SB 48-INS. FOR DEPENDS. OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE  4:21:17 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order and announced the consideration of Senate Bill (SB) 48. 4:21:36 PM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to adopt the work draft committee substitute (CS) for SB 48, version 30-LS0108\U as the working document. CHAIR DUNLEAVY objected for discussion purposes. 4:21:52 PM CHRISTA MCDONALD, Staff, Senator Mike Dunleavy, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the CS makes two changes: 1. Page 2, lines 25-29, new language was added to AS 39.60.040(a) that requires an application be submitted to the commissioner, but presumes the eligibility of the surviving dependent; this was language that was requested by the Department of Law just to make sure the application process is smooth while allowing the application to be on file. 2. Page 6, lines 16-17, reworded for clarification to read, "'Surviving spouse' means a person who was married to an employee at the time of the employee's death;" this doesn't change the meaning, just cleaned up the wording. 4:22:49 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY removed his objection and announced that the CS was adopted. 4:23:11 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY opened public testimony on SB 48. 4:23:24 PM BRANDY JOHNSON, representing self and others, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support of SB 48 as follows: I am testifying in support of Senate Bill 48 on behalf of myself, my three daughters, my deceased husband, Scott Johnson, surviving families of past and future line-of-duty deaths for 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 performance of their job as Alaska State Trooper in Tanana, Alaska. The recent committee substitute to Senate Bill 48 currently limits the health coverage to surviving spouses to 10 years on page 3, line 20. I was wondering if the 10-year limit on spousal coverage was retroactive to the death of the employee or if the 10- year limit begins when the legislation would take effect? I would also like information on what the reasoning is behind the limit. Why is the limit 10 years and not 5 or even 15, etc.? Is the language coming from similar language from what another state may be doing? Usually when a family purchases health-care coverage or the coverage is part of an employee benefit, it is a family package, the parents' coverage usually covers the children. Me being the sole-surviving parent, it is my responsibility to take care of my family. The limiting language does not make sense to me. I am hearing it is more important to take care of the children rather than the family unit. When a law-enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty, the surviving families are at all different stages in life, some families are very young while others are older. Also, if the 10-year language remains, I would like to know what the additional cost would be to cover the remaining surviving parent after 10-year limit expires. Currently there are two surviving spouses of Alaska State Trooper employees who have been killed in the line of duty and one surviving spouse of a municipal employee that was killed in the line of duty. I would think the State of Alaska would want to take care of the sole-surviving parent so that that parent can take care of their family. Thank you for the special invitation today to testify on behalf of this committee substitute and address my concerns. 4:26:01 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY closed public testimony on SB 48. SENATOR COGHILL, sponsor of SB 48, commented that Mrs. Johnson brings up a good point regarding the 10-year limitation. He agreed that the 10-year period was arbitrary, but noted that the administration and the Department of Law came up with the time. He said there is no common way in dealing with the time when looking at other states, but 10 years was a number that came up most often. He conceded that the benefit is not life-long, but opined that the 10 years is generous. He pointed out that an effort was made to ensure the children receive the benefit up to age 26 unless there was some other benefit available to them. He said he did not have any better answer, but was open to a discussion. 4:28:20 PM SENATOR GIESSEL thanked Mrs. Johnson for supporting the bill and for her significant sacrifice to the State of Alaska. She asked Senator Coghill if the benefit to the surviving children up to age 26 is in line with the standard health insurance that legislators receive for their children. SENATOR COGHILL answered the insurance benefit falls within the reasonable limit of what the Legislature is doing. He reiterated that the proposed policy does have a contingency where the benefit is available until age 26 unless a comparable insurance policy becomes available, a reason why a reporting mechanism is included in the legislation. 4:29:51 PM SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report the CS for SB 48, version 30- LS0108\U, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 4:30:02 PM CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced that seeing no objection, CSSB 48(STA) moved from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.