The offices of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services are seen in Juneau on Friday, July 1, 2022. (Photo by Lisa Phu/Alaska Beacon)
A new federal law signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, enacts wide-ranging changes to public policy, including major revisions to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and federal tax laws.
According to officials, Alaska’s Medicaid funding is more stable than other states because Alaska is not subject to some of the structural changes affecting others.
Medicaid is a joint federal and state public health insurance program for people with low incomes, including children, pregnant women, older adults, and individuals with disabilities. 1 in 3 Alaskans are enrolled in Medicaid. While not all enrollees use services every year, about 40% received care in FY25. Most Medicaid enrollees in Alaska are children or adults under the age of 65.
According to current information, the State cannot reliably say how many Alaskans will be affected.
According to the Department of Health, The One Big Beautiful Bill (the bill) establishes new community engagement requirements and requires states to check Medicaid eligibility twice a year for some Medicaid enrollees.
The requirements primarily apply to the Medicaid expansion population – able bodied adults ages 19 to 65 who qualify for Medicaid based on their income.
Many Alaskans will be exempted from the new requirements, making the full impact of the changes complicated to project, they say further analysis is underway.
The bill requires that most able-bodied adults ages 19–64 enrolled through Medicaid expansion must complete 80 hours per month of work or other qualifying activities to qualify for Medicaid coverage. These activities include job training, education, or volunteer service. Individuals must show they met the requirements at least one month before applying and must meet the same requirements when they renew.
Advocates say individuals who use these programs already work, or are unable to do so, and adding qualifying work requirement paperwork could make it more difficult for recipients to apply.
According to the Department of Health, The bill includes mandatory exemptions for individuals who are:
Meet SNAP or TANF work requirements
Pregnant or within the postpartum coverage period
Alaska Native or American Indian
Have a significant physical, intellectual, or developmental disability
Are blind or disabled
Have a substance use disorder or disabling mental health condition
Have a serious or complex medical condition
Veterans with a total disability rating
Enrolled in Medicare
A parents or caregiver for a child under 14 or someone with a disability
Recently incarcerated (within 90 days)
Under age 26 and formerly in foster care
The Department of Health also notes the creation of the Rural Health Transformation Fund, a $50 billion initiative aimed at improving health care in rural communities across the country.
Funds may be used for a wide variety of activities to improve rural health care, including technology modernization, workforce development, innovative care models, and prevention measures for chronic disease and substance use disorder.
Officials say the state is “well-positioned” to secure a strong share of those dollars, helping improve access to health care and supporting long-term improvements to health outcomes in underserved areas.
Deena Bishop, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, at a news conference with Gov. Mike Dunleavy on education funding on Friday, Jan. 31, 2025. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
The state of Alaska has filed an appeal with the U.S. Department of Education after federal officials said the state failed a test measuring the differences in funding between school districts, which put more than $80.8 million in federal aid at risk.
Each year, the state receives federal funding called “impact aid” intended to compensate districts with federally owned lands, which reduce the tax base to support schools. The state can put that funding toward its own funding for schools — which the state has done in the past — but only if it can pass what’s known as a disparity test.
Federal law requires there to be no more than a 25% gap between per-student revenue in districts near the highest in funding and districts near the lowest. The department found Alaska’s disparity to be 26.88%, given the state’s complex funding formula.
But Alaska has rejected the finding, filing a formal appeal on July 14 and submitting districts’ finance data to argue their expenditures meet the standard. The test puts federal funding at stake, according to the state, which this year amounts to an estimated $80.8 million.
Deena Bishop, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, said in an interview last week that she feels good about the state’s accounting and a successful appeal.
“I’m confident that we did meet it,” Bishop said of the requirements. “If I base it off of the last appeal and how Alaska was able to share how transportation costs are truly that disparate, then I think we will do fine.”
The state failed the same disparity test in 2021, based on 2019 state data, and successfully appealed. This time, the state submitted 2024 data for evaluation.
“So a little bit of it is a huge math problem at the beginning,” Bishop said of the appeal process. “We wrapped our arms around it and figured that out, and then made an argument on … why we did it that way, given the background of those costs in Alaska.”
Bishop said Alaska sees high costs in rural school districts — especially for transportation, but also basic supplies and operating costs.
“The cost to do business is highly diverse in Alaska. If you just took the cost of a head of lettuce or a gallon of milk, you know, in Anchorage, as compared to Teller, it’s not just three times (higher in Teller). It could be up to five times. And really building and construction materials, supplies, all of those are such a significant increase due to the way you can only get in by barge or plane. So it’s just … again, understanding why we pay such large differences in different places in Alaska.”
The U.S. Department of Education notified the state that it failed the test on May 16, as first reported by KTOO. Bishop said it will take time to resolve. The 2021 appeal was resolved at the end of that fiscal year, in 2022.
“It is a long process, because I think they’re very careful at it,” she said. “You want to spend the time on it. They did spend the time to understand Alaska.”
In the meantime, the federal impact aid payments will continue to school districts.
DEED spokesperson Bryan Zadalis said by email those funds will continue through the appeal process. “School districts will continue to receive Impact Aid funding directly from US-ED through their regular processes of application approval and funding availability,” he said.
Added uncertainty for education funding
The results of the disparity tests add uncertainty for the state, and for Alaska schools.
That’s based on the state’s complex funding formula for schools – which includes federal, state and local contributions.
Alexei Painter, who directs the division of state government that analyzes the budget for the Legislature, said the Legislature passed a budget that funds whatever the state’s portion is in that funding formula. If the state passes the disparity test, it allows the state to deduct the federal impact aid dollars from the state school funding.
But if the state fails the test, Painter said, “that money doesn’t go away. It just goes directly to those districts.”
If the federal impact aid isn’t flowing through the state government, it no longer is distributed based on the state funding formula. That’s potentially a big problem for the state.
“If we fail, we can’t make that deduction,” Painter said in an interview Wednesday. “The result of that is that what the state would owe to pay the full formula would go up by $80 million.”
That’s because the state would still be required to distribute the remaining state aid according to formula, but it would have less revenue to do it.
Painter explained that the issue is further complicated by Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s budget veto of $50 million for the state’s education funding this year.
Under the original budget bill passed by the Legislature, the state had an open-ended commitment to provide school funding according to the formula. But in issuing the veto, Dunleavy crossed out the language, replacing it with a dollar amount.
“The governor vetoed that appropriation from an open-ended one to a fixed dollar amount,” Painter said. That means that if the state fails the disparity test, “that cost goes up by $80 million, and now the veto impact is $130 million.”
The Legislature is set to take a vote on whether to override Dunleavy’s veto of school funding during a special session, scheduled for Aug. 2.
Painter said that if the Legislature votes to override the veto, it would fund the education formula – including the $80.8 million.
Depending on the override vote and the appeal, the impacts to school districts could vary widely across the state, he said. The division issued a memo in June on the potential impacts.
Some districts that receive the federal impact aid because they include federal lands, like the Lower Kuskokwim or Fairbanks school districts, could see millions more. But others, like the Matanuska-Susitna or Anchorage districts could see millions less, as the state would not have enough money to fully balance its part in the funding formula.
“I would just assume the Legislature will address this in some way,” Painter said. A veto override would be one way to address it. Another way would be to provide more money for school districts after the Legislature reconvenes for its next regular session, in January, in a supplemental budget bill.
If the state loses its appeal and the Legislature doesn’t act, it could be a problem for districts.
“Otherwise there’s just a lot of uncertainty for districts,” Painter said. “Even if the department’s ultimately successful, in the meantime, it just adds uncertainty for districts.”
Sen. Löki Tobin, D-Anchorage and chair of the Senate Education Committee, said in a phone interview that she was glad the state has appealed. But she argued that the disparity is being driven by a lack of funding on the state’s part for public schools.
“That is ultimately on the shoulders of our state and also of our local communities, and with a decade of flat funding, it is clear why our school districts’ budgets are getting tighter, the deficits are getting larger,” and the disparity is growing, Tobin said.
Zadalis said no date has been set yet for a hearing on the appeal.
Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, speaks in favor of Senate Bill 39, the payday loans bill, on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, speaks in favor of Senate Bill 39, the payday loans bill, on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Anchorage Democratic Sen. Forrest Dunbar will be able to attend the Aug. 2 special session of the Alaska Legislature, he said late Tuesday in a post on Facebook.
Dunbar, a member of the National Guard, is deployed to Poland on active-duty service but received a federal waiver that will allow him to return to Alaska for legislative work.
Dunbar’s attendance is critical for lawmakers who hope to override Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s decision to veto millions of dollars in public school funding from this year’s state operating budget. Despite his attendance, the outcome remains uncertain, and Dunleavy has the option of canceling the session.
That formula is subject to the state’s annual budget process, and Dunleavy chose to only partially fund it, causing a wave of cuts to services at public schools across the state. Dunleavy had said he would not agree to the full funding increase without the Legislature adopting other policies he’s proposed.
Many legislators hoped to override that second veto in January, when the regular legislative session reconvenes, but Dunleavy called a special session for Aug. 2, forcing an early vote.
Writing on Facebook, Dunbar noted that he had previously requested to be excused from the Legislature during his National Guard service, “however, the Legislature obviously does not control the actions of the governor.”
Dunbar said he began seeking a formal waiver that would allow him to use his personal leave, pay for his own plane ticket, and return to the state for the special session.
“I am pleased to report that the commanding general to whom our unit now reports has indeed granted that request,” Dunbar wrote. “I plan to return to Alaska for the start of the special session, and I will be voting yes to override, so that our students have the funds they need to avoid catastrophic cuts to their schools.”
For weeks, it hadn’t been clear whether Dunbar would be able to obtain the rare dispensation needed to return to Alaska.
“In general, a service member on federal Title 10 mobilization orders is required to complete the full term of their deployment,” said Dana Rosso, a spokesperson for the Alaska National Guard, by email. “Any early release or temporary return would require approval through Department of Defense and U.S. Army channels and is only considered under exceptional circumstances — such as serious medical or family emergencies — while taking mission requirements and federal law into account.”
Rosso said there was no way for a state official — such as the governor or adjutant general — to issue the waiver.
“Any early release or temporary return would require approval through Department of Defense channels, typically at the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of Defense level,” he said. “These waivers are rare and only considered under extraordinary circumstances, such as serious medical issues, family emergencies, or extreme humanitarian situations.”
Dunbar’s chief of staff, Arielle Wiggin, said by email that it wasn’t clear until recently whether the commanding general of the U.S. Army’s V Corps — Lt. Gen. Charles Costanza — would grant the waiver.
Even with Dunbar’s attendance, it isn’t clear whether the governor’s budget veto will be overridden or sustained.
In a closed-door meeting shortly after issuing a proclamation that called the session, Dunleavy asked members of the House’s Republican minority caucus to stay away from the first five days of the special session, the period when the Alaska Constitution requires any override vote to take place.
The date of the special session also coincides with the National Conference of State Legislatures, which several lawmakers were expected to attend.
Other legislators were scheduled to work or attend family events during the period.
Since the governor’s announcement, many have said they will be canceling their plans in order to attend the special session. Sen. James Kaufman, R-Anchorage, will return from a trip to Vietnam, he said, and vote in favor of the override.
Some Republicans aligned with Dunleavy on the issue, including Reps. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River, and Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, have said they will follow his wishes and stay away.
Of the 46 legislators who voted this spring to override the governor’s veto of the education funding formula, all but a handful have committed to supporting a budget veto override as well.
Rep. Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River, said he will attend the special session but declined to say how he would vote on the budget issue. House Minority Leader Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, said she has not made up her mind.
Republican Reps. Julie Coulombe and David Nelson of Anchorage, and Bill Elam of Nikiski, could not be reached by phone on Wednesday.
The governor’s legislative director is keeping close track of the number of potential “yes” and “no” votes for a veto override, and it is possible that the governor could cancel the special session.
After Dunbar’s announcement, Alaska Democratic Party chair Eric Croft issued a statement calling the timing of the Dunleavy-called special session “one of Dunleavy’s many dirty tricks.”
“There is nothing Dunleavy won’t try to further his anti-education political agenda, including taking advantage of a legislator’s active commitment to the military. We’re grateful for Senator Dunbar’s service to our country’s security and Alaska. If not for his dedication to his constituency, we may have seen our persistent efforts to fund education fail yet again,” Croft said.
Asked about Croft’s comments, Dunleavy spokesperson Jeff Turner reiterated a statement that Dunleavy made on July 2, when he declared that the special session would be devoted to education reform and an executive order creating the new Alaska Department of Agriculture.
“Enacting a few necessary reforms to our public education system can elevate those children struggling in Alaska’s school system,” Dunleavy said at the time. “As elected officials we must do all we can to put the next generation on the path to a successful and prosperous future, and that starts with a solid public education.”
A copy of the Alaska Constitution is seen on Thursday, July 28, 2022. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
A copy of the Alaska Constitution is seen on Thursday, July 28, 2022. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Former state Rep. David Eastman has won his lawsuit against Gov. Mike Dunleavy and the state of Alaska, successfully challenging the governor’s decision to allow a bill to become law last year.
In the suit, Eastman — a Republican from Wasilla — challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill 189, citing a clause of the Alaska Constitution that requires lawmakers to limit bills to a single subject.
In the final hours of the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers combined several other bills into SB 189. Dunleavy and the executive branch had no role in the crafting of the bill, but because the governor allowed the bill to become law without his signature, the suit named him as a defendant.
On Tuesday, Juneau Superior Court Judge Larry Woolford signed an order declaring that the bill “was passed by the 33rd Alaska Legislature in violation of Article II, Section 13 of the Alaska Constitution and is therefore void.”
Woolford’s order also awards Eastman $20,250 in costs and attorney fees. Eastman was represented in the suit by attorney Joe Geldhof.
The legal victory has limited immediate impact because lawmakers this year re-passed all the bills that were combined into Senate Bill 189. Woolford’s order “does not address and has no effect on subsequent legislation repealing and reenacting the provisions of SB 189.”
Its biggest impact may be to constrain current and future legislators, preventing them from repeating the kinds of legislative logrolling that have become commonplace in the final days of each two-year legislative cycle.
Because bills die at the end of the legislative cycle and few bills pass both House and Senate, it has become common for lawmakers to make last-hours amendments that combine bills in an effort to speed them across the legislative finish line.
“We are pleased to have resolved the Eastman v. Dunleavy case, which challenged a bill on the grounds of violating the single subject rule,” Attorney General Treg Taylor said by email on Tuesday.
“Following the filing of the lawsuit, the Department of Law sought to provide the Legislature with an opportunity to rectify this by breaking the bill into separate pieces of legislation. Fortunately, the Legislature successfully completed their work prior to the conclusion of the case, avoiding confusion on the laws enacted,” Taylor said.
Juneau’s proposed new Civic Center, photo from capitalciviccenter.org
Juneau is actively planning and moving forward with the construction of a new Capital Civic Center, according to the project’s executive director Bob Banghart the Civic Center’s purpose is to provide Alaska’s Capital City with an essential and vibrant community cultural and conference center located within the Áak’w Village Arts and Culture District.
“‘I’ll take us back to the early 80s, when Centennial Hall was first being designed and built.” Said Banghart, “Centennial Hall was built as it is, with an idea that there would be an addition later that would support performing arts and the arts itself. So about 10 years ago, a group of people got together to say, we need to do this.”
According to Banghart, the process of designing the new Civic Center started with an independent standalone building in the vicinity of Centennial Hall, but the group kept running into opposition, “We started listening to the different, diverse voices in the community, and then pandemic hit us.” Said Banghart, “during that process, the city approached us and said, what if we were to join the two buildings together and see about looking for some synergy that could be generated there. So the city put up some money, and we did just that, we designed a facility that conjoined what we had programmatically in the standalone building with Centennial Hall.”
The project has overcome significant challenges in recent years, including high construction costs and community opposition.
“In August last year, we came up with an idea, and we shopped it around. Took a lot of evaluation of it. People were saying, we like this, we don’t like that.” Said Banghart, “predominantly, we were looking at just joining the two buildings together with a large common space that proved to be, again, non-viable because it completely eradicated all the local parking in the area, and the cost to operate was looking like it might be outside the boundaries that we were able to afford.”
The proposed facility, an addition to the existing Centennial Hall, will feature a 299-seat professional theater, expanded lobby space, a gallery, and a flexible “black box” performance area.
Banghart described the project as a strategic response to community needs. “We’ve designed a facility that not only meets current event management challenges but creates new opportunities for community gatherings,” Banghart explained.
The $60 million project has already secured significant community support, with over 140 local donors contributing more than $10,000.
In terms of timeline, Banghart says he’d love to see the Civic Center break ground in 2027, “That’s funding pending right? the city is not on the hook to do any of that, other than what they’ve already contributed, contrary to some people’s beliefs, we are on a full court press to raise the money. We’ve been having some very strong successes.” Banghart said “So we’d love to see it happen in 27, we’ll see the documents completed next year.”
Though Banghart says there’s uncertainty on the federal end of things, he’s optimistic about contributions from the Coast Guard, “they’ve been very positive. They see a lot of application for the building’s use. We’re right across the street from them.”
The City and Project, the founding nonprofit, are jointly managing the Civic Center project, sharing design phase costs.
Interested community members can follow the project’s progress at capitalciviccenter.org.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, smiles on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, as she exits the Alaska House of Representatives following her annual address to the Alaska Legislature. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, smiles on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, as she exits the Alaska House of Representatives following her annual address to the Alaska Legislature. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Speaking in an interview on Friday, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said President Donald Trump’s health care-cutting budget plan was destined to pass Congress, and her decisive vote on the package last month represented the best of a bad pair of options.
In a new analysis published Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law is estimated to add almost $3.4 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade and cause 10 million Americans to lose access to health insurance.
Murkowski said she believes that had she opposed the law, Republican senators would instead have sought a 50th vote from Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, and the result would have been deeper cuts to the federal budget, including to health care.
“What he was looking for was dramatically more cuts to Medicaid, dramatically greater reductions in spending,” Murkowski said. “And so it was no secret that the bill was going to pass. It was just a question of whether or not it was going to pass with Senator Paul’s vote, or with Senator Murkowski’s vote.”
In a column published July 3 by the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul wrote, “They could have had my vote and saved money but instead chose more spending and tax and welfare changes targeted at Alaska at the cost of the fiscal sanity of our country.”
Murkowski, echoing comments made previously by Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, who also voted for the proposal, said she was disappointed that several provisions benefiting Alaska were stricken by the Senate parliamentarian after objections from Senate Democrats.
Those included large subsidies for the state’s Medicaid program and a new split of oil revenue from federal land on the North Slope, with 90% going to the state and 10% to the federal government.
Voting on the budget package began before the parliamentarian ruled on all aspects of it.
“And so we didn’t know what was in and we didn’t know what was not in,” Murkowski said.
During the process, the 90-10 split dropped to 70-30, and state-specific benefits for Alaska disappeared.
Afterward, one provision that survived — a concession for wind and solar projects — was quashed by executive orders issued by President Trump.
Speaking to the Anchorage Daily News on Friday, Murkowski said she feels “cheated” by the maneuver.
Speaking to the Alaska Beacon, she said, “I have been criticized. I have been hung out to dry. But you know what? At the end of the day, I fought for my constituents as best I knew how, and I should never, and I will never, apologize for doing the best that I can by them.”
In her last three Alaska U.S. Senate elections, Murkowski defeated more socially conservative candidates with the support of Democrats and independents.
On social media, after her vote in favor of the Republican budget plan, many of those voters voiced their disapproval.
Asked about that disappointment, Murkowski said she understands and hears that criticism.
“I get the fact that they want me to be principled on this. But if it costs Alaskans — which it would have — then how is that doing my job for them? … At the end of the day, I couldn’t kill it, and I understand that people might not believe that, but again, what I set out to do was try to make improvements to a measure that started out in a place that would have … made it very challenging for too many Alaskans.”
Murkowski said she expects the Trump administration to propose more retroactive budget cuts akin to the one that passed last week involving foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Sullivan voted in favor of the cut; Murkowski opposed it.
Afterward, Trump budget director Russ Vought said he wants congressional Republicans to get more partisan in the budget process and that lawmakers should expect more “rescission” votes like last week’s.
Murkowski said she hopes other Republicans will join her in rejecting that call.
“I would like to think that it’s comments like that, that would galvanize us as appropriators, galvanize us as Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate,” she said. “Our oath is to the Constitution. We would say we’ve got our job to do here, and we know that in order to do it and have it be enduring, it takes 60 votes, and so we need to be more bipartisan and not more partisan. To me, it was absolutely offensive, his statement, and so arrogant.”
Nesbett Courthouse in downtown Anchorage on Oct. 7, 2024. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
A group that advocates in favor of Alaska’s nonpartisan judicial system has filed a lawsuit against Gov. Mike Dunleavy, alleging that he illegally appointed a member to the board that nominates candidates for the state’s judicial vacancies.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Anchorage Superior Court by Alaskans for Fair Courts, claims Dunleavy violated the constitution and state law when he picked John W. Wood — also named as a defendant — for a public seat on the Alaska Judicial Council.
Under the state constitution, the council consists of three non-attorneys picked by the governor and three attorneys selected by the Alaska Bar Association. In addition, whoever holds the office of chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court sits as the council’s chair.
The council accepts applications for judicial vacancies, vets those applicants for merit using nonpartisan metrics, then submits a list of nominees to the governor for final selection.
Wood was picked for a non-attorney seat on the board but is a former attorney, making him ineligible to serve, the suit alleges. In addition, the suit says Wood is ineligible because he held a “position of profit” with the state when appointed in May.
State records show Wood has served as a state contractor, receiving more than $132,000 this year. The most recent payment is listed as June 6.
Alaskans for Fair Courts also claims that Wood is ineligible because he has not been confirmed by the Legislature.
Wood was appointed during this year’s legislative session, but after lawmakers had voted on confirmations for the year, the suit claims, meaning that Wood’s appointment should not be considered a recess appointment subject to confirmation next year.
“If the governor were to appoint a (judge) nominee selected by a judicial council that is not properly constituted … the resulting legal deficiency … could subject actions taken by the new judge to challenge by litigants,” the suit claims.
It asks that the Anchorage Superior Court issue an order declaring that Wood is ineligible, and that his appointment is void.
In a written statement, Attorney General Treg Taylor said the state hasn’t yet been served with the lawsuit and can’t comment on the merits.
About the timing issue, Taylor said, “The Governor has the ability to appoint three members to the Judicial Council, and the Alaska Bar Association appoints the other three members to provide a 50/50 balance on the Council. The Council then nominates judges for the Governor’s selection with any ties on the Council being broken by the Chief Justice. It is important that the Council have this balanced perspective as it moves forward with its work. Having to wait almost a full year before seating a Governor’s appointee, as the Alaskans for Fair Courts argues, upsets that balance and doesn’t seem so fair.”
Dunleavy has seemingly violated the state constitution’s judicial nomination process before.
In 2019, he failed to appoint a judge under the timeline required by the constitution, which was part of the basis of a failed attempt to recall him from office. In 2021, he called for the council to add a nominee in addition to the three it had forwarded to him for a seat on the Supreme Court. The constitution does not allow governors to appoint someone from outside of the council’s list of nominees. He ultimately did by the constitutional deadline in that instance.
Health care costs. Stethoscope and calculator symbol for health care costs or medical insurance
By: Yereth Rosen, Alaska Beacon
Health care costs. Stethoscope and calculator symbol for health care costs or medical insurance (Photo by Valeriya, provided by Alaska Beacon and Getty Images)
Health insurers must provide speedier responses to prior authorization requests for certain medical treatments and services, under a bill that went into law on Monday without Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s signature.
The measure, Senate Bill 133, requires insurers to notify patients within 72 hours whether the requested services are authorized in cases when requests are sent by fax or by other routine means. In cases of expedited requests, the insurer must provide answers within 24 hours, under the bill.
The bill, which passed unanimously in both the Senate and House, is intended to prevent delays in patient treatment, said the main sponsor, Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski.
“Alaskans should not have to fight with their insurance company to get the care they need,” Bjorkman said in a statement. “This bill makes the process quicker, clearer, and fairer for everyone.”
The bill was officially sponsored by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, which Bjorkman chairs.
It was supported by medical organizations, including the Alaska Hospital and Healthcare Association, the Alaska State Medical Association and the Alaska Native Health Board.
It also got some qualified support from Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, the state’s largest health insurer.
In a March 25 letter to Bjorkman and members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, Premera said that the version that emerged through the committee process had “some reasonable sideboards as well as incentives that will help plans modernize and improve their prior authorization systems so that these systems optimally serve providers, patients and plans alike.”
Premera said in its letter that it requires prior authorizations for care in only about 2% of cases, unlike insurers that “have been exceedingly aggressive in this space,” requiring prior authorization for up to 20% of all claims.
The bill has some exceptions, caveats and special provisions. For example, it does not prevent insurers from requiring generic versions of medicines prescribed by providers. It also has a section giving guidelines for insurers to grant exceptions for cancer patients who are covered by “step therapy” protocols. Those protocols provide patients with the least expensive medications first before advancing to more expensive medications.
Additionally, the bill gives insurers up to 14 working days to obtain more information from providers if they determine that there is a lack of sufficient information for decisions on prior authorization requests.
The new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, except for a portion that directs the state Division of Insurance to start drafting regulations. That portion went into effect immediately.
Alaska Republican U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (Alaska Beacon file photos)
Alaska’s two U.S. senators voted differently on a bill requested by President Donald Trump to block federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting.
The cuts include $1.1 billion for public broadcasting over two years, with more than $20 million in funding for Alaska’s 27 public radio and television stations. The measure is known as a rescission package, because it claws back funding that Congress had already approved earlier this year.
The overall bill includes $9 billion in cuts, with most in foreign aid.
The bill passed 51 to 48, with Alaska’s Republican senators voted differently: U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan voted for the rescission, and U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted against.
Sullivan spokesperson Amanda Coyne sent a statement by email on Thursday repeating the senator’s position that he had warned public media, NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for years about their “biased reporting” that “would eventually jeopardize federal support for both national and local radio stations,” she said.
However, Coyne added, Sullivan has advocated for rural stations and has been working with other senators and White House officials on alternative sources of funding to keep rural stations on the air, particularly Native stations in Alaska.
“Currently, there is approximately $10 million available for tribal and Native stations in the country. Alaska has 11 Native stations. Going forward, Senator Sullivan will continue working to provide resources to support as many Alaska rural radio stations as possible. He was discussing this funding issue with a senior administration official this morning,” Coyne said.
Coyne did not respond to questions on how much would be available for Alaska stations, when, or what stations would be eligible.
Murkowski was outspoken and critical of the rescission bill, voting no.
In a statement on Thursday, she first cited a lack of clarity by the Trump administration for what programs and amounts would be rescinded, especially for global health programs. “We still lack necessary details, including which ones will be zeroed out. There is no way to determine the implications for lifesaving care and vital resources for women and children abroad,” she said.
“I also strongly oppose the rescission of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. My colleagues are targeting NPR but will wind up hurting – and, over time, closing down – local radio stations that provide essential news, alerts, and educational programming in Alaska and across the country,” she said.
Murkowski introduced an amendment on the Senate floor late Wednesday night to protect CPB funding, and it was voted down 51 to 47.
Murkowski told reporters on Thursday afternoon in an audio recording shared with the Alaska Beacon, when asked about the fate of rural stations in Alaska, that her office was also looking into funding for stations from federal tribal grants.
“Some of them, about a dozen, will be able to access these tribal grants,” she told the reporters.
“But that’s less than half of the Alaska stations. So what happens to KUCB going forward?” she said, referring to the public radio station in Unalaska that broadcast a tsunami warning and emergency evacuation order for remote Aleutian Island communities following a magnitude 7.3 earthquake the day before.
“So what we’re trying to do is kind of identify how perilously close are many of these small stations to being in a shut down mode. How much do they have to carry them forward?” she said.
In her statement, Murkowski emphasized her opposition to the rescission process, driven by the White House Office of Management and Budget, as undermining Congress’ authority.
“Finally, and most importantly, approving this package in this manner further shifts the balance of power over the federal budget to the executive branch. Congress, not OMB, holds the power of the purse under the Constitution. To the extent that certain appropriations are not necessary to comply with the laws passed by Congress, we can best address that through the annual budgeting process, where we routinely rescind funds every year.”
The rescission bill now advances back to the U.S. House, which passed an earlier version of the measure. As of Thursday evening it had not been taken up for a vote.
Elayna Cunningham, a college student interning at Koahnic Broadcast Corp., records a program on July 10, 2025, at the Anchorage, Alaska, studios of KNBA, the flagship station for National Native News. (AP Photo/Mark Thiessen)
Elayna Cunningham, a college student interning at Koahnic Broadcast Corp., records a program on July 10, 2025, at the Anchorage, Alaska, studios of KNBA, the flagship station for National Native News. (AP Photo/Mark Thiessen)
AP- Lauren Adams, general manager for KUCB public radio in Unalaska, Alaska, didn’t have much time to reflect on Congress, 4,000 miles away, stripping federal funding for public media this week. She’s been too busy working.
Sirens blared in the Aleutian Islands community Wednesday warning of a potential tsunami, with a voice over public loudspeakers urging the community’s 4,100 residents to seek higher ground immediately and tune into the radio — to Adams’ station.
At the same time in Washington, the Senate was voting on a measure that would eliminate nearly $1.1 billion that had already been appropriated for NPR and PBS — a process that didn’t end until early Thursday morning. The House is expected to complete the process in time for President Donald Trump to sign it before a Friday deadline.
Trump had called for the cuts, saying public media’s news programming was biased against him and fellow Republicans, and threatened GOP members of Congress with primary challenges if they didn’t fall in line.
Adams, her news director, a reporter and an intern kept broadcasting and updating KUCB’s social media feed until the danger passed. Then she made time for one more task — texting U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski and urging her to vote against the bill. Murkowski was one of two Republican senators, along with Susan Collins of Maine, to publicly dissent.
“I thought that it was such a telling story of why her constituents have a different relationship to public radio than maybe some other regions of the United States,” Adams said.
Hard decisions ahead for stations across the country
The federal money is appropriated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes it to NPR and PBS. Roughly 70% of the money goes directly to the 330 PBS and 246 NPR stations across the country, although that’s only a shorthand way to describe its potential impact.
The cuts are expected to weigh most heavily on smaller public media outlets away from big cities, and it’s likely some won’t survive. Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO, estimated as many as 80 NPR stations may face closure in the next year. Some stations are already fielding offers from commercial entities to buy their broadcast licenses, she said.
“Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,” said Paula Kerger, PBS president and CEO. “There is nothing more American than PBS. Despite today’s setback, we are determined to keep fighting to preserve the essential services we provide to the American public.”
The measure will cost PBS and NPR stations in Mississippi roughly $2 million, about 15% of the budget, said Royal Aills, executive director of Mississippi Public Broadcasting.
Already, Mississippi Public Broadcasting has decided to eliminate a streaming channel that airs children’s programming like “Caillou” and “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood” to the state’s youngsters 24 hours a day, said Taiwo Gaynor, the system’s chief content officer.
“This is important for families, to have access to content that they don’t have to pay for,” Gaynor said. “That is a sad thought, to think that we … might not be able to provide that for a generation of children.”
Maine’s public media system is looking at a hit of $2.5 million, or about 12% of its budget, for the next fiscal year, said Rick Schneider, president and chief executive officer of Maine Public. He said he’s not ready to identify specific cuts, but the system is preparing to reinvent itself to make certain it continues serving the state’s residents.
Maine’s rural residents rely heavily on public media for weather updates and disaster alerts, said Molly Curren Rowles, executive director of ACLU of Maine. Rowles said public media was a “lifeline” to her growing up off the grid.
Bracing for trouble at stations that take pride in music discovery
NPR’s Maher fears what the cuts might mean for the system’s journalism, not just in rural areas where local news can be hard to come by, but in telling the rest of the country what is going on there. Less funding will also mean less support for popular television and radio programming, although it’s too soon to tell which programs will be affected.
NPR stations also use millions of dollars in federal money to pay music licensing fees. Now many will have to renegotiate these deals, which could mean less music, or a more limited variety of music, on outlets where music discovery is a big part of their identity. For example, Maher estimates that some 96% of all classical music broadcast in the United States is on NPR stations. “That is essentially taking an entire art form out of public access,” she said.
The affair transcends violins and piccolos. NPR received support Thursday from the heavy metal band Gwar, whose lead singer Blothar the Berserker posted a call on social media for fans to pay attention to what is going on with public media.
Already, public media is seeing an increase in donations from reader and viewers to support its mission, and stations are actively sounding the alarm. In a plea to listeners on its website Thursday, Philadelphia’s WXPN radio pointed to its legacy in helping people discover new music. “The most important thing you can do is support WXPN and the public media system in a way that is meaningful to you,” the station urged on its website.
But donations aren’t going to fill the hole left by the loss in federal funding, Maher said. The public media leaders have already turned to lobbying Congress to restore some of the funding through the appropriations process for next year’s budget. They don’t know how much time they have; Maher said it would be inordinately costly, and perhaps prohibitive, to reopen a radio station that is forced to close.
Public media isn’t getting any help from states, either. At least five states have reduced their own outlays for public media this year, either for budget or political reasons.
Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, vetoed nearly $6 million that Florida lawmakers had set aside for public broadcasters the day before the state’s budget took effect on July 1. “Done in Florida,” DeSantis responded on social media to a Trump post calling public broadcasting a “monstrosity” that should be defunded.
Meanwhile, back in Alaska …
Back in Alaska, KMXT public radio station’s general manager, Jared Griffin, called the Senate vote a “devastating gut punch.” He estimated that the cuts would amount to 22% of KMXT’s budget. Griffin said the station’s board has already agreed on a plan to furlough staff members one day a month, and he’s taking a 50% pay cut.
The station covers Kodiak Island, home to one of the nation’s largest U.S. Coast Guard bases.
“We have to dip into our savings while we figure out what KMXT is going to look like over the next six months, Griffin said. ”At least for the next year we’ll be fine but we’re probably going to have to look at leasing space in our building to other organizations to help fill that gap.”
Unalaska resident Nikki Whittern said KUCB plays a vital role in the community during emergencies like the tsunami warning.
“They broadcast everything, and they make sure that everybody knows and everybody’s safe,” said Whittern, a bartender. She spoke while preparing to open the Norwegian Rat Saloon — known to local fishermen simply as “the Rat” — on Thursday morning.
