Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/17/2003 12:46 PM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 17, 2003
12:46 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative John Coghill
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(RES)
"An Act relating to predator control programs; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 155(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 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."
- MOVED HCS SB 109(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 155
SHORT TITLE:PREDATOR CONTROL/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/20/03 0551 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/20/03 0551 (S) JUD, RES
03/31/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/31/03 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/03 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/16/03 (S) JUD AT 1:00 PM BELTZ 211
04/16/03 (S) Moved CSSB 155(JUD) Out of
Committee -- Permanent Time
Change --
04/16/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/03 0892 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2DNP 1NR NEW
TITLE
04/17/03 0892 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT;
04/17/03 0892 (S) DNP: FRENCH, ELLIS; NR: OGAN
04/17/03 0892 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
04/30/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/30/03 (S) Moved CSSB 155(RES) Out of
Committee
04/30/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/03 1073 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
05/01/03 1074 (S) DP: WAGONER, DYSON, LINCOLN,
STEVENS B,
05/01/03 1074 (S) SEEKINS; DNP: ELTON
05/01/03 1074 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
05/02/03 1105 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/2/2003
05/02/03 1105 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/02/03 1105 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/02/03 1106 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 5/3
CALENDAR
05/02/03 1106 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN, OGAN,
COWDERY,
05/02/03 1106 (S) GREEN, DYSON, WAGONER,
STEVENS B,
05/02/03 1106 (S) THERRIAULT
05/03/03 1133 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
155(RES)
05/03/03 1133 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HOFFMAN,
WILKEN, TAYLOR
05/03/03 1133 (S) PASSED Y14 N1 E5
05/03/03 1133 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/03/03 1133 (S) ELTON NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/04/03 1147 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/04/03 1148 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/04/03 1148 (S) VERSION: CSSB 155(RES)
05/05/03 1306 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/05/03 1306 (H) RES, CRA
05/08/03 1481 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MORGAN
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/09/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee --
Recessed to 1:00 pm --
MINUTE(RES)
05/10/03 1537 (H) RES RPT 6DP 3AM
05/10/03 1537 (H) DP: MASEK, GATTO, MORGAN,
WOLF, LYNN,
05/10/03 1537 (H) FATE; AM: GUTTENBERG, CISSNA,
HEINZE
05/10/03 1538 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
05/13/03 1619 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): WOLF
05/13/03 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/13/03 (H) Heard & Held -- Recessed to
Thurs. 8:00 AM --
05/13/03 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
05/15/03 1682 (H) CRA RPT 3DP 1NR
05/15/03 1682 (H) DP: KOTT, ANDERSON, MORGAN;
NR: SAMUELS
05/15/03 1683 (H) FN2: ZERO(DFG)
05/15/03 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/15/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(CRA)
05/17/03 1811 (H) RLS RPT HCS(RLS) 5DP 2DNP
05/17/03 1811 (H) DP: MCGUIRE, COGHILL, KOTT,
MORGAN,
05/17/03 1811 (H) ROKEBERG; DNP: BERKOWITZ,
KERTTULA
05/17/03 1811 (H) FN2: ZERO(DFG)
05/17/03 (H) RLS AT 12:30 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 109
SHORT TITLE:MEDICAID COST CONTAINMENT & PRIORITY LIST
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/06/03 0394 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/06/03 0394 (S) HES, FIN
03/06/03 0395 (S) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
03/06/03 0395 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/26/03 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/26/03 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/28/03 0609 (S) HES RPT 3DP 2NR
03/28/03 0610 (S) DP: DYSON, WILKEN, GREEN;
03/28/03 0610 (S) NR: DAVIS, GUESS
03/28/03 0610 (S) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
04/02/03 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/02/03 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/03 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/02/03 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/03 0687 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 1NR
04/04/03 0688 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, BUNDE,
STEVENS B,
04/04/03 0688 (S) TAYLOR; NR: OLSON
04/04/03 0688 (S) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
04/04/03 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/04/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/04/03 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/09/03 0766 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/9/2003
04/09/03 0766 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/09/03 0766 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
4/10 CALENDAR
04/10/03 0790 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 109
04/10/03 0791 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 E1
04/10/03 0791 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/10/03 0791 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/11/03 0814 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/11/03 0815 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/11/03 0815 (S) VERSION: SB 109
04/14/03 0957 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/14/03 0957 (H) FIN
04/24/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held -- Recessed to
Friday 4/25/03 9:00 AM --
04/24/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/30/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/30/03 (H) Bill Postponed <Mtg.
Postponed to after Maj.
Caucus>
04/30/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/07/03 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/07/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
1:30 PM>
05/07/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/07/03 (H) Bill Postponed
05/07/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/13/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/13/03 (H) Moved HCS SB 109(FIN) Out of
Committee -- Meeting Canceled
MINUTE(FIN)
05/14/03 1629 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 6DP 2DNP 2NR
05/14/03 1629 (H) DP: MEYER, HAWKER, STOLTZE,
FOSTER,
05/14/03 1629 (H) HARRIS, WILLIAMS; DNP:
KERTTULA,
05/14/03 1629 (H) BERKOWITZ; NR: MOSES,
CHENAULT
05/14/03 1629 (H) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
05/17/03 1782 (H) RLS RPT HCS(RLS) 2DP 2DNP 3NR
05/17/03 1782 (H) DP: COGHILL, ROKEBERG; DNP:
BERKOWITZ,
05/17/03 1782 (H) KERTTULA; NR: MCGUIRE,
MORGAN, KOTT
05/17/03 1783 (H) FN1: ZERO(HSS)
05/17/03 1794 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/17/2003
05/17/03 1794 (H) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
MINUTE(RUL)
05/17/03 1812 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/17/03 1812 (H) RLS HCS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/17/03 1813 (H) AM NO 1 NOT OFFERED
05/17/03 1813 (H) ADVANCED TO 3D READING & HELD
TO 5/18
05/17/03 (H) RLS AT 12:30 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of SB 155.
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested that SB 155 be held so that
further work between the sponsor and the administration can
occur.
MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 155, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 12:46 p.m. Representatives Rokeberg, Kott,
Coghill, and McGuire were present at the call to order.
Representatives Morgan, Berkowitz, and Kerttula arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 155-PREDATOR CONTROL/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(RES), "An Act relating to predator
control programs; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0133
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as the
sponsor of SB 155. Senator Seekins explained that SB 155
revises language within Section 16 of the statutes that relate
to the regulation of fish and game. These revisions provide the
Board of Fisheries (BOF) and the Board of Game (BOG) and the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) with the necessary
tools for the management of game populations throughout the
state. He pointed out that the first alteration of the statute
clarifies the legislative intent with regard to airborne
predator control programs. The second alteration allows game
population objectives to be taken into consideration in
determining whether a predator control program should be
implemented. He noted that the second alteration considers
other objectives such as predator objectives and harvest
objectives by humans. Therefore, this legislation allows BOG to
use both prey and game population and harvest objectives when
making a determination with respect to the use of predator
control programs. "Senate Bill 155 makes changes that allow the
fish and game boards as well as the [Alaska] Department of Fish
& Game to better manage wildlife by balancing predator and game
populations based on the best science available," he stated.
CHAIR ROKEBERG informed the committee that before it is CSSB
155(RES) and there is an amendment included in the committee
packet. The amendment is as follows:
"The use of state employees or state owned or
chartered equipment, including helicopters in a
predator control program is prohibited without the
approval of the commissioner."
SENATOR SEEKINS explained that there is concern with regard to
separation of powers, specifically regarding whether BOG could
force ADF&G to use state-owned helicopters, aircraft, et cetera
or state employees to carry out a program that has primarily
been designed to use private controlled programs. Therefore,
Amendment 1 would conceptually insert a new subsection (f) on
[page 2, line 24] of CSSB 155(RES). He explained that Amendment
1 would mean that the BOG couldn't force ADF&G to do the
aforementioned. Senator Seekins said that he is still trying to
accommodate the governor's concerns, particularly with regard to
making the decision based on the best scientific information
available. Senator Seekins explained that first there must be a
game management plan for a particular game management unit (GMU)
in place and there must also be an intensive program in place
for that GMU. The statutes, AS 16.05.255(e)(1)-(3), are clear
and read as follows:
(e) The Board of Game shall adopt regulations to
provide for intensive management programs to restore
the abundance or productivity of identified big game
prey populations as necessary to achieve human
consumptive use goals of the board in an area where
the board has determined that
(1) consumptive use of the big game prey
population is a preferred use;
(2) depletion of the big game prey population or
reduction of the productivity of the big game prey
population has occurred and may result in a
significant reduction in the allowable human harvest
of the population; and
(3) enhancement of abundance or productivity of
the big game prey population is feasibly achievable
utilizing recognized and prudent active management
techniques.
SENATOR SEEKINS stressed that after the above has been done,
this legislation specifies:
(1) in regard to an identified big game prey
population under AS 16.05.255(g) that [COMMISSIONER
OF FISH AND GAME ACTING UNDER A REQUEST FROM THE BOARD
OF GAME MAKES WRITTEN FINDINGS BASED ON PREY
POPULATION] objectives set by the board for the
population have not been achieved and [UNDER AS
16.05.255(g)] that
[(A)] predation is an important cause for the
failure to achieve the objectives set by the board
[FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO A LOW OR DECLINING PREY
POPULATION THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A GAME MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF GAME], and that a
reduction of predation can reasonably be expected to
aid in the achievement of the objectives [RESULT IN
AIDING AN INCREASE IN THE PREY POPULATION OR IN
ARRESTING THE DECLINE OF THE PREY POPULATION]; or
(2) that [(B)] a disease or parasite of a predator
population
(A) [(i)] is threatening the normal biological
condition of the predator population; or
(B) [(ii)] if left untreated, would spread to other
populations
SENATOR SEEKINS highlighted that this program ensures that any
decision to activate an airborne program is based on the best
available science. Furthermore, the suggested amendment
specifies that BOG couldn't force the use of state employees or
state-owned equipment in the enforcement of the program.
Number 0635
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, noted that the department has
worked cooperatively with Senator Seekins in regard to possible
changes. On behalf of the administration, Mr. Williams
expressed the desire to continue those discussions this
afternoon in order to develop better language. Therefore, he
requested the indulgence of the House Rules Standing Committee
to hold the legislation for a while so that the work could
continue.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE inquired as to the sponsor's thoughts on
holding the legislation in committee for further work.
SENATOR SEEKINS informed the committee that the [Majority]
Caucus feels that it wants the legislation to move forward. He
indicated the need for agreement on whether, and to what degree,
the commissioner of ADF&G should have the right to veto a
predator control program. In the past, the commissioner could
pocket veto a predator control program by not writing a letter
of authorization. The aforementioned has been eliminated in
this legislation. At this point, the program is based on
information provided by the department and thus the discussion
is whether the commissioner could say that the decision was made
without input from the department or with information provided
by the department that was interpreted or provided in error.
Senator Seekins related his understanding that the governor is
concerned that when there is a predator control program, that
it's based on the best available science. Therefore, this
attempts to find a way, within the separation of powers, to
allow the administration to intervene in a legislative action
that the [legislature] has authorized the BOG to do.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked if Senator Seekins supported the
delay of this legislation today.
SENATOR SEEKINS answered that if this legislation is delayed
today, it may not be able to get to the House calendar.
Number 0821
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced his intention to take action on this
legislation today. He asked if ADF&G agreed with the earlier
mentioned conceptual amendment.
MR. WILLIAMS said that the conceptual amendment is one part of a
larger discussion. He related that he didn't believe the
department had any problems with that, although there are other
issues for which agreement seems close.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA posed a scenario in which the other
issues are accommodated and asked whether the governor would be
supportive of the legislation if that is the case.
MR. WILLIAMS responded, "We'll have to look at things on
balance. Again, hoping that ... we can reach some accommodation
here."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he didn't really understand
what the amendment accomplished because it seems that the
commissioner always has the authority to determine whether state
employees or state chartered aircraft can be used in a predator
control program, unless [the private individuals] are working
for the department. He questioned the authority that
individuals not working for ADF&G would have to be engaged as
state actors.
MR. WILLIAMS replied, "That's correct." He reiterated that this
is part of a larger document that included other possible
changes.
Number 0919
SENATOR SEEKINS clarified that the amendment is probably a
reiteration of a fact that already exists. However, [the
amendment] would collect existing law and authority into one
area so there would be no confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that
[currently] the commissioner decides [whether a predator control
program should be implemented] after input from the BOG.
MR. WILLIAMS explained that under current law, the BOG makes the
program that is given to the commissioner who is required to
make a finding regarding whether the program is necessary. As
the sponsor has indicated, the aforementioned process provides
the opportunity for a "pocket veto." The language that the
department has been discussing with the sponsor and other
members would specify a time certain in which the commissioner
must take some action or not. Furthermore, the language under
discussion would specify some definition with regard to how the
action would be taken. Mr. Williams reminded the committee that
the language [in the legislation] is a combination of pieces of
various legislation and initiatives. The existing language
speaking to the findings made by the commissioner is an
amendment that was included by Senator Pete Kelly to SB 74 in
1999.
Number 1003
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if any commissioner has ever
exercised a pocket veto.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that programs have not gone forward under
this statute. He pointed out that originally [the purpose of]
SB 155 was to deal with a situation in McGrath in order to
address objectives. Currently, the prey population objective in
McGrath is being met and thus there was a technical question
regarding whether the commissioner could move forward with the
program when the prey population is being met.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ acknowledged the concern with regard to
the commissioner's ability to pocket veto if the commissioner
fails to act. Therefore, wouldn't "this," by default, mean that
the commissioner would have to actively say he/she disapproves
an action by the BOG. He asked if there is anything that
precludes the commissioner from actively vetoing an action from
the BOG.
MR. WILLIAMS reiterated that work has been done on various
iterations of language regarding the veto issue. The
administration has recognized [the difficulty with] an
indeterminate period of time and no finding.
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that the current statute provides
the commissioner with the ability to pocket veto or approve the
BOG's proposed action. There is no statute, in fish or game
statutes, that provides the commissioner with the power to veto
an action of the boards. In fact, in Peninsula Marketing
Association v. Rosier the Alaska Supreme Court said that the
commissioner can not veto an action made by the Board of
Fisheries. The original intent was to bring the rest of the
statutes under that same authority.
Number 1153
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that he is accustomed to
working in a legislative environment where laws are promulgated
subject to gubernatorial veto. Therefore, he surmised that the
Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries are operating in a
legislative or quasi-legislative environment and should be
subject to some executive branch oversight, which would seem to
appropriately come from the ADF&G commissioner. If there is no
provision for the ADF&G commissioner to actively or passively be
a check and balance to the actions of the BOG, then it seems the
mechanics of government are out of balance.
SENATOR SEEKINS related his understanding that it's within the
constitutional authority of the legislature to set up the
statutory process without the ability of the administration to
veto it. He recalled that the aforementioned is one of the
findings in the Peninsula Marketing Association v. Rosier case.
MR. WILLIAM agreed with Senator Seekins that this is one of the
only places where this is spelled out in statute. However, he
said he understood the Peninsula Marketing Association v. Rosier
case to discuss the role of the commissioner and upon what the
commissioner would have to base a decision to go against a
ruling of the Board of Fisheries. He recalled that such a
decision by the commissioner would have to be based on new
information and certain criteria. "It wasn't a blanket decision
that the commissioner had no power in that instance; it was in
that particular instance those powers were not exerted in the
proper manner," he said.
SENATOR SEEKINS interjected, "Correctly, power granted by the
legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised then that if there is
disagreement [over the board's decision], then the only decision
would be the courts. He asked if that is correct.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied, "Probably." However, he predicted that
the current administration and BOG would both want to work
cooperatively to accomplish their goals.
Number 1315
MR. WILLIAMS reminded the committee that when it comes to a
state sponsored program, the BOG doesn't have fiscal powers to
push for a program involving state resources. When there is a
private predator control program, the Airborne Hunting Act
remains and thus the commissioner would have a role in ensuring
that those participating in the program have received a state
permit in order to comply with the act.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN turned to the predator control done before
1992 and asked whether it was only state predator control or was
there private involvement in the predator control.
SENATOR SEEKINS recalled that private citizens were involved as
well as state employees.
Number 1390
MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, recalled that private citizens
were involved as well as state employees.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN asked if, at the time prior to 1992, there
was concern that [predator control] would run amuck.
MR. ROBUS replied that opinions are probably mixed. In reality,
the number of people actually participating was fairly low.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN recalled that the same day airborne
predator control program prior to 1992 wasn't a situation in
which people were suggesting the eradication of wolves. He
pointed out that prior to 1992 there was a healthy moose
population, but that changed after 1992. Representative Morgan
related his belief that it's wrong to control just the human
consumption. There are limited resources, although greater
numbers of people want the resource. There has to be some
control some place.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that much is involved with this issue.
The whole issue of predator control seems to be wrapped up in
this legislation. He highlighted the governor's support of
predator control in a proper manner. Therefore, he said he
believes the debate isn't on predator control but rather on the
manner in which it can be accomplished with the various branches
of government and the public.
CHAIR ROKEBERG closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, which reads as follows:
Where appropriate in AS 16.05.783, insert the
following language:
"The use of state employees or state owned or
chartered equipment, including helicopters in a
predator control program is prohibited without the
approval of the commissioner."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that he would leave it to the drafters
to insert the language in the appropriate location within AS
16.05.783. He related his belief that on page 2, line 19,
subsection (e) should be subsection (c) and the proposed
language in Conceptual Amendment 1 should be subsection (d)
because the two following sections are a penalty section and
definition section.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted his agreement. He asked if there was any
discussion on the amendment. He announced that Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1558
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report CSSB 155(RES) as amended out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
155(RLS) was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
SB 109-MEDICAID COST CONTAINMENT & PRIORITY LIST
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 109(RLS)(efd fld), "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; and 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."
Number 1584
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt HCS CSSB 109, Version I,
Lauterbach, 5/17/03, as the working document.
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected for discussion purposes. He directed
the committee's attention to page 2, line 7, which is the intent
language. One sentence has been added to the intent language
and it reads as follows: "The legislature encourages the
department to develop case management systems or tools that
allow for the comparison of cost savings associated with the
preferred drug list or alternative cost containment
methodologies." This language further expands on the intent
language such that alternatives to the preferred drug list could
be reviewed. These alternatives include the intensive case
management system. Chair Rokeberg clarified, "This in no way
changes anything in the statute nor is it intended to increase
costs. It is merely putting the department on notice that they
should have their act together and look at other methods when
they're developing their program, which is allowed under
statute."
CHAIR ROKEBERG removed his objection. There being no other
objection, Version I was before the committee.
Number 1672
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS CSSB 109 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected and specified, "I don't think
this is the right way to go with doing the options list and the
cuts like this."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McGuire, Morgan,
Coghill, and Rokeberg voted in favor of reporting HCS CSSB 109
out of committee. Representatives Berkowitz, Kerttula, and Kott
voted against it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 109(RLS) was reported out
of the House Rules Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|