Panel questions revenue, legal and implementation details of proposed 98¢ behavioral health surcharge

House Finance spent extended time on House Bill 138, a proposal to levy a 98¢ monthly surcharge on each wireline and wireless telephone line billed in Alaska to create a designated Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund to support 988/care line operations, mobile crisis teams and crisis stabilization centers.

Sponsor Hayden Johnson introduced the bill and described its purpose: “House Bill 138 would establish a 98 monthly surcharge on each wireline and wireless telephone number and create a designated behavioral health services fund at 98¢ per line,” estimated to generate roughly $6–$8 million annually. The Department of Revenue’s Dan Stickel (control code GGWJA) said the revenue impact was initially recorded as indeterminate but the department’s independent analysis pointed toward the higher end of the sponsor’s range; he also outlined implementation costs: one additional Tax Technician 3 (about $118,300 the first year) and an estimated $500,000 capital cost to add a new surcharge tax type to the state tax system if implementation is accelerated.

Jen Carson, Director of the Division of Behavioral Health (fiscal note control code PDXZP), said the division submitted a $0 fiscal note because the Division could absorb the administrative work within existing resources. Carson described the three‑step crisis model (call, response, place to go), noted that call center capacity exists statewide but that mobile crisis and stabilization capacity remains limited in many communities, and said Medicaid billing and federal options were still being explored to expand response capacity.

Committee members asked detailed questions about how the revenue estimate was calculated, per‑payer caps for large accounts, what the surcharge would and would not be allowed to fund under federal rules, whether the statute should include guardrails or more restrictive language about allowable recipients and uses, and whether immunity provisions analogous to those in 911 statute should be included for 988 system operators. Representative Bynum and others emphasized that phone companies and federal regulators (FCC) impose constraints and audit requirements, and that those limits should shape statutory language and appropriation guardrails.

Dan Stickel agreed to pursue an updated fiscal note and additional detail on assumptions used to estimate lines and revenue. Several members urged the sponsor and staff to work with legislative legal and affected agencies to tighten statutory language on authorized uses and compliance requirements. The committee recessed and set the next meetings and agenda items before adjourning at 4:20 p.m.

No final committee vote on HB 138 occurred in this hearing; the committee’s discussion focused on fiscal assumptions, implementation timing and statutory guardrails to ensure compliance with federal requirements and the intended use of proceeds.