SB 48-INS. FOR DEPENDS. OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE  4:30:03 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order. He announced the consideration of SB 48, and noted that the bill has a committee substitute (CS). 4:30:11 PM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the work draft CS for SB 48, version O. CHAIR DUNLEAVY objected for discussion purposes. 4:30:31 PM CHRISTA MCDONALD, Staff, Senator Mike Dunleavy, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reviewed the CS for SB 48. She summarized the changes from the CS as follows: · Changed the term "police officer" to "peace officer" in order to extend the benefits to probation and correctional officers. · Consistently uses the term "major medical" throughout the bill's work draft. · Changed the annual deadline for the commissioner to determine the amount of money sufficient to pay premiums to December 15. · Eliminates the gap of coverage by removing the requirement for the surviving dependent having to apply to the commissioner. After the date of death of a peace officer or firefighter, the commissioner will have 30 days to determine continued eligibility. · Requires annual determination of continued eligibility by the commissioner. The commissioner may require a surviving dependent to provide relevant information to determine continued eligibility. · Clarified the term year-round by replacing it with, "Fulltime position for which the state or municipality paid or expected to pay the employee for 12 month each year." · Established that a surviving spouse becomes permanently ineligible for premium payments upon receiving 10 years of premium payments, becoming eligible to receive major medical insurance, or by reaching the age of 65, whichever of those come first. · Removed the word "immediately" to clarify that the municipality may elect to participate in the fund at any time. · Expanded the definition of "firefighter" to, "An employee of the state or municipality whose primary duty is to perform fire suppression services." · Replaced the definition of "police officer" with a new definition for "peace officer." 4:32:37 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY removed his objection and announced that the CS was adopted without objection. SENATOR COGHILL, sponsor of SB 48, explained that the CS is a result of trying to find ways to bring the bill in consistent language; for example, the use of the terms, "medical" and "major medical," the two terms have different meanings. He specified that "major medical" was coverage without eye care and dental care. He opined that the care should be continuous, but with limitations. He said he did not know if 10-year eligibility is perfect, but determined that the period is consistent across the U.S. as well as being used in a previous bill. He added that he did not want the youngsters caught up in the 10-year limitation by providing eligibility until age 26 or if insurance is obtained from a job. SENATOR COGHILL asserted that the legislation allows for the best way to provide immediate care. He remarked that he was disturbed when he heard that the month a trooper died his family found out that they were without health insurance. He provided additional details on SB 48 as follows: · The presumption is coverage is provided until the commissioner determines that there is an eligibility problem, an easier determination for a commissioner to make. · Expands to correctional officers because they transport dangerous criminals to and from jail. · Allows municipalities to figure out a way to retroactively pick up those that previously had the unfortunate circumstances found in the bill. · Requires the commissioner to annually tell the Legislature what is in the fund. · The fund rolls over and grows rather than being swept back into the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR); however, appropriation is up to the Legislature. · Annual review by the commissioner determines continued eligibility due to marriage, turning 65, or hitting the 10- year mark. The review by the commissioner is a way to make sure that there is communication. · Changed eligibility from year-round employee to fulltime employee. Providing coverage for a person that does dangerous, fulltime work for 5 months or 8 months is appropriate. He summarized as follows: It's a little different approach then what the other body is doing, but I'm trying to stay independent and just think through, "Okay, if I was a mayor and I had to hire them, how would I deal with this thing?" because what we are doing is we are actually paying a premium for somebody to get an extended benefit, which I think is entirely appropriate, but it should have some limitations and I'm trying to decide the best limitations that we can do and still make sure that people are being taken care of well, it's just a way to honor people the best way we can. 4:38:44 PM SENATOR GIESSEL noted that in section 1, page 3, lines 6-9, the sentence says, "On the day employee's death, the employee was employed by the state or a municipality that was elected to participate in a permanent fulltime position for which the state or municipality paid or expected to pay the employee for 12 months each year." She asked if an individual worked in a seasonal position for only four months that had an unfortunate loss of life would be eligible. SENATOR COGHILL clarified that a permanent-fulltime employee would be covered. He noted that he would verify if a permanent employee that worked seasonally would be covered. SENATOR WILSON commented that he appreciated the change from "police" to "peace officer" so that correctional and probation officers are included. SENATOR COGHILL explained that the focus is on people who are in unpredictable and dangerous circumstances to make sure families are not left high and dry. He conceded that fallen firefighters or troopers have other benefits, but health care was a dramatic empty spot. He explained that he was made aware when the wife of a fallen trooper, constituents of his, was left languishing. He said he made a commitment to do whatever he could to find the best way to move forward. He explained that the coverage is outside of the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) because the coverage cannot actuarily work in Alaska. He said the good news is the state has too few people, but the bad news is there are people that need coverage and the state must make sure they are taken care of. He specified that the fund allows both municipalities and the state to add into the fund that can be drawn out immediately to pay the premiums for health care. 4:42:31 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY opened public testimony for SB 48. 4:43:23 PM PAT HOLMES, representing self, Kodiak, Alaska, testified in support of SB 48. He asked that Fish and Game field-staff be considered for coverage as well. He disclosed historical fatality records for Fish and Game field-staff. 4:46:45 PM BRANDY JOHNSON, representing self and family, Fairbanks, Alaska, read the following statement in support of SB 48: I am testifying in support of SB 48 on behalf of myself, my three daughters, my deceased husband, Scott Johnson, surviving families of past and future line- of-duty state troopers as well as law enforcement officers in the State of Alaska. On May 1, 2014, my husband, Scott Johnson and Gabe Rich were murdered while in the performance of their job in Tanana, Alaska. Scott's job was that of a sergeant with the Alaska State Troopers, he had worked as a state trooper for over 21 years with a total of over 23 years vested in the public employee's retirement system. He could have retired with 20 years of service; however, Scott and I decided that he should work another 5 years to gain the medical benefits for our family after the 25-year mark as a Tier II employee, it was while trying to obtain this promised benefit goal that Scott was ambushed and killed. Scott would have retired this past October with major medical benefits for himself and our family. I had asked the state troopers assisting me after Scott was killed if my family still had health insurance, I initially was told that I was set for life by one lieutenant; however, that was not the case. I was later told that my family's benefits would expire at the end of the month. I was disappointed and angry, my choices were to pay $1,150 per month for the retirement, major medical health care that he would have received in a year and a half at no cost as a retirement benefit, or $1,700 for full-coverage [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] (COBRA). What is frustrating is the person who shot my husband to death and his father, who desecrated my husband's dead body, while incarcerated have medical care available at no cost to them as their families also have free health care. I felt Scott's last three years of service were all for nothing. Scott always took his responsibilities very seriously to protect the people of Alaska. I believed upon his death the state would also take responsibility to now take care of his family; graciously, the State of Alaska has these two and a half years until the gap in law could be resolved. Our family has paid the price for this benefit. We have paid into the PERS retirement system. We have paid with the endless call- outs whether it be K-9, [Special Emergency Reaction Team] (SERT), or one of the many other specialized emergency responses Scott was involved with; this is called, "To give of yourself for the sake of others." I am here today asking for your support of SB 48; this bill is more than what I have advocated the Legislature for as a health benefit. SB 48 provides full-coverage health insurance that takes care of young surviving families that need the well-child check-ups. The retirement health-care plan was not a long-term solution; it was a band-aide so to say and a safety net in case of a major-medical emergency. SB 48 will ensure that another surviving spouse does not have to experience what I have; they will have the assurance that their children will be taken care of if there was a health emergency. I would like to state my concern over one word in the legislation, the word is "may" on page 3, line 27. As a surviving spouse, I wouldn't want to hear "may elect to participate." I have been left wondering about so much in regard to life. By changing one word to "shall" would provide a great sense of security and comfort to past and future surviving spouses. Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important legislation. 4:50:36 PM SENATOR COGHILL noted that Ms. Johnson had referenced the bill's older version prior to the CS. SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that the language Ms. Johnson referenced was on page 4, line 6. 4:51:47 PM DAVID PRUHS, City Council Member, City of Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support of SB 48. He shared that the City of Fairbanks also had a tragedy with the passing of Officer Brandt where his insurance terminated immediately. He disclosed that the City of Fairbanks took it upon itself to fund Mr. Brandt's family's insurance for 2016, 2017, and most likely in 2018. He noted that he did not review the CS for SB 48. He said he was concerned about unfunded mandates to the City of Fairbanks and possibly for carrying the cost of insurance to the Brandt family through 2038. He asked that he have an opportunity to meet privately with Senator Coghill to find a solution. He added that the City of Fairbanks is talking about having a specific insurance policy in its contracts with police officers to have their insurance premiums funded throughout the life of their spouses and for children up to the age of 26. SENATOR COGHILL replied that SB 48 is not a mandate. He explained that the bill has an opt-in for municipalities that allows for a retroactive "look back." He detailed that the fund is managed by the state, but the municipalities would have to fund. He suggested that Mr. Pruhs review the bill's CS. 4:54:14 PM PAULA JOHNSON, representing self and family, Fairbanks, Alaska, read the following statement in support of SB 48: Good afternoon, my name is Paula Johnson. Scott was my brother in-law for almost 22 years until he was murdered in the line of duty in Tanana, Alaska on May 1, 2014. Upon Scott's death, he was past his 20 years with the state and could have retired prior to May 1, 2014. Prior to Scott's passing, he stood in his house in a personal conversation and told me he is choosing to put the extra five years in so he could retire with full medical benefits for his family. Scott prided himself in taking care of his family being the sole wage earner so Brandy could stay home and raise their three girls, this was very important to him and Brandy. If Scott had not died in the line of duty on May 1, 2014, he would have already retired and his family would have full medical benefits. To fund SB 48 is the right thing to do for the family of slain officers. 4:55:45 PM KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of SB 48. She said AML appreciates that the bill is not an unfunded mandate. She noted that many municipalities are behind in their worker's compensation bills and new bills will simply not be paid. She opined that every municipality seems to have had a police or firefighter tragedy, but have "stepped up to the plate" and in turn made communities stronger. 4:57:56 PM SUSAN HECKS, Executive Director, Southern Region Emergency Medical Services Unit (EMS) Council, Inc., Division of Public Health, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 48. She explained that the State of Alaska is divided into seven-EMS regions and the Southern Region EMS Council is one of the seven. She stated that she was representing the seven regions. She added that the EMS Regional Coordinators/Directors support SB 48 in addition to her testimony. She stated that she supported the definition change of "firefighter," but remarked that there was one aspect missing from the bill regarding EMS personnel. She explained that there are many EMS personnel who are not firefighters, but they are also exposed to the same dangerous situations. She asked that EMS personnel be included in SB 48. 5:00:49 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY stated that he would hold SB 48 for future consideration, and public testimony would remain open.