HOUSE BILL NO. 129 "An Act relating to providing a death certificate for a deceased veteran without charge." 2:22:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, introduced his chief of staff. GRETCHEN STAFT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, explained the legislation. The bill authorized the Bureau of Vital Statistics to provide a death certificate to eligible survivors of a deceased veteran without charge for the purpose of obtaining survivor benefits of some kind. She defined eligible recipient as a spouse, child, relative, heir, estate administrators or executors of the veteran. The bill covered veterans who were residents of the state of Alaska at the time of death. She noted that Amendment 1 (27-LS0450\B.1, Bullard, 4/7/11) was withdrawn. Page 2, lines 22-23: Delete "one certified copy" Insert "up to five certified copies" Page 2, line 23: Delete "an eligible recipient" Insert "a person" Page 2, line 26 through page 3, line 2: Delete all material. Page 3, line 3: Delete "(B)" Page 3, line 4: Delete "(i)" Insert "(A)" Page 3, line 9: Delete "(ii)" Insert "(B)" 2:25:22 PM Representative Costello offered conceptual amendment 1 sponsored by Representative Costello to include "and as many certified copies as requested" after the word "certificate" on Page 2, line 23. Vice-chair Fairclough OBJECTED for purpose of discussion. Representative Costello discussed the conceptual amendment. She related from personal experience that often family members need more than one copy of a death certificate. She believed the amendment facilitated the true intention of the legislation. Vice-chair Fairclough wondered how much an individual copy of a certificate cost to produce and whether additional copies would impact the fiscal note. She relayed that occasionally, a recipient requested 40 copies of a certificate. She added that she did not have an objection if the change did not increase the fiscal note. She encouraged limiting the number of certificates issued. Representative Gruenberg referred to the fiscal note, FN1 (DHS). He explained that the fiscal note represented a loss of revenue but did not cost the state money. He reminded the committee that HB 129 was specific to the recipient's need to procure benefits. Co-Chair Thomas asked what the cost of a certified copy of a death certificate was. 2:29:27 PM WARD HURLBURT, DIRECTOR AND CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via teleconference), explained the fiscal note. He reported that the lost revenue was based on the $25 charge per certificate. The projection calculated that 75 percent of recipients at an average of five copies were requested per deceased veteran. The lost revenue was significant. The revenue generated supported the bureau through program receipts. The decreased revenue would cause negative impacts. Staff reductions, increased death certificate fees, or a general fund supplement would result. Co-Chair Thomas wondered what the cost was to make a Xerox copy of the certificate certified by the department. Mr. Hurlburt replied that the copy and a stamp would not cost much. The certificate fees reflected the cost of operating the bureau not the actual cost to produce the certificate. The usual request was for original certified copies. He did not know the actual cost to produce a death certificate. Vice-chair Fairclough observed that the change would actually reduce the department's revenue. She relayed that the department would need an additional $75,000 to cover the cost of decreased program receipts. The program receipts were built into the budget. She believed that the legislature needed to step up and provide financial support to the department if the legislation was implemented. She restated her support to limit the amount of no cost death certificates. 2:34:15 PM Representative Gruenberg did not object to a limit placed on the number of copies granted. He remarked that he originally proposed a five copy limit. He clarified that on [Page 2], line 24 the word "benefit" was not qualified. The intention of the legislation was not to restrict the type of survivor benefit the recipient could apply for; private insurance, governmental benefits, or other private benefits qualify. Co-Chair Thomas thought that providing a copy of a certified certificate was sufficient. Representative Guttenberg wondered what benefits were acceptable. Representative Gruenberg restated that any type of death benefit was permissible for qualification. Representative Gara guessed that the sponsor knew the estimate of how many copies were needed per recipient. He thought that the cost of the copies was insignificant. The money lost was the amount for the original and that was unavoidable. He asked how many free copies the sponsor believed were necessary. Co-Chair Thomas indicated that the fiscal note was based on five original copies per veteran. He thought the fiscal note was overestimated and therefore, too high. 2:37:44 PM Representative Neuman asked if the legislation was retroactive. Representative Gruenberg surmised that retroactive requests would be insignificant. He could not speak to the exact number. He surmised that most estates were settled within a year. Representative Neuman believed that it would increase the number of copies requested. He supported a limit. Co-Chair Thomas thought that the issue was a simple one. He contended that making certified copies was easy to do. Representative Wilson discussed that the issue was related to having multiple family members request original certificates. She suggested that only one recipient should qualify for eligibility. Representative Gruenberg explained that the original amendment specified "decedent" and deleted "eligible recipient". The language specified the designated decedent. The amendment limited the number of certificates to five. He declared that his amendment would remedy the committees concerns. Co-Chair Thomas responded that the original amendment would change the fiscal note. Representative Gruenberg explained that the fiscal note was based on an average of three or four certificate per veteran. Vice-chair Fairclough addressed the original amendment. She restated the concern that multiple family members were eligible to receive copies. The provision was factored into the fiscal note. The original amendment would address the concern. She advocated amending the fiscal note to replace an additional $75,000 with general funds. The bureau operated on 3 percent general funds and paid for its program based on fees. She did not want the department to be faced with layoffs. She was supportive of the legislation but did not want to harm the department with a loss of revenue. 2:44:58 PM Representative Costello withdrew the conceptual amendment 1. Representative Gruenberg was in favor of the original amendment 1. Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1. The amendment revised Page 2, line 23, that replaced "five" with "four." Page 2, lines 22-23: Delete "one certified copy" Insert "up to five certified copies" Page 2, line 23: Delete "an eligible recipient" Insert "a person" Page 2, line 26 through page 3, line 2: Delete all material. Page 3, line 3: Delete "(B)" Page 3, line 4: Delete "(i)" Insert "(A)" Page 3, line 9: Delete "(ii)" Insert "(B)" There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The amended Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. Vice-chair Fairclough noted that the fiscal note did draw the lost revenue from the general fund and resulted in a net zero for the department. Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony. Representative Costello MOVED to report CS HB 129 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 129(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with attached previously published fiscal note: FN1, DHS. 2:47:54 PM AT EASE 2:49:42 PM RECONVENED