HB 300 - MEDICAL SUPPORT ORDERS FOR CHILDREN Number 1385 CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill No. 300, "An Act relating to the establishment and enforcement of medical support orders for children; and providing for an effective date." He asked Ms. Miklos if she'd had time to look over the proposed committee substitute (CS). Number 1337 BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Central Office, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said for the most part the changes are fine. She and Diane Wendlandt had a question on Section 7, page 7, lines 9-13, which is confusing. She was worried that it would do the opposite of what is wanted. Specifically, her concern is in regard to the words "government assistance", which she interpreted to mean that if it were covered by government assistance, then the CSED would not be collecting the support from the parent. She asked what the purpose of that sentence is. MS. MIKLOS referred to page 12, line 25, Indirect Amendment of Court Rule. In their reading of the court rule, the two orders are not locked together like in statute now. They don't believe that the statute, even as written, would amend the court rule. That is not as big an issue for them as the question on Section 7. MS. MIKLOS said she has mistakenly spoken and thus wanted to correct her comments as follows: The CSED wouldn't collect on behalf of Medical Assistance; rather, Medical Assistance would do the collecting. She reiterated her concern that the language "government assistance" would prohibit Medical Assistance from collecting this money if the people were already covered by government assistance. CHAIRMAN DYSON said he understood her; it would negate the ability to get reimbursed. MS. MIKLOS agreed that is what she is worried about. From discussions with the committee, she thought that was the opposite of what some of the members of the committee want, and it is the opposite of what the federal government intends when it tells CSED it must go after medical support orders. CHAIRMAN DYSON said his staff told him that is quoted directly from the court rules. MS. MIKLOS said no, "government assistance" is not in the court rules. The court rule says, "reasonable health care expenses not covered by insurance unless a court orders otherwise for good cause" so there is a little difference in the language. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Miklos how this bill is doing in the Senate. MS. MIKLOS replied that it is scheduled [to be heard in the] Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. She also told the committee the House Bill will go to the [House] Judiciary Committee after [it is moved out of the House] Health, Education and Social Services Committee. CHAIRMAN DYSON said it would be his desire to let the House Judiciary Committee decide whether it is consistent with the court rules or not. Number 1060 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 300, version 1-GH2061\D, Lauterbach, 4/11/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version D was before the committee. Number 1032 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to move CSHB 300, version 1-GH2061\D, Lauterbach, 4/11/00, from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. Number 1020 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected because he hadn't had a chance to spend the time [reviewing the CS] that he would have liked. Furthermore, he is still concerned about private insurance, although it looks like that was addressed in the proposed CS, which seems quite different. Representative Coghill removed his objection. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was further objection. There being no objection, CSHB 300(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee.