direct democracy if it is unreasonably
difficult. Ms. Bretz stressed that the bill will
disproportionately affect Alaskans.
The requirement that initiative sponsors collect signatures
equal in number to 10% of the voters who voted in the prior
general election presents a challenge for Alaskans and
ensures that the proposed initiative would have minimal
support. HJR 5 does not disturb the 10% signature
requirement and will additionally require:
· Sponsors to collect signatures from three quarters
of the house districts; and
· That seven percent of the voters in each of those
districts sign the petition.
Ms. Bretz claimed that HJR 5 would disenfranchise people
living in rural Alaska from participating in the initiative
process.
She added that it is important to reflect upon the
individual freedoms and prosperity that our form of
government allows us. The Legislature should encourage more
Alaskans to participate in the initiative process. Although
the initiative process has never been instituted on the
federal level, the United States Supreme Court commented on
it in the case of United Mine Workers of America vs.
Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 427 (1967).
Restraining the rights of the people from petitioning the
government through the initiative process is not Alaskan,
nor is patriotic. Ms. Bretz urged members of the Committee
to vote "do not pass" on HJR 5.
LINDA RONAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIR OF THE
BOARD, ALASKA HEMP, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the
legislation. She recommended current technology retaining
inclusion by utilizing the Internet. She pointed out that
in her circle, there is not one person interested in this
bill. She stated that the legislation would remove the
people's choice of what is placed on the ballot. That would
not be right. She urged members to vote against HJR 5.
KEN JACOBUS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY, LEGAL
COUNCIL FOR REPUBLICAN PARTY, ANCHORAGE, testified his
opposition to HJR 5, echoing previous comments. He stated
that HJR 5 would have to consist of 31 petitions. There
will need to be a petition for each district plus the same
petition statewide. It would be essential to get the
cushion of signatures in each district. The net result will
be that only well financed petitions will be able to do
this. The ordinary person that wants to petition will not
be able to do so. He claimed that none of the petitions on
the list since 1998 would have gotten on the ballot if this
particular bill were in place.
Mr. Jacobus commented that this legislation will not solve
Dick Bishop's problem. The resolution will result in only
petitions for wildlife and natural resource. Those people
use petitions as fundraisers. The legislation will get rid
of petitions brought forth by the ordinary people.
Mr. Jacobus claimed that if the idea gets on the ballot,
there would be "mud" slug at people that support the "power
grab"; it will not pass. He suggested leaving it alone and
let the people have the power that they have been given
originally under the constitution. When an initiative gets
on the ballot, the people have the right to vote it up or
down.
JED WHITTAKER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
understood that there is a fear in Alaska that Anchorage is
becoming a City-State. He noted that HJR 5 was not a good
solution, as it would do away with the 14th Amendment of the
United States Constitution.
Mr. Whittaker disagreed that the fiscal note would amount to
only $1,500 dollars, because there will be many lawsuits
that follow. He pointed out that Co-Chair Williams did not
have a co-sponsor on the resolution.
JIM SYKES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GREEN PARTY OF
ALASKA, MAT-SU, echoed sentiments voiced by previous
speakers. He stated that the Committee should not pass HJR
5 and that citizens should be encouraged to participate in
government. HJR 5 places a roadblock to the intended
process. He agreed that the "well funded outside special
interest groups" will have the edge with passage of this
legislation because they have the money to do whatever the
requirements are.
Mr. Sykes questioned the intent of the legislation. He
suggested that more signatures from rural Alaska would not
hold true. There are better methods:
· Making outside contributions toward the initiative
process illegal; and
· Limiting contributions to $500 dollars; requiring
monthly disclosure reports to Alaska Public Officers
Commission (APOC) to find out who is funding the
petition drives.
Mr. Sykes agreed with the $1 dollar per signature charge,
which he thought was reasonable. He spoke to the
distribution reports, indicating that the citizens from
every district have signed the initiatives. He urged that
current law be left alone.
STUART THOMSON, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the
proposed legislation. He commented on the negative impact
it will have on tourism. He observed the problem for
democracy, is after awhile, selfish special interests always
find a way to abuse or manipulate methodology.
Mr. Thomson advised two things to minimize damage from the
issue:
· Each legislator has a moral, intellectual,
philosophical, and common sense responsibility to
study relevant Alaska constitutional convention
minutes and major Alaska Supreme Court rulings on
the initiative process; and
· If after study of constitutional philosophy, the
modification proposed is still worthy of
consideration, then minimize the impact of the
changes from legislative deliberation and public
input.
Mr. Thomson reminded members of the blessings that come from
freedom.
CHERYL JEBE, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, JUNEAU,
commented that the League of Women Voters of Alaska supports
the "existing" initiative process and makes the following
recommendations:
· Initiatives should be voted on only at General
Elections, not special or primary elections.
· Support change that requires simplicity and clarity
of the wording of initiative questions with a "yes"
vote to indicate in favor of a measure and a "no"
vote to indicate opposition to a measure.
· Support disclosure on each initiative petition of
the name(s) or group(s) that is paying the gatherer
and how they are paid, such as by signature or by
the hour.
· Support the requirement for not less than 500
qualified voters as sponsors to the prospective
petition with the Lieutenant Governor's office.
· Support the requirement for a number of valid
signatures not less than ten (10%) percent of the
total number of the votes cast in the preceding
general elections.
· Support a formula for at least 50 signatures in each
of two-thirds of the legislative districts in order
to reflect statewide interest in a measure.
· Support the requirement of an attorney general
advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of each
proposed initiative after it has qualified for the
ballot, such opinion to be published in the State
Election Pamphlet.
· Support the existing limit on time for collecting
signatures to one year.
· Support the requirement for a cost analysis to be on
each initiative petition.
· Support the requirement that signature gatherers be
qualified voters of Alaska.
ALVIN ANDERS, SECRETARY, ALASKA LIBERTARIAN PARTY, testified
in opposition to HJR 5. He pointed out that the proposed
changes to the initiative process attempt to fix something
that is not broken. Mr. Anders submitted that the
legislation is not necessary and that HJR 5 is not the best
way to achieve Representative William's goals. There is no
evidence given that the idea contained within an initiative
does not enjoy broad statewide support. Included in the
initiative package are reports showing the distribution of
signatures from the last ten initiatives. In each case,
significant numbers of signatures were gathered from every
district throughout the State. The fact that an initiative
makes it on the ballot in and of its self indicates broad
support. The fact that many citizens from every legislative
district signed these petitions proves not only that the
issues have broad support but also that the initiative
process is working.
Mr. Anders continued, no evidence has been presented that
any initiative has passed that did not have broad support.
In fact most initiatives that pass statewide generally pass
in every district. The one exception was the referendum
dealing with wildlife management. That ballot issue won in
30 of 40 districts and of the ten districts where it lost,
mostly was in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Mr. Anders pointed out that some people are supporting
making the initiative process more onerous to keep
initiatives off the ballot dealing with wildlife management
issues. He stressed that if one group has the money to
mount expensive initiative drives, it would be the "lovers
of little animals". Since 1976, only one group has been
able to gather the necessary signatures to put a referendum
on the ballot and that group was the people who oppose the
trapping of wolves. If they can raise the money to gather
signatures equivalent to 10% of the vote in 90 days, then
they will still be able to afford to put signatures on the
ballot even if the distribution requirement is raised.
He suggested that the Republicans who support the bill would
find themselves being portrayed as folks who are attacking
the initiative process and even if the proposed changes
pass, wildlife management issues will still make the ballot.
He suggested that there is a better way to accomplish the
goals of making the initiative process more inclusive and
preventing the tyranny of the densely populace areas over
the sparsely populated areas.
· The first goal, making the initiative process more
accessible to all Alaskans could be accomplished
easily by making initiatives one page and posting
them as Adobe Acrobat files on the Division of
Elections website. Currently the State pays for the
cost of printing 500 petition booklets at no charge
for every initiative that the Attorney General
approves for circulation. That money could be put
to much better use.
· Preventing the "supposed tyranny" of the densely
populated areas over the sparsely populated areas,
that could be addressed using a solution practiced
in Switzerland. There cantons can vote to repeal
laws either statewide or within a particular canton.
That option has not yet been tried in Alaska.
Mr. Anders addressed additional points that make the changes
proposed in HJR 5 ill advised. He referenced the report
st
entitled "Initiative and Referendum in the 21 Century" by
the National Conference of State Legislators. (Copy on
File). In that report there are 34 recommendations to
improve the initiative process. Almost every one of these
proposals is already in force in Alaska. The two that are
not are as follows:
· Recommendation 2.2: "The Legislature should provide
for public hearings on the initiative proposals".
· Recommendation 4.3: "The States should require the
drafting of a fiscal impact statement for each
initiative proposal".
Those proposals are not addressed in HJR 5. Moreover, the
report criticizes initiative abuses in most notably
California and Oregon but the solutions that are proposed
are almost all in place in Alaska. One criticism that was
leveled in the report is abuse of the initiative process by
too many initiatives appearing on the ballot, which has not
been a problem in Alaska. Since statehood, only 34
initiatives have appeared on Alaska ballots, which is 34 in
42 years and 21 elections.
TAPE HFC 03 - 71, Side B
Mr. Anders stated that the drafters of our constitution
debated the question of how many signatures needed to be
required and what distribution to require. An amendment was
proposed to require "from each of two-thirds of the election
districts of the State with signatures equaling not less
than 3% of the number of voters casting ballots for Governor
in each district in the preceding general election at which
a governor was elected". That amendment failed 31 to 17.
He asked if the founding fathers and mothers of Alaska
thought 35 from 2/3 of the districts was too onerous a
requirement, why then is the Legislature considering a
requirement more than twice the amount. Mr. Anders urged
that the members of the Legislature honor the drafters of
the Alaska Constitution and vote against HJR 5.
Mr. Anders submitted ideas for improving the initiative
process:
· Remove the restriction of paying only $1 per
signature.
· Extend the time period to allow for the gathering of
signatures.
· Return the thirty-day grace period for initiatives
that fail to gather the necessary signatures within
the allotted time.
· Allow initiative sponsors to submit signatures to
election officials for certification as they are
gathered.
· Make petitions one page and post on the Division of
Elections website.
· Make proponents pay for the cost of their own
printing.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #23-
LS0202\A.1, Kurtz, 4/29/03. (Copy on File).
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Representative Croft explained that the amendment addresses
the issue regarding repealing an initiative. The amendment
would insert new language "and the law enacted may not be
repealed by the legislature within two years after the
effective date of the law". He stated that it is a process,
which the Constitutional Convention believed that the
legislature would do and would continue to do.
Mr. Barry responded that Co-Chair Williams, the sponsor, had
been working on this issue for several legislative sessions.
The amendment proposes a different issue from which HJR 5 is
intended to address. The current system has a set of
"checks and balances". Under current law, if the
Legislature wanted to repeal a law, they could do it. In
the event that there were technical problems with the law,
like the one proposed in Amendment #1, it would keep the
Legislature from fixing the "bad law" for two years.
Representative Croft WITHDREW Amendment #1. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2 which would
change language on Page 1, Line 11, deleting the "7%" and
inserting "3%".
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Representative Croft stated that the 7% might be onerous.
He acknowledged that it made sense for it be over 1%. He
agreed that there needs to be something that still allows
initiatives to be done and significant participation from a
lot of districts without making it too burdensome.
Co-Chair Williams noted that the intent of the bill is to
get "more democracy" out to the outline areas. The people
of the State need to be more a part of the initiative
process. He stated that three percent was just not enough.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Croft
OPPOSED: Chenalut, Foster, Hawker, Joule, Meyer,
Williams
Representative Whitaker, Representative Moses and Co-Chair
Harris were not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-6).
Representative Joule referenced Line 11, "7% of ¾ of the
districts of those people that voted in the last election".
He asked if the signature of someone that was a registered
voter but did not vote in the last election, would qualify.
Mr. Barry clarified that the person does not have to have
voted in the last election. The 7% number is the number of
signatures needed equal to the number of people that
actually voted in that district in the last election.
Representative Stoltze asked if the district numbers were
determined by reapportionment. Mr. Barry replied that they
were and the most recent numbers were taken from the 2000
election.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HJR 5 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal note. Representative Croft OBJECTED.
Representative Croft reiterated that the process currently
is not broken and at this time, there would be a significant
impact to rural Alaska. He maintained that it is important
to be careful when affecting the peoples right to initiative
referendum and recall. These are the "checks" that the
people have on the Legislature and people do not like the
Legislature "messing around" with them. This legislation
will lower the public's esteem even more. The requirements
proposed in the bill of 10% and 7% will make it more
difficult for Alaskans to pass or repeal laws. Doing that
is their right. He reiterated that there is not an
overwhelming problem with current system.
Representative Stoltze indicated his concern with the bill.
Co-Chair Harris inquired how many other states had this type
process on their books. Mr. Barry advised that 26 states
currently use some sort of initiative process.
Co-Chair Harris asked what other states use it to reflect
the will of the public. Mr. Barry replied that the framers
of the U.S. Constitution considered the concept of the
initiative process. Co-Chair Williams interjected that
Washington State uses the initiative process.
Co-Chair Harris noted that he did support the idea in the
past and that he would support it at this time. He
understands the need to make sure that there is some
representation from all precincts around the State to better
reflect the State's will.
Representative Foster spoke to people attempting to
determine what is good for Bush Alaska. He commented on how
the legislation will affect that area. Initiatives have
been "pushed down" by the majority of urban Alaskans for
many years. He thought that the disagreement regarding the
legislation is a "joke" and that the bill would be a "safety
net" for his people.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move the bill
from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Whitaker, Foster, Hawker, Joule, Meyer,
Stoltze, Harris, Williams
OPPOSED: Chenault, Croft
Representative Moses was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-2).
HJR 5 was reported out of Committee with "individual"
recommendations and with fiscal note #1 by the Office of the
Governor.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 105(HES) am(efd fld)
An Act relating to eligibility requirements for medical
assistance for certain children, pregnant women, and
persons in a medical or intermediate care facility.
JOEL GILBERTSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL
SERVICES, spoke to the HES version (H) of the bill, which
would lower and freeze income levels for eligibility for the
Denali Kid Care Program and would also freeze income levels
for Medicaid under the special income limit for nursing
homes and home and community based waiver services.
Under current law, income standards for these eligibility
categories increase every year by the amount of cost-of-
living adjustments to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
program or the federal poverty guidelines for Alaska. The
bill would eliminate the annual cost-of-living adjustments
and put in statute fixed dollar income levels for those
programs based on the SSI standard that became effective on
January 1, 2003 or the federal poverty guideline for Alaska,
which became effective on April 1, 2002.
Commissioner Gilbertson noted that the Senate had reduced
the fixed income levels for the Denali Kid Care Program at
175% of the federal poverty guideline and the House HES
Committee amended the bill back to the Governor's original
proposal. The HES version before the House Finance
Committee keeps the Denali Kid Care income eligibility at
200%. Setting the program income standard at 200% would
allow the Department to maintain current Medicaid benefits
to over 26,000 beneficiaries while fixing levels to realize
significant cost savings in subsequent years.
Commissioner Gilbertson added that pregnant women who
establish eligibility before June 30, 2003 would remain
eligible for nine months notwithstanding the passage of the
bill. Likewise, children who establish eligibility before
June 30, 2003 would be protected for a period of six months
under existing continuous eligibility rules.
Representative Croft referenced Pages 4 and 5, which lists
the household income amounts and asked if those numbers
represented the 200% freeze. Commissioner Gilbertson
reiterated that the dollar levels for the Denali Kid Care
Program and the Medicaid program would be locked in at the
200% poverty level and that the legislation would remove the
inflation adjustments.
Representative Croft asked if the 200% federal poverty
guideline had already been incorporated at the 25% level for
Alaska. Commissioner Gilbertson responded that the federal
poverty level had been uniquely calculated for the State of
Alaska. It is adjusted to reflect a 25% increase and
parallels the cost-of-living adjustment that is received by
federal employees because of the higher cost-of-living in
Alaska. The Alaska Permanent Fund is not included in the
calculation.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the bill had originated in
the Senate. He observed that at one time, eligibility had
been lowered to 175% of poverty level. Commissioner
Gilbertson reiterated that the Governor had introduced the
legislation at the 200% and that the Senate HES Committee
reduced it from 200% to 175%. Additionally, that Committee
did not reflect the special income standards for long-term
care. They elected to lower it from 200% to 175%.
Co-Chair Harris asked where those figures were located.
Commissioner Gilbertson responded on Page 4, Section 13.
Co-Chair Harris asked how he could make the adjustment back
to a 175% poverty level. Commissioner Gilbertson explained
that the numbers listed are calculated at the 200% level.
In order to indicate that reduction, each of the numbers
would need to be adjusted. He added that the low-end
monthly difference would be approximately $300-$400 dollars
per month.
Co-Chair Harris inquired the amount of general fund savings
using the 175% figure. Commissioner Gilbertson responded
that the fiscal note passed from the Senate would be a
general fund savings in 2004 in the amount of $2.1 million
dollars with total funds saved of $7.1 million dollars. He
added that the State does receive enhanced federal medical
funds and that the State would lose approximately $5 million
in federal dollars by that reduction. The State receives
funding for some optional categories, the Enhanced Federal
Medical Assistance percentage. The program generates a 71%
federal share.
Co-Chair Harris questioned the number of Alaskans that would
be affected at the 175% level versus the 200% level.
Commissioner Gilbertson responded that for FY04, in the
Denali Kid Care Program that 123 pregnant women and 1,214
children would be affected. He pointed out the impact in
FY04 would be minimized by some extent by the fact that
women that are currently eligible, would loose their
coverage under the adjustment but that they would be able to
retain their coverage throughout their pregnancy under
federal law. Children in the Denali Kid Care Program would
continue their eligibility. He reiterated that the impact
in the first year would be reduced by the fact that pregnant
women in that first year would not loose their coverage
during the pregnancy. However, in the out years, 200
individuals will be affected.
Co-Chair Harris noted that the savings in the out-years were
significant given the proposed benefit cap. Commissioner
Gilbertson responded it would save approximately $12 million
dollars. In the far-out years, the projected savings would
amount to twice what the Governor's proposal recommends at
the 175% level. He commented that at the 200% scenario, in
FY09, there would be a total fund savings of roughly $10
million dollars, $3.5 of that would be general fund savings.
Under the 175% scenario, there would be a total savings in
FY09 of $22 million dollars.
Representative Joule asked if the fund source indicated in
the fiscal note represented federal savings. Commissioner
Gilbertson noted that the amount shows a federal savings;
the federal government pays roughly 71% of the cost of the
Denali Kid Care Program and as a result, most of the savings
are federal dollars. He added that these are formula
programs and that any reductions in the Medicaid Program,
federal funds would be lost.
In response to an observation made by Representative Joule,
Commissioner Gilbertson stated that the reference was to
language passed in the Senate, which was amended in the HES
Committee. The bill before the Committee uses the original
language proposed by the Governor at the 200% level and
under that scenario, a $10 million dollars savings is
indicated.
Representative Joule asked if the program continued as is,
would the federal government participate at a higher level.
Commissioner Gilbertson responded that the legislation was
intended to contribute to a limited general funds savings.
However, no one currently in the program will loose
coverage. In addition, individuals in the program do not
have equal stratification of incomes. Those persons with
the higher level of income will be affected by the
legislation.
In response to a query by Representative Joule, Commissioner
Gilbertson reiterated that the Governor did not support the
Senate HES version of the legislation.
TAPE HFC 03 - 72, Side A
MARIE LAVIGNE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE, noted
that the Alaska Public Health Association applauds the
success of Denali Kid Care Program in improving the health
of pregnant women and children in Alaska and urges the
Committee to continue eligibility for this program at the
fullest level possible.
Public health research on the health impact of uninsured
children is noteworthy:
· Uninsured children who need medical and surgical
care are 4 times more likely to go without the care
they need than insured children with the same health
needs. When they do receive the care, they are
sicker and more likely to be seen in the emergency
room.
· Uninsured children are 4% times more likely to do
without needed prescriptions and eye glasses, and 5
times more likely to be unable to receive needed
dental care.
· Uninsured children are 1.5 times more likely to
arrive to kindergarten without their required
immunizations. They are 8 times more likely to not
have had a well child check up.
· Uninsured pregnant women are less likely to receive
prenatal care, placing them at risk to deliver
early, low-birth weight babies and at the greatest
risk for fetal and/or maternal death.
Ms. Lavigne stated that the Governor's transmittal letter
accompanying SB 105 states "While the cost savings
associated with this bill are modest in the short-term, this
measure will significantly reduce future year costs." From
a public health perspective, any short-term savings does not
compare to the greater long term costs to the health and
well being of pregnant women and children.
She added that to succeed in lowering the enrollment in the
Medical assistance programs, the Legislature should consider
the issue from a different perspective. SB 105 seeks to
lower the enrollment in medical assistance programs by
reducing eligibility for pregnant women and children who
qualify at the upper levels of the income eligibility, up to
200% of poverty level. The most effective approach the
Legislature could take would be to assist employers and
working families to get affordable health insurance,
reducing the number of pregnant women and children needing
coverage by Denali Kid Care.
Ms. Lavigne noted that while there are many factors
contributing to 1 in 5 Alaskans lacking health insurance
coverage, one of the greatest barriers is access to
affordable health insurance. A study by the Anchorage
Access to Health Care Coalition released this fall indicates
of the 16,000 adults in Anchorage who are uninsured, 71% are
working adults, the majority in business with less than 10
employees. The Legislature needs to join with businesses in
addressing the issue of affordable health care insurance.
In the meantime, she urged members to keep the eligibility
for the medical assistance programs at the full 200% of
federal poverty level to maximize the health of pregnant
women and children.
PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, DOUGLAS ADVISORY BOARD, JUNEAU,
testified against the proposed legislation. She provided
her employment history in the pharmaceutical industry. She
pointed out that the difference between the countries where
there is poor health care and good health care has state
involvement. She spoke in support for universal health care
throughout the United States. Ms. Zimmerman recommended
taxing the oil and gas companies to help provide for these
insurances. She questioned why the State of Alaska is
considering taxing the poorest Alaskans to decrease
services. The companies that extract the State's resources
should be the ones taxed. Ms. Zimmerman recommended a
review of who takes the money out of Alaska.
MARIE DARLIN, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS (AARP),
JUNEAU, voiced support for the Denali Kid Care Program
noting that AARP is the world's largest organization of
grandparents. She emphasized that AARP supports the 200%
poverty level for that program. Ms. Darlin questioned
putting the levels in statute, as that would bind future
legislators.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HCS CS SB 105 (HES)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Joule OBJECTED.
Following a brief at-ease, Representative Joule WITHDREW his
OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTIONS, it was so
ordered.
HCS CS SB 105 (HES)am(efd fld) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note
by the Department of Health & Social Services.
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
An Act relating to special medical parole and to
prisoners who are severely medically and cognitively
disabled.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to RESCIND previous action taken on
failing to pass HB 299 out of Committee. There being NO
OBJECTION, action was rescinded.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to ADOPT work draft #23-LS0885\Q,
Luckhaupt, 4/17/03, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Williams advised that during past hearings on the
bill, there had been questions regarding the fiscal notes.
PORTIA PARKER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, referenced the Department of Corrections fiscal
notes dated 4/28/03. She stated that Page 2 of the note
describes key assumptions and indicates the projected
savings. The original note was based on the previous
Administration's fiscal analysis. That note was adjusted in
collaboration with the current medical director and the
actual billings were analyzed. She added that the note was
based on many things out of the Department's control.
*Representative Hawker noted his appreciation on the fiscal
documentation. Representative Croft echoed sentiments
voiced by Representative Hawker and information indicating
justification for the $500,000 dollars.
Representative Stoltze MOVED to adopt Amendment #3, #23-
LS0885\I.1, Luckhaupt, 4/26/03. (Copy on File).
Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Representative Stoltze explained that the amendment would
remove anyone eligible for early medical parole convicted of
a felony and sexual assault.
Co-Chair Harris clarified that the intent was never to
release any prisoner that had been convicted of a sexual
assault. Representative Stoltze replied that those
prisoners would not be released under the special medical
parole provision.
Representative Joule asked if that type of crime had been
considered in the original bill. Ms. Parker explained that
it is the same language as in statute and would add the
prohibition back in. Sexual assault offenders had not been
considered because it was not considered in statute.
Representative Stoltze commented that the amendment would
"soften the blow" of the bill. He mentioned the amount of
recidivism in child molestation. It would allow the
Department's discretion in exempting that class of crime.
He urged that the Committee consider the concern.
Vice-Chair Meyer noted that he was a co-sponsor of the
amendment. He voiced his fear that someone could be
released and could send harassing email messages to the
victim and family. He questioned how the language would
affect the fiscal note. Ms. Parker did not know the
specific offenses of the 27 being considered. She pointed
out that the current prison population is 16% sex offenders.
She reiterated that she did not know the average overall
population that was sex offenders and how that would affect
the percentage available for medical parole.
Ms. Parker stated that it would not impact the fiscal note.
Ms. Parker made a correction, noting that the amendment
would expand to all sexual assaults. In statute, it is
listed in AS 11.41.434 - 438 and would broaden that
language.
Co-Chair Harris voiced his support for the amendment.
Representative Hawker asked is the language expansion would
be difficult for the Department. Ms. Parker responded that
they did not have a problem with that language.
There being NO further OBJECTION, the amendment was adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 229 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 229 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with new fiscal notes by the
Department of Corrections and two by the Department of
Health & Social Services.
SENATE BILL NO. 124(efd fld)
An Act relating to grants for alcoholism and drug abuse
programs.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to ADOPT SB 124(efd fld), #23-
GS111\A.A as the working document before the Committee.
Representative Croft pointed out that the effective date had
failed but noted that he did not see an effective date. Co-
Chair Williams interjected that is how it is before the
Committee. It does not have an effective date.
Representative Joule asked if the A.A version consisted of
one page only. Co-Chair Williams clarified that it did.
Co-Chair Harris asked if there had an effective date when it
passed the Senate. Co-Chair Williams reiterated that this
was the bill before the Committee.
JOEL GILBERTSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL
SERVICES, clarified that when the bill was introduced as SB
124, it did have an effective date of July 1, 2003. The
cost savings associated with that version are included in
the Governor's budget. It was passed out of the Senate
without the effective date.
Co-Chair Harris interjected that when the effective date
fails, then that language should be removed from the title
and body of the bill.
Representative Joule asked about the difference between the
House HES version and the Senate version. Co-Chair Williams
explained that the House HES dropped it from 25% the first
year to 17.5% until July 1, 2004. The Senate version is the
Governor's version minus the effective date. That would
amount to a 25% savings as of July 1, 2003.
Representative Joule clarified that the House HES version
would transition the process to 2004. The Senate version
removes it all on July 1, 2003. Representative Joule
OBJECTED to adopting the Senate version of the bill.
Representative Croft noted that he also supported the House
HES version. The House version keeps the effective date and
changes the percentage, which would be a better procedure.
Co-Chair Williams commented that if the Committee could get
the Senate version before them, then they could entertain an
amendment to reinstate the July 1, 2002 effective date, from
the Governor's original bill. Representative Joule asked if
it could be amended to indicate that transition. Co-Chair
Williams replied he would not support the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to work from the
Senate version.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Hawker, Meyer, Stoltze, Whitaker,
Chenault, Harris, Williams
OPPOSED: Joule, Moses, Croft
The MOTION PASSED (8-3).
Commissioner Gilbertson commented that the general fund
savings resulting from the Governor's bill would be in the
amount of $1.6 million dollars. The bill increases local
investments and involvement in the alcohol treatment grants
provided to the communities. Local investment indicates the
success of the programs. The current 10% match is low. He
stressed that this would be a sensible effort to increase
local effort and to keep grants on the street. He concluded
that at a time when State government does not have the
necessary resources to continue to fully fund all these
programs, it is important that the local investment and
commitment come forward.
Representative Croft noted that the fiscal notes indicate
approximately $1.6 million dollars savings. He inquired if
it was assumed that the communities would step up the same
level of effort on alcohol services.
KAREN PEARSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, clarified that the
hope is that the communities will generate that additional
revenue and that the services can remain the same.
Representative Croft questioned the total State effort spent
on alcohol services statewide.
Ms. Pearson responded that certain programs would be held
harmless at the same rate. There is not an across the board
difference. Representative Croft emphasized that it is
being assumed that the municipalities would make up the $1.6
million dollars. Ms. Pearson replied that was correct.
Representative Joule pointed out that the Legislature this
year is:
· Proposing to cut revenue sharing to municipalities
by 25%;
· Proposing to cut debt reimbursement; and
· Proposing more reliability on faith based programs.
He stressed that all these reductions are coming from the
same pot. He warned about the stress and burden these
actions would place upon the local communities.
Commissioner Gilbertson advised that the way in which the
bill is structured, most of the smaller communities are
exempt. He emphasized that it was not indented to "shirt
the shift costs to the local government" but rather to keep
the grants on the streets.
Representative Joule noted that last year, the State
increased the alcohol tax. He asked how much of that was
spent on drug and alcohol related problems. Commissioner
Gilbertson replied that the State spent roughly $7 million
dollars of the alcohol tax package toward new programs
and/or the infrastructure. He added that 50% of the total
alcohol money was invested in programs.
Representative Joule recommended that the money raised from
that tax should be placed back into programs related to that
concern. Commissioner Gilbertson stated that the total
investment in alcohol treatment programs is higher than it
was in FY03 & FY04. The Administration is investing
additional resources from the alcohol tax. He reminded
members that there is a general fund short fall at this time
and that the Department of Health & Social Services took
more than $50 million dollars in general fund reductions.
Representative Hawker referred to the fiscal note, pointing
out the exclusion of the grantees that receive less than $30
thousand dollars. He asked the mechanism used to determine
that amount.
Karen Pearson explained that those tend to be the smaller
program grant to schools and communities. There were five
of those grants. The community based suicide prevention
grants were all excluded from that, as they have no way to
generate revenue. The grants tend to fall within category
types. Within the treatment programs, the ones that are
geared for women and youth are being held harmless because
of the vulnerability of those populations.
Representative Hawker understood that some of the categories
would fall under the provision listed on Page 7. Ms.
Pearson replied that was correct and that the Department
retains the ability to waive anytime the needed 10%.
Representative Hawker noted that the Department intends to
make use of that provision in certain cases. Commissioner
Gilbertson agreed that was correct.
Representative Croft observed that with the communities
affected by the fiscal note, the State would be spending
about $1 million dollars. To reduce that 90% to 75% would
be going from $1 million dollars when a reduction from that
percentage would be leaving a change from a $1 million
dollar community effort to $2.5 million dollars. He
stressed that would be a "huge increase" for those
communities. Representative Croft inquired if there was
information available that the communities would be able
accommodates that.
Commissioner Gilbertson acknowledged that the legislation
will impact communities. He added that there is a system of
programs to award grants. There are more entities looking
for grants than there are grants. He added that the
programs would still be offered. He stressed that the
general fund savings would help the Department address the
fiscal concerns. A number of grants were completely
eliminated. The Department decided that instead of taking
$1.6 million dollars of grants off the table, it changed it
to having more local investment. There will be better
programs, better applications and more community
involvement. The overall savings may be larger in the long
run. Programs will be more sustainable with less
volatility. He concluded that the Department had to make a
decision on how to achieve the necessary general fund
savings while maximizing the number of services.
Representative Croft asked if the fiscal note could be more
accurate if it assumed something less than the
municipalities being left with the entire obligation.
TAPE HFC 03 - 72, Side B
Commissioner Gilbertson clarified that it was assumed that
some of the grants would be awarded and that the Department
would continue to administer the grants. He added that many
of the grants would continue to be "out on the street".
Representative Croft understood those funds would be the
municipal match portion of it. Commissioner Gilbertson
replied that it could be an in-kind contribution.
In response to a comment by Representative Croft,
Commissioner Gilbertson reiterated that the State's overall
alcohol effort had increased.
Representative Croft asked if the line had been decreased in
a substantial way, what would that level be. Commissioner
Gilbertson responded that in the Governor's budget proposal,
there is a $3.5 million dollar additional general fund
investment into alcohol treatment programs that target
primarily rural juveniles who currently do not have access
to treatment. Additionally, other funds have been
designated for the preservation of families. Money in the
Governor's budget is designated for those two populations.
Representative Croft questioned if the efforts to add
increases to offset decreases had survived the majority
process. Commissioner Gilbertson responded that the budget
was funded from the Senate side and the moved to the House
side.
ANN HOPPER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, FAMILY FOCUS PROGRAM, FAIRBANKS, testified in
opposition to the bill. She voiced serious concerns with
the increase in match for these programs. These areas are
already "maxed to the brim" in terms of what they are able
to afford and the quality of service that they provide.
The 80% of the youth served at the community shelter that
are under the age of 18 have alcohol related incidences in
their lives. Ms. Hopper stressed that reducing or
threatening current services will catch up with the State
down the road. She encouraged that the State build upon the
programs that are currently available. Taking away
treatment removes the hope. If the hope is removed, she
asked where would people turn. She noted that some
communities have no other resources and maintained that
since alcoholism is a disease, it should be considered in a
medical model that addiction problems impact other portions
of the budget. Ms. Hopper urged reconsideration of this
issue, keeping it at the current 10% rate.
ANNETTE FRYBERGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, FAIRBANKS NATIVE ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, noted
that the Fairbanks Native Association provides a continuum
of care through a residential treatment center for many
alcohol related problems. She noted that some programs will
not be immediately affected by the increased match. She
noted her support for the House Version of the bill, which
implemented the increase in a gradual, stepwise fashion.
She noted that programs might otherwise not be able to
achieve their match. She requested time to implement the
change.
SENATOR TIM KELLY, SUBSTANCE ABUSE ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU,
observed that traditionally the Senate has been against this
type of funding for alcohol programs. He requested that the
Committee revisit the decision to adopt the Senate version
of the bill; he encouraged that the House HESS version would
implement the changes over time. He speculated that a
decrement of $1.6 million would be destructive to the State
of Alaska.
Co-Chair Williams MOVED Amendment #1, which would add a new
section: "Section 2. This Act takes effect July 1, 2003".
Representative Stoltze MOVED a conforming title amendment,
which adds the language "provide for an effective date".
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment as changed was
adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Joule OBJECTED.
Representative Joule stated that the House HESS version of
the proposed legislation was more worthwhile in that it
would allow organizations to have adequate time to make the
needed adjustments.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hawker, Meyer, Moses, Stoltze, Chenault,
Foster, Williams, Harris
OPPOSED: Joule, Whitaker, Croft
The MOTION PASSED (8-3).
HCS CS SB 124 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual" recommendations and with fiscal notes #1, #2,
#3, & #4 by the Department of Health & Social Services.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:06 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|