HB 356-ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WELLNESS  3:19:02 PM CHAIR HIGGINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 356, "An Act establishing the Advisory Committee on Wellness; and relating to the administration of state group health insurance policies." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained, as the sponsor of the proposed bill, that HB 356 would establish an advisory committee on wellness within the Department of Administration (DOA), and said that the purpose was to implement a prevention of disease model for health care. He stated that Sections 2 and 3 were the impetus of the bill which asked that the DOA, as determiners of the health care policy through the insurance provided, include a wellness advisory committee. He explained that this committee would have at least seven members, and he relayed that 90 people had applied for appointment to an earlier wellness advisory committee. He stated that there was a lot of interest in the population to promote wellness. He reported that this proposed committee would have the power to require the submitted recommendations be addressed, similar to the Office of Children's Services (OCS) advisory committee. He shared that DOA did not have opposition to the proposed bill, as its goal was to control the escalation of health care costs. He pointed out that $3.8 billion of unfunded liability was caused by the escalation of health care costs above the original long term estimate for an annual cost increase of 2 percent. He directed attention to the handout [Included in members' packets] for a proposed initiative to save up to $10 million annually. He spoke about Vitamin D, nutritional guidelines, and wellness in the work place initiatives. He explained that the wellness committee would work on proscriptive solutions for a voluntary means to reduce disease in workers and the retired population. He lauded the benefit of a wellness committee with the power to solicit a response. He pointed out that this was also defined as practical and reasonable suggestions for solutions to hold down health care escalation costs. He reported that the committee could meet via teleconference, as the proposed bill had a zero fiscal note. CHAIR HIGGINS questioned the accomplishments of the multitude of committees, and asked about the need for another committee. He directed attention to the current [Alaska] Health Care Commission, which reviewed all of the State of Alaska. He noted that a committee on controlled substances, formed more than 32 years previously, had never met. 3:26:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that the Alaska Health Care Commission was under the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and reviewed a different spectrum than this proposed committee would under the DOA, which administered health policies and negotiated contracts with state workers. He pointed out that there had been a voluntary wellness committee, however its focus had not been for prevention of disease and there had not been any requirement for response to its suggestions. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER respectfully pointed out that, although the Alaska Health Care Commission did not solely dwell on prevention, it did focus on ways to reduce health care costs with prevention as a top priority. He declared his support for the proposed bill. He shared that he had long been involved with prevention groups, and he reported that many people were working on prevention related to smoking, obesity, and chronic disease. He expressed his discomfort with an indictment that committees had not reduced the cost of health care, noting the difficulty for documentation. Directing attention to page 1, line 9, he questioned the intent language, "the state has not adequately focused state policy on avoiding disease," and stated that it did not mean that many people were not trying. He noted that the smoking cessation program had required a lot of work. He asked that respect be shown toward those people currently working on prevention programs. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that the proposed bill focused on the DOA, and that he did not intend to impugn any other work on wellness and prevention. He declared a need to focus on the budgetary situation, and getting wellness programs initiated with state workers and their dependents. He pointed out that the current Wellness committee had not met since December. He explained that the proposed bill required responses to its recommendations, similar to the authority of the Citizens Review Panel with the Office of Children's Services (OCS). He said that he did not want to denigrate other work, and this proposed bill was for wellness programs through DOA, as insurance and the subsequent health care inflation were housed there. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER acknowledged the other various wellness committees. REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked if Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) would increase its education for prevention, in lieu of the creation of another committee. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that DHSS had its own mission, and its ways for working on change in the state, which was different than DOA, which oversees the health care insurance policies. He offered his belief that it was necessary to reduce the increases to health insurance. He relayed that incentives to place wellness programs, such as co-pays and deductibles, could be offered through the health care contracts. CHAIR HIGGINS asked for clarification that the wellness committee would target the insurance policies. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the proposed bill would target insurance for the active workforce employees, retirees, and dependents in the State of Alaska for reductions in liabilities. CHAIR HIGGINS asked for an explanation to the zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that DOA had stated that a wellness committee was advisable and, as it was a non-paid position, there would be volunteer members who would attend telephonic meetings. He opined that, if successful, it could have huge benefits toward reducing the state budget. 3:38:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 356, Version 28- LS1465\C, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 356 was moved from the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.