House Labor & Commerce, 4/20/26, 3:15pm

This meeting of the House Labor and Commerce Committee will come to order. The time is 3:25 PM on Monday, April 20th. Members present are Representative Carrick, Representative Freer, Representative Nelson, Co-Chair Fields, and myself, Co-Chair Hall. We have a quorum. Please silence your cell phones.

We're asking that staff and members of the audience not approach the table. If you need to pass a note to committee members, please get the attention of our committee aide Evan Anderson, and they'll take care of it. I'd like to thank Andrew Magnuson, the Labor Labor and Commerce Committee Secretary, and Renzo Moises from the Juneau L.A.O. For tech and teleconferencing support. We have a hefty agenda today.

We are going to be hearing SB 164 sponsored by Senator Merrick. We will also hear HB 285 sponsored by the House Health and Social Services Committee, SB 211 by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee.

And SB 185 by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. And SB 35 sponsored by Senator Bjorkman. With that, we are going to start with SB 164 on today's agenda, eliminating tax discounts by Senator Merrick. Senator Merrick and staff, Sorcha Hazleton, thank you for being here. Please join us at the table, introduce yourself for the record, and begin your presentation.

Welcome to House Labor and Commerce. Thank you. Good afternoon, Co-Chair Hall. We appreciate you hearing us today, members of this House Labor and Commerce Committee. For the record, I'm Kelly Merrick, Senator for District L in beautiful Chugiak-Eagle River.

We appreciate you hearing Senate Bill 164 today. This is an itty-bitty tax bill. It isn't creating a new tax, it's eliminating tax discounts and deductions. So where did this revenue-generating idea come from? Well, our nonpartisan Legislative Finance Division, in cooperation with the Department of Revenue, publishes the Indirect Expenditure Report every other year.

If you're new to the Indirect Expenditure Report, this riveting document is hundreds of pages analyzing where we may be foregoing revenue and whether or not that's what we want. Our intention with Senate Bill 164 is to take several, we hope, non-controversial recommendations from Legislative Finance, reassess them, and have the conversation of whether they still serve a purpose, purpose, or if we want to have these drops in our revenue bucket instead. The Department of Revenue estimates SB 164 could raise nearly $500,000 a year for the state. This is money that can be included in the capital budget to fund education or public safety and more. My staff can walk through the selections we've made, but at the end of the day, this is a simple tax bill asking the question: do we want to keep doing what we're doing?

Thank you, Senator Merrick. Um, Ms. Hazelton, if you wouldn't mind walking through the sectional. Uh, can do. For the record, Sorcha Hazleton, staff to Senator Merrick.

Section 1 of the bill eliminates the timely filing credit for motor fuel taxes. This tax was enacted in 1951 and last amended in either 1997 or 2015 to encourage remitting these taxes to the state in a timely manner. Not all types of businesses who remit taxes to the state have a similar credit. There are roughly 83 companies benefiting from the credit to the tune of no more than $1,200 per year per company. SB 164 would recover an estimated $68,000 annually from this section.

Section 2 eliminates the Tobacco Products Tax Commission deduction instituted in 1988 and last amended into— in 1997. This discount was intended to cover the expenses of accounting for and remitting tobacco taxes to the state. Not all types of businesses who remit taxes have similar deductions, and online tax payments have significantly simplified this process. Legislative Finance recommended termination, stating the reduction may be obsolete. There are roughly 30 companies benefiting from this deduction, totaling just over $2,200 per year per company.

This section would recover an estimated $52,000 annually. Sections 3 and 4 eliminate the cigarette stamp tax discount. In 2003, the legislature instituted this discount to defray the costs of purchasing new equipment required for stamping cigarettes. At the time, the machine cost $75,000 and the discount was up to $50,000. These stamps are affixed to acknowledge taxes have been paid on the cigarettes.

Today, these machines have been purchased and the stamping is largely done out of state. Legislative Finance recommended termination as the stamps should be considered a cost of doing business when selling cigarettes in Alaska. There are 8 companies benefiting from this discount to the tune of $40,000 per year per company. These sections would recover $308,000 annually. Section 5 largely repeals the tire fee timely filing discount.

Like the other timely filing discounts in this bill, not all taxpayers receive a discount for paying their taxes on time and was recommended for termination. The tire fee itself remains, but this bill does not adjust it for inflation. There are roughly 56 companies using this discount, retaining about $600 each. This section would recover roughly $38,000. Section 6 is the effective date of the bill.

Thank you, Ms. Hazelton. Um, I would like the committee to be aware that we have a couple of folks online available to help answer questions. That would be Connor Bell, who's a fiscal analyst with the Legislative Finance Division, and Amber Swietzki, who's an economist with the Department of Revenue Tax Division. With that, do committee members have questions for the bill sponsor or anybody mentioned online? Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the sponsor, not really a question, but the indirect expense report, it's a Sears and Roebuck catalog for budget reductions. I do see— I'm going to have to look at the provisions in detail, but I think the expectation that people will pay their taxes on time is a reasonable one, and to give them a discount or a bonus for doing what they should be doing anyway is maybe the state being a little too generous, and that might be a way to tighten up our fiscal situation. But until I look at the details and check the statutes, I really can't say exactly for sure. But I support the philosophy behind the bill.

Thank you. Representative Kahlum. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair. So on all these sections, are they— are these credits connected to administering the tax to help the businesses get the tax?

Is basically administration fees. Through the chair to Representative Kollom, Sorcha Hazelton, staff to Senator Merrick. I will defer a little bit to those online, but I believe many of these, when the taxes were instituted, were to encourage timely filing when new taxes were instituted by the legislature. Yeah. Representative Kollom, let's pivot to maybe Ms. Swietzki with the tax division.

Ms. Swietzki. Um, do you have any enlightening information you'd like to share?

She's not on there.

We're back on record. Miss Switzke, can you hear us?

Yes, this is Amber Switzke for the record.

B—.

Miss Swietzki, did we lose you?

Miss Swietzki, we cannot hear you. With that, maybe let's turn to Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell, are you able to share any information to help answer to answer Representative Colon's question.

For the record, Connor Bell, for the record, Connor Bell, fiscal analyst, Legislative Finance Division. Through the chair to Representative Colon, all but the tax stamp discounts would be considered compensation for the cost or administrative, administrative, um, cost of filing taxes. The exception is the tax stamp discount, which is the cost of adhering to state regulation, which is affixing a stamp to packages of cigarettes. So it's slightly different. It's reimbursement for a cost of complying with state regulations as far as health notifications.

Okay. Thank you.

Are there additional questions from the committee?

All right, hearing none, thank you, Mr. Bell, and thank you, Ms. Sweet Ski, for making yourself available. Seeing more— no more questions, we will set an amendment deadline for SB 164 for Thursday, April 23rd at 5 PM, and we will set this bill aside. Thank you very much, Senator Merrick and staff, um, for joining us here today. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Madam Chair.

Representative Sadler. I didn't know if it was possible for the sponsor to let us know what the progress of the bill was in the other body before she takes off. Senator Merrick, do you have a moment to talk about the bill's progress? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.

For the record, Senator Merrick, District L, through the chair to Representative Sadler, this bill passed the Senate 18 to 2. Committees?

Of referral? Through the Chair, through Representative Sadler, Sorcha Hazelton, staff to Senator Merrick, the bill was referred to the Community—. Where were we? Labor and Commerce Committee and Senate Finance. I will spare you the details if you don't have it handy.

Thank you. I will check it myself. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Merrick. Thank you.

We will transition now to SB 109. SB 185, Insurance Rebates Advertising, by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. Senator Bjorkman and staff, Sylvia Bieber, please join us at the table and begin your presentation. Thank you for being here.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and esteemed members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. Which is me and the House Labor and Commerce Committee, is even more highly esteemed. Believe me. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman. I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula.

Uh, Senate Bill 185 seeks to modernize insurance law by providing reform benefits for customers and making it clear that insurance companies can provide things like home monitoring devices, a wellness program, a fire extinguisher, a smoke alarm for free to their customers when those things can be used to mitigate risk or provide somehow a benefit that will lessen liability for a a plan owner. This bill follows an NAIC model law, which NAIC stands for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and they are a group of very highly respected, knowledgeable people in information that most folks would not realize how important it is because it seems boring on its face, but it Insurance and the work that those insurance commissioners do touches all of our lives. So SB 185 modernizes Alaska's insurance law by clarifying permissional rebates. Rebates, you could think about that as the free stuff that I mentioned. And discount practices, allowing health-related wellness incentives and banning misleading free insurance advertising.

Also, uh, this statute proposed would allow the Division of Insurance rulemaking authority to implement these updates. Senate Bill 185 allows an insurer to provide a pilot program if they have a good faith belief that a product or service will help prevent losses, reduce risk, lower costs, improve health and financial well-being, and motivate positive behavioral changes, or help manage insurance benefits for policyholders and their employees.

Ms. Bieber, do you have anything that you would like to add? For the record, Sevea Bieber, staff to Senator Bjorkman. I don't, but I can run through the sectional if the chair would like. Please do, Ms. Bieber. Section 1 amends the Trade Practices and Frauds chapter to add the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act to the list of federal laws the chapter is in accordance with.

Section 2 adds the that the offer or provision by an insurer of a product or service at a reduced cost is an exemption to the definition of insurance discrimination if the service or product is related to the policyholder's insurance coverage and is designed to provide specific aid to a— to the consumer as defined in statute. Section 3 adds a list of provisions that the insurer must meet and defines what is allowable for insurers in terms of non-cash gifts, The product or service may not only be offered to an individual negotiating a group policy on behalf of others. This section adds a provision for an insurer who has a good faith belief that a product or service meets certain criteria defined in (a)(6)(c) of the section. The insurer may provide the service or product as part of a pilot program. This section also allows the director to adopt regulations.

Section 4 adds a new section defining prohibited advertising practices by insurers. Section 5 makes a technical change to conform with industry— with current industry and licensing terminology. Section 6 provides transitional regulation authority to the Director of the Division of Insurance. Section 7 provides an immediate effective date for Section 6, and Section 8 provides an effective date of January 1, 2027 for the remainder of the bill. Thank you, Ms. Bieber.

With that, we will turn to invited testimony. I see we have a Ms. Laura Curtis online who's the Assistant Vice President for State Government Relations with American Property Casualty Insurance. Ms. Curtis, if you can hear me, please put yourself on the record and begin your testimony.

Hi, um Good evening. Laura Curtis with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate Bill 185, which modernizes Alaska's insurance laws relating to rebates, value-added products and services, and advertising practices. Alaska's anti-rebating statutes, like those in many states, were enacted more than a century ago to address improper incentives and solvency concerns. While well-intentioned, these laws have not kept pace with modern insurance practices with business or consumer expectations.

Today, insurance is not simply about paying claims after a loss. It is increasingly about preventing losses before they actually occur. Insurers now work in partnership with consumers to reduce risk, improve safety, and promote better outcomes. However, outdated and inconsistent anti-rebating rules can prevent insurers from offering practical tools that benefit consumers and reduce losses. SB 185 addresses this issue in a thoughtful and balanced manner.

The bill allows insurers and insurance producers to offer value-added products and services that are related to insurance coverage, such as risk mitigation tools, safety training, and educational resources. At the same time, the bill preserves stronger consumer protections and regulatory oversight. It requires that products and services be offered based on documented criteria that is not unfairly discriminatory, and it maintains the application of existing privacy, consumer protection, and unfair trade practice laws. The Director of the Division of Insurance retains clear authority to regulate these activities. SB 185 is consistent with reforms developed through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners following a robust and inclusive process involving regulators, consumer advocates, and industry stakeholders to amend the NAIC's Unfair Practices Model Act.

Since the NAIC amended the Model Act in 2020, over a dozen states have adopted legislation very similar to that proposed in SB 185. Adoption of this approach promotes consistency across states and helps eliminate the current patchwork of rules that hinder innovation. Examples of permitted offerings include water leak detection devices, driver safety training, risk prevention application, and home inventory tools— common sense solutions that help protect Alaskans and their property. Thank you for your time and consideration. We respectfully urge your support for Senate Bill 185.

Thank you, Ms. Curtis. We'll now turn to committee questions, but before we fully do that, I just want to make a note for the committee that we have Michael Richmond Crum online to help answer questions. He's with American Property Casualty Insurance, and we also have Director Heather Carpenter from the Division of Insurance available in the room to help answer questions as well.

Representative Carrick. Thank you. Through the co-chair, so thank you for presenting SB 185, and I think I just need an example of what's described in Section 2. So would this be, for example, like if your health insurance policy offered a discount membership for a gym, something of that nature? I guess I might need just a couple examples of where an insurer is providing a reduced cost or exemption, does that relate specifically just to the insurance product, or are there other kinds of promotions or discounts that insurers are using externally to the insurer itself?

A couple questions there. Senator Bjorkman. Through the chair to Representative Carrick, I think I know the answer, but I think that to ensure a correct response, we we should have Division Director Carpenter or one of our expert witnesses respond to that. Director Carpenter, would you like to join us at the table, please?

Thank you for being here. For the record, Heather Carpenter, Director of the Division of Insurance. Through the chair, Representative Carrick, I think you're spot on. It could be a reduced cost cost for a gym membership. It could be something like a Fitbit, um, what Laura Curtis testified to.

It could be, you know, if you're looking at something for a home policy, a carbon monoxide detector, a smoke alarm. So really common sense things. Um, I will note that the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee did put a, um, threshold on the value of those products, which is $250 or 5% of the policy. So it will have to comply with those limits.

Follow-up, Representative Carrick. Thank you, Representative— or Co-Chair Hall. Thank you, Ms. Carpenter. That really helps get my brain around this. And could it also be internal discounts for— so you install the CO2 detector, you get a discount.

That's working on on some external item to your insurance itself? Are there things within a policy that someone could do or qualify for that would also allow them reduced costs or exemptions? Or is that like really the nature of what we're talking about is like specific products or services that help provide your, a lower cost of coverage? Through the chair, Representative Carrick, I think the intent here is to lower the risk. So if you, you know, have some of these products, you're lowering the risk.

You're not going to need to hopefully replace your house because it's, you know, if you catch on, if there's a smoke detector going off, you can be alerted sooner. I do think it's a careful threshold because it's not— this isn't intended necessarily to be something that's that's going to reduce premiums, like say you do all of this, you get a discount. I think that would be separate than this. This is really those low-cost products that are going to help reduce that risk. I will say right now our statutes are very strict.

Giving away coffee, giving away balloons at the fair would be against our current unfair trade practices. [Speaker:MS. KELLY] Oh, okay.

Representative Kahlom. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, so I'm trying to figure out what is the origin of banning gifts in the first place? There must have been a concern around this happening. It sounds like our statutes are pretty strict.

Do you know what the original issue was, and are you comfortable that it's not still here? Through the Chair, Representative Kahlom, I don't know the original origin. I can, you know, kind of take a guess that part of it's to make sure that consumers aren't being taken advantage of, there's no unfair trade practices. We take that very seriously in our statutes. We want to make sure no one feels like they have to take an inducement to get coverage.

And so we certainly wouldn't want any of these gifts to be given and then you have to stay with an insurer for so long because you take that gift. There likely could have been concern of that behavior before. I think this, when it was modernized by the NAAC, was, okay, how do we bring this, you know, into 2020, into current times where there are more devices, whether it's incentivizing health like a Fitbit, whether the examples we gave for protecting your home. So I think it was, how do we, how do we strike that balance but still protect consumers so no one is forced to take a product. No one is forced to do something to keep their coverage either.

Follow-up. Follow-up. So is there anything in the bill that you can see that would keep an insurance company from raising their premiums because they're giving out gifts? Through the chair, Representative Kahlom, that has not come up. I think we would look long and hard on a filing if they tried to do that.

I think the intent here is they see these gifts as ways to reduce that risk by the individual and holder so they don't see it as something that's going to raise the cost for their premium. Thank you. Okay, Representative Sadler followed by Representative Carrick. Thank you. To either Ms. Carpenter or Representative Bjorkman, I have not had the chance to digest the bill.

I've never experienced an insurance company providing me a policy or providing me a premium or product or anything— smoke alarm, gym membership, or so forth. So I'm not sure if this applies to automobile insurance, but I guess as a separate question, but related, is: can the premium be used to provide value towards a larger purchase? In other words, if someone was going to get $250 for car insurance, they could use that to buy one new tire, but they could maybe buy the rest of the tires themselves. Does it have to be an entire product? That's provided under the insurance?

I guess I'm just not familiar with this aspect of insurance. If you can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. For [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] the record, Heather Carpenter, Director of the Division of Insurance. Through the Chair, Representative Sadler, I'll take the first thing you raised first because I think that's easy. The reason you haven't been offered any products for continuing a policy is because our statute doesn't allow it right now.

So there has been nothing that can be offered offered. I don't think we— I think your second question is a little more difficult. I think if we heard, the division heard that, hey, we're going to give you $250 to replace your tire, but you're responsible for doing the other 3, we would have a lot of questions. And I don't know that that would be approved to meet the intent of this, because you're still then requiring the consumer to spend money on 3 other items. So if a company said, would you approve this.

I would just, with this knowledge I have right now, would probably say likely not because it would still feel like an inducement. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, Representative Carrick. Um, thank you through the co-chair.

So in Section 3, we say, um, that they meet certain criteria defined in A6C, um, and I think maybe Rep. Sadler has that statute, but could, could, uh, the bill sponsor or Ms. Ms. Carpenter possibly just summarize A6C.

Through the chair, Representative Carrick, I believe that's the new sections added in Section 2. So that's 6C, which is primarily designed to: 1, provide loss mitigation or loss control; 2, reduce claim costs or claim settlement costs; 3, provide education about liability risks or risks of loss to persons or property. 4, Monitor or assess risk, identify sources of risk, or develop strategies for eliminating or reducing risk. 5, Enhance health. 6, Enhance financial wellness by providing education or financial planning services.

7, Provide post-loss services. This is a long list. 8, Incentivize behavioral changes to improve the health or reduce the risk of death or disability of a policyholder, potential policyholder, certificate holder, potential certificate holder, insured, potential insured, or applicant; or 9, assist in the administration of the employee or retiree benefit insurance coverage. Okay, thank you.

Representative Freer. Thank you. Through the chair to Ms. Carpenter, thank you for being here with us again, as always. I guess my question is, so we see commercials from like GEICO or something, and they offer a safe driver's discount if you have a device in your car that shows that you're, you know, you're not speeding or driving erratically or anything like that. Is that something that's not currently offered in Alaska?

Through the chair, Representative Freer, that is different than what this is envisioning. And so So that discount would be filed with the division, approved as part of a regular rate filing. We would look at it. We would make sure that that discount is applied uniformly and meets all of our statutes and regulations.

Additional questions from the committee? I have one. Representative Klobuchar. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, so are they allowed— I Notice, I think it was in the introduction talking about no free advertising.

Can they put their logo on these free gifts? Does that matter?

Through the chair, Representative Colon, let me take another look at that and get back to you because I just don't— I'm not 100% positive. Okay. Thanks. Okay. With that, are there any closing comments from The bill sponsor.

Thank you very much to the committee for hearing the bill today. We look forward to answering any further questions that you might have. Okay, thank you very much, Senator Bjorkman. We will now set this bill aside and we're going to take a brief at ease so I can hand the gavel over to Coach Airfields.

On the record. Next, uh, this is Zach Fields. Next up is Senate Bill 35. Thanks, Senator Bjorkman.

Thank you very much, Chairman Fields, Chairman Hall, and members of the highly esteemed House Labor and Commerce Committee. For the record, once again, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman. I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. Senate Bill 35 was designed to do one thing, and then we heard from constituents that we needed to undergo a redesign to fill some very alarming insurance gaps. And so we'll outline this bill for you and let you know what it does.

Senate Bill 35 ensures that drivers for delivery network companies and transportation network companies have certain protections and insurance coverages that are covered by the companies. Drivers and couriers for digital network companies currently operate in a coverage gap. Leaving them vulnerable and unprotected. This bill requires delivery network companies to provide necessary coverage to couriers while they are providing delivery services. Required insurance coverages include primary auto insurance, occupational accident insurance, and primary liability insurance.

Statutes regarding occupational accident insurance, primary auto liability insurance, and underinsured, uninsured insurance all require require $1 million in coverage for an accident. Senate Bill 35 expands coverage further by disallowing transportation network companies from waiving the UMIM, otherwise known as underinsured motorist, uninsured motorist vehicle coverage for primary auto insurance or primary liability insurance. When a driver is not covered by company insurance policies but is still logged on to the app or providing a delivery service Personal lines insurers have the ability to currently waive coverage. That's bad. Senate Bill 35 requires personal lines insurance to cover a driver while they are not logged on to the digital network and engaged in a prearranged ride, and while a courier is not providing delivery services.

Senate Bill 35 emphasizes that company accountability is a must, requiring companies to submit a certificate of insurance to the division director and to drivers or couriers stating the coverage that they provide. The bill also changes the delivery services definition to include insurance coverage when a courier returns to the location where they accepted the offer of the prearranged ride or arrives at the courier's personal residence or begins a personal task unrelated to the delivery. Finally, Senate Bill 35 establishes that transportation network drivers and delivery network couriers are independent contractors for purposes of work and not employees if the company does not propose specific work hours, does not impose restrictions on the ability of a driver to use the digital network of other companies, and does not restrict a driver from engaging in any other occupations.

Okay. Um, thank you, Senator Bjorkman. Do members have questions at this time? Representative Sadler. Thank you.

Um, Senator Bjorkman, as you worked and you kind of discovered more about the delivery network company networks and status, did you feel it necessary to include minimum pay levels for drivers in your legislation? That is not something that we contemplated as we began to craft this bill. Oh, is that something you would object to should that be presented to you? I need to understand more about I understand that there's a bill about that in this committee, but I have not looked into that. Go ahead, Representative Kalem.

Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, so you went through it kind of fast, but did I hear it was a $1 million insurance coverage between the liability and the occupational? Can you explain that $1 million coverage again? Yes, ma'am. This is language that is included in the NCOIL, the National Council of Insurance Legislators Model Act, which is a kind of a consensus agreement as a model act around the country.

At NCOIL just this past weekend, transportation network companies such as Lyft and Uber expressed their support for that limit as it pertains to the coverage they provide. Yes, the idea being that as those types of insurance are different, that that $1 million limit would apply to each of those different types of insurance. Oh, okay. Follow-up? Yes.

Okay. So that seems really high. I mean, I've had careers before and it was like $250,000, $50,000, and $100,000 or something like that. So what is that million dollars based on? I think the most important role of, um, The million-dollar coverage is specific to transportation network companies.

And so, especially if there is an uninsured or underinsured motorist who strikes an Uber or Lyft, a transportation network company vehicle, um, that they have a payer in place to pay for an accident that injures a person who is riding. In that vehicle. Um, follow-up? Yes. So delivery network companies— so I, I was assuming that's like Uber Eats.

You're talking about just Uber and Lyft and your passenger delivery or food delivery? In that instance, yes. Okay, but does the bill cover both portions of it? Does. Okay, all right, thank you.

Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you. Senator, I'm just trying to get my head around the bill. Does this try to make transportation network company drivers and delivery network company drivers the same in every regard, or only the most important, or what is it— what does it systematize, what does it leave out? Through the chair to Representative Sadler, that's a really good question.

The bill treats delivery network company drivers and transportation network company drivers similarly in the fact that they both would be classified as independent contractors and not subject to workers' comp laws. However, insurance protections and provisions are different when they apply to transportation network company drivers versus when they apply to delivery network company drivers because of the differences in how those types of businesses operate. Typically, folks who work for transportation network company drivers will work for a chunk of time, maybe a shift if you will, and so they will turn their app on, their Uber or Lyft app on, and they will be penalized by that app if they don't accept rides. If they're not— if they're turning down rides and not actually accepting rides, they they have a, you know, they're exited off the app. However, delivery network company drivers, they are much more passive as they accept prearranged rides for burritos or supplies or groceries or what have you.

So they would have their app on. The app does not take any adverse action when they have the app on. Simply, they will choose to accept a delivery service, um, when they feel like it. And so it would be inappropriate for the company's insurance to apply to a driver when they simply had an app on for a delivery network company. So they would not be covered under the company's insurance when they had the app on or when they're logged on to the digital network, as the bill contemplates.

The company's insurance would apply only after a delivery network company driver accepts a prearranged ride. A ride comes up and says, "I would like you to pick up a pizza from Luigi's Pizzeria and bring it to Joe," and someone clicks accept. At that point in time, the delivery network company's insurance would apply, whereas the transportation network company's insurance would apply when someone is logged on to the digital network and they are able to receive, um, ride requests. That's how the bill is primarily different. Yeah.

Uh, follow-up? Yes. That's going to take a little bit of digging because I kind of don't see the distinction. If a transportation network driver has the app on, they're covered by insurance and a DNC, a delivery network company, has to have the app on to accept rides. I'm not quite sure what the distinction is there.

Go ahead, Senator Bjorka. Through the chair to Representative Sadler. No, that's a good question. So once again, folks who are driving for delivery network companies, they're much more passive in how they are choosing to accept rides. They might have their app on and they could be doing anything, literally anything else.

They're not, they're not waiting to go and pick someone up and give them a ride. They could be sitting at home eating Cheetos and watching marble races and say, okay, I see a job near me, I want to do that, or I see a job and it's 2 miles away, I don't want to do that. They're not penalized by Instacart, Uber Eats, or whomever from— for not taking that ride. They can just say, okay, I see a job I like, I'm going to go do that job, I'm going to contract my labor to go and do that job. Whereas someone working for, working for a transportation network company, they are logged on to the digital network, they're available, they're available to receive, and they're available like They're providing their services as they are available.

Last one. Go ahead, Representative Settler. But wouldn't the delivery network company drivers be on their app? Otherwise, how are they going to know there's a ride available? Are they not on their app?

Are they on their app in some different way? Um, I can try to answer that. So, Representative Settler, functionally, the way the app works is if you're a TNC driver and your app is on, you will respond on to the ride or else you're going to eventually get cut off from the app. So you are definitely working versus the delivery network. You're being much more selective, and that's due to the way the app works.

But they're still on the app, so I still don't understand the distinction. If the, the DNC driver has to know what offers are happening, so he's got to be on— he or she has to be on the app. Um, not the time to explain the whole system to me, but okay, thanks. Anything you'd like to Senator Bjorkman or Ms. Bieber?

Okay, Representative Klobuchar. Thank you, Chair. So I'm trying to figure out— so the bill says calling these drivers independent contractors, they're driving their own vehicle. Why are we requiring, requiring Uber to have a million-dollar coverage, or am I misunderstanding something? Thank you for that question.

Through the Chair to Representative Calom, the coverages are in place because of the complications that drivers face in having their personal lines insurance apply to cover their vehicle while essentially they're using it for a commercial purpose. So a personal lines insurer does not want to expose themselves into that other risk of of a driver using their vehicle for delivery services. So that creates a coverage gap for many folks.

Thank you. Representative Sadler. Thank you. Uh, Senator Bjorkman, do transportation network company drivers get into more accidents or more costly accidents than other drivers? I'm just trying to get to the point of what does the actuarial data justify the million-dollar threshold that the ENCOIL model legislation recommends.

Through the chair to Representative Sadler, I am not an actuary, but as I have heard many conversations surrounding the types of activity under which delivery network company drivers as well as transportation network company drivers undertake, transportation network company drivers, they have a high incentive to be to the spot to pick someone up very quickly because a person can cancel that ride and then they kind of start over. Delivery network company drivers, they have similar motivations to get things very quickly. There was a post on a bad business deals page in my district where there was some missing ice cream with the delivery and and folks were big mad about that. So delivering ice cream is, you know, a time-sensitive application, and oftentimes drivers are willing to undertake more risk in their behavior to make sure their customers are happy. Go ahead, Representative Stadler.

Which is shocking to me because when I was a Domino's Pizza delivery man, I obeyed every traffic light and signal and speed limit. Everyone. Um, so Heather Carpenter is here too. Do members have more questions for Senator Bjorkman, Sylvia Beaver, or Beaver, or Heather Carpenter?

Okay, well, um, we'll come back to this bill. Next up, Senator Bjorkman.

If I could, if I could just conclude on Senate Bill 35 for one minute. Over the weekend, I did attend ENCOIL in Louisville and specifically discussed potential changes to the ENCOIL Model Act regarding transportation network companies. Conversations there were rather illuminative about what nationally these companies accept and they're willing to support, as well as some, some challenges that the companies face in making sure ensure that their services are available to consumers as well as drivers and what they do. So very, very interesting conversations about different mechanisms and different incentives that companies like Instacart, where you can choose your bananas, they offer to their employees, as well as other, other things that companies like Uber are able to tolerate. So I'm excited to talk to the committee about those potentials.

And look forward to working with you all on this bill. Okay, sounds great. Let's go to Senate Bill 211.

Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 211. Once again, for the record, my name is Jesse Bjorkman, representing the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. Senate Bill 211 is a multi-board extension bill that extends the sunset dates of 6 professional boards and follows the extensions recommended for each of them set in the state's 2025 audits. As we look through these, we have Mark Lindahl, Deputy Legislative Auditor, and Director Sylvan Robb from the Division of Corporations, Businesses, and Professional Licensing to kind of go over the highlights of those audits if the committee wishes. This board extension bill extends the boards of the Board of Professional Counselors, The Board of Marital and Family Therapy, psychologists and psychological associate examiners, the Real Estate Commission, certified real estate appraisers, and finally social work examiners.

Thank you. Do members of the committee have questions for Senator Bjorkman, his staff, Silben Robb, or Mark Lindahl? I have one question. Representative Klemme. Thank you, Chair.

Share a clarification. So all these are being extended per the audit, whatever the audit suggested, that you guys filed those recommendations? Yes, ma'am. Okay. We made no changes to the amount of time extension that was, um, put forward in these audits.

Um, in two audits you will see recommendations that specifically call out fees and a limitation that was put on boards increasing their fees to cover their actual costs. A member in the other body made some changes that would call for additional reporting requirements to the legislature so that we can track whether or not those fees are increased in the coming years to ensure ensure that current costs are being paid for by current licensees as close as possible. Okay, thank you.

Representative Sadler. Thank you. Uh, Senator Bjorkman, there was some concern in sessions past about having a lot of Occupational Licensing Board extensions in a single bill, violating the single subject rule. For any members of the public or press interested in that issue, can you put the— any concerns that this might be a violation of the single subject rule to rest discuss the issue, please. Through the chair to Senator Sadler, um, your question is poignant because we had some policy provisions that were inserted into a board extension bill 2 years ago which led to the situation which the legislature found itself in, in regards to Senate Bill 183.

I believe, um, this bill strictly deals with board extensions under Title 8, which is the same title. It also includes a special provision clarifying the single subject rule in Section 8 of the bill. You'll find that on page 2.

The only thing that this bill does is extend sunset dates of boards and commissions. Just wanted to give you that opportunity. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, um, I believe that concludes our work on the bill.

Uh, Co-Chair Hall, do you have a motion? Mr. Co-Chair, I move to report SB 211, work order 34-LS1252/G, out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Not hearing any objection, um, Senate Bill 211 does pass out of committee. We'll take a brief at ease sign the paperwork and transition to the next bill.

Eddie.

Back on the record in House Labor and Commerce. Next up is Senate Bill 181, Employment Information Disclosure, by the Senate Rules Committee, being carried by the Senate President of Staff Tim Lampkin. Thanks for being here, Mr. Lampkin. Feel free to summarize what this bill does. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

For the record, my name is Tim Lampkin, staff to Senator Stevens and staff to the Joint Legislative Task Force evaluating Alaska's seafood industry. This was a project undertaken, uh, 2024, and it resulted in quite a number of recommendations from that committee to address the situation with our seafood task force in Alaska, one of which being to, in a couple of sentences, to provide an avenue to authorization for our University of Alaska, in particular our Institute of Social and Economic Research, ISER, and the Department of Labor to better and more efficiently collaborate in sharing data for purposes of rendering reports and looking at programs that we may be, or rather you as policymakers and appropriators, funding programs that they can then go look at the data behind those programs and report back with information to help make decisions, policymaking funding decisions going forward. That is sort of a general summary of the bill. I am not here really to speak to it much more than that. I would really like to defer to the experts in this field, that being those representatives from the University of ICER and Department of Labor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's transition to invited testimony. First up, Chad Hutchison. Mr. Hutchison, thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Co-chair. For the record, Chad Hutchison. I'm the State Director for Government Relations for the University of Alaska System. And the University of Alaska strongly supports Senate Bill 181. Barriers to data collection are really an opportunity cost and an operating cost to the university.

The better flow with the Department of Labor, the more costs are reduced both in time and money. And we believe that this, the synergy, if it's unlocked, will benefit the, the whole of the state of Alaska. The benefits include better evidence-based research to inform state policies, smoother analysis of current and emerging workforce needs, and more efficient evaluation of workforce outcomes for our graduates. So we do have a few other invited testifiers online today from ICER that can lend into some of the more technical aspects, but the university is a strong supporter of this bill, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Questions for Chad Hachisenbiko before we go to the next invited testifier?

Okay. Next invite, and we can add—. Actually, Chair, to—. Yeah, go for it. Help me out without filtering through the statute right here.

What kind of information are we speaking of? You know, how in-depth Is it individualized? What is the information that we're speaking of here? Representative Sadler, through the chair, it's— through our purposes, the way we became involved with this was employment and labor data. But we do have Dr. Brett Watson and Director Diane Hershberg online too that can talk about some of the technical specifics.

But the first way the university generally became aware of this with the Seafood Task Force is what happens necessarily in some of these communities when you have a restriction on a certain species, for example, and some of these smaller communities with fisher people. When that species is restricted, what happens to the employment situation for some of the people working some of that in the seafood industry? So that's the starting point upon which this conversation started, but we have people people in line that could talk to more of the technical analysis. Represents that. And Mr. Ash, you said employment and labor data.

That's a general— can you be a little more specific as to what kind of information that entails? Uh, Representative Sadler, through the chair, uh, unemployment, uh, like I said, Dr. Brett Watson could probably talk more specifically because he works in this space, but, uh, it's the data that we oftentimes use and cooperate with when it comes to the Department of Labor. I don't know what it is, but okay. Representative Sadler, Professor Watson is next. Should we go to his invited testimony and see if he answers your question?

That'd be great if I can ask that question. Be great. Okay, Professor. Sure. Representative Klima has a question for Chad Hutchinson.

I'm, uh, I'm struggling. What is the problem we're trying to fix? Because I thought ISER had access to all the labor information, everything. What, what am I missing? Representative Klima, through the chair, you're right, they do have access, but there's some statutory hurdles that make it a logistical challenge.

They have to actually go on-site in Juneau. A lot of our statutes, they were created in a different era, decades before. And so what this bill does, very, very simple, is just streamline that process so the data, yes, can be shared, but you don't have to go through this long, burdensome, both in time and money, hurdle process where they physically have to go to Juneau and collect some of that information. Information, then make a policy analysis based on that information. So we're just trying to speed things up and make it more efficient, which is a better operating state for the university and for the Department of Labor in the state of Alaska.

One follow-up. Yes. So is it mainly focused on like electronic transfer of information instead of this manual thing? I don't know why they have to come to Juneau, but why would they have to come to Juneau to get the information? Representative Klom, through the chair, Dr. Brett Watson can explain it more in detail about some of the work that he does on a day-to-day basis.

I think we'll get a good clarity. All right, thank you. Okay, Professor Watson, go ahead.

Uh, good evening. Uh, for the record, my name is Dr. Brett Watson and I'm an economist at the University of Alaska Anchorage's Institute of Social and Economic Research, which I might refer to, uh, in my testimony as ISER. Um, I might I'm going to skip over my prepared testimony to just answer a couple of the questions that have already been asked directly. Representative Sadler, to the Chair, what are the nature of these data that we're talking about specifically? These are wage and employment records that are generated through the administration of our state's unemployment insurance program.

So these are data that are already being collected by the Department of Labor for the administration of that program and which the department regularly prepares reports. You might be familiar with the reports or the work that's published in the Alaska Trends magazine or the annual Nonresident Workers in Alaska report. Both of these are excellent publications. So this is the sort of the nature of the records that we're talking about. It's helping us understand how many people, what occupations, where are they employed, what wages that they're receiving.

In terms of the data that would be transferred to ICER, and this speaks to Representative Colon's question a little bit, that transfer process would be dictated on a project-by-project basis. And so we would create work agreements, data use agreements on individual projects with the Department of Labor is our conceptualization of this project. Or process, and that would stipulate exactly what records we would receive from them for a given project. And that process would go through our university's institutional review board process, which would ensure that these data are held in confidentiality, would dictate what information— or how the information should be aggregated such that no individual's information would be potentially recoverable. And these standards would be consistent with those that are used by the Department now when they prepare information and by the organizations like the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, et cetera.

To Representative Kolumb's question through the Chair, what does the process look like right now? So ISER as an organization, the, We— our understanding or the interpretation of the statute for us is that we are not allowed to receive these data currently. And so our workflow historically has been for our researchers to fly down to Genome to work with Department of Labor staff. The data never leave the Department of Labor computers, and so we're essentially working over the shoulders of DOL researchers. This bill, it was conceived to try to reduce some of the redundancy that's inherent in the process of two people sort of working on a task that really can be accomplished by a single person, and obviously some of the travel expenditures that occur when ICER researchers fly down to Juneau, stay in, uh, stay in Juneau, uh, you know, for a period of time, uh, and then fly back.

So we're just trying to close that iterative loop a little bit so that we can be more responsive to questions from the legislature, from the governor's office, when, when we're asked to conduct research.

In addition to Professor Watson and Chad Hutchison, Dan Robinson from the Department of Labor and Diane Hershberg, the director of ICER, are online. Representative Carrot. Thank you, Co-Chair Fields. I have a question, I think, for Dan Robinson.

Which I'm looking at the fiscal note, and I guess I'm just not understanding how with this streamlining effect that this legislation is having, why we would have— it sounds like sufficient receipt authority to cover any current fiscal note, but why do we have a fiscal note at all, a potential fiscal impact at all to the department?

Representative Garrett, can you hear me okay? We can. Very well. Yeah, this is Dan Robinson, Research Chief, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The short answer to your question about the fiscal note is that the federal Employment and Training Administration gives a grant to states to operate the unemployment insurance system that's rigorously restricted restricted to operating that system.

So any research that's done from that data has to be— including the research we do in-house— has to be done with other funds. So the cost of putting the data together, which they'll be project-specific, they have to be paid by somebody other than that administrative grant.

Follow-up, thank you, through the co-chair, Mr. Robinson. But under this sharing agreement proposed in SB 181, it would be the University of Alaska, in this example that's been before us, ISER, primarily doing research with this data. So is it— is this just the potential cost for preparation of requested data? And is— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yes, it would be— it— the— our database has millions of records, so it would be extracting the data, the person and employer-specific data, and then transporting it, delivering it to the ICER researchers. That would be the limit of the cost.

Okay. One more follow-up, if I can. Thank you, through the co-chair, Mr. Robinson. So it is my understanding from Mr. Hutchison's testimony that we wouldn't necessarily have a lot of new requests compared to now. We would just have a less cumbersome process.

Is it the Department of Labor's thought here that we could see a large increase in volume of requests for datasets which DOLWD is not already producing. I'm just trying to get my head around why the fiscal note ranges— potential fiscal note, it's zero right now, but a potential fiscal impact ranges from this specific number of $1,300 to $46,500. It's just an interesting range, and so I'm just trying to get a sense of how the department came up with that. Yeah, Representative Carrick, through the chair, um, just imagine a little bit the range of complexity of the data request. So if it's, uh, we'd like to see the, uh, the sitka employers in a specific industry, that's a, that's a quick and easy extraction.

But if you'd like to— if the ISA researchers or another state agency under the statute would like to see 20 years' worth of data for whoever's worked in Alaska by age and gender, maybe even cross-matched, then the complexity of those— of that kind of a request would be much higher. And then it would take a higher price tag. Although the price tag questions are quite kind of abstract until you start talking about the specifics. Okay. Thank you.

That helps. Okay. Are there any for Representative Sadler? Thank you. Yes.

To Mr.— I'm sorry, Professor Baker. I'm assuming that the Department of Labor and Workforce Development has some privacy protections for the workers' compensation data, or maybe it's non-differentiated by individual. But so my question is, has ICER considered whether it might have to establish any kind of data privacy protocol of any kind, or is that something we could just borrow from labor?

That would be Professor Baker.

Yeah, for the record, this is Dr. Brett Watson. Um, yeah, Representative Sadler, through the chair, um, our, um, our intention would be to use our existing internal review board process, uh, to establish, uh, a data confidentiality, uh, data warehousing protocol, uh, for this process. So it wouldn't necessarily, uh, it wouldn't necessarily be the case that we would need to establish a new process for this. So we have processes in place through through the IRB, for example, for handling all types of human subject research. For example, data that are HIPAA compliant or similar data, datasets that we work in other contexts related to criminal justice information, etc.

So it wouldn't necessarily be the case that we would need to establish an entirely different protocol.

We would establish a particular IRB project for these data and use— and likely on a case-by-case basis for, for projects which utilize them. If I may follow up. Yes. Yeah, the acronym, uh, sir, the IRB is an acronym I'm not familiar with. Please, what's IRB stand for?

Institutional. Representative Sadler, through the chair, uh, IRB stands for Internal Review Board. This is a university protocol that universities across the country use when it comes to human subject research, and that's a specific legal term, human subjects research. All universities are required to have an IRB in order to govern their human subjects research protocols. Good.

Yeah, TMA is a-okay. Thank you.

Okay, further questions? Go ahead, Representative Carey. Thank you, Co-Chair Fields. Just, just to speak highly of the internal review board that the university has too. So there's multiple layers of privacy protection for data here.

And any of our testifiers can correct me if I'm wrong, but the university also cannot willy-nilly use data provided to them for research, period. Okay. Not seeing further questions. The amendment deadline for this bill is Tuesday, April 21st at 5:00 PM. And we will return to this bill at a future hearing.

Um, we'll take a brief at ease and queue up the final bill. At ease.

Back on the record. Next up, House Bill 285, Health Information Exchange. Representative Mina. Representative Mina, could you summarize this bill which we previously heard? Thank you, Co-Chair Fields and members of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.

For the record, my name is Genevieve Mena. I represent House District 19 in the Alaska Legislature, the Anchorage neighborhoods of Airport Heights, Mountain View, and Russian Jack. House Bill 285 updates Alaska's law that created the Health Information Exchange back in the 26th Legislature. Every state has a Health Information Exchange, and it— these HIEs help providers better share medical records and data with each other. What House Bill 285 does is improve that holistic approach to our current law while continuing to uphold the strict privacy and security standards required by federal law.

It promotes transparency, promotes the allowable uses and governance of the HIE. Specifically, HB 285 provides clarity in the division of responsibilities between the Department of Health and the current designee that is administering the HIE. It ensures that an individual who is the subject of individually identifiable information can authorize disclosure of their information for purposes they choose. It helps clarify the scope of data by providing specific details on the allowable uses for limited healthcare operations, and it also adds a behavioral health representative to the current governing body of the HIE. Okay, any questions for Representative Meaney?

Go ahead, Representative Klum. Thank you, Chair. Uh, so 2 clarifications. On page 4, line 30, it says that it can be used to facilitate— it looks like this has been added to the existing statute— to facilitate payment for services received by a patient who is the subject of the information. So this information can be used to track people down to get payment for medical costs?

Is that how I'm reading it? Through the co-chair to Representative Calom, I think it's related to payment, but I would I would love to defer that question to Kendra Sticca, who I believe is online. Oh. Go ahead, Ms. Sticca.

For the record, Kendra Sticca, the Executive Director of Healthy Connect Alaska. That is actually— payers may have access to data under HIPAA, so they are authorized for that, but this is really for the purpose that an individual person could ask that their data be sent, for example, if they were looking to qualify for services, potentially something like related to disabilities that was contained in their medical record, that they could authorize their data be sent for that purpose, which is outside of the current scope. So, it would only be if they wanted it to be sent to really allow easier access to— for patients to their sort of consolidated health record.

Huh. Okay. May I have a follow-up? Yes. I didn't hear— I'm sorry.

So, can they use this information to track people down for payment on a medical bill?

So, the— a payer would have access to their data, but the Health Information Exchange is not— that's not what this provision would allow. This would be solely for a patient to be able authorize their data to go for some other purpose that's not in the record. So, there's no different, you know, different, I guess, authorities through this for someone to be tracked down to pay for a bill.

Through the co-chair to Representative Kahloma, if I can just add, since I have another bill that this committee has heard related to medical bills and medical debt. Your question is about a person who might have a bill being chased down by a credit reporting company, etc. That would be up to that provider to sell that information to a credit reporting agency or to one of the different companies that tries to help make sure that somebody pays their medical bill. So I would separate out thinking about payment of services from the actual medical records themselves that are within the HIE. Yeah, so follow-up?

Yes. I guess maybe that's where I'm hung up. So, I mean, the bill's been presented that, like, if you're an emergency provider, you look up these people's medical files. But when I saw that line, their personal information's probably in there, their address and their phone number. I just didn't know if someone could look that up because you haven't paid a bill and they're using the exchange to find your contact information to pay the bill.

That's what I was trying to get at. Through the co-chair to Representative Calombe, I think that this bill wouldn't create that mechanism to compel someone to pay a bill through the HIE and what Mistika just said. It's more about referencing other entities that could help assist with bill payment, but it's not about compelling someone to, to pay their bill through using the, the HIE. Well, Representative Klum, how about we just have Ledge Legal confirm that nothing in this bill creates additional access to a consumer's information to collect bill payment? Is that what you're looking for?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, um, because I mean, the whole purpose of the bill was always presented as just health records to help you treat this person. And then this seems like it goes a little bit farther than that. But, um, I like getting that confirmation.

Or are you okay if we, um, get that and continue progress on the bill and amend on the floor if need be? Does that— how does that sound to the bill sponsor and Representative Colon? That's fine. Okay. Yeah, because yeah, I, I mean the bill sponsor is not trying to expose these people's information, right?

To, to the co-chair, yeah, I'm in support of protecting consumer information in that regard. And if need be, if we need to amend on the floor, we can. Okay, okay, great. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. On page 3 of the bill, in Section 4, there is an addition of one additional member to the, the qualified entity or combination which It's a designee. I noticed that there is under G a healthcare consumers is represented by one seat, and then Section 4 would add another seat to be to represent other stakeholders and community interest. It would seem to me that there's some overlap there. Can you tell me, Representative Mena, what the distinction is between healthcare consumers and other stakeholders and community interest, and who are such stakeholders and community interest likely to be representative of?

Through the co-chair to Representative Sadler, the language right there is pretty broad, so it could apply to healthcare consumers, but that explicit wording, it would be at the discretion of the governing body to represent other stakeholders and committee interests related to the system. So this ensures that you have a position that is flexible enough where if the governing body sees that there is a need that's not currently addressed by the existing stated positions, that they can help fulfill that need. And I'd love to direct that to Mistika to add more context as well. Go ahead, Mistika.

Uh, for the record, Kendra Steka. Um, yes, that's exactly right. And so one example is right now there is significant interest around around how social health information is incorporated into the health— the clinical record. So, for example, the governing body might wish to have someone from a community-based social care organization sit on the board so that they could give more informed— help inform discussions around that and how that data is or isn't incorporated into a clinical record. So, that would be one example that Exactly as Representative Mena said, having it be flexible enough that as current issues and current healthcare needs in terms of data sharing come up, that there's appropriate representation on the committee or on the board, on the governing board to inform the board about that.

Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you. Ma'am, I missed your name, but help me understand. There is the entity or combination of qualified entities that constitute to is the designee. I'm sorry, the governing body is whom that can pick the— this stakeholder member?

Who's the governing body again? [Speaker:KENDRA_STICKA] So, the governing body— this is Kendra Sticka. Governing body is represented of the individuals in Section 4 on page 3. So, representatives from the various aspects of healthcare. Hospitals, nursing homes, private medical providers, etc.

So that would be the governing body. Gotcha. So essentially Section 4, lines 21 gives that body the opportunity to appoint members of its own body and I can see that at the top. Okay. Exactly.

Jason Ball, the Chief Health Data Officer with the Department of Health is online as well. I have a question. Go ahead, Representative Klobuchar. I think maybe this I'm not sure if the sponsor can answer it. So, in the bill on page 4-2, it says— it talks about the system being self-sustaining through a combination of user fees, and the bill adds, which may include user fees charged to the department or other government entities.

So, do you know right now where the user fees landing? Are they landing on the patients or the offices or the government? Like, who's paying those, if you know? Through the co-chair to Representative Colon, I believe it's leaning on the providers who are participating in the exchange, and I know this language is specific to allowing more— allowing state departments to also help participate in the exchange, and so Ms. Ticken can add some context to that clarifying language. Okay.

I'd be happy to add to that, Ketrystica. At this point, the Department of Health— our contract with the Department of Health supports most of the fees. So, there are not direct provider fees for most services. There are a few, and payers— there are a few fees to payers who utilize the HIE. So, this would allow a pathway to have a blend of provider fees fees to providers or organizations for specific services as well as the department to specific services that they use.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you, uh, Representative Mena. On page 4, line 11, we're talking about, uh, self-sustaining through accomplished user fees including fees charged to the department. But again, looking at the fiscal note, I see zeros.

Are those consistent if they're going to make this health information exchange self-sufficient? By fees charged to the department, shouldn't there be some reflection of that in the fiscal note? Or am I missing something here? Through the co-chair to Representative Sandler, right now in the bill it says it would, which may, so it, because we're not requiring the departments to pay those user fees, that's not currently reflected in the fiscal note. And largely the bill is to update a lot of these different confidentiality provisions and how we share data.

We're not necessarily adding more work to the current administration of the HIE, and we're just making it a little bit more flexible of how we are ensuring that the HIE is sustainable. Right. Go ahead, Representative. And I understand the conditional, the may, but if it were may, I would think it'd be an indeterminate fiscal note. They don't know it, but it may.

So I guess that's just a complaint about ledge finance.

Okay, um, well, I— we did set an amendment deadline for this bill, and I think I'm the only person who introduced an amendment. Hopefully I didn't miss any. So looking like no, I will move Amendment 1, or N.2. Object for purposes of discussion. Thank you, um, Representative Hall.

We heard at least one doctor talk about, um, participation and the importance of having data. Health Information Exchange is not very useful if people are not actually sharing and tracking data. So I did some research on whether we could attempt to encourage broader participation. That was challenging. One thing that did seem doable is to collect a little more data on rates of participation.

So the amendment before you will seek that additional information. By adding that we will collect, quote, "rates of participation by providers in the system, the number of health records exchanged, identification of any gaps in or obstacles to provider participation, such as issues with connecting to the system, and." So, to the extent that inadequate data is perhaps compromising the usefulness of the system, perhaps we would learn more. Do members have questions about this amendment? Representative Satterwhite. Mr.

Chair, for the record, you said— I think you said you were moving Amendment 1. I have Amendment N.2 and N.3 in my hands, although I think I know which ones. Amendment—. Yes, so I'm only moving one amendment, and that is Amendment N.2. Thank you very much.

Which is just an information-collecting amendment. So, okay, yes, okay, so your amendment just, um, you're just analyzing the rates of participation participation and why they are not participating if they are not? That is correct. Okay.

Are there further questions? Yes, Representative Sadler. Thank you to the maker of the motion. It looks like the goal is to identify places where additional state funding is necessary to up the participation and to improve the functioning of this Health Information Exchange system. Is that true?

I don't know if necessarily additional funding. I feel like if we're going to put money into an exchange in general, we want to make sure we're getting value out of it, and really the attempt here is to see, are there data gaps that are undermining the usefulness of the HIE? That's it. I don't know what potentially we could do about that, but I figure it would start with understanding if there's a problem and potentially what that problem might be. And maybe there's not a problem, and that would be a wonderful thing to find.

Well, we love annual reports, so there we are. I spend New Year's Eve reading them. Yes. Okay. And I guess— Yeah.

Is it possible to ask the department if that would be an owner's requirement to produce this report? Sure. Or is it just a push of a button someplace on a data machine? Jason Ball maybe could respond to that. Jason Ball, could you talk about Amendment N.2, which would ask for rates of participation by providers in the system, number of health records exchanged, identification of any gaps or obstacles to provider participation?

Good afternoon. For the record, Jason Ball, the officer with the Department of Health, and as it relates to amend that N.2. This would be a collaborative report produced in conjunction with the vendor or designee, Healthy Connect Alaska. So we've got, you know, Kunstick on the line. From an owner's perspective, I think this is absolutely doable.

I think that we largely have the data on hand at the moment. It would just take a little bit of formatting to get it into the right format.

Report for the legislature. So no concern there. Okay, I couldn't hear you, Mr. Bell, very clearly at all. So I heard you say, I think, that there's no problem, this would not be onerous on the Department of Health. But speak clearly and slowly and I can confirm that, please.

Mr. Chair, Representative Burke— or sorry, Freer. It happens. I just wanted to, um, is he on speakerphone? Mr. Ball, Jason, if you are on speaker, can you convert it to non-speaker, please?

Certainly. Is this better? A little bit, yeah. You want to repeat your answer? Thank you.

Yes, certainly. So, for the record, Jason Ball. No concerns with the amendment. We largely have this documentation on file. We'll just need a little bit of formatting and to collaborate with our team at Healthy Connect.

To get this out, but very doable. Thank you, and thank you, Representative Freer, for the nudge. You want to put— they better put it in the right format. That gets— we've had problems with that before. You don't need to amend your amendment?

Um, probably not. Okay. Um, is the objection maintained? I remove my objection. Okay.

Um, not seeing further objection, Amendment N.2 is adopted. Are there any further questions before we take action on the bill? Okay, Representative Hall. Mr. Co-chair, I move to report HB 285, work order 34-LS1177/n, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Uh, not seeing any objection, House Bill 285 is reported out committee.

We are going to take a brief at ease and we will return at 5:00 PM for Governor's appointees. At ease.

Back on the record in Labor and Commerce. Last time on the agenda, consideration of governor's appointees. The first appointee up is, um, Ivy Villani, Board of Social Work Examiners.

Miss Villani, do you want to introduce yourself to the committee and describe your interest in being on this board, please? Yeah, absolutely. Uh, so I'm Ivy Villani. I'm a licensed independent clinical social worker in Alaska. Just licensed clinical social worker.

Um, I have been in Alaska since 2022, where my interest in joining the Board of Social Work was piqued immediately. Um, I love the prospect of being able to help make these decisions to kind of continue to move forward this board, um, through all of the changes that are happening in the rest of the country. Um, and it's exciting being in Alaska because it is one of those places where you get to see in real time what's working and not working in other states before it gets here. And so that's kind of why I was really interested in being a part of this board from the onset.

Okay, uh, do members have questions for Ms. Villani?

Can I ask, Chair, what board is she going for? Board of Social Work Examiner. I have one question. Go ahead, Representative. Um, thank you.

Through the co-chair, thank you for being here, Ms. Filani, and especially thank you so much for your willingness to serve on the board. Um, I see that this board only has 3 out of 5 positions filled, and you've been on it since June of this year. Um, can you talk a little bit about— are there— what are some of the challenges to recruiting people for this board? Do you have a lack of peers in the profession who are unwilling to serve on the board? Um, what, what insight do you maybe have for us about that?

So I'm definitely answering on behalf of myself and not the board, but one of the things that I have seen regarding the challenges of kind of putting people into this position is a lack of understanding about what happens with the board. But also the requirements. So I do know that one of the things that we are kind of undertaking is reviewing the requirements of being on the board, of serving, of tenure, and then also kind of the scope that we'd be looking for from each of the members. Once we have kind of gone through that, I do anticipate being able to reach out to the general public to, to kind of seek out interest. I do not foresee difficulty obtaining members to join this board once there is a general understanding of what's actually to be expected.

Okay, um, just a comment, Mr. Chair. Yeah, you know, I, I made this comment at a previous hearing, um, when Coach Erhal was chairing. And again, I really appreciate you, Ms. Filoni, for your willingness to serve, and I I'm sure all the things that you've said are definitely true. I also know that this board has two folks from Wasilla and one from Anchorage, so statewide there's not a lot of diversity, um, and social work is not a profession that has a very tiny number of licensees.

And so, um, I find it concerning that we don't have a fully filled board. And, uh, in addition to some of the challenges with that the board undertakes and requirements. I just would add my request again on the record that it would be really wonderful to, um, at least invite our boards and commissions, um, appointer with the administration to come and answer some questions about, um, why we maybe don't have for this board or others full appointees. I'd be really curious to hear from them. [Speaker:ANDREW] Okay, um, that's a good idea.

Um, Miss Villani, Headlight Health— are all the clients in Alaska, or are you doing teletherapy from Alaska potentially to multiple states?

My current caseload is the entire state of Alaska. I only see clients within the state of Alaska. Got it. Okay, thank you. Uh, Representative Freer.

Uh, thank you. Through the chair to to Ms. Vilani, I'm looking at your resume, and maybe you said this and I walked in late to the start of your presentation, so I apologize, but where do you live? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Currently I live in Houston, Alaska. The postal code says I live in downtown Wasilla. Where was that?

Sorry, Houston, Alaska. But what does the postal code say? Downtown Wasilla. Okay, thank you.

Okay, um, well, Ms. Villani, thank you for being here. I don't see further questions. I really appreciate you being willing to engage with the committee. Um, next up in public testimony for governor's appointees is Darren Cooper with the Marijuana Control Board. Mr. Cooper, if you would like to introduce yourself to the committee and describe your interest in this board, I would appreciate it.

All right, uh, good evening everyone. My name is Darren Cooper and I have been nominated to serve in the public safety seat for the Marijuana Control Board. Just an introduction about myself, I currently work for the Alaska Michigan State Troopers, where I've served for nearly 19 years here in the state, and I'm currently assigned as the commander and captain of the statewide drug enforcement unit. I've been around since the inception of legalization and understand that that was the voter's will to ensure that there was a community as well as an organization to move that entity forward as far as legalization. And I've had the opportunity to sit on one meeting so far, which was last week, and I had the opportunity to interface with many community members as well as other board members to ensure that the industry is moving forward, but also ensuring that the industry is still adhering to public safety needs as well as other needs that are within the industry.

So my interest in serving on the board is, again, to continue to collaborate with other stakeholders that are in the industry and ensuring that we have a safe and economical industry as we move forward into the future. Do committee members have questions? Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you. Trooper Cooper, I'm sorry.

You said since marijuana, cannabis, was made legal in Alaska by voter initiative, have you in your duties as a state trooper seen any deleterious effects or positive effects in the state of public safety in Alaska since that decision?

Through the chair to Representative Sadler, thank you for the question. I have definitely seen the positive of, I guess, the legalization of marijuana in the state. We have seen specific crimes decrease. I've worked a lot in the Matsu'u Valley and in the South Central region, and prior to legalization, we did see a number of armed robberies and such that were associated with illicit marijuana grows and/or possession, uh, when, you know, others thought it would be lucrative to take from, uh, those who were growing and/or possessing. And so I've seen a downturn of those type of crimes when it comes to, uh, legalization.

As far as the, the negative effects, um, I don't, I don't know if I have seen anything that really sticks out beyond what was already present with marijuana just being out there in the community. We still see folks who may or may not drive under the influence of marijuana, but otherwise that wasn't something that was not going on before legalization, and that's just essentially continued. But otherwise, I don't, I don't have any negative, I guess, comments on the legalization portion of it. Thank you very much, sir. Representative Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Co-chair. Mr. Cooper, thank you very much for your many years of public service and law enforcement, and thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity on the Marijuana Control Board. I'm curious what your biggest takeaway was from that first meeting that you attended not so long ago.

To the chair, Representative Paul, thank you for the question. And my biggest takeaway was actually my lack of knowledge of the actual overall industry. There's a lot for me to learn. You know, I'm very well versed on essentially the enforcement side of it, you know, whether there's criminal penalties and/or, you know, some federal laws that are concerning marijuana, but there's a tremendous amount of stuff that I I personally need to know, and that board meeting helped me realize that even more. And I also realized that there's a ton of folks out there who want to see the industry continue to move forward, and they want to see it to move forward in a positive light instead of a negative light.

And so those are my two biggest takeaways from the meeting. I appreciate your answer. Thank you. Okay, um, I agree. Thank you for your service, Mr. Cooper.

Okay, there is an additional question. I was trying to look up marijuana control board. That's why things beeping right now. But, Mr. Cooper, Trooper, what kind of issues do you see the Marijuana Control Board facing over the pendency of your proposed term? Where is the industry going?

Where's the— where are things going with marijuana in Alaska?

To the chair, Representative Sadler, thank you for the question. I think that the industry as a whole, they are starting to deal with a lot more in their face of black market marijuana. And what I mean by that is there's plenty of out-of-state actors who are bypassing all of the regulations, all of the codes, everything that everyone here in the state has to follow. To have a business that's reputable and that follows all the regular regulations. We have many actors who are bypassing that, and I see that being a challenge to the marijuana industry because all the industry people in the state, if they want to run their businesses legally and on par with all the regulations that are set in place, they have to follow all of the rules whereas these out-of-state actors, they get to bypass all of that.

They get to bypass— I'm sorry, bypass the taxes that are associated with regulation. And so as the black market marijuana continues to ramp up a bit, I believe that that's one of the larger issues that continues to face the industry is how do we A, is there a mechanism to hold those people accountable that are out of state? And B, while those people are acting, what does that mean for our industry people that are in state? Are they losing business? Are they going out of business?

Is there essentially— is there a saturation to where you're simply using black market marijuana? And so those are the issues that I see that are going to occur over the next couple years. Thank you. That's good. Okay, uh, thank you again for your service in public safety, Trooper Cooper.

And we will go to, um, final person online for, uh, testimony as an appointee is Lillian Opelicky with the Board of Pharmacy.

Good evening. Thank you so much for your time. And please just introduce yourself to the committee and explain your interest in serving on the Board of Pharmacy. Sure. My name is Liliana Polake.

I currently live in Bethel, Alaska. I serve as the Director of Pharmacy for Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation here in Bethel, Alaska. And I've lived in Alaska for the last 4 years. I've worked as a clinic pharmacist a deputy director, and a now director of pharmacy. I graduated in 2004 from Florida A&M in Tallahassee, Florida, and in that time I decided after COVID I definitely wanted to move away from the busy life of Florida and come serve in Alaska, where I've primarily in my career worked with patients that had indigent care needs.

So my interest in working for the Board of Pharmacy was to continue that desire to work for indigent patients that can't always speak for themselves, and the opportunity presented itself from the Director of Pharmacy for AAMC in Anchorage about the opportunity to continue to serve Alaska, which I wish to continue to do so with the confirmation.

Questions for Ms. Opaleke. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Ms. Opaleke, I just have to salute somebody who will list in their resume WordPerfect proficient. WordPerfect will never die. But yeah, an old friend.

But my question to you is, do you have— there is a bill right now that would make some adjustments or expansions to the scope of practice for pharmacists. Have you any thoughts on that legislation? Have you seen that?

I have. I believe that's HB 195. I reviewed the legislation, and it looks— or the potential legislation— and that it is a limited scope practice for pharmacists to be able to use— provide a test to confirm permanent disease states. So they work hand in hand with making sure to reduce the amount of patients that go to the emergency room and increasing access to patients that are in rural areas, such as where it's myself, where we have difficulty getting providers out. So yes, I have reviewed the law, and as many pharmacists are watching this closely, as well as any potential confirmation confirmed person for pharmacy so that we're— make sure that we follow the law and act accordingly to what the state of Alaska asked us to do.

Go ahead, Representative. I appreciate that, Doctor. As someone who's recently come up from the lower 48, as we call it, Florida, any thoughts on what Alaska's pharmacy laws are like compared to those in Florida or even Iowa?

Oh, definitely. I, um, just in, in the last 4 years, there's a huge difference between, um, you know, living in Alaska compared to Florida. I mean, Alaska to me is one of the few states that you can drive over or fly over to Juneau and meet with your representatives or your senators very readily when you have a viewpoint. That's very rare in Florida that you can be able to just go into Tallahassee and ask for a bill to be moved very quickly to be able to help the people here. The laws are a lot more pronounced here in Alaska.

When you make changes, you see action change within a year or less versus if you were in a bigger state, most of those laws wouldn't have as much impact for maybe 2 to 3 to 4 years or more before you actually see the true impact. So the, um, the, the patients that are here, um, really do see in real time when, um, legislative action, um, occurs. So, um, definitely living in Alaska, you do see in real time, um, the, the action that one voice can do very quickly. I appreciate your perspective. Thank you.

Um, Ms. Opaleke, I don't see more questions. Thank you for your willingness to serve on this board and for your work in tribal health. Thank you so much for your time. I do not see anyone else among Governor's appointees who are online. Therefore, at 5:18, we are adjourned.