HOUSE BILL NO. 76 "An Act extending the January 15, 2021, governor's declaration of a public health disaster emergency in response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic; providing for a financing plan; making temporary changes to state law in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the following areas: occupational and professional licensing, practice, and billing; telehealth; fingerprinting requirements for health care providers; charitable gaming and online ticket sales; access to federal stabilization funds; wills; unfair or deceptive trade practices; and meetings of shareholders; and providing for an effective date." 2:44:59 PM Co-Chair Merrick remarked that the legislature and the public had talked extensively about the topic during the current legislative session. She asked committee members to recognize that each committee focused on different aspects of legislation throughout the process. She recognized that the bill would have significant impacts for the health and safety of Alaskans. She reported that the House Finance Committee's primary focus would be on the bill's fiscal impact to the state and its residents. She relayed that the House Health and Social Services Committee had heard the bill several times over the past few weeks and the committee's co-chairs would present the committee substitute (CS). She asked members to hold questions until the end of each segment. REPRESENTATIVE TIFFANY ZULKOSKY, CO-CHAIR, HOUSE HEALTH and SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, introduced the CS with a prepared statement: Thank you for the opportunity to present Committee Substitute for House Bill 76, extending the COVID-19 disaster declaration. Throughout the last year, Alaskans and our global neighbors have faced significant health and economic impacts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. And while the virus has proved unpredictable with some infections resulting in no or mild symptoms, other infections developed severe illness or led to untimely death what is constant about COVID-19 is that it is highly contagious, grows exponentially, and new variants pose continued public health risk to Alaskans. Recognizing this threat to the health and lives of Alaskans, on March 11, 2020, the Governor issued a declaration of a public health disaster emergency in anticipation of the spread of COVID-19 to communities across Alaska and issued a number of new disaster declarations for the on-going pandemic. We have come a long way in this last year. The global medical community has improved clinical resources to help those with severe infections, our society has adapted to how we live in ways that prevent transmission, and the record-breaking development and deployment of vaccines offers us hope on the horizon. But we have heard decisively from Alaska's healthcare and community leaders that we are not out of the woods just yet and without an ongoing disaster declaration, this prolonged area of limbo is hamstringing response, which continues regardless of ideology in this building about the severity of the pandemic. The Health and Social Services Committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders from across Alaska, from businesses and local government to epidemiologists and non-profit service organizations. Testimony was clear and consistent, Alaska still needs the tools to fight this pandemic, keep Alaska's businesses afloat, and help families get back on their feet. We believe this narrow and prescriptive disaster declaration offers that necessary set of tools. This declaration ensures local response in vulnerable communities with limited healthcare resources can continue, enables Alaska to continue surveillance testing at airports to identify cases before widespread outbreaks occur, offers certainty and flexibilities for frontline health providers who remain on the pandemic's frontlines, and ensures Alaska remains nimble in its ability to respond. Further, the declaration provides legal flexibilities and meets the minimum criteria by the federal government for Alaska to receive its share of federal funding for a number of on-going relief and recovery efforts, including vaccine deployment, expanded allowances for telehealth, and alternate care sites for testing, vaccination, and treatment. Delaying or failing to renew the declaration to best position Alaska to fight this pandemic and keep families safe is like taking down an umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm because you aren't getting wet. 2:49:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE LIZ SNYDER, CO-CHAIR, HOUSE HEALTH and SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE thanked the committee for the opportunity to present the CS. She provided prepared remarks: I'd like to make it clear that CSHB 76 does not extend the disaster, it extends the declaration so that we can definitively end the disaster. Further, the bill should look very familiar. In an effort to build broad support for the declaration and move expeditiously to meet the needs of Alaskans, CSHB 76 is modeled after the most current version of SB 56, bringing alignment to the Senate companion that has been considered in both the Senate Health and Social Services and Labor and Commerce Committees. The primary difference is reverting to the original sunset date of September 30, 2021, which this bill allows the administration to evaluate as needed. CSHB 76 is very pared down compared to HB 241, which as you recall was passed in 2020. Where HB 241 was a large workshop of a wide variety of tools, CSHB 76 is a small efficient toolbox of essentials to finish the job. We do appreciate that there are alternative ideas and plans to CSHB 76, so in my sectional analysis here, I'll highlight what is unique and why it is important. First, this bill contains important language in that it declares a "public health disaster emergency." If we were to move forward without disaster language we are willingly operating in a gray zone of uncertainty. We would be asking healthcare providers and organizations to run alternate care sites for vaccinations; testing, including at airports; and treatment without the protections a declaration affords. Verne Berner, Alaska Native Health Board, on March 4, in the House Health and Social Services hearing testified to this fact. There are already healthcare organizations encountering more red tape and bureaucratic hurdles to set up alternate care sites without a declaration. We heard about this from Jared Kosin from ASHNHA also on March 4. Alaska is risking eligibility for extended federal SNAP benefits without this language and these extended benefits provide $8 million per month to Alaskan families. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the federal legislation which allows for the extended SNAP benefits states "in the event of public health emergency declaration by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, based on an outbreak of Coronavirus disease and the issuance of an emergency or disaster declaration by a state based on an outbreak of COVID- 19, the Secretary of Agriculture" and it goes on to explain the expanded SNAP benefits. Without a declaration, our eligibility will expire on April 1, we may find ourselves in a position of forfeiting $8 million of support in April, another $8 million in May, and yet another $8 million in June for a total of $24 million less in our economy and support for Alaskan families. A disaster declaration gives us the nimbleness to respond quickly if things change. We have seen how quickly the trajectory of case rates can increase as we also heard from Dr. Tom Hennessy on March 4. Today, with 226 resident cases, plus an additional 12 nonresident cases, this is our highest count since the third week of January. Yesterday was 150 and the day before was 91. 2:53:40 PM Representative Snyder continued to read from a prepared statement: The next four sections of CSHB 76 were also addressed separately in individual Senate bills, SB 86, SB 77, SB 78, and SB 24, with a focus on permanency in those Senate bills. This may indeed be a good move for Alaska, but this approach of separately legislating key components of COVID-19 response is not efficient and further delays response resources needed now. Representative Snyder provided information on the four aforementioned sections: One, provisions for reasonable flexibility and professional occupational licensing. Making licensure quicker until the declaration expires, preventing the raising of fees and waiving continuing ed requirements. I'd like to note that SB 86, its effective date is not until January 2022. Another section continues expanded flexibility for telehealth services in Alaska. Another section allows shareholder and nonprofit meetings to be held electronically. That's also reflected in SB 24, the previous SB 78. Lastly, allowing certain online charitable gaming activities, which we also see addressed in SB 77. The remining sections of 76 included provisions for requiring informed consent for vaccinations as amended in Senate Health and Social Services; civil liability protections for individuals; a financing plan as amended in Senate Labor and Commerce, extending what was issued by the governor on January 15, 2021; and reporting requirements for OMB, these are reduced as compared to HB 241. In conclusion, Alaska has done a great job in responding to the pandemic. We lead the nation in vaccination rates and are the first state to open up vaccine eligibility to anyone 16 and older. Case rates have plateaued. These are cause for celebration but not complacency. Individual and incomplete piecemeal approaches with delayed start dates pared with workaround approaches do not provide the certainty and efficiency we need amidst an ongoing global pandemic. I appreciate we are all emotionally fatigued by COVID- 19, but to be clear, Alaska has not been in lockdown in months and when we had a declaration in place, businesses were open, and people have been free to go where they liked. Schools have opened. CSHB 76 won't change this, instead it is a way that Alaska can continue testing and vaccinating with efficiency and certainty so that we can finally end the pandemic. It is a way for healthcare providers to continue providing needed services without unnecessary risk or prohibitive costs and for them to adapt quickly as the situation changes. It ensures Alaskans have access to food and it ensures we can safely promote that Alaska is open for business and welcome tourists who want to help us jumpstart the economy this summer. 2:56:31 PM Representative Zulkosky provided concluding remarks a prepared statement: We believe that Alaska has done an incredible job and it is because of the hard work of many Alaskans, especially by those in DHSS, Public Health, in Tribal Health. What's important to us and this state is that we have a way to continue this great work and stay on the right path. We believe the committee substitute for HB 76 is currently the fastest and surest way to do this. Things are looking great, and we want to keep it that way. When the Legislature approved the state's first disaster declaration in 2020, it was said that if we look back and it feels like we did too much, the safety precautions and interventions to protect Alaskans from COVID-19 worked. As Foraker Group's President Laurie Wolf eloquently said before the Health & Social Services Committee, ending the declaration now is akin to stopping a 7-day penicillin prescription after three days because we're beginning to feel better. Now is not the time to dismantle resources that have helped to save lives, protect businesses, and care for Alaskans over the last year. CSHB 76 provides Alaska with the tools and resources that our municipalities, health systems, and businesses need to get Alaska from where we are today, to where we need to go where Alaskans can frequent local businesses without fear of getting sick, where families and friends can gather in-person for life's precious moments, and children can safely continue in- person learning. As anxious as we all are to return to a new normal, inaction on this issue is consequential. Alaska has been more successful in combating COVID-19 in part because we have been proactive, decisive, and responsive, and our communities, public health professionals, and businesses have had the tools to adapt to the world that we find ourselves in. 2:58:34 PM Representative Rasmussen referenced an addition in Section 13 of the CS related to the personal objections to the administration of COVID-19 vaccines. She asked whether Legislative Legal Services had found no constitutional or federal issues pertaining to the section. She asked if the language applied only to state employees or to any employees. Representative Zulkosky believed the language had been offered as an amendment in the Senate Health and Social Services Committee. The intent was to provide statutory protection for Alaskans who opt not to receive the vaccine. Representative Rasmussen asked what type of protection the provision provided. Representative Zulkosky replied that the intention was to ensure there were statutory protections that did not force any Alaskan to receive the vaccination. She stated her understanding that the language was not necessarily required - there was nothing in statute requiring anyone to receive any sort of vaccines. She reiterated that the language had been offered on the Senate side with the intention of making sure it was the case with the COVID-19 vaccine. She explained that the CS brought alignment between the existing House bill with the changes that had already been made on the Senate side. Representative Rasmussen appreciated the language. She had been hearing about cases where private employers in Alaska were requiring employees to vaccinate and to show proof of the vaccination. She thought it was a HIPAA violation. She had been told that some businesses were requiring employees to take personal leave or resign if they chose not to get the vaccine by August. She had heard concerns about airlines requiring vaccinations for people to fly. She wanted to ensure Alaskans maintained the option to vaccinate or not vaccinate. 3:01:35 PM Representative LeBon referenced a provision related to civil liability on page 10 of the legislation. He highlighted that the language stated that "A person may not be held liable for an action taken..." He provided a scenario where an employee of a private sector business got the virus. He asked if there was a liability protection for the business. He pointed out that where the employee had contracted the virus was not known and it could have been somewhere outside of work or brought in by a customer or client. He asked if there was an element of protection for the small businesses in the bill. Representative Zulkosky referred to the summary of changes on the original Senate bill, where the section referenced by Representative LeBon had been added. She communicated her understanding that under the language a person may not be held liable for an action that does or does not comply with an order, proclamation, or declaration adopted by the governor. She stated it was their understanding that the language was a broad waiver of the liability. She remarked that she was not an attorney and would run the question by Legislative Legal Services for verification. Representative Edgmon remarked that the bill was a governor's bill. He stated that during his time on the committee he had seen committee chairs from other committees present personal legislation. He asked why there was not a representative from the governor's office presenting a governor's bill. Representative Zulkosky deferred the question to the administration. Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee would hear from the administration after the current presenters. Representative Edgmon asked if the two representatives were presenting the bill because it had most recently been in their committee. He thought it was out of the convention of presenting a bill. He wondered if it was an indication the administration did not support the bill. Co-Chair Merrick replied that the [House Health and Social Services Committee] co-chairs had asked to present the CS. The administration would address the bill after the co- chairs had finished. Representative Zulkosky replied that the assessment was accurate. From her perspective as a co-chair of the House Health and Social Services Committee - the topic was of significant interest and concern to stakeholders that routinely came before the committee - there had been a very fast evolution of position on the issue by the administration. She elaborated that the administration had initially believed the legislature needed to extend the disaster declaration and had introduced HB 76. Subsequently, the administration had decided not to extend the disaster declaration. The administration had then opted to pursue a number of pieces of permanent legislation that stood separate from a disaster declaration. She believed the situation contributed to the awkwardness of the [House Health and Social Services Committee] co-chairs' willingness to present the bill. She believed it was an indication the administration had wanted to distance itself from the declaration. She did not want to put words in the mouth of the administration. She communicated it had been made clear by staff in Senator Lisa Murkowski's office that standalone legislation that was not a disaster declaration was not sufficient for leveraging the incoming federal resources for COVID relief. She stated that because there was not a statutory opportunity for a public health emergency through Alaska statute, the co-chairs continued to believe a disaster declaration was the best way to move forward to ensure the state had the legal and financial flexibilities to respond to the pandemic. 3:06:51 PM Representative Edgmon remarked there seemed to be several iterations by the administration. He stated that was fine and acknowledged that things were happening quickly with the distribution of vaccines and so on; however, the governor had introduced HB 76 and a companion bill and had then communicated that a disaster declaration was not needed. Subsequently, there had been an abbreviated bill under consideration. He highlighted that the House was now considering the original bill. He wanted to know whether the bill was supported or not supported by the governor, who could ultimately veto the legislation if it was passed. He believed the question was germane and intended to ask the administration later in the meeting. Vice-Chair Ortiz believed Representative Zulkosky had stated the CS was a pared down version of the original disaster declaration. He asked for a summary of the impact of the CS compared to the original declaration. 3:08:43 PM Representative Snyder answered that they could speak to some of the elements in SB 241 that were not included in the CS before the committee. The current bill no longer included specific language that would have allowed the commissioner [of DHSS] to declare health orders [on behalf of the chief medical officer] if the chief medical officer was unavailable. The bill no longer included the requirement for some more detailed monthly reports to be submitted to the Senate president and House speaker, including detailed budgets and activities. She explained that previously peace officers, EMTs, medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and other healthcare providers would have been presumed to have contracted COVID-19 at work if they were exposed and tested positive. The former bill had included some PFD ineligibility language, some protections regarding rent, foreclosure, and utility moratoriums. The former bill had also included rules against price gouging and language related to financial assistance to prevent homelessness as a result of COVID-19. 3:10:07 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the net effect of the fact that the bill was a pared down version. Representative Zulkosky responded that invited testimony would zero in on the issues. She specifically highlighted flexibilities related to testing at airports and detailed that Alaska had identified 3,000 cases of COVID-19 through airports. She referenced invited testimony to be heard from Petersburg on the impact of the virus in the community specifically since the lapse of the disaster declaration. She reported that the community had seen some of the highest numbers of the virus during the period of time without a disaster declaration in comparison with the past year. She noted that a Dr. Hennessy would speak to some of the issues. Vice-Chair Ortiz relayed that he had heard that morning from a constituent who could no longer receive telemedicine from an endocrinologist in Seattle because the disaster declaration had ended. He asked if passing the current CS would eliminate the problem. Representative Zulkosky answered, "To our understanding, yes." Representative Carpenter identified three issues the committee needed to hear from the administration or another authority. The first was the federal money at stake. He had heard rumors it was the case but talking with the administration he believed it was not the case. He wanted to definitively understand the specific issue from the administration's point of view. Second, the committee needed to learn whether the governor wanted or needed an emergency declaration in order to resolve the issue. Third, he wondered whether there were other bills in the pipeline that addressed the issues raised in the CS, which were acceptable and solved the problem without having to declare an emergency. 3:12:55 PM Representative Wool asked for verification that the CS restored mandatory airport testing for people coming into Alaska. Representative Snyder answered that the bill provided the flexibility. She elaborated that under the topic of alternate care sites, it was how testing was facilitated at airports. Currently, the flexibility was not available without a disaster declaration. She explained that they [the House Health and Social Services co-chairs] had heard from healthcare providers and health organizations that without the protection, some of the services were continuing, but it was a gray area. Representative Zulkosky added that in addition to the alternate care sites, drive-thru testing sites had been closed throughout the state. She detailed that the action had closed the opportunity to do surveillance and asymptomatic testing. She explained that wider testing provided a better snapshot of where the virus was in Alaska and could help public health officials predict how the virus was moving. Additionally, it gave increased opportunity for increased genomic sequencing to know variants and the higher virulent versions of the virus moving throughout the state. She stated it was fundamental in being able to identify cases early before they caused widespread outbreaks. She noted that invited testimony would speak to the topic. Representative Wool restated his question. Representative Zulkosky replied that the bill provided the authority to the administration to be able to mandate testing at airports. Representative Wool remarked that there had been a quarantine period for travelers coming into Alaska. He thought it had been a good program. He noted it was not currently the case. He asked if there would be any quarantining for travelers coming to Alaska under the bill. Representative Snyder answered that it would not be required, but the bill would allow for the flexibility should the need be deemed necessary. 3:15:59 PM Representative Wool asked if the language changed from a disaster declaration to a disaster emergency. He asked if it was an intentional word choice. Representative Snyder believed some of the terms were used a little loosely and disaster declaration was used as a sort of shorthand. She stated that the bill retained the phrase public health disaster emergency from prior legislation. Representative Wool asked for verification that using the term emergency instead of declaration had the same legal implication. Representative Zulkosky answered it was their understanding. Representative Rasmussen circled back to comments made by Representative Carpenter. She stated that the telehealth issue highlighted by Vice-Chair Ortiz was a major issue. She asked if the House Health and Social Services Committee co-chairs were pursuing long-term permanent statutory changes that would enable Alaskans to utilize telehealth. She believed the bill was likely the quickest avenue. She pointed out that even a couple of weeks was a long time for some patients to not be able to see their provider. She supported getting it moving along quickly. 3:18:20 PM Co-Chair Merrick relayed the committee would next hear from the Department of Health and Social Services on behalf of the administration. HEIDI HEDBERG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via teleconference), thanked the committee for the opportunity to provide comment on the legislation. She read from prepared remarks: House Bill 76 was introduced by the governor pursuant of Alaska Statute 26.23.020. This provides that a disaster proclamation may not remain in effect longer than 30 days unless extended by the legislature. On January 15, the governor issued a declaration of a public health disaster and emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A bill was transmitted to the House on January 21, proposing to extend the public health disaster emergency to September 30, 2021. This is the bill before you today. Absent legislative action and pursuant to state law AS 26.23.020, the public health disaster emergency issued on January 15, expired on February 14th. In the time leading up to the February 14th expiration, we met extensively with response partners to include our federal agencies, local governments, healthcare providers, tribal health entities, healthcare facilities, and associations to discuss operations and response efforts by the state and to determine impacts if the disaster declaration was not extended. Based off of the feedback, the administration evaluated the current COVID response plan, which includes elements which you are all very familiar with, I am sure. They include widespread testing, supporting non-congregate housing for certain groups of individuals who need to quarantine or isolate, providing alternate care sites, procurement of personal protective equipment and testing supplies, guidelines for Alaskans and nonresidents traveling to and through Alaska, contact tracing, guidelines for critical infrastructure workforce and employers, and vaccine elocution, distribution, and administration. To continue to keep Alaska one of the safest states, we're requesting limited authorities as we maintain the robust testing, contact tracing, vaccine administration and distribution, and response to community outbreaks. As part of our evaluative process, we looked closely at the authorities that are available to the governor under the Alaska disaster declaration acts. I would like to review the authorities under the Alaska disaster acts with you so that we can walk through what it offers and how we used them and what we need. AS 26.23.020(b) states "the governor may issue orders, proclamations, and regulations necessary to carry out the purpose of the disaster acts." This was used to allow state agencies to be nimble and flexible in response to the public health emergency and disaster. It also provided protections to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by establishing guidelines for travel into Alaska, around Alaska, and for our critical infrastructure workforce. The AS 26.23.020(e) is a proclamation of a disaster emergency activates the disaster response and recovery aspects of state, local, and interjurisdictional disaster emergency plans. This authority was used to allow the unified command structure, which is the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Health and Social Services to support local jurisdictions, the healthcare system, and coordinate the statewide response to the pandemic. 3:23:27 PM Ms. Hedberg continued to read from prepared remarks: It also allowed the establishment of the alternate care sites, including the outpatient therapeutic treatment centers and establishing the vaccine point of dispensing clinics, and allowed for the state to coordinate the logistics of supplies and materials. AS 26.23.020(f) the governor may delegate or assign command authority for the National Guard by appropriate orders or regulations. This allowed us to utilize the National Guard for response purposes, such as contact tracing and logistical support at our warehouse. AS 26.23.020(g) and there are many authorities under this statute, a number of which we used in this response. I'll go over the ones we used and the ones we did not use. Number one was the suspension of provision of regulations or statutes if compliance would prevent or substantially impede or delay action necessary to cope with a disaster emergency. We used this statute for emergency procurement of supplies for hospitals, clinics, and communities, and emergency procurement for contracts for cold chain shippers and testing and supplies. We also hired temporary personnel to support public health response plans and those were contract tracers, public health nursing, microbiologists, and support for our data systems. This statute also allowed for the increased flexibility in how we care for and provide services to our most vulnerable populations in congregate settings and facilities. Number three is the transfer of personnel or alter the function of state departments and agencies or units of them for the purpose of performing or facilitating the performance of disaster emergency services. We basically used this statute and repurposed the entire Division of Public Health to respond to COVID-19. Number seven is control ingress to and egress from a disaster area. The movements of personnel within the area and occupancy of premises. This is the authority that we used to implement the pre-travel testing requirements for travel into Alaska and to communities off of the road system and the Marine Highway System. 3:26:17 PM Ms. Hedberg continued with her prepared remarks: Number nine, which makes provisions for the availability of and use of temporary emergency housing. This was used for non-congregate housing for homeless and for travelers that arrived in Alaska with a positive test result. Number ten, which is allocate or redistribute food, water, fuel, clothing, medicine, or supplies. This is the authority that is used for allocation and distribution of our personal protective equipment, testing supplies, vaccine, and therapeutic treatments. Now for the other authorities that are in section (g) that we did not use. There are four areas that are good to highlight for your awareness. The first is, we did not use the available resources of the state government and of each political subdivision of the state as responsibly necessary. We did not commandeer or utilize any private property, we did not suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, explosives, or combustibles. We did not use money from the oil and hazardous substance relief response accounts to respond to a disaster related to an oil or hazardous substance discharge. In summary, not every single authority available under the Alaska Disaster Act was used or needed for the COVID pandemic response. Authorities that were used, were not used necessarily at the same time. They were some authorities that we used early on in the response, but not later and there were authorities that we used later but not earlier. There were a number of authorities that we've used consistently throughout the response. As we've evaluated this process, we've realized that we do not need broad authorities available under the Alaska Disaster Act to continue the COVID response and transition into recovery. The Department of Health and Social Services believes that there's room to utilize a more limited or targeted approach by using uncodified law to establish specific authorities that we do need that are important for our response and recovery plan and for a limited period of time. 3:29:09 PM Ms. Hedberg continued with prepared remarks: Here are the authorities that we have identified, and again, this is based off of feedback and as one of the incident commanders I can tell you that this is truly the authorities that we need to continue to respond effectively to this response and transition into recovery. The first is to allow the Department of Health and Social Services to continue to coordinate, allocate, distribute, and manage the State of Alaska vaccine and therapeutics for the COVID-19 response. These are still scarce resources. The second is to allow the Department of Health and Social Services to cooperate with the federal government with respect to the blanket waivers, the 1135 waiver, and appendix K authorities, and the application and distribution of SNAP emergency allotment (also known as EA benefits) as part of the state's response to COVID-19. Third is to allow the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to support and assist the Department of Health and Social Services. Fourth, is to allow the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to receive delegation of authority from the governor, allowing activation of the Alaska National Guard to assist with segments of the state's response and recovery plan. Fifth is allowing the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to coordinate with FEMA to maintain the funding for non-congregate sheltering capabilities for local jurisdictions across the states. Sixth is to provide the authority for the use of telehealth and telemedicine for healthcare providers currently licensed in good standing in another state. Finally, to provide immunity from liability for a governmental entity, employee, or person who's engaged in performing duties as part of the state's response to COVID-19. We understand the sensitivity of using the disaster declaration and a public health emergency to provide such a broad authority. We also understand the need to progress as we are in this response and starting to pivot into recovery for Alaska. We need to have the tools if we need to respond. As you will hear there are some communities that do have outbreaks, but we do have other communities that are moving into recovery, which is why we want to make sure we have the necessary limited tools and that we can use those necessary limited tools if it's going in the wrong direction. 3:32:01 PM Ms. Hedberg finished her provided remarks: It is possible to allow the appropriate authorities to the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to continue the state's response plan without providing the broad authority of a public health emergency disaster declaration under the Alaska Disaster Declaration Act. We respectfully request the House Finance Committee consider providing identified limited authorities to continue Alaska's response and recovery plan without the issuance of an extension of a disaster declaration. Ms. Hedberg thanked the co-chairs. She listed several other staff available to help answer questions. 3:33:06 PM Representative Wool noted that testing at the airport was currently voluntary. He cited new COVID variants coming from different parts of the country and world. He asked where the administration stood on mandatory testing for travelers coming to Alaska. Ms. Hedberg replied that she had helped stand up the testing at Alaska's ten airports receiving flights from the Lower 48. She reported that it was a very good strategy. She relayed that the sites had identified close to 3,000 cases through the testing option [at airports]. She clarified there were many more options available. The department continued to say that testing was an important tool. The department recognized that many individuals had recovered from COVID and within a certain time period those individuals did not need to test. Additionally, individuals who were fully vaccinated (meaning two weeks after their last dose) did not need to be tested. She stated it was up to the legislature to decide whether to include the provision [related to airport testing] in the legislation. She mentioned that when the disaster declaration expired on February 14, all of the infrastructure had remained in place. She elaborated that the health orders had changed to advisories, and it was currently optional. She highlighted how giving the option and educating travelers and Alaskans played a role in early detection. 3:35:47 PM Representative Wool stated his understanding of the answer. He postulated that the testing of incoming travelers was one of the reasons Alaska had decent COVID results. He highlighted that other island or quasi-island communities such as Hawaii, New Zealand, and Alaska that were able to isolate people coming in had done pretty well. He remarked that Alaska was currently only accessible by air and possibly cruise ship in the coming summer. He knew people who had flown in since the testing requirement was lifted and very few people opt to get the test at the airport. He was concerned about the issue. He speculated that new variants coming in from out of state could be the source of a future uptick. He thought the airport testing was a good program to look into continuing for a period of time. 3:37:50 PM Representative LeBon believed Ms. Hedberg had talked about protecting state workers from liability from any COVID- related incident or illness. He asked if it overlapped to protect any private sector business that was operating under the label of an essential business to protect the business from claims that may originate from clients, employees, or other individuals who frequent the business. Ms. Hedberg deferred the question to the Department of Law. SUSAN POLLARD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), asked for clarification on the question. She understood the question to be about Section 12 of the bill and how it would potentially affect civil liability for private employers. Representative LeBon complied. He stated his impression that Section 12 was primarily aimed at protecting the state, departments, and employees. He asked if the declaration included any private sector employer protections. Ms. Pollard stated that her understanding of Section 12 was that it had been added in the other body to SB 56 and the bill would have had an effective date of February 14. She stated that if the bill had been effective on that date, there would need to be a retrospectivity indication for people who acted either in compliance with the health order mandates or not because the disaster order had extended. She did not believe the detail related to the private sector had really been contemplated. She could not give a clear and firm answer at present. 3:41:08 PM Representative LeBon remarked on the apparent absence of any protections for private sector employers who may receive any claims from clients, employees, or others, when trying to provide an essential service. Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked Ms. Hedberg for her testimony. He appreciated hearing a list of the things DHSS and the administration needed going forward to control COVID. He asked if the administration supported the bill because it met the needs identified by the administration going forward. Ms. Hedberg answered that the administration believed a public health emergency or disaster declaration was not needed to continue on. The administration believed limited authorities were needed. She confirmed that the bill, as currently written, provided what the administration needed. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for clarification. He asked for verification that the bill provided what the administration needed, but the administration did not support it. Ms. Hedberg answered that all of the authorities the administration needed were included in the bill; however, the bill contained some authorities that were not needed. She elaborated that the state was a year into the response, and it had built up many capabilities and worked collaboratively with communities. The administration was asking for a limited list of authorities that it believed could be created in a separate bill in uncodified law. 3:43:56 PM HB 76 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Merrick stated the meeting was over time and would adjourn.