comprehensive, authoritative, nonpartisan 
A Publication of Alaska Center for Public Policy 

March 14, 2014 - Vol 8, Issue 9

In this Issue
Visit ACPP
Interview with Jim Gottstein of PsychRights
Bill Watch: Bills on the Move
Please Respect Our Copyright
Bill Watch: Bill Tracking Methodology
Bill Watch: Drugs
Bill Watch: Health Professional Workforce and Education
Bill Watch: Medical Assistance and Health Insurance
Bill Watch: Mental Health Issues
Bill Watch: State Boards and Licenses
Bill Watch: Family Health Issues
Bill Watch: Workers' Compensation
Bill Watch: Public Safety
Bill Watch: Environmental Issues
Bill Watch: General Health Issues
Are You Interested in Learning More about Policy in Alaska?
Alaska Health Policy Calendar
Subscribe to Alaska Health Policy Review
AHPR Staff and Contributors
Visit ACPP
acpp blog link art

Like us on Facebook
  
Important Information about Alaska Health Policy Review

The formatting of this electronic version of Alaska Health Policy Review may be degraded due to variations in Internet service providers, browsers, and email applications. To ensure that you are reading a complete and properly formatted version of the publication, please click on "For the most readable copy of the newsletter please click here" located just above the banner at the top of the newsletter.  


From the Editor
top

Hello, readers.

 

This week, Alaska Health Policy Review features an interview with Jim Gottstein, founder and president/CEO of the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, more commonly known as PsychRights. I asked Mr. Gottstein to participate in the interview because I was intrigued by the obvious passion behind some of the testimony regarding HB 214 Mental Health Patient Rights & Grievances, and because I knew that he has devoted much of his professional life to advocating for the rights of mental health consumers.

 

In the interview, Mr. Gottstein addresses his professional and personal interests in mental health patient advocacy. We also talked about the current -- and much-publicized -- case of a young man, Bret Bohn, a young man who is hospitalized and for whom a state-appointed guardian is making medical decisions. While it is my understanding that Mr. Gottstein is not the family's legal representative, he is fairly knowledgeable about the situation and shares some of his insights in our conversation. From all accounts, it is a heart-breaking situation, and one that I hope is resolved in the best interests of Mr. Bohn.

 

Moving on to national health policy ... 4.2 million. That is the number of enrollees who have signed up for a private health insurance plan -- through the marketplace -- as of the end of February. Originally, the Obama administration anticipated that by the end of March, seven million individuals would enroll, though recently there now seems to be some wiggle room in that number.   

   

Regardless of the projected vs the actual number enrolled, the "stick" -- the penalty for not enrolling in a health insurance plan -- seemed inviolate. That is, until recently, when an amendment was added to H.R. 4015 that would delay until 2019 the individual mandate penalty. H.R. 4015 intends to repeal scheduled cuts to Medicare physicians. The amendment as proposed would pay for the cost of repealing the Medicare payment cuts. The House bill is expected to pass in the House today.

 

What are the financial implications to the Affordable Care Act if the individual mandate is delayed by five years? Not surprisingly, there are multiple answers opined by multiple entities and even less surprisingly, there is no consensus about what the impact might be. Here are a few links you may want to follow to see what analysts have to say about the topic.

 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) [Hint: read the notes section to better understand the table.]

 

Urban Institute  

 

Center for American Progress

 

The Rand Corporation  

 

The Lewin Group  

 

Complicating the issue even more are assertions yesterday, purportedly instigated by a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, published on March 12, that recent changes in a CMS technical bulletin, dated March 5, 2014, essentially open the door to everyone to claim a hardship exemption from the individual mandate until October 1, 2016. However, on that same day, March 12, administration officials denied that there are plans afoot to delay the individual mandate.    

 

What about those 4.2 million? How might delaying the individual mandate affect those 4.2 million people who have already enrolled in a health plan? I am really curious about that and I wonder what you think. I invite you to jump to the Alaska Health Policy Review Facebook page and share your thoughts. (By the way, we are up to 84 "Likes." Thank you.)

 

Thank you for reading Alaska Health Policy Review.  


Managing Editor

Interview with Jim Gottstein of PsychRights
Jim Gottstein

Jim Gottstein has practiced law in Anchorage for over twenty-five years. Since 2002, he has focused his professional efforts to advocating for mental health consumers in Alaska. Those efforts include but are not limited to: co-founding the Alaska Mental Health Consumer Web; co-founding Soteria-Alaska, Inc., which provides a non-coercive and mainly non-drug alternative to psychiatric hospitalization; and winning important Alaska Supreme Court decisions on behalf of mental health consumers. Gottstein also founded the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, an organization with a mission to mount a strategic litigation campaign against forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock across the United States. He is also well-known for his role in subpoenaing the Zyprexa Papers, which ultimately led to Eli Lilly paying $1.4 billion in civil and criminal fines for the activities revealed by the documents. This interview was conducted on March 8, 2014. The recording was edited for length and clarity.
 
listLinks to selected topics

They are creating chronic mental patients who are classified as seriously mentally ill 

Improved grievance procedure needed   

The judge's decision is a very one-sided one  

Family and friends should have the right to file a grievance too  

 

creatingThey are creating chronic mental patients who are classified as seriously mentally ill

  

AHPR: I understand that you are very involved with mental health issues in Alaska. For the benefit of the readers, would you give us a sense of your professional interests with regards to the right of mental health consumers?

 

Gottstein: I am with the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, known as PsychRights, and our mission is to mount a strategic litigation campaign against forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock. There is no forced electroshock in Alaska but there is in a lot of the rest of the United States. The basis of it is that there has been a story told that these psychiatric drugs are helpful to people and that they make people safer, both to themselves and others. Neither of those things is true; the same is true with respect to electroshock, but we focus on the drugs.

 

I do know people that find the drugs helpful, and I think they should have access to them. I think they should be told the truth about them including that there are other approaches that work far better, for many, than the drugs. But because of the drugs' lack of effectiveness for so many and the extreme harm that they cause, I just don't think that people should be forced to take them, and in fact, if the legal standards were followed, people would not be forced to take them.

 

The drugs are dramatically worsening outcomes for people. There are a couple of ways to look at it. Since the introduction of the so-called miracle drug, Thorazine, in 1954, the disability rate for people diagnosed with mental illness, where the disability is attributed to the person having a mental illness, has gone up six times on a per capita basis. And while not all of that is attributed to the drugs, most of it is. What happens is the drugs knock down the symptoms in the short term but in the long term they dramatically worsen the outcomes.

 

There is this program in Finland called Open Dialogue Approach that is seeing an 80 percent recovery rate of people who come in with psychosis. They use drugs selectively. They try and avoid using drugs. At the end of five years 80 percent of the people are basically on with their lives. Twenty percent are not, and it turns out that only 20 percent are on the drugs after the five years. I think maybe only 67 percent were ever given the drugs so they have found a way to help people through that without using them. By contrast, in the United States, the recovery rate is about 5 percent. It used to be much better before the drugs.

 

The other most dramatic piece of it is that people in the public mental health system diagnosed with serious mental illness have a 25-year shorter lifespan than the general population. A hundred years ago that wasn't true; people that were diagnosed with mental illness had normal lifespans. With the introduction of the first generation of neuroleptics like Thorazine in the 50s, the lifespan went down 10 to 15 years, and now it is 25 years. I think that's because people are being given multiple drugs and because the newer neuroleptics like Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel are actually more harmful to people than the older drugs.

 

AHPR: What does it mean to recover from mental illness?

 

Gottstein: There is a lot of discussion and controversy over what that means but to me it just means people are getting on with their lives: they are working, they are in school, they are in relationships, and they are not in the role of a mental patient basically.

 

AHPR: You also mentioned that the drugs are worsening outcomes. What does that mean?

 

Gottstein: Basically, they are creating chronic mental patients who are classified as seriously mentally ill. For example, it looks like 80 percent of the people who come in with psychosis -- that would be people diagnosed with schizophrenia or maybe the manic phase of bipolar disorder -- can get better. Instead we are seeing five percent get better. What we are seeing is that somewhere in the neighborhood of five percent of the people who take antidepressants have a manic reaction, and then they get diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and then they get put on the harder drugs, and they are actually told, "We unmasked your bipolar disorder." Then they go down that road to becoming chronic.

 

The same actually happens with the stimulants used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; somewhere in the five percent range have a manic reaction. You know, the drugs are speed. And then they get diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and then well, you go down that road. Rather than take people off the drug and see what happens, they just add more drugs. People who would otherwise just get through things are being turned into chronic mental patients and disabled. And that's why the disability rate has gone up six times.

 

AHPR: How does the medication shorten lifespan? Is increased suicide part of that?

 

Gottstein: It does increase the suicide rate but in addition to that the medications cause severe physical problems. The newer neuroleptics, especially, cause diabetes and that's a life-shortening disease. There is this idea that these drugs, the neurotransmitters, are focused on the brain but the vast majority of a person's neurotransmitters are in their intestines, and the drugs really mess up your digestive system and people die of intestinal blockages fairly commonly. What happens is they go into the emergency room or whatever, and up comes their psychiatric history, and they say, "Oh, it's all in your head," and off they go and die, and frankly, no one tends to care that much about it. The fact that people's lifespans are 25 years shorter and there is not a public outcry over that just shows how much society as a whole finds that to be an acceptable outcome.

 

The neuroleptics cause this condition called neuroleptic malignant syndrome or NMS. It basically causes muscle rigidity. And that is often fatal very quickly. The stimulants cause cardiovascular problems; the neuroleptics cause cardiovascular problems. There are physical problems caused by antidepressants also, and so they are all physically very harmful drugs.

 

Back to selected topics list 

 

improvedImproved grievance procedure needed 

 

AHPR: Moving on to the current legislative session. How familiar are you with HB 214 Mental Health Patient Rights & Grievances?

 

Gottstein: I am fairly familiar with it.

 

AHPR: I am reading from Rep. Higgins' sponsor statement. In it, he says that the bill provides for three critical rights: to file a grievance, to have an advocate, and to get a timely response to that grievance. Do you agree that is basically what the bill is about?

 

Gottstein: Sure.

 

AHPR: Are there any preliminary thoughts you want to share before we go any further?

 

Gottstein: It is very interesting. I went to a hearing and there were a bunch of people testifying in favor of it and Providence and the state were absent from that meeting. And there were a lot of pretty heart-wrenching stories. And then there was another hearing a couple of weeks later where the establishment came in and they all testified against it. I thought that was pretty interesting. But the basic thrust of the opposition is that no one is filing grievances because everybody is happy there, which is just absurd because at API, the Alaska Psychiatric Institute, virtually everybody there is there against their will. The idea that people are happy is ridiculous.

 

So what happens is that people complain and they just ignore them. There are a lot of abuses that go on at the hospital. One, because they hide behind confidentiality, and so it's really hard for anybody outside to really investigate and find out what is happening, and the other is if someone complains, they are just very easily dismissed by saying, "Oh, that person's crazy and making it up." And so, that's what people are faced with. Sexual abuse is fairly common in these facilities. It is a place where staff can get away with it because they can just say that the patient is delusional. From my perspective, there really needs to be an improved grievance procedure and that's basically what the bill provides.

 

One of the things that I think should be in the bill is a provision that if someone appeals an adverse ruling, the state cannot go after that person for [its] attorneys' fees if the state wins. It is my experience that the state always tries to get attorneys' fees. These are generally very poverty-stricken people. As a lawyer you are supposed to tell your client that there is that possibility, and it makes people unwilling to pursue their rights because they are faced with the [possibility of having to pay the state's] attorneys' fees. That is one of the ways in which complaints are suppressed. I think that any bill like this really should have a provision that says that that part of the civil rules of procedure does not apply.

 

The public hadn't really had any knowledge of this until recently when Bella Hammond and Vic Fischer were hit with $1 million in attorneys' fees, and now people are aware of it. But it's been going on for years. I represented someone trying to get out from under a student loan and they went after him for attorneys' fees when we lost and it is my understanding that it is the policy of the attorney general's office to always do that. It's a way to bar the courthouse door from people. That is outrageous, in my mind.

 

Back to selected topics list 

  

decisionThe judge's decision is a very one-sided one   

 

AHPR: I would like to talk about a particular case, that of Bret Bohn. In preparation for our interview, I went back and I read supporting documents and listened to the audio files of committee meetings about HB 214. I saw that you testified on February 18. In your testimony, you said something to the effect that it was your observation that the Bret Bohn situation is not uncommon. How is the Bret Bohn case related to the provisions in HB 214?

 

Gottstein: First off, I don't think that HB 214 really deals with Bret's situation at all. Maybe if he was in the psych unit for a short period of time during that period ... but basically, Bret's situation is a guardianship situation. I think there is this almost automatic acceptance by the courts that whatever the state is saying is true and so people aren't really giving it a fair shake. The deck is really stacked against people.

 

There is this established relationship between Providence, Adult Protective Services, and the Office of Public Advocacy, known as OPA. So if Providence says, "We've got someone that is incompetent to make decisions and they are subject to harm," then Adult Protective Services will automatically come and try and get a guardianship, and then they try to get OPA to be the guardian even though the statute has OPA as the guardian of last resort. I think they are number seven on the list. First on the list is a person that is designated by the person for whom guardianship is sought, if they had made that designation. In Bret's case, he designated his parents, and the judge decided against honoring that. Okay, so you've got them coming in saying that OPA should be the guardian, and then they appoint OPA to be the attorney for Bret, now OPA is on both sides of the case. Then, a court visitor is appointed to supposedly give independent advice to the judge, and that court visitor is paid by OPA. So, just on the surface of it, it is a totally collusive process, and I think that is a big problem.

 

Then, these cases are confidential, so it is hard for the public to know what is going on. In the United States, we have this tradition of open courts. And that is supposed to be the norm; there is supposed to be a very good reason to close court proceedings. The Guardianship Statute says most everything in the file is supposed to be closed, but it also says the hearing shall be open or closed to the public as the respondent may elect. I am more familiar in the mental health commitment arena that has the same language. The public defender agency, who is appointed to represent the respondents, to my knowledge, never tells their clients that they have the right to have them open.

 

I think that some people have very good reasons not to want either type of proceeding open because there are potentially embarrassing things that are going to be brought out, and so if someone has a reputation to protect, especially mental health commitments, then okay. Other people want the world to know about it. And it is their right to have it open or closed to the public but they are never told that they have that right.

 

There is a procedure in the court to request to have a file opened, and I made that request to the court in the Bret Bohn case earlier this week. I have not heard back. I pointed out a number of things that would be really interesting to know about that case. What we know is that Brett was basically fine in October. Then he took Prednisone as prescribed. Prednisone is known to cause insomnia and is known to cause people to become psychotic. Apparently, that is what happened. He took the Prednisone and then he became psychotic, not sleeping for days and days and days. I have some personal experience with that. He went to the hospital and he was prescribed basically two sleeping drugs: Ambien and Ativan, both central nervous system depressants.

 

I asked a very experienced neurologist about that, and he really questioned that [approach] because that didn't help anything in terms of diagnosing what might be the problem; it was just basically symptomatic treatment. Then they sent him home and he started having seizures. So my sense of things is that, it seems a pretty good likelihood that the Prednisone caused his psychosis, and then the drugs that he was given in the emergency room caused the seizures.

 

So they go back to the hospital and Bret deteriorates very rapidly. And the parents say, "Hey, wait a minute. We want to stop this, and we have Bret's power of attorney." That is when Providence went to court to get the power of attorney suspended. There is a lot of stuff that goes on in these cases and not very much of it is public. There, the judge issued a decision on February 7 that somehow made its way onto the Internet, and it probably wasn't supposed to be public, and there are a lot of questions about it.

 

The judge says that Bret's mother said that she would rather Bret be dead than in an institution, that she wished she had shot him when she had the chance, and that kind of stuff, which really doesn't even sound believable, other than maybe a distraught parent saying distraught things that she didn't have any intention of doing. Then this lawyer, who was a family friend that they had hired, got concerned about it and resigned as their attorney, and she [the lawyer] reported these things that Bret's mother said. But the decision is very one-sided against Bret's parents, basically making them out to be crazy.

 

But a story in the Northern Light -- which is the University of Alaska Anchorage paper -- cites one of his friends, Erik Guzman, and what he reported supports what the parents are saying. And there is nothing in the judge's decision that mentions whether or not Erik Guzman testified. I talked this morning to Bret's mother, and I asked her if Erik Guzman had testified and she said that he did testify. Why isn't that in the court decision? It is all one-sided against the parents and so, I think there are a lot of questions that have been raised about this case and about what has happened to Brett, and I think it raises a lot of questions about the system. This is just the way things happen. The extraordinary thing about this case is that it has gotten any publicity.

 

The other thing that I find awful about what the judge did is he didn't even let Bret testify as to what he wanted. The doctor said he could not testify, he was unable to, and then the judge said he looked at some videos and said Bret had a flat affect, which basically means emotionless, and it didn't appear that he was exercising independent judgment. The flat affect was very likely caused by the drugs. And independent judgment: if he had brought Bret in and asked him questions, well, Bret either would or would not have been capable of expressing his opinions. Here they are taking away all of his rights from him on the grounds that he is not competent, and the judge did not even let him speak.

 

AHPR: I have to ask a question. If it is known that Prednisone causes psychosis, why didn't they start by taking him off Prednisone? It's probably too simplistic a question, and I apologize but I just don't understand.

 

Gottstein: It's actually a very good question. When I took Prednisone, I was supposed to take three pills for two days, and then two pills for two days, and then one pill for two days. They said you are not supposed to stop it abruptly. That is a problem. I don't know where he was on the Prednisone. It might not have been anything like that. I'm not that familiar with Prednisone. I do know, for example, in studies with antidepressants ... somebody is given an antidepressant and they become manic, and then they are taken off of the antidepressant, and the mania goes away, and they are given the antidepressant again and the mania comes back, and they are taken off of it again, and it goes away, that's really good evidence. It is called challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge.

 

There is this idea that these randomized controlled studies are the "gold standard" of research but they are basically often fraudulent. They are paid for by the drug companies and they are manipulated in all kinds of ways. So they are not necessarily really the best. But this happens a lot: people become manic on these drugs and rather than just take them off, they add drugs. It's really stupid. Prednisone may be different in that you are not just supposed to just stop it. And then I think people can kind of get in a vicious cycle, where psychosis maybe gets triggered and even if you are off the drug, you are kind of in a manic cycle. I don't know if that is what happened in this case.

 

Back to selected topics list 

  

familyFamily and friends should have the right to file a grievance too

 

AHPR: I admit that this interview has gone off in an entirely different direction than I had anticipated. When I read your testimony at the hearing for HB 214 and I read the letter of support for the bill written by Lorraine Lamoreaux I concluded, obviously incorrectly, that HB 214 was more related that it really is to Bret Bohn's situation.

 

Gottstein: HB 214 is specifically restricted to people in inpatient psychiatric facilities, and so to the extent that that is not true of Bret, then it doesn't apply. Does Bret even have the right to file a grievance when all of his rights have been taken away?

 

AHPR: That is a good question. What is the answer to that?

 

Gottstein: I think he probably does. Legally, he probably doesn't but as a practical matter maybe he does. The problem right now is it wouldn't go anywhere, they would ignore it.

 

AHPR: If HB 214 passed into law, would that give him the right to file a grievance? Or is he not considered in a psychiatric facility?

 

Gottstein: I don't know what his legal status is. His mother talked about him being on the fifth floor, which I think is the psychiatric unit at Providence. HB 214 refers to an inpatient psychiatric evaluation or treatment facility. So if Bret were in that category, then it would apply. If not, he wouldn't. I think that one of Ms. Lamoreaux's points was that not just a patient should be able to file a grievance but maybe family members or friends.

 

AHPR: What do you think about the possible outcome of HB 214? Do you think it will pass? Does it face an uphill battle?

 

Gottstein: Well, Faith Myers and her partner, Dorrance Collins, are very persistent and they have been working on this for a while. Maybe ten years ago now, they were lobbying for a bill that would allow a patient to choose the gender of a staff member to provide intimate care, and I didn't give them a prayer of getting that passed. API was against it. Basically, the whole state was against it. And they got that passed.

 

I think the sessions are so short now that just the mechanics of getting bills through is very hard. Here we are in the middle of the session and it is in the committee of first referral. My sense of the legislature now is virtually nothing gets done other than the budget because they just don't have the time to do it.

 

The testimony in the first hearing of HB 214 was really in support of it. But now with the opposition from officialdom, well, that obviously makes it harder. 

  

AHPR: That was very interesting. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview.  

 

Back to selected topics list 

 

Back to top

Bill Watch: Bills on the Move

Every issue of Alaska Health Policy Review published during the legislative session will include a list of new health and/or health policy-related bills and resolutions introduced during the preceding week. Details for each new bill will include the bill number, short title, the name of the primary sponsor or sponsors (upper case letters), co-sponsors, cross sponsors (where applicable), and a brief description.

The information in today's issue of Alaska Health Policy Review is current as of Thursday, March 13, 2014, at 1:00 PM.

HB 374 Statewide Immunization Program

Sponsor: Health & Social Services 

Description:  The purpose of the bill is to monitor, purchase in bulk, and distribute recommended vaccines to providers approved by the department who agree to provide the recommended vaccines to state residents under terms consistent with the program and state and federal law.

 

 

Please Respect Our Copyright

Alaska Health Policy Review is sent to individual and group subscribers for their exclusive use. Please contact us for information regarding significant discounts for multiple subscriptions within a single organization. Distributing copies of the Alaska Health Policy Review is prohibited under copyright restrictions without written permission from the editor; however, we encourage the use of a few sentences from an issue for reviews and other "Fair Use."

We appreciate your referral of colleagues to the ACPP website in order to obtain a sample copy. The Alaska Center for Public Policy holds the copyright for Alaska Health Policy Review. Your respect for our copyright allows us to continue to provide this service to you.

For all related matters, please contact the managing editor, Jacqui Yeagle.

 

Bill Watch: Bill Tracking Methodology

Bills listed in Alaska Health Policy Review were selected based on a series of subjective criteria to determine whether they were "health or health policy-related." Then we carefully watch new bills as they are filed and add the pertinent bills to the screened list. The bills are divided into several general categories. This facilitates finding bills that match readers' particular areas of interest.

The information listed for each bill includes the bill number, the short title, the committee in which the last action on the bill took place, and the date on which the last action on the bill took place.
 
Abbreviations have been used for committee names. The committee names and their abbreviations are:

(H) HSS: House Health and Social Services Committee
(S) HSS: Senate Health and Social Services Committee
(H) L&C: House Labor & Commerce Committee
(S) L&C: Senate Labor & Commerce Committee
(H) EDC: House Education Committee
(S) EDC: Senate Education Committee
(H) FIN: House Finance Committee
(S) FIN: Senate Finance Committee
(H) JUD: House Judiciary Committee
(S) JUD: Senate Judiciary Committee
(H) STA: House State Affairs Committee
(S) STA: Senate State Affairs Committee
(S) RLS: Senate Rules Committee
(H) CRA: House Community and Regional Affairs Committee
(S) CRA: Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee
(H) TRA: House Transportation Committee
(S) TRA: Senate Transportation Committee
(H) RES: House Resources Committee
(S) RES: Senate Resources Committee
(H) MLV: Military and Veterans' Affairs
(H) EDT: Economic Development, Trade & Tourism Committee
(H) FSH: Fisheries

Back to top

Note: Green text indicates activity in the last seven days.


Bill updates are current as of March 13, 2014, at 1:00 PM.

Bill Watch: Drugs

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE 

STATUS

DATE

HB 53 Consultation for Opiate Prescription 

Heard and held in (H) HSS 

03/26/13

HB 90 Vitamin D Supplements 

Heard and held in (H) HSS 

02/06/14

HB 178 Reclassifying Certain Drug Offenses 

Heard and held in (H) JUD

04/03/13

Heard and held in (H) L&C
02/28/14

HB 324 Controlled Subst. Prescription Database 

Heard and held in (H) HSS

03/04/14

HB 362 Synthetic Drugs 

Referred to (H) JUD

02/26/14

HB 369 Immunity for Drug Related Offense 

Referred to (H) JUD

02/26/14

HB 370 AWCB Controlled Substance Prescriptions
Referred to (H) L&C
03/03/14

SB 162 Hydrocodone Prescription By Optometrists 

Moved out of (S) RLS

02/24/14

SB 56 Reclassifying Certain Drug Offenses 

Heard and held in (H) FIN

04/13/13

SB 66 Imitation Controlled Substance 

Referred to (S) FIN 

03/12/14

SB 173 Synthetic Drugs
Heard and held in (S) JUD
03/05/14

SB 186 Controlled Substances Advisory Committee 

Moved out of (S) JUD  

03/12/14


Back to top

 

Bill Watch: Health Professional Workforce and Education

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

HB 6 Pharmacy Audits 

Referred to (H) FIN and L&C

01/16/13

HB 7 Practice of Naturopathy 

Referred to (H) HSS and L&C

01/16/13

HB 43 University Institutes of Law and Medicine 

Referred to (H) EDC and FIN

01/16/13

HB 44 Advance Health Care Directives Registry 

Heard and held in (H) HSS

02/14/13

HB 160 Licensing of Athletic Trainers 

Referred to (H) L&C and FIN

03/11/13

Referred to (H) RLS
03/05/14

HB 311 Direct-Entry Midwives

Referred to (H) L&C
02/19/14

SB 8 Pharmacy Audits 

Heard and held in (S) L&C

04/03/13

SB 80 Out-of-State Physician Licensing 

Referred to (S) FIN  

02/21/14
Scheduled but not heard in (S) L&C on 02/27/14
02/27/14
SB 156 Direct-Entry Midwives

Scheduled to be heard in (S) L&C on 03/18/14 at 1:30 PM in Beltz 105 (TSBldg)

03/13/14


 Back to top 

 

Bill Watch: Medical Assistance and Health Insurance

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

Heard and held in (H) L&C
03/20/13

HB 124 Public Retiree Med. Benefits: Dependents 

Referred to (H) STA and FIN

02/15/13

HB 134 Medicaid Payment for Mediset Prescription 

Heard and held in (H) HSS  

03/13/14

HB 173 Restrict Medicaid Payment for Abortions 

Heard and held in (H) FIN

02/25/14

HB 191 Long-Term Care Insurer Competition 

Referred to (H) L&C

03/28/13

HB 196 School District Employee Health Insurance 

Heard and held in (H) L&C

04/08/13

HB 203 Reimbursement of Health Insurance Claims

Scheduled to be heard in (H) L&C on 03/14/14 at 3:15 PM in Barnes 124

04/10/13

Referred to (H) HSS
01/30/14

HB 300 Air Ambulance Services 

Heard and held in (H) L&C  

02/21/14

HB 356 Advisory Committee on Wellness 

Referred to (H) HSS

02/26/14

HCR 8 Expand Medicaid Under Affordable Care Act

Referred to (H) HSS

03/20/13

HJR 14 Delay Implementing Affordable Health Care Act

Returned to (S) RLS

04/14/13

SB 30 Teachers & Pub Employee Retirement Plans 

Scheduled but not heard in (S) FIN

04/02/13

SB 49 Restrict Medicaid Payment for Abortions 

Referred to (H) RLS

02/28/14

SB 90 School District Employee Health Insurance

Heard and held in (S) FIN

04/12/13

Referred to (S) HSS
04/12/13

SB 150 Expand Medicaid Coverage

Referred to (S) HSS
01/31/14
SB 159 Air Ambulance Services
Referred to (H) L&C

03/03/14

SB 165 PERS Credit for Military Service 

Referred to (S) L&C

02/07/14

SJR 4 Military Pensions 

Referred to (S) CRA and STA

01/23/13

 

 Back to top 

 
Bill Watch: Mental Health Issues

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

Heard and held in (H) EDC
02/12/14
Heard and held in (H) HSS
03/11/14
Moved out of (H) FIN
03/12/14

HB 313 Mitigating Factor: Combat-Related PTSD 

Heard and held in (H) MLV
02/19/14

HB 355 Mental Health First Aid Training 

Referred to (H) HSS

02/26/14

HB 366 Involuntary Commitment 

Referred to (H) JUD

03/12/14

SB 20 Approp: Mental Health Budget

Heard in (S) FIN  

01/31/13

SB 39 Statutory Refs to Mental Retardation

Heard and held in (S) HSS

02/11/13

Heard and held in (S) FIN
01/30/14

SB 204 Student Restraint, Seclusion, Psyc Drugs 

Referred to (S) EDU

02/24/14

 

Back to top 

 

Bill Watch: State Boards and Licenses

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

Moved out of (H) FIN
03/13/14

Moved out of (H) FIN    

03/13/14

Moved out of (H) FIN

03/13/14

Moved out of (H) FIN

03/13/14
Referred to (S) FIN
02/19/14

HB 323 Licensing Radiologic Technologists  

Referred to (H) L&C

02/21/14

HB 328 Board/Licensing of Massage Therapists 

Heard and held in (H) L&C  

03/10/14

HB 361 Licensing of Behavior Analysts 

Referred to (H) HSS

02/26/14

Moved out of (H) FIN
03/06/14
Heard and held in (S) FIN
02/11/14

SB 166 Board of Nursing; Nurses 

Moved out of (S) L&C

03/13/14

SB 188 Board/Licensing of Massage Therapists 

Referred to (S) L&C

02/21/14

SCR 1 State Food Resource Development Group

Referred to (S) RLS

03/13/13


 

Back to top  

 

Bill Watch: Family Health Issues

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

HB 96 Chemicals in Children's Products

Scheduled but not heard in (H) L&C

04/08/13

HB 139 Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Bill reprinted 

01/27/14

HB 184 Newborn Screening for Heart Defects 

Scheduled in (H) HSS, meeting canceled

04/09/13

Referred to (S) L&C
02/26/14
Referred to (H) L&C
01/21/14
Referred to (H) HSS
01/21/14
Referred to (H) RLS
03/12/14
Referred to (H) HSS
01/21/14
Scheduled to be heard in (S) HSS on 03/14/14 at 1:30 PM in Butrovich 205
03/12/14
Referred to (H) EDC
01/27/14

HB 348 High-Risk Chemicals for Child Exposure 

Referred to (H) L&C

02/26/14

HB 374 Statewide Immunization Program
Referred to (H) HSS
03/13/14
HCR 18 Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative
Heard and held in (H) HSS
03/13/14

HCR 21 Child Abuse Prevention Month 

Referred to (H) HSS

02/26/14

HJR 29 Social Security Disability/SSI Appeals 

Referred to (H) HSS

02/26/14

SB 6 Funding for School Meals

Moved out of (S) EDC

04/05/13

Returned to (S) RLS
04/02/13
Referred to (S) HSS
01/22/14
Referred to (S) L&C
01/22/14
Heard and held in (S) HSS
02/24/14
Referred to (S) HSS
01/29/14

SB 151 High-Risk Chemicals for Child Exposure

Referred to (S) JUD 

02/24/14

SB 163 Employment of Persons with Disabilities 

Heard and held in (S) L&C

02/12/14

SB 169 Statewide Immunization Program 

Referred to (S) RLS
03/07/14

SB 200 Wrongful Death of an Unborn Child 

Heard and held in (S) JUD  

03/10/14

SCR 13 Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders 

Referred to (S) HSS

03/03/14

SJR 20 Military Sexual Trauma 

Referred to (S) JUD

02/10/14


Back to top

 

Bill Watch: Workers' Compensation

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

HB 141 Worker's Compensation Medical Fees 

Referred to (S) L&C  

02/12/14 

HB 149 Workers' Comp for State Firefighters 

Scheduled but not heard in (H) L&C

04/08/13

Referred to (H) L&C
02/03/14

SB 35 Workers' Comp.: Coll Bargaining/Mediation 

Referred to (S) L&C

01/25/13

SB 198 Workers' Compensation Medical Fees 

Referred to (S) L&C

02/24/14


Back to top  

 

Bill Watch: Public Safety

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

HB 45 Electronic Bullying in School

Referred to (H) EDC and JUD

01/16/13

HB 54 Placement of a Child in Need of Aid

Moved out of (H) JUD 

04/10/13

HB 55 Authorize Firearms for School Personnel

Referred to (H) EDC and JUD

01/16/13

HB 73 Crimes; Victims; Child Abuse and Neglect

Heard and held in (H) FIN

04/02/13

HB 82 Sexual Assault: Probation/Parole Officer

Referred to (H) JUD and FIN

01/22/13

Heard and held in (H) STA
03/04/14
Referred to (H) EDC
01/21/14
Referred to (H) TRA
01/21/14

HB 295 PERS Credit/Injured Police & Firefighters

Referred to (H) L&C
02/03/14

HB 336 Alcohol Sales Near Schools/Church 

Referred to (H) L&C

02/24/14

HB 360 Regulation of Smoking 

Referred to (H) HSS

02/26/14

HCR 19 Supporting Efforts of Recover Alaska 

Heard and held in (H) HSS  

03/13/14

HCR 21 Child Abuse Prevention Month 

Referred to (H) HSS

02/26/14

HJR 4 Oppose Gun Control Orders & Legislation

Scheduled but not heard in (S) JUD

03/27/13

SB 11 Knives, Gravity Knives, & Switchblades 

Referred to (S) JUD

03/27/13

SB 36 Missing Vulnerable Adult Response Plan

Referred to (S) RLS

04/02/13

SB 81 Treatment Programs for DUI Offenses

Referred to (S) STA and JUD

03/18/13

SB 91 Hazing 

Moved out of (S) EDC

04/10/13

Referred to (S) FIN
03/07/14
Referred to (S) STA
01/22/14
Referred to (H) JUD
02/28/14

SB 187 Child Welfare: Confidential Information 

Scheduled to be heard in (S) JUD on 03/14/14 at 1:30 PM in Beltz 105 (TSBldg) 

03/12/14

SB 209 Regulation of Smoking 

Referred to (S) STA

02/26/14


Back to top

 

Bill Watch: Environmental Issues

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

HB 77 Land Disposals/Exchanges; Water Rights

Public testimony scheduled 03/14/14 in (S) RES

04/14/13

HB 89 Aquatic Invasive Species

Referred to (H) FIN

03/14/13

Heard and held in (H) RES
02/03/14

HB 201 Pesticides and Broadcast Chemicals

Scheduled but not heard in (H) FSH

02/13/14

Referred to (H) RES
01/21/14
Referred to (H) RES
01/21/14
Referred to (H) CRA
01/21/14
Referred to (H) RES
01/21/14
Referred to CRA
01/21/14
Referred to (H) RES
01/27/14

HB 344 Invasive Aquatic Plant Species Control 

Scheduled to be heard in (H) RES on 03/10/14; hearing canceled  

03/10/14

SB 29 Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge Permits

Heard and held in (S) FIN

02/07/13

Referred to (S) RES

02/05/14

SB 197 Naturally Occurring Asbestos 

Scheduled but not heard in (S) TRA; scheduled to be heard in (S) TRA on 03/20/14 at 1:30 PM in Butrovich 205

03/13/14


Back to top

 

Bill Watch: General Health Issues

BILL NUMBER AND SHORT TITLE

STATUS

DATE

HB 144 Biometric Information for ID

Referred to (H) STA and JUD

02/27/13

Referred to (H) STA
01/21/14
HB 226 Commission on the Status of Women
Referred to (H) STA
01/21/14
Referred to (H) L&C
01/21/14
Heard and held in (H) HSS
03/13/14
HB 251 Affordable Care Act Navigators
Referred to (H) HSS
01/21/14
Referred to (H) HSS
01/21/14
Referred to (H) L&C
03/05/14
HJR 20 Medical Device Tax
Referred to (S) STA
02/28/14

HJR 25 Vietnam Vets: Service-Related Diseases

Referred to (S) HSS
03/12/14

SCR 14 H&SS Regional Best Practice Models 

Referred to (S) RLS

03/03/14

SJR 28 Vietnam Vets: Service-Related Diseases 

Referred to (S) HSS

02/21/14


Back to top

 

Are You Interested in Learning More about Policy in Alaska?

Do you have a public policy topic you want to explore? Let us know. Alaska Center for Public Policy seeks to sponsor community-led special research projects. We may be able to provide mentoring for your project idea.

ACPP also seeks volunteers to help with organizational efforts. The following volunteer positions are available. Other ideas are also welcome.

Affordable Care Act researcher: Are you curious about what's in the new health care law? Join us to track the implementation of the ACA. Duties may include
  • Report to ACPP staff and general public on progress and changes to the law.
  • Write white papers, 3 - 5 pages in length, on aspects of the ACA of choice, in consultation with ACPP staff.
  • Attend community meetings about the ACA.
  • Update the ACPP blog and Facebook page with relevant information and promote public events.
  • Generate topic-related content for Alaska Health Policy Review (i.e., get published!).
  • Commitment: 10 hours a week.
General topics researcher: Do you need a reason to research the policy issues that matter to you? Pick a topic and start investigating! Duties may include
  • Conduct policy-related research; write articles for the ACPP blog, Facebook page, and Alaska Health Policy Review.
  • Prepare press releases.
  • Write two white papers, 3 - 5 pages in length, on policy-related topics of choice, in consultation with ACPP staff.
  • Commitment: 10 hours a week. 
Development/marketing coordinator: Do your long-term goals include being a lead researcher with several important grants under your belt? Do you have ideas for capacity building and marketing? Take the first step toward your goals as an intern at ACPP. Duties include
  • Consult with ACPP staff to research and respond to grant proposals.
  • Develop a marketing plan for ACPP.
  • Commitment: 10 hours a week.
Communications and social media coordinator: Are you an expert with fancy social media apps and technology? Do you want to use your skills to support a fun and passionate non-profit communicate the latest on hot policy topics in Alaska? Duties for this position include
  • Manage the ACPP blog and Facebook page.
  • In conjunction with ACPP staff, develop strategies to share the work of ACPP with the general public.
  • Commitment: 10 hours a week.

Do you want the skills and knowledge needed to debate the latest policy topics with your friends and colleagues? Look no further, the Alaska Center for Public Policy can help you!   

 

For more information contact Kelby Murphy, or visit ACPP and complete an application. 

 

Back to top  

 

Alaska Health Policy Calendar

This calendar of health policy and related meetings is current as of March 13, 2014.

Alaska Health Care Commission

 

When: Friday and Saturday, March 21 and 22, 2014

Where: Juneau

Other information: Teleconference services will be provided for those interested in listening to the meeting and unable to attend the Alaska Health Care Commission meeting in person. The agenda and meeting materials will be posted on the web prior to the meeting.

Contact: For more information about the Commission, contact Executive Director Deborah Erickson or by phone at 907-334-2474.

 

2014 Alaska Rural Health Conference

When: Tuesday and Wednesday, April 22 and 23, 2014
Where: Sheraton Hotel, Anchorage
Other information: At the Alaska Rural Health Conference, learn about and contribute to health care transition in your community and across Alaska. Content will focus on key policy areas: emerging care delivery models in rural settings; technology and its adoption and use in health care; insurance and payment changes and their impact; and using data effectively to inform policy. Registration will open in early 2014.
Contact information: Visit the conference website for the latest information about the agenda, key speakers, and exhibitors.

Business of Clean Energy in Alaska

When: Thursday and Friday, May 1 and 2, 2014
Where: Dena'ina Center, Anchorage
Other information: This two-day event, sponsored by Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP), features experts from across the country and the world who will talk about the economic benefits of developing renewable energy and energy efficiency in Alaska. Conference-goers have the chance to network with elected officials, utility leaders, and business executives from across the state. Registration -- with discounts for registering early -- is now open.
Contact information: Email Katie Marquette or call her at 907-929-7770, ex 14 for more information.

If you have knowledge of a health policy event that you think should be included in our calendar, please email Jacqui Yeagle. Thank you.

Back to top

Subscribe to Alaska Health Policy Review
 
The Alaska Health Policy Review is issued electronically, weekly during the regular legislative session and monthly the rest of the year. A standard individual 12-month subscription to the Alaska Health Policy Review is available for $600. Note: Current subscribers will see the change in cost reflected in their next invoice.

During the legislative session, Alaska Health Policy Review features a bill tracking section so you can stay informed about the status of health-related bills just by opening your email! Other features include interviews with health policy makers, original and reprinted health policy research, and a calendar of health policy-related events.  

Discount rates apply for multiple recipients in the same organization, legislators, and small nonprofit organizations. 
Don't miss an issue! Direct orders, comments, and inquiries to Alaska Center for Public Policy by email or by phone at 907-276-2277.


Alaska Health Policy Review Staff and Contributors

Kelby Murphy,
Proofreader
Jacqui YeagleManaging editor