House committee advances bill to raise disability pay for Alaska police and firefighters
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The Alaska House Labor and Commerce Committee reported out House Bill 210 after testimony from first responders and retirement system officials. The bill would raise occupational disability pay from 40% to 75% in later years and preserves annual re‑verification concerns for further work.
Juneau — The House Labor and Commerce Committee on Feb. 11 advanced House Bill 210, which would increase occupational disability pay for peace officers and firefighters and change parts of the re-verification and coverage structure for injured public safety employees.
Supporters told the committee the measure would address long-standing gaps for injured first responders. "HB 210 recognizes the challenging work that our public safety members are asked to do," said Justin Mack, president of the Anchorage Firefighters union, who testified in favor of the bill as a representative of the Alaska Professional Firefighters.
At issue is a proposed change in benefit calculations and the frequency and duration of medical re-examinations. Under current Tier 4 rules, occupational disability replaces roughly 40% of an employee’s prior 12 months’ pay; HB 210 would increase the figure in later years to 75%. Michael O'Connor, a former Anchorage Police Department officer who separated on disability in 2022, told the committee that many injured employees go on FMLA or workers’ compensation and receive significantly reduced pay before separation and urged the panel to consider using a "high-3" average or guaranteeing a stable lifetime benefit for those permanently disabled.
Several testifiers described the burden and uncertainty of annual re-verification. "The reapplication every year causes undue stress and financial uncertainty," O'Connor said, urging less frequent verification or mechanics that make disability income a verifiable, stable source for mortgage and loan underwriting. Former troopers and firefighters testified about the practical effects in rural postings, high COBRA costs and cases where disability benefits stopped short of covering health care until normal retirement age.
Sponsor Representative Chuck Kopp said he supported the bill’s goals but cautioned the committee about unintended interplay with workers’ compensation. "The Alaska Supreme Court in Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage confirmed the presumption attaches once statutory conditions are met," Kopp said, and he urged careful work to avoid creating conflicts between the disability benefit changes and existing compensation law.
Bob Williams, chair of the Alaska Retirement Management Board, told the committee the board had not taken a position on HB 210 but offered context: defined-contribution members generally lack non‑occupational disability income and post‑employment health coverage; the ARM Board’s resolution 2025‑22 recommends adding non‑occupational coverage and health insurance for defined-contribution members with service thresholds. Williams also cited an independent actuary’s finding that the defined‑contribution trusts are strongly funded and estimated that proposed changes would require modest payroll cost increases (about 0.2 percent of payroll for PERS DC and 0.1 percent for TERS DC).
Representative Sadler had offered an amendment to reduce the frequency of required medical examinations to every other year for six years, arguing the change would reduce burdens on smaller departments and injured workers. After discussion with the sponsor and legal review concerns related to workers’ compensation law, Sadler withdrew the amendment for this stage but indicated a willingness to continue work with the sponsor.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Representative Hall moved that the committee report HB 210 (LS0938\/A) out of committee with individual recommendations and an accompanying fiscal note. The motion carried without objection and the bill was reported from committee.
Next steps: HB 210 was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee and will proceed toward further consideration and referral (the sponsor noted it will go to the finance committee).
