I call the House Labor and Commerce Committee to order at three, no, 425 on February 11th.
Members, President of Representatives, Colomb, Freer, Fields, and Hall, we have a quorum.
Thank you, Andrew Magneson, the LNC Committee Secretary and Jude Augustine from the LIO for
Tech and Teleconferencing.
Support first up on the agenda is House Bill 210, Peace Officer, Firefighter Disability
by Representative Cop.
We have an amendment for consideration
if Representative Sadler gets here
and we will take public testimony.
So since first I wanna ask,
do members have any questions for either
Representative Chekkop or Bob Williams,
Chair of the Alaska Retirement Management Board,
both of whom are available for questions?
Do members that questions
for Either Representative Kopp or Mr. Williams?
Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna open public testimonies.
Is there anyone in the room who wishes to offer public testimony on house bill 210 come on up
Okay, start yes, sir. Go ahead. My name is Justin Mac about representing the Alaska professional firefighters and
Rising in support of HP 210
The Alaska Professional Firefighters represents over 500 professional fire and EMS workers across the state.
HP 210 recognizes the challenging work that our public safety members are asked to do.
As a 15 year firefighter with the Anchorage Fire Department and President of the
Anchorage firefighters union, I've seen several of our members have career ending injuries both physical and mental health related.
We're asked to respond to dangerous and unstable conditions with limited information.
While we do train for these emergencies, we know that there will be injuries.
Sometimes those injuries are career ending.
This bill adjusts occupational disability from 40% to 75%.
We recognize that Tier 4 has limitations as far as retirement, born in things that is
less widely known is
What care for does and the reduction for disability benefits for injured workers?
Firefighters work long hours made more challenging by an FLSA exemption and rice and call volume
So this is a much-needed fix and you'll ask a professional firefighters or support
Okay, thank you, mr. Mac. Thank you. Any members have questions for mister Mac?
All right, is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to offer public testimony?
There is no one online who wishes to offer public testimony so that public
testimony is closed. I think we can now turn to amendments representative Sadler
would you like to move an amendment? Thank you Mr. Chair for being
still getting set from the floor. Mr Chairman, I move amendment A1-34LS-0938
I apologize for missing the initial presentation by the firefighter, but this amendment I'm
offering today clearly falls within the title and the intent of the bill.
Firefighters and peace officers admittedly and candidly face special vocational hazards
that they should not face extraordinary financial consequences if they have a work-related
disability.
This amendment, a simple amendment he said there for a jinxing is one page and a half,
It does it by, well, some background first, Mr. Chairman, state law allows a presumption
that firefighters who contract certain diseases and cancers, which are enumerated on page
one, did so as a result of their workers' firefighters, and that they are therefore
should be entitled to receive workers compensation benefits.
However, the current law sets up a number of hoops that fire fighters have to jump through
to ensure that that protection, including getting costly medical examinations for seven years,
They can't qualify.
This causes financial stress to departments,
personal stress, and expense for firefighters.
And if they were to have the risk of missing one examination
in that time period, the list was in the benefits
of the disability coverage.
The amendment simply says that firefighters need medical
exams every other year.
And for six years, this helps ensure firefighters are not.
Unduly penalized for missing one exam early in their career, and it relieves smaller departments even larger departments of
unnecessarily onerous ongoing medical costs. Again, I think this amendment squarely comports with the goal of the underlying bill and advances the
goal to protect first responders who experience disabilities
responding from their selfless volunteer exposure to hazards on behalf of their federal Alaskans. And with that I
Rest. Thank you representative Sadler. Representative cop, would you mind sharing your perspective on this? Amendment?
Thank you committee members and chair fields. Thank You representative Sadler for bringing forward this amendment. So
Representative Sadner and I met on this Amendment yesterday and
I assured him it certainly
philosophically was in line with the spirit of this bill
After that meeting and doing a little research of my my actions say my team members helping me out here
We found that the Alaska Supreme Court had a significant ruling on this issue in Adamson
versus Municipality of Anchorage interpreting Alaska's firefighter presumption statute
and the court confirmed that once a firefighter meets statutory conditions, the presumption
of compensability attaches.
The law already requires the onus to be on the employer to prove it wasn't related.
These various diseases we're looking at or health matters that a firefighter can come down with the existing statute and case law do protect firefighters.
The Supreme Court clarified employers cannot rebut the presumption simply by offering generalized testimony that a cancer
Has unknown causes and the court reinforced our current statutory process that governs rebuttal standards
So I would just I guess
I would like to ask the bill sponsor, we also have, you know, certainly other members here.
If there is a demonstrated breakdown in this legal framework since that court ruling, I,
Mr. Chair, am concerned about any unintended consequences, whether they be expanding into
and how those may interplay.
I am very happy to continue to work
with the Representative Sattler.
This is going to the Finance Committee next.
And I...
It like I said, this has all been in the last several hours these issues
It's it's interplay with workman's comp that the fact that we've had a Supreme Court ruling on this
Setting a standard in whether or not we would be doing something here that creates stability and clarity or NOT
By by with this amendment. So with that, I do not recommend adopting the amendment at this time
Okay further questions for the Amendment sponsor or sponsor of the underlying bill
Representative Hall
Thank you, Mr. Coachella. Representative Sadler
How long after retirement coverage lasts for present for presumptive coverage
Like how long how Long does the coverage last?
For presumptive coverage, and is there a consideration for extending the cover age?
Representative Hall
My recollection is that this presumption ends I think at age 60
And I could be wrong.
Could be 65 of my recollection as it's age 60.
And no, there's a hard chronological end.
Thank you.
OK.
And Representative Nelson arrived at 434.
I think I previously, obviously,
represented Sadler's here since he's offering an amendment.
Is there further?
debate before taking action on the amendment, or would you like to offer closing comments or
representatives?
I appreciate Mr. Chair.
I do recall the case, this language admittedly was a bill that in the 33rd legislature got
all the way to the rules committee and did not make it across the finish line.
It had been fairly extensively vetted, and I don't have the-
I have it my memory, but not the black letter,
but my understanding is that the case
that Representative Combside was fairly narrowly predicated
on the subject of the lawsuit,
having had the first capacity
of getting a lot of medical examinations
before the law, the underlying law
that had that presumption of coverage
for these cancers and diseases.
So I don't know if we can broadly apply,
but as is always the cases with legal.
Decisions it bears close close examination. So I'd be glad to work with them to try and answer any concerns or questions about the broader applicability
So, I'll hang back and work
Okay, so you're withdrawing your amendment
um, well, um I think I would do that if I had the opportunity to bring it forward again in the future sure, okay
Okay. Okay
So it looks like representative sailors was drawn as amendment as they're further debate on the underlying bill
Cheers the department here department administration
Who did the fiscal note?
Doesn't look like it. No
Okay, so I just wanted to point out one thing. I mean, obviously this is good.
I want to make sure
firefighters in these situations are covered my my concern is the cost and
The fiscal notes indeterminate it also says in there that
They're going to revise it because they they weren't sure first there's a cost to the department and then obviously there're more benefits going out and we got we're in a tight fiscal situation and
I'm just I guess I
Guess I could ask the bill sponsor
Do you think the state can afford this increase in benefits?
Through the chair representative colomb. Yes
And the reason why I say yes, unequivocally, is how significantly overfunded, well-funded
the trust balances are.
So if we look at the PERS Disability Trust Fund is $98.9 million and TERS.
is 9.8 million. Of course, we're not talking about teachers. I guess they have fewer injuries,
so it's lower battles. But for per 98.9 million, and that is considered to be significantly overfunded,
our initial request on this and the very few numbers of public safety people that are actually
out on disability indicate that it is no threat to the disability funding status at the rate
All right.
Thank you.
Thank You Representative Clum.
Representative Carrick is here at 437.
If the committee members are okay with that.
I'm going to reopen public testimony.
Obviously, we got started late due to floor and right after I close public
testimony, three more individuals called in.
So is there any objection to that?
If not, I am going reopen Public testimony and take testimony
online.
First up is Michael O'Connor.
Mr. O Connor, please go ahead with your public
testimony
Yes, sir. Thank you. I appreciate your time and can everybody hear me. Okay. Yes
Great, thank you, so my name is Michael O'Connor
I worked for the Anchorage Police Department for 11 years and was injured in the line of duty in
2022 I separated
From employment under disability and have been receiving disability from the state of Alaska since that time
Regarding house bill 210 I
that moving forward and addressing the lack of support that injured first responders receive
when they serve the communities of Alaska. I do have two other acquaintance citizens that are
on the line as well and they will speak to their instance but I wanted to talk about
is 75 percent of an individual salary once they are deemed disabled by the state of Alaska.
We really appreciate that and I think we're moving in the right direction. I would like
to add that many, many people who get injured in a line of duty go out on ex-LA or worker's
Well months before separation of employment in my specific example. I was on SMLA for 10 months, which meant I
was receiving 80% of my base salary. So currently, a disability is based on your prior 12 months of, okay, and it's at 40%.
Moving forward with the 75%, I would like the committee to consider looking at the employee's previous high three.
and making an average, so that would still include the portion of time where they were receiving a reduced wage
and incorporating that into the 75%. Another option that I think is definitely viable
is a reduction of that 75% to 50% of the individual's high-three salary, but making that for life.
The majority of the employees have between six to eight years on.
I had 11 and another had 14 who I'm aware of.
But with the 25-year mark where you stop receiving disability benefits,
there's still a lot of life left.
Additionally, the requirement where individuals receiving the disability
financial uncertainty for those who are injured while serving and protecting the
citizens of Alaska. It has also caused members to not be able to receive loans
because they can't show a positive income or consistent income stream and you
know we definitely appreciate the moving forward and the recognition of the
disabled employees are receiving and I welcome the conversation and
I look forward to working with the committee and sharing our thoughts and our experiences
navigating the system over the last couple of years which has been
very challenging and i know we're short on time and so it's not all open up any questions
if any members of the Committee have any question for me and we'll
okay any
questions for mr. O'Connor and
we do have other testifiers as well
Okay, thank you, mr. O'Connor for your testimony next up is Robert tealing mister teeling, please go ahead your test money
Yes, yes, I thank, you so much for
I would like to add on to Michael Conner's testimony
My name is robert teal and I was elected state trooper for six years injured in the lineup. Do you need?
and like mrs.
O conner stated the 40 percent is based on
the last basically base pay of the employee when they went out. They're 12 months.
And I just wanted to kind of add something into this. It's first off the yearly checkups
are definitely undue stress simply for the fact that doctors do change. Doctors move.
Alaska is not one of easiest places to get a doctor to see you continually.
And with mine, it was messed up twice, so now not only am I doing this every 12 months,
I already did it, and I'm also due now in March,
so I've only had six months in between my two checkups
and my evaluations, which means that my financial state is up in the air,
again, here in a couple months.
But I'd also like to add that there,
and this is not just a hypothetical, this natural reality that could set in,
especially with the Alaska State Troopers,
through bush communities in which they're in state housing,
and oftentimes they'll, if they don't bring their vehicles
with them, those vehicles will be sold before they leave.
Oftentimes spouses will have to leave their line of work
in order to move with their trooper
to a bush community and live in State Housing.
Now, do you have a trooper that has injured
while they are out in a Bush community
and they didn't have any homes set outside of State housing
after they have been deemed
that they're no longer able to return to their line of work,
then those individuals now are faced with the fact that now their spouse no
longer has two years' worth of verifiable income to get a mortgage on a home,
or get another vehicle, or for that matter, any loans.
So now that individual, after they leave the Bush community,
they are basically homeless and there will be no verifying income for an individual.
what their injuries might be able to go on and get another line of work. Others will not be
able do so. And so now you've basically taken the trooper that moved for the state into a Bush
community and served the State of Alaska and was now injured, which I could say that Bush troopers
are probably more likely to be injured than some of the roads host simply for
the fact that they have no backup and they're going to all alone.
A mortgage, happy to get a house or whatever it is, car, you try to restart their life
with no verifiable income and 40% of their salary that most likely came off of FMLA,
which was 80% reduction in their pay.
So that is not just a hypothetical, that's a reality that it's definitely something
that the state probably will face in the future if they have not already.
I don't know every individual that has been out on disability.
But that's just something that has come up.
The other bots on the yearly, there's other places, other states, that'll do a one to
two year evaluation, and then after that they receive it until they're 25.
Now speaking on that 25 years, it's 25 year from your start date, so if now if you take
a trip or that 21 years old when they start, they put no money into social security, especially
And they went on to college with no money put in to social security from another job.
Now they deal with the state of Alaska that has opted out of social
security. So now those individuals are no longer eligible for social
security benefits and that includes social
security and the disability that comes along with that.
So basically you're taking an individual that
has their life in a sense for the State.
And now they are basically left on a
in whatever state the state of Alaska decides to leave them in,
which in so far with the individuals that I do know
is not a very good state.
So those are some things that to think about when you're looking at this bill,
75% definitely would help, and like Michael Carter stated,
the salary based on the high three for that basis
would be a substantial increase.
And then if the state was able to do the either one year or two year
or four year variable injury and then became a verifiable
imperative to get rid of those checkups and make it so
it's something that it can be utilized for verifival income than those individuals could
potentially go out and get a mortgage or find a home or at least try to restart their life.
Those are some of the things that have come up
as we've navigated the system and
Like Mike said, if anybody had any questions further on this,
I'm one of the people that are more than happy to help out with that,
with what we've kind of studied, what've we been through.
And with, that I will turn the floor over to Scott if there's no questions.
Any other questions?
There is a question from Representative Sadler, Mr. Teeling,
if you have a second.
Thank you.
Could the chair Mr Keeling?
Is it keeling or teeling.
I didn't hear that.
That's good.
No, Mr. Kid.
You said that you were a state trooper and have been injured on the job.
You're currently on disability status.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
And how long is that condition persisted, if I may ask?
Sir, I was injured in 2022.
I received a traumatic brain injury.
There's really not anything that's going to fix it.
We've been trying, I've done doing everything I possibly can to get as good as I can.
But as you know, a law enforcement and first responders typically require a typically more
I don't know what I would say, but basically they have to be pretty quick on their feet
which this injury has taken from me.
Yes, for you, sir, and you'd said that you mentioned that your checkups are onerous
What is I don't know if I can ask for everybody what is necessary for
You to have the annual checkup or annual medical examination have a lot of visits a lotta tests what what does that constitute?
It constitutes visiting your general practitioner as well as whatever the state deems that they want so it could be another psychological
assessment
basically state that a youth still cannot be a police officer and it's also good to note that
in order for me to receive the disability benefits I was told by a retirement disability
that I had to meet the threshold of never being able to be
a peace officer again and so my confusion on that is if I've already reached that level of
And I met that in the first year, then why use the term never,
which typically means ever, every single year I have to now
reprove that I can still never be something that
I've already proven that can never beat.
Just to clear up the quote, I'll clarify.
Yes.
And so it said the annual requirement is a visit to your general practitioner
and maybe some additional examinations with the state once,
or is there automatically another examination?
That's correct it's kind of whatever they decide they want then you kind
of get put on hold until what I was told early on is that they send your
packet or your medical records or what to begin without you some agency or
whoever and and filled with I don't know where it was Pennsylvania I think is what
they said and so it goes off to an independent review and they review it
and then your kind-of put-on hold
For some it's a week before you find out others it has been a month I think Mr. O'Connor waited almost over a
month to find whether or not he was going to get his next year's pay or
not. Thank you and we can hear you much more clearly at the end thank you so
much. Okay next up in public testimony thank
you Mr Tealing is Scott Lanier. Mr Lanyer please proceed.
Can you hear me okay? Yes, sir. Okay, good afternoon. Thank you for having the opportunity
to speak with the board today. I was in the last state trooper that was hired in 2010.
I would have stationed all over the state, and that's a valley called Pink Sound and Fairbanks.
And August of, I understand that my time is limited, but I just kind of want to cover some of the
I just wanted to kind of go over the concepts that I've gone through the last couple of
years becoming a disabled trooper.
I was injured in 2019 in the pursuit of an individual in this area.
I ultimately blew my ankle apart and had to have multiple surgeries where after each
individual surgery I returned to full duty.
I had to have a second repair done.
I returned the full duty and that repair lasted six months.
And then I ultimately had my ankle replaced.
Before I have the replacement surgery, I did a little bit of research to the disability program and what someone like the title.
I contacted the HR representative from DPS and asked about the manual so I can read up on it and I was told that there is no manual.
All there was was a chart in the tier 4 website that states that must be totally and presumably
permanently disability who's called to directly related to the performance of their duties
of the job or on-the-job injury.
The benefit is 40% of its salary, earned service while on occupational disability, no medical
insurance until eligible for normal retirement, the employer continues to make all required
contributions as to as if from the member's disability payment.
The disability benefits will cease when the member becomes eligible for normal retirement
at Medicare eligible age and 10 years of service or at any age with 25 years
of services for peace officers.
So, for Peace Officers, our disability stops at 25 year of the service.
But for a regular person on Tier 4, their disability stop at 30 years.
So why is our disabilities stopping 5 years before somebody that doesn't do the line
of duty injuries that we might be capable of?
In April of 2024, my doctor has notified me that I would not be clearing me for duty
based on my replaced ankle joint.
I notified the Alaska State Sherper Command, and on April 11th in 2024 I was given the
choice to resign, pick an administrative separation, or be terminated by DPX human resources.
I chose to take the administrative, administrative
separation.
But I had to hand right in there that was taking this due to a work related injury.
In 2024 of April, I applied for disability keeping the Department of Retirement and Benefits.
This process was very difficult and navigated as no one to assist the injured employee along
the way.
I was forced to do my own research and figure it out.
Request for information from disability were often ignored and very often incorrect.
I kept advocating for myself and finally approved and received back day until May of
2024.
peer forward disability pay. I received a little over $3,900 a month.
I was given the option for COVID health insurance. It's cost $1,700 a
month, so almost half my salary was based on medical coverage,
which I cannot afford.
I'm currently not working.
I spoke with neurositude attorneys during this process and
did not allow workman's comp attorney to get involved until my workmen's
comp case was disputed, in which my case
was never disputed. So therefore, I received no legal
representation. When I didn't see my last paycheck
from the state, i sold back all my personal
leave, and I found out that I was six months short on my
personal leave that i pulled back to the
state. Uh, when I got that check,
I said, hey, mine pays a little bit short,
and that's when they told me that they stopped paying me six
they said that there was a provision in the contract that only let employees that
were injured in a line of duty only to be paid for one year from their time of
injury. Well in that case either returned to work numerous times after multiple
surgeries and I was on my third surgery and they decided not to pay me anymore.
So I spent my last six months on personal leave. So how can somebody that was
have to pay their last year or last six months of salary out of their own pocket to get an injury
repaired. My disability was ultimately approved. I was told my calculation was done for the last
year, but in my case they told me specifically that I only calculated from January of 2024
until April of 2020. So I didn't even get the whole credit of the entire year.
If the tail is calculated from the actual time of injury, I was a sergeant making 50% more money
in Kingston due to geographical difference, and I would also over time eligible. I also feel that
the overtime should be calculated into the disability of most troopers and law enforcement have mandatory
overtime requirements. And if someone's required to work overtime, that should also be included
not just based on their base salary.
In June of 2024, I received an email from the disability unit.
The email was sent to me by mistake,
and it was intended to be an in-house email
between disability staff.
This email called me names, including the bully,
and stated I was just called to work with.
This also mentioned that I wanted to speak to our supervisor
because she kept me repeatedly giving me wrong information.
The female also mentioned that I was going to be difficult to work with during my yearly
application without the highly aggressive and individual.
I had to follow a complaint with the supervisor, the disability unit for unprofessionalism.
How can I possibly be treated fairly and partially if this is how their staff is treating me
before I'm even on disability?
And November of 2024, this state had still not contributed to our defined benefit plan
that's required.
And this was not just me.
I filed numerous complaints from the notification of this discrepancy, including the State Bombardment Office, and the Governor's Chief of Staff, which I would never return to call.
The Bombardsment office gave me a phone number and closed my complaint as resolved, even though I never spoke any.
I've contacted Public Safety Employees Union, Association Union and I have had them say that I'm no longer an employee or part of the union.
I contacted the retirement of benefits to say that I'm technically not an employee,
more on technical is not retired, so they're unable to help.
The only people I am able to talk to is the disability in it.
And the disabilities that don't even have a phone number that can call and talk with somebody,
all my correspondence has to be done via email or certified mail.
There needs to something that changes with that very soon,
because I can't call to even say I didn't get paid correctly this month.
for them to say, oh, yeah, we missed something.
No, it takes three to four weeks to get a reply
from the disability unit for just even a simple thing
that's a problem with pay.
During this time, I tried to take a distribution
from my deferred compensation
because that was without a lot of salary.
I was trying to pay some bills.
And I also told that the state of Alaska put a hold
on all my retirement accounts,
and I would not be able to access any of my money,
even my preferred compensation plan.
I couldn't even get anyone to answer my phone calls about that and ultimately had to get
the deputy commissioner of DPS to finally get me on board with some of the directors
of admin to correct it.
It finally has been corrected and they finally have made whole on our deferred retirement
contributions.
My workman's comp claim was ultimately settled for $26,000, that's all they said my time
And now I have to walk with an external prosthetic
so that I can walk on a daily basis without pain.
Six and a half years later, I finally got that.
So to put it blanily,
I kind of find the tear-forward disability program
to be a little bit, kind a bit of a slap on the face
and kind very unprofessional when dealing with them.
For someone who put their life on with blind daily
for Alaska, to lose 60% of their salary
with no medical forgetting injury,
there are problems with this program that I'm sure I am barely scratching the surface.
And these are just some of the problems that i experienced.
Others have similar stories but can't talk about their stories yet because there's still
been maybe in some sort of litigation. The state of Alaska considers me permanently partially
disabled, and that disability has an expiration date of 25 years for place and fire,
and I have to reapply every year. What's prominent about that?
Mr. Lanier.
I apologize for interjecting, but we do have another bill to go through in
another testifier. Is it possible to wrap up your testimony, please?
Yep, I'm on my last thing. I am still dealing with this injury today, six and a
half years later. You have to stay as still, can I get a loan? I still living on
my $3900 a month and I hope someone will listen and help make this right.
I think you guys are listening now and appreciate you, guys, for listening.
I feel that we should also maybe help some with some sort of advocacy program for the people that are going through this.
I'm willing to answer any specific questions. Thank you for hearing my time.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Lanier. We have one more testifier, Chief Schraghi from the Anchorage Fire Department. Chief Shragi, go ahead.
Yes, good afternoon.
Thank You, co-chair fields for, first of all, for reopening public testimony and for a hearing this bill today.
bringing this bill and for the prior legislature's that have done work on this.
I'm the fire chief in the city of Anchorage for
the Anchorage fire department and I come to you today briefly in support of
House Bill 210 and i offer the employer's perspective.
Firefighters and police officers as we all know work in high risk environments
and are exposed routinely to long-term health risks and when our public safety professionals
are making decisions or taking actions in the field that potentially expose themselves
to these risks or increase their exposure to this risk, they shouldn't have to worry
about whether they will be taken care of should they be injured in a line of duty.
And so for these reasons, and for the reasons that you've heard from others already, I am
Happy to take any questions. Thank you. Very good. Thanks, Chief Schruggie. With that,
I'm going to close public testimony. Those are all the remaining testifiers.
We do need to move efficiently because we have another bill. We're going
to be done by 530. Bob Williams wanted to briefly address the committee and then we
take action on this bill, Mr. Williams.
Thank you, chairs and members of the committee for the record.
My name is Bob Williams and I serve as chair of The Alaska Retirement Management Board.
The board has not taken a position on House Bill 210.
However, in the last hearing of HB 210, the board's work on defined contribution disability coverage came up in conversation.
And I was asked to provide additional context.
In 2025, the on-board heard direct testimony on multiple occasions from defined contribution
members receiving occupational disability who describe the stress of being disabled without
healthcare coverage.
That testimony prompted the board to look more closely at the broader disability structures
within defined contributions system, specifically the absence of health care coverage during
disability and the incidence of non-occupational disability coverage, current law for defined
Only covers occupational disability, disabilities occurring in the line of duty, and approximately
85% of disabilities are non-occupational.
These members receive neither income replacement nor post-employment healthcare coverage.
For those members who do qualify for occupational disabilities, healthcare and the employment
terminates.
A firefighter seriously injured and a structure fire may survive, but be unable to return
That individual would receive some income replacement but would not have health care coverage until normal retirement age currently 65.
Define benefit members by comparison receive both disability income and healthcare coverage during disability.
The arm board's resolution 2025-22 recommends that the legislature 1.
Add non-occupational disability income coverage
for defined contribution members
with at least 10 years of service.
Two, add health care coverage for
defined contributions members while on occupational
or nonoccupation disability.
Occupational Disability would have no service requirements.
Non-Occupational Disabilities would require
10 Years of Covered Service.
The board asked our independent review actuary Gabriel Rotor Smith and company to evaluate whether the defined contribution disability and retirement medical trusts could sustain closing these gaps.
The GRS actuarial memo included in the resolution 2025-22 found the Defiant Contributing Trusts are strongly funded.
All four trusts remain above 100% funded under all model scenarios.
These changes require only modest adjustments to normal cost the combined increase to purge defined contribution
Which includes police and fire is approximately two tenths of one percent of payroll?
For tours defined contributions increases approximately one-tenth of 1% of payroll. I
as you look at defined
Contribution and disability coverage.
I thought that this might be additional context that you'd want to know about. Thank you.
Thank You for following up
Do members have further questions before we take action on the bill?
Representative Sadler.
First, Mr. Chair, I just want to confirm.
I asked, we were considering my amendment if I would have the opportunity to work with
the sponsor on amendment.
I was assuming that meant in this committee.
I ask if it would preserve the opportunities to
work without the support of my clerk.
No, that was my misunderstanding, Representative Sandler,
I meant it in a subsequent committee or at a future stage in the law.
I'll sit on though.
What's then?
Yeah, sit down.
And just closing, I do want to restate that I appreciate Representative Sadler bringing
up the workman's comp piece, which is the insurance end and then the disability benefits
is that the cash payment end.
But together we see a system that has completely failed our people.
He was nearly beaten to death in Fairbanks.
That's how he got a TBI.
These injuries are life-changing.
And it's people that put it all on the line every day.
And his experience with DRB, you know,
I had a close officer that I buried.
He died on Christmas day, shot and killed.
And the finance people actually debited back out
of his wife's account the last five days of the year
because he wasn't alive to work.
He got paid through the end of the year,
that money came back out and we went to war over that,
got that fixed, but it tells you
when you don't experience things on a visceral level,
it's just kind of a, you know, it was just ethereal
and abstract,
but these are real people, real families
we're talking about in our system.
I'm addressing a very narrow part, not everything Mr. Williams talking about, I am just talking
about what we are paying, disability is 40% for the first year, we're not changing that,
it's just 75% in sub-squingers and you have to re-verify that you are disabled every
year.
So, and that's what I appreciate about Mr Sadler mentioning the workman's comp because
the reverification is an issue there too in the frequency of it and I very pleased to
Okay, and I regret the misunderstanding we had so but with the good faith declaration by the sponsor that we won't work on that and try and get it in.
Okay and sorry for the mess understand represent settler.
Okay.
Representative Hall, would you like to make a motion?
Thank you, Mr. Coach here.
I move to report HB 210 version LS0938 backslash A out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
Is there any objection?
Not seeing any objections?
House Bill 210 is reported from committee and we will take a brief at ease to sign
the paperwork and bring up the next bill in today's hearing.
Eddie's.
Back on the record next up is
Represent Amina and her staff to present very briefly summary of changes house bill 195 form assist prescription authority
Thank you, co-chair fields and members of the House of Urban Commerce Committee for the record.
My name is Genevieve Mina.
I represent House District 19, the Anchorage neighborhoods of Earbret Heights Mountain View in Russian Jack.
Thank for this second hearing of House Bill 195.
Over the interim, our stakeholders work really diligently to integrate a lot of different feedback from many different providers in the healthcare sector.
We are presenting a committee substitute today and my staff, Katie Georgia, will go over the explanation of changes for that CS.
Katie Georgia for the record
Explanation of changes so you had before you last May version a and the draft CS before
You today, which is labeled version n
The the significant changes which are for section one adds a new section that
prevents the or prohibits the Department of Commerce
Community and Economic Development,
also known as DCCED, from requiring fees
for collaborative practice agreements,
requiring board approval for those collaborative
practice agreement or from finding the nature
of scope of those agreements.
But also requires that each collaborative
practice agreement
clearly defines the specific patient care services the pharmacist is permitted to provide under that agreement.
Section 7 is amended to bring some clarity to,
let me back up, this is one of the suggestions that we took from meetings with the State Medical Association.
And section 7, is amended so that the pharmacists may not make any new diagnosis for someone who comes in to see them.
But it does maintain that if they are doing what's called a cleo wave test,
they may diagnose something new through that process.
Section 8 is regarding controlled substances.
Again, bringing some clarity to basically show that what we're trying to get to is
we are not having pharmacists prescribe opioids unless it is specifically
for medication assisted therapy in a clinical setting.
And section 13 updates the effective date to January 1st, 2027.
And that concludes this, the explanation of changes.
Okay, so with that explanation, Representative Hall, would you like to make a motion to adopt the proposed CS?
Mr. Co-Chair, I move to adapt the pose committee substitute for HB 195,
work draft 34-LS0909 backslash N as a working document.
Okay
Sure, we'll get you happy that represent Sadler not seeing any objection we have adopted the CS
At this time I might suggest that we turn to invited testifiers
Okay, first up is we're at dr. Brandi Sigma Martin with the Alaska pharmacy session dr
Sigma martin. Thank you for being here and so are we late?
All right, well good afternoon co-chairs and members of the committee. Thank you so much for having me here today.
For the record, my name is Dr. Brandi Signore, and I'm a pharmacist by training.
I serve as the executive director of the Alaska Pharmacy Association and a clinical assistant
professor at the UAA ISU doctor of pharmacy program. Last session, I did come testify in
front of this body in support. And thank you so much for hearing the Billigan today. At that time,
I spoke to the rule about the role pharmacists already play across the health system in Alaska.
The importance of using the standard of care framework and how this legislation could
healthcare services without compromising safety. I'd like to recap some of the
work that we did over the interim and some pieces of legislation.
So we met four times, is this microphone working?
Yes.
OK.
We met at four time, totaling approximately six hours
with members of the Alaska Board of Pharmacy,
the Alaska State Medical Association,
and the Elaska Pharmacies Association.
Representative Justin Reffridge did attend
several of those meetings.
We also worked closely with our bill sponsors
to carefully revise the legislation.
These conversations were substantive and detailed.
Concerns were raised about whether the authority
in the bill might be unlimited, whether pharmacists would
conditions and whether this legislation would allow pharmacists to hang their own shingle as independent diagnostic practices.
We took those concerns very seriously.
The committee substitute before you reflects meaningful tightening of the language.
This is not unlimited authority.
within their education training and experience and under the standard of care framework.
And when a condition falls outside of that narrow lane or the pharmacist's competency
referral is required just as it is today. During those discussions there was also acknowledgement
included including guidance from the Department of Law that if the legislation intends pharmacists
to provide these patient care services as were passed in 2022 in House Bill 145 it's absolutely
appear in the statutory section titled Other Patient Care Services.
Without those terms, the authority becomes unclear, legally unworkable, and including them is not an expansion of scope.
It's a matter of statutory clarity.
One of the areas that we found genuine alignment with the Medical Association and those conversations was around collaborative practice.
So there's kind of two lanes of practice in this building.
So, there was a shared recognition that Alaska would benefit for more meaningful functional
collaborative practice agreements.
Pharmacists are well-positioned to support higher levels of care when working within
team-based models, particularly in chronic disease state management and medication-assisted
treatment for opioid use disorder, which remains an urgent need across our state.
Currently, collaborative practices agreements in Alaska are not truly functional, and there's
not a pathway for pharmacists to participate in opioid-use disorder treatment.
The regulatory structure makes them difficult to operationalize and as a result, they're underutilized.
Section 1 of this committee substitute helps remedy that by making those agreements workable
in practice. That change is not about independent authority, it is about strengthening team-based
care. In fact, during our discussions, we talked about the opportunity, should this bill pass,
to host a joint summit focused specifically on collaborative practice, the goal would be to
intentionally on shifting the culture toward more interdisciplinary collaboration.
In addition to strengthening collaborative models, this bill allows pharmacists to address routine conditions within clearly defined guardrails.
By managing predictable lower acuity care, pharmacist can help reduce friction in the system and
free physicians to focus on complex diagnostics, procedures, and higher level care management, where their expertise is most needed.
Though I cannot speak to our friends at the Medical Association, we'll ultimately land on this Bill.
The version before he reflects meaningful efforts to address concerns while preserving the bill's intent.
We actually just heard testimony from a former state trooper who said Alaska is not the easiest place to consistently have a physician see you.
Testimate to one of the reasons why we need this bill.
It's important to center this conversation on the fact that this type of authority is not new.
Pharmacists in the federal system, including the VA, Indian Health Service, and tribal health
organizations across Alaska, have practiced at this level for decades. In multiple other states
and many countries around the world, pharmacists are already providing care for minor routine
conditions safely and effectively under similar frameworks. The data consistently show comparable
I'm going to do a little bit more.
But sometimes the value of this bill is best understood through very practical examples.
So last week we were here for our legislative fly in and I was able to sit in on some meetings with my colleague who's the district manager for the Fred Meyer Pharmacies.
And he really laid out a routine thing that he sees commonly.
A parent comes in with a prescription for a nebulizer solution for their child, but no nebilizer device.
Today the pharmacist must call the provider's office, leave a message, wait for response, leads to delays in care.
While administrative back and forths occur, the provider's office already stretched
thin must field that call and generate another prescription.
Under this bill, in an appropriate circumstance,
the pharmacist could resolve that issue in real time.
The child receives timely care,
the providers' office avoids unnecessary administrative burden,
and the system works more efficiently.
I also heard from my colleague who was the director of pharmacy at YKHC
that during Typhoon Heilong, if this policy had been in place,
handle and support patients right there as they were getting evacuated to
In conclusion, this bill is not about replacing physicians.
It's not creating parallel healthcare systems.
It is about responsibly leveraging the infrastructure
that already exists in communities across Alaska.
Pharmacies that are accessible, trusted,
and already deeply integrated into patient care
to close routine gaps and reduce friction in the system.
The version of HB 195 before you reflects months
of thoughtful discussion, careful revision,
it reinforces guardrails, strengthens collaborative practice,
statutory clarity and preserves the integrity of team-based care.
Most importantly, it gives Alaskans the opportunity
to use its healthcare workforce more effectively
in service of patients.
This legislation is supported
by the Alaska Healthcare and Hospital Association,
the Alaska Native Health Board,
the Laska Doctor of Pharmacy Program,
and Chief Medical Officers
at many of the tribal health organizations around the state,
including South Central Foundation
and Tanana Chiefs Conference,
who we've heard testimony from in previous hearing.
So on behalf of The Alaska Pharmasy Association
I respectfully urge your support of House Bill 195
to take any questions.
Good.
And I'm going to suggest that we go to the second
invite testifier, Dr. Ashley Schaber,
and then circle back for questions,
I believe Dr Schaber is available on teams.
Dr Shabers, please proceed with your testimony.
Hi.
Good afternoon.
Chair Fields, Chair Holland, members of the committee.
For the record, my name is Ashley Shaber.
And, I am presenting today on behalf
of The Alaska Board of Pharmacy.
Hospital 185 is the result of several years spanning multiple border pharmacy chairs as we
reviewed our statutes and regulations to align our licensee authority with our education training
and experience. The ultimate goal is to increase access to care.
As mentioned a previous bill passed in 2021 to 2022 and this added a new section of pharmacy
statutes called other patient care services recognizing that pharmacists provide services
other than traditional medication dispensing both under collaborative practice agreements or
After the statute was added, the board received multiple questions from businesses and licensees,
so it was determined in collaboration with the Department of Law
that clarification was needed, specifically in regards to pharmacists prescribing and administering.
House Bill 195 increases access to pharmacists
provided patient care services
while aligning state statute and pharmacy education
and training.
The bill encourages interdisciplinary engagement
between pharmacist and other healthcare practitioners.
It gives pharmacis statutory authority
to establish models of care that have been proven effective.
And as mentioned since you last heard the bill in the committee representatives of the Alaska
Board of Pharmacy, the Alaskan Pharmacies Association, and the Allaskin Medical Association have met
several times to discuss the legislation. Common goals were identified and
the Committee substitute introduced today reflects that collaboration with an input from the
Alaska Medical association. In conclusion, on behalf of The Alaska Board
of pharmacy, I request your support of House Bill 195 and thank you for the opportunity to present
Thank you, Dr. Shaver.
In addition to the two invited testifiers, Tom Wadsworth,
who is the dean of the UAA School of Pharmacy,
is also online for questions.
Are there questions for Dr, Signal Martin,
or Dr Shaber, or Doctor Wadworth,
or the bill sponsor?
Okay.
Seeing no questions, the amendment deadline
for this bill is 10 a.m. Friday, February 13th.
In addition to that, we were going to have a hearing,
a second hearing on HB 293,
Jeanette Councilor licensing.
The main purpose of that was to,
for you all to hear from asthma testifiers
about that organization's support for the bill.
So we will bring them back hopefully on Friday.
Are members comfortable setting an amendment deadline now?
Or do you have more things that you wanna think about
with respect to Jean andette counselors?
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate more time.
It's a new area of medical practice,
and certainly new to me,
so I'd appreciate the time enough to consider it's long.
Sure.
So, yeah, more times good.
Yeah,
I'm fine setting an amendment deadline
after the next hearing if that's okay with people.
Okay.
I think that covers everything at four,
23, five, 23 house labor and commerce is adjourned.