HB 29-INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION  1:34:53 PM CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 29, "An Act relating to insurance discrimination." [Before the committee was CSHB 29(L&C).] CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on CSHB 29(L&C). After ascertaining that no one wished to testify, she closed public testimony. 1:35:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of CSHB 29(L&C), offered a brief summary of the legislation. He said the bill sought to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating solely on the basis of a person's status as an elected official. 1:37:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 29(L&C), labeled 33-LS0272\S.1, Wallace, 4/29/23, which read: Page 1, line 1: Delete "relating to insurance discrimination" Insert "prohibiting certain insurance decisions  based solely on a person's political party or a  person's status as an elected official" Page 1, line 4: Delete "Discrimination" Insert "Decisions" REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 1:37:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON explained that Amendment 1 proposed a title change to avoid ambiguity. The new title would read "prohibiting certain insurance decisions based solely on a person's political party or a person's status as an elected official". REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:38:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB 29(L&C), labeled 33-LS0272\S.3, Wallace, 5/2/23, which read: Page 1, line 6, following "party": Insert ", a person's political view," Page 2, line 7, following "AS 15.80.010": Insert "; (3) "political view" means a position that a state or national political party takes in support of or in opposition to an issue" REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected for the purpose of discussion. 1:38:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 2 would prohibit discrimination based on a person's political view in addition to political party. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked for the bill sponsor's input on Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he was neutral on Amendment 2, as it would not be harmful to the bill's objective. REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned the aptness of the word "position" in the definition of "political view" on lines 6-7 of Amendment 2 based on his misinterpretation of how the term was used. 1:41:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed concern about the broadness of "political view," and questioned whether it would apply to an individual who believes in overthrowing the government, which could leave the insurance company vulnerable to lawsuits. CHAIR VANCE asked how a person's political view was defensible. She pointed out that political party and elected status were easily defined and proven, whereas political view was ambiguous. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that the word "position" on line 6 referred to a person's view - not a job or nomination. In response to Representative Gray, he acknowledged that some political views, such as anarchism, might be considered illegal; however, he said there was no intent of protecting illegal behavior. In terms of the mechanism for proof, he suggested that it would be the same as demonstrating discrimination based on political party. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that a person's political view could be changed tomorrow. He believed that the addition of "political view" could make the bill overly broad. 1:47:37 PM BUDDY WHITT, Staff, Representative Kevin McCabe, Alaska State Legislature, suggested that Ms. Wing-Heier could provide insight on how insurance companies might look at the additional provision. 1:48:20 PM LORI WING-HEIER, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), agreed that the language was broad and may cause insurance companies concern, as a person's political view could be changed on a daily basis. In response to a previous question from Representative Gray regarding legal fees, she noted that repeated claims would lead to policy cancellation. CHAIR VANCE asked whether [Amendment 2] involved freedom of speech rather than discrimination. MS. WING-HEIER answered yes. 1:49:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the maker of Amendment 2 equated political view to a person's political expression. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered no, the term was not focused on political expression. He said his intention was that "political view" would be limited to a person's belief or opinion on a political issue. REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER was unsure how to empower any organization to understand a person's thoughts. He pointed out that the only way an insurance company would know a person's view was if that person expressed it, either by word or affiliation. He highlighted the language on page 1, line 6 of the bill, which had already captured political expression. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that a person's party affiliation could also be changed on the spur of the moment. REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her belief that the conversation was straying from the bill's intent, which was to protect politicians and elected officials. For that reason, she stated her opposition to Amendment 2. 1:53:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how Amendment 2 would impact insurance companies and the type of insurance they offer. MS. WING-HEIER affirmed that the Division of Insurance could enforce the proposed legislation; however, she could not make an insurance company remain in Alaska or offer a certain type of insurance. Further, she declined to predict how insurance companies may respond. 1:55:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the maker of Amendment 2 envisioned the definition of "political view" applying to areas of Alaska Statutes outside of Title 21. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed that the issue [of belief versus expression] was complicated and referenced the censorship of a Montana legislator. In response to the bill sponsor, he said his intent was to focus on the particular statute at hand. He acknowledged that including political view may be messy and suggested limiting the scope of the bill to elected officials only. 1:58:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 2 with the suggestion that "political party" be removed from the bill as well. 1:59:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3 to CSHB 29(L&C), labeled 33-LS0272\S.4, Wallace, 5/2/23, which read: Page 1, lines 5 - 6: Delete "A person transacting insurance in this state may not, solely because of a person's political party or a person's status as an elected official," Insert "If a person transacting insurance in this state makes a policy decision solely because of a person's political party or a person's status as an elected official, or if a policy holder suspects that a policy decision was made solely because of the person's political party or the person's status as an elected official, the person transacting insurance must provide documentation to the policy holder identifying the factor or combination of factors that were used in making a policy decision to" Page 1, line 13, through page 2, line 2: Delete all material. Reletter the following subsection accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected. 1:59:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would require insurance companies accused of discrimination based on political party or status as an elected official to provide documentation to the policy holder identifying the factors used in making the policy decision. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY observed the unlikelihood of insurance companies providing, in writing, documentation of discrimination. 2:02:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated his opposition to Amendment 3, as it would complicate current practices. He asked Mr. Whitt to expound on those practices. 2:02:48 PM MR. WHITT noted his appreciation for the proposed amendment, which addressed a mechanism for proof of denial. He read a statement from the Division of Insurance's website regarding policy rights, indicating that upon the denial of an initial application, the insurer must inform the applicant that he/she has the right to know why. The applicant can then submit a written request for further information. He directed attention to page 1, lines 11-12 of Amendment 3, and asked why the maker of the amendment sought to delete page 1, line 13, through page 2, line 2 of the bill, which offered a carveout to insurance companies that allowed them to deny a policy based on standard underwriting or actuarial principles. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that Amendment 3 deleted the language in question because it would no longer be relevant should the amendment pass. He indicated that the proposed amendment wouldn't prohibit discrimination [based on political party or one's status as an elected official], it would simply require them to be transparent when doing so. 2:07:54 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 3 to CSHB 29(L&C). Representatives Carpenter C. Johnson, Gray, Groh, Allard, and Vance voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 1-6. CHAIR VANCE sought final comment on CSHB 29(L&C), as amended. 2:09:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the bill would not work as intended, adding that he viewed it as a counterintuitive and counterproductive way of solving the issue. 2:10:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report CSHB 29(L&C), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 2:10:28 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Groh, Allard, Carpenter, C. Johnson, Gray, and Vance voted in favor of reporting CSHB 29(L&C), as amended, out of committee. Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 29(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1. 2:12:05 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:12 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.