SB 247-MISSING PERSONS    CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 247 and noted version E committee substitute (CS) had been distributed. SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt version E, labeled 25-LS1157\E, as the working document. 2:16:58 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, version E is before the committee. He asked Mr. Peterson to highlight the changes in the CS. 2:17:14 PM DARWIN PETERSON, staff to Senator Stedman, said he agreed to carry the bill for Senator Green, the bill sponsor, because he was on her staff when the bill was drafted. He explained the changes in the CS. Page 1, lines 7-9, contains new language regarding civil immunity. It's also applied in Sec.2 at the request of the Department of Law (DOL). Law enforcement is provided some immunity if it's not possible to gather all the required information when a missing person report is filed. Page 2, lines 14-16, subsection (c) says, "In accepting a report of a missing person, the law enforcement agency shall request from the person making the report, and make reasonable efforts to gather to the extent it is available, information including". The new language addresses DOL's concern that the phrase "shall gather" didn't give the law enforcement agency much latitude. Also, it addresses Senator McGuire's concern regarding HIPPA violations. Page 58 of the "HIPPA Administrative Simplification Regulation Text" says that "a covered entity may disclose protected health information to the extent that such use or disclosure is required by law." AS 18.65.630 deals specifically with the issue of medical and dental records being released in a missing person report. It says that when a report is filed, the law enforcement agency "shall provide" release forms to the person filing the report. The family, next of kin, or guardian "may" fill out the form and deliver it to the physician and dentist. It that's done, the physician and dentist "shall" provide the information to the law enforcement agency. That covers any problems with HIPPA, he said. 2:20:55 PM MR. PETERSON explained that the change on page 2, line 29, reflects Senator Therriault's suggestion that credit card numbers and bank card numbers can be helpful in tracking a missing person's whereabouts. Page 3, lines 5-8, paragraph (17) reflects a suggestion by Senator Therriault that it would be helpful to collect more information related to date of last contact. Responding to a request for further explanation, he said the original language asked for date of last contact. He asked the drafter to expand the language so that all the circumstances surrounding the disappearance are recorded including "where the person was, whom the person might have been with, when the person was last seen or heard from - time and date - [and] reasons why they may be missing." 2:22:08 PM SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the date of last contact was removed and paragraph (17) was beefed up. MR. PETERSON said yes. Page 5, lines 1-6, subsection (f) addresses the concern Senator Huggins expressed about collecting DNA from family members of a missing person. The sponsor agrees and so the new language says DNA samples taken from a family member are provided voluntarily. Nothing in the section requires a family member who has not committed a crime to provide a DNA sample. It also clarifies that DNA samples are to be destroyed when a case is closed. Page 6, line 29, reflects a suggestion by Senator Therriault to require law enforcement agencies to establish written protocols for handling missing person cases rather than encouraging them to do so. MR. PETERSON said that is the extent of the changes in the CS. 2:23:52 PM MARY WEIR said that she brought the issue forward because there were no protocols for collecting and handling information when her daughter went missing for 19 months. It was all very confusing. As it turned out her daughter was in California the entire time, but the information was mishandled and the identification was never made. Her experience is not uncommon. The last time she checked there were 109,000 missing persons and 6,700 unidentified [remains] and the Department of Justice estimates that those figures are low. SB 247 will make Alaska part of the solution since the biggest reason that matches aren't made is that protocols are lacking. CHAIR FRENCH said he understands that the Department of Public Safety has concern with some of wording in the bill. 2:26:31 PM RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Trooper, Department of Public Safety, stated support for the goal of the legislation, but concern with some of the directives. "We would prefer that the bill would change some of the 'shalls' to 'mays' so that we can maintain officer discretion in those cases and allocate the resources as we currently do." CHAIR FRENCH asked him to be more specific. LIEUTENANT DIAL explained that he's referring to collection of DNA in cases where the person has been missing more than 30 days and in high risk cases. "We have a significant percentage of our missing persons cases that go past 30 days." Specifically he is talking about the language on page 4, lines 18-20, and page 4, line 21. CHAIR FRENCH asked if he believes that the new language "make reasonable efforts" is insufficient. LIEUTENANT DIAL explained that in cases involving repeat runaways and search and rescue cases where it's unlikely that the victim will be rescued, it's not always an appropriate use of resources to travel to different communities to obtain DNA samples of family members. "We're asking to maintain the discretion we currently have so we can allocate resources." CHAIR FRENCH asked if a DNA sample is collected by a Q-tip swab. LIEUTENANT DIAL said yes; the inside of a person's mouth is swabbed for mitochondrial DNA. That's the "gold standard" for missing person cases since it can be used for comparison with remains that are highly degraded. "We actually do collect that in many missing persons cases currently." CHAIR FRENCH clarified that the bill doesn't place demands on the crime lab to put the samples at the front of the queue. It requires law enforcement agencies to make a reasonable effort to get a DNA swab from immediate family members and the missing person. LIEUTENANT DIAL reminded the committee that the state crime lab doesn't have the ability to test mitochondrial DNA so those samples are sent out of state either to the University of Texas or the FBI national crime lab. Those samples are entered into a national DNA database for missing persons. 2:31:10 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked if he said that the DNA swabs for these cases could not be tested in Alaska. LIEUTENANT DIAL said that's correct. The state crime lab can only test for nuclear DNA, not mitochondrial DNA. 2:31:38 PM CHAIR FRENCH noted a proposed amendment from the sponsor's office. He identified it as Amendment 1 by Senator French. CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 1 and objected for discussion purposes. AMENDMENT 1 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH TO: CSSB 247(JUD) Page 2, line 1, following "18.60.175": Insert "and 18.65.630" Page 2, line 16, following "is available" Insert "and permissible to disclose" At ease from 2:32:35 PM to 2:32:53 PM. 2:33:05 PM MR. PETERSON explained that the amendment is at the request of the department. It adds reference to AS 18.65.63 in the civil immunity section on page 2, line 1. CHAIR FRENCH added that the title of that particular statute is "Medical and Dental Records of Missing Persons." MR. PETERSON said the added language on page 2, line 16, is an effort to avoid HIPPA violations. CHAIR FRENCH added that this makes it clear that HIPPA trumps Alaska statue. MR. PETERSON agreed. CHAIR FRENCH ascertained there were no further questions and withdrew his objection to Amendment 1. Finding no objection, he announced that Amendment 1 is adopted. 2:35:59 PM JOAN WILSON, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law, relayed that part of her job is to advise the Department of Health and Social Services about HIPPA compliance. Much of that job is completing the state preemption analysis - comparing how the HIPPA privacy standards compare with Alaska laws, figuring out ways for them to work together, and pointing it out when they don't. MS. WILSON clarified that AS 18.65.630 mandates disclosures and HIPPA says that where state or other law requires a disclosure, a healthcare provider doesn't violate HIPPA by complying with the other law. This section provides authority for family members who don't qualify as usual next of kin to sign a health information release. Subsection (b) provides law enforcement the ability to do that when it's not possible get family authorization. She cautioned that when AS 18.65.630 is interpreted with HIPPA, providers should know that the authorization form must also have all the mandatory terms that HIPPA provides. That will remove any difficulty providers have in figuring out whether this is a mandatory disclosure required by state law or a permissive disclosure under an authorization form. "I'm not really offering any suggestions for changes to 18 65.630, but just that there be some kind of legislative record that an authorization form provided under these sections should still comply with the mandatory authorization requirements of a HIPPA compliant authorization form." CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had any further remarks to offer on the bill. 2:38:11 PM MS. WILSON pointed out that the bill has two ways of getting information. First, law enforcement is able to get information from a family member and they are not subject to HIPPA. But when law enforcement makes further reasonable efforts, it may be requesting information directly from health care providers who are subject to privacy standards. "It's only then that HIPPA's going to create any kind of wall that someone will need to climb over." HIPPA does recognize public policy needs for protective health information and as such it has separate exceptions for disclosures to law enforcement for purposes of missing person investigations. But the section does not permit release of DNA or dental records. "Everything under HIPPA is disjunctive." If you fall under one exception you don't have to worry about the other barriers so the law enforcement barrier for DNA and dental records wouldn't be applicable in these cases because of the "required by law" exception and the "authorized disclosure" exception. CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony and announced that the CS is before committee for discussion. Although he wasn't present for first hearing, he has reviewed the minutes and there have been some good explanations. Definitions have been added since the committee first heard the bill and it will be heard next in the Finance Committee. Finding no further committee discussion, he asked for the will of the committee. 2:40:24 PM SENATOR HUGGINS moved to report CSSB 247, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSSB 247(JUD) is moved from committee. At ease from 2:40:43 PM to 2:41:51 PM`