How Hard Did Republicans Look To Cut The Budget? $20 Million Bragaw Extension Through University Is Still There

According to a press release I got by email Saturday,

"Senator Berta Gardner (D-Anchorage) proposed recapturing $19.3 million in funds allocated for the U-Med Access Road.

“Nine community councils from across Anchorage oppose this road.   Anchorage doesn’t want this road, Anchorage doesn’t need this road, and Alaska can’t afford this road,” stated Senator Gardner.

Senator Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage) offered an amendment to claw back $20 million allocated for the Port Mackenzie Rail extension.  This combined with suspending future obligations of over $80 million will save Alaska approximately $100 million.

“We simply cannot afford another over $100 million mega-project while we are slashing education and putting seniors and kids at risk,” said Senator Wielechowski."

The legislature is whacking school budgets. They're whacking the Alaska Marine Highway, the only 'road' that Southeast Alaska communities have, and many tourists have reservations for this summer.  Yet they have left $20 million on the table for a road the community simply does not want.   And the $20 million Wielechowski proposed to cut, not to mention the future costs these projects would require.

We really need to hear which contractors are hoping to pick up jobs to build the Bragaw extension and why they have such sway with politicians.  We know that DOWL Engineering was in charge of the citizen participation process  and despite overwhelming opposition to the road, they continued to recommend road options.  Yeah, I know, fox guarding the hen house.  We know the $20 million isn't enough to do the road right, just enough to scar the land bad enough that more money will have to be spent to make the road work.   They did get buy-in from UAA and APU and Providence, but that was a complicated and non-public process, so we don't know what kinds of deals they got for going along with the road.  I suspect Providence heads wanted the road all along, and after building the sports center, there were university boosters who wanted the road.  Which is precisely why the people who actually live around the university area should have had more weight.  And should have been allowed to sit in and listen to what the university and hospital said to DOWL. 

But the Republicans aren't hiding their bias to spending to help industry.  From the NewsMiner:

"In a six-minute hearing on the bill, the House Rules Committee extended the $10 million per year tax credit intended for the state’s remaining three refineries to the shuttered Agrium fertilizer plant in House Speaker Mike Chenault’s district. "

Some people have to scrimp, for others, it's "What budget crisis?"

Prop 1 Boils Down To: Who Do You Trust?

This truck was parked outside the Bear Tooth when I came out of the  Alaska Dispatch News and UAA sponsored debate on Prop. 1. 

It seemed to sum up the question that voters have to answer to vote on this.  Do they trust the oil companies that worked hard to pass SB 21 (that Prop. 1  would overturn)?  Or do they trust those who are saying SB 21 is a giveaway to the oil companies?

Wielechoski and Croft

Speaking for Prop 1 (to repeal SB 21 and return to ACES) were Senator Bill Wielechowski and former Senator and University Regent (when the Board hired Mark Hamilton) Chancey Croft. 

Smith and Hamilton

Opposed were Mark Hamilton,  President Emeritus of the University of Alaska and Doug Smith, CEO of Little Red Services.

It cost $15 a head to get in, but the theater was full.










The debate was moderated by Steve Johnson, speech professor and director of the amazing UAA debate program.  And much of the proceeds were to support the UAA debate program.

Even though this was probably the debate with the most well prepared presenters I walked out still scratching my head over the facts.  Wielechowki went through a history of broken oil company promises and asked why we should trust them now.  Hamilton said it wasn't about trusting the oil companies, but about trusting facts.

But what are the facts?  Both sides cite facts that support their position and both sides say no one can predict the numbers when the facts don't support them.

• Did state oil revenue go up under ACES?  Both sides agree it did.  
• Will SB 21 raise our oil production to 1 million barrels a day as the governor predicted?  Both sides agree that isn't going to happen, but the No side says SB 21 will produce more oil than ACES.
• Would a return to ACES destroy incentives to develop more oil in Alaska?  The two sides disagree strongly here.  The No folks say the high taxes when prices are high scare away oil companies and at low oil prices SB 21 brings in much more.  The Yes folks say the high taxes in ACES are paired with high tax write-offs that spur new production.  
• Did ACES cause oil companies to leave Alaska for North Dakota and other states?  The No folks make this argument strongly.  The Yes side say it wasn't the taxes but the lower costs of extracting shale oil in locations closer to markets. [I heard that in other places, they didn't actually say that tonight.
• Will ACES or SB 21 give Alaska more revenue in the future?  That's where both sides differ greatly.  It depends on whether oil prices stay above a certain level and how much production there is.  And no one can predict that.  

Doug Smith said SB 21 should be given a chance and if, in a few years, the predicted new development doesn't happen, then he will be right in front of the line to get the legislature to change the law.  But with oil companies helping to elect legislators, is that really going to happen?  However, if Prop 1 passes, I guarantee that ACES will be amended in the next session to deal with some of the tax issues when oil is at a very high price.

Other issues that came up:

The Yes side raised the ethical issue of two legislators who are highish level Conoco-Philips employees who recused themselves, but were then told they had to vote and ended up voting in favor of SB 21. Without their votes it wouldn't have passed. The No side said these were honest and honorable men and wouldn't have voted against the state's interests and that not voting disenfranchises their constituents.
The Yes side countered with:  Can you see an oil company employee going back to his Conoco-Philips bosses and saying, "I thought it through and decided against saving you $600 million a year"?
Now, I suspect that an oil company employee probably thinks that changing to SB 21 is a good idea anyway and that their constituents knew they were oil company employees when they elected them.  On the other hand, if legislators who had this kind obvious sort of conflict-of-interest were not allowed to vote on issues they had a direct vested interest in, then voters would know that if there were a lot of oil bills, then a particular candidate would not be able to vote.

Both sides agreed that ACES earned more revenue for the state than SB 21 would have in the last few years - though they didn't agree on how much more.  And they completely disagreed on what would happen in the future.  And since that depends on the price of oil and the amount of oil, we can only guess on that.


It was pointed out that the oil companies very legitimately work to maximize their profits and that bargaining with them requires state negotiators to be doing the same thing for Alaskans.  The Yes folks didn't think having a former Conoco-Phillips attorney/lobbyist act as the state's negotiator was a good sign. 

Wielechowski said that the Norwegian Fund which began in the late 1990s now has $900 billion while our Permanent Fund, begun well before, only has about $51 billion.  Smith countered that Norway continues to tax its citizens at a high rate and uses only a tiny percentage of the fund each year.  He personally didn't want to pay that kind of tax.

But I thought about that.  Since Norway is a country.  Leaving it means changing one's nationality.  Alaska is but one state in the United States and a large percentage of oil company employees either moved to Alaska from other states or commute from their home states to work in Alaska.  Having a state tax and a large fund for the future would weed out people coming to Alaska to make a quick fortune and leave from those who plan to stay.  It would also weed out people who come to Alaska to get the Permanent Fund dividend.  Personally, I'd rather have people here who plan to stay and who are interested in investing in Alaska's future.

There was more, but you get the gist.  I agree with Mark Hamilton that we should focus on facts, to the extent that we can.  The historic facts seem to say that ACES was a better deal for the state than SB 21 would have been - even if people disagree on how much better.  Looking to the future, the facts are more slippery.  It depends on a number of things:

• the future price of oil
• the amount of oil produced
• the cost of recovering Alaska oil compared to the cost of recovering oil elsewhere
• the impacts on large and small producers
• the impacts on old and new fields

In my mind, it really does boil down to Who Do You Trust?  The 'facts' are too complex for most voters to determine, and too dependent on assumptions about the factors listed above for anyone to know with certainty. 

Should the public trust the oil companies who had behind-closed-doors meetings with Gov. Murkowski to come up with PPT which crashed when the FBI found Bill Allen paying legislators to vote for the oil bill?  Who send huge profits out of the state each year?  Who were unwilling to make any promises in exchange for the huge tax cuts they got  in SB 21?  Who are spending millions to defeat SB 21?

Or should they trust those Alaskans who are working on their own time with their own money and who stand to gain no more than any other Alaskan?

There are well known and respected people on both sides.  Some of the difference in opinion can be traced to different world views - Republicans tending to trust business more than government and Democrats leaning the other way.  But the key players on the No side are oil companies, oil industry related companies, and their employees.  Their payoff from the tax cuts are immediate.  


Doug Smith said we should give it a chance (which reflects the latest oil company ads and is far different from the governor's certainty when he was pushing this in the legislature) and come back in three years if it isn't working.  I think the odds of that happening are pretty slim.  After the last round of redistricting we're likely to have strong Republican majorities at least until the next census data in 2020 and redistricting, and they're not going to repeal SB 21.  But, if Prop 1 passes, there's no doubt in my mind that ACES will be on the table for changes in Juneau next session. 


What I think everyone should agree on, is looking at what Alaska will do when the oil runs out.  We've been kicking that barrel down the road since the oil began to flow.  Both sides pointed out that our (Republican-controlled) administration and legislature have spent wildly the last couple of years.  And since we don't have $900 billion, or even $100 billion, in our Permanent Fund, we need to start thinking seriously about the future.

Untangling The Oil Tax Wars - Wednesday July 23, 2013 7:30pm Loussac

One side would have you believe that the oil companies are great corporate citizens who love Alaska, generously provide lots of jobs and funding to local organizations and would reluctantly have to leave the state if the old tax regime were to continue.

The other side would have it that the oil companies are just to profit, could care less if it comes from Alaska or Nigeria, will grab the oil at the least possible cost, protect the environment only to the extent they're forced to,  and will do whatever it takes to buy politicians to pass legislation that helps their bottom line.

As I see it, the pro-oil company faction does its best to hide that discussion by focusing the debate on whether ACES or SB 21 will more likely produce oil and revenue for Alaska.

You can hear some of the most knowledgeable speakers from each side in a debate next Wednesday, July 21 at Loussac Libray.  It's an ISER (Institute for Social and Economic Research) event.  Here's from an email I got the other day.

Invite someone who disagree with you on Prop 1 for dinner first, then the debate.

Forum On the Oil-Tax Referendum: Hear Both Sides

Sponsored by Alaska Common Ground

Co-Sponsors: Institute of Social and Economic Research, UAA 

League of Women Voters of Anchorage • League of Women Voters of Alaska

Anchorage Public Library • Alaska Integrated Media

Last year the Alaska Legislature made a controversial change in the oil production tax, which is the >state’s largest source of revenue. In the primary election scheduled for August 19, Alaskans will vote  on whether to keep or repeal the new tax system—commonly known as Senate Bill (SB) 21. Alaska Common Ground and several co-sponsors (including ISER) are holding a forum on the oil-tax referendum on Wednesday, July 23, in the Wilda Marston Theatre of Anchorage’s Loussac Library, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The forum is free and open to the public. Speaking in favor of repealing the new tax—a “yes” vote to repeal—will be Bill Wielechowski, a state senator from Anchorage, and Gregg Erickson, a long-time Alaska economist. On the opposing side, supporting the new system—a “no” vote to keep the new tax—will be Brad Keithley, an oil and gas policy consultant, and Roger Marks, a veteran petroleum economist. Gunnar Knapp, the director of ISER, will moderate the forum.

This event will differ from a number of others that have been held on this issue, because it will focus on getting each side to answer the other side's questions. Please join us to hear what both sides have to say.

When: Wednesday, July 23, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Where: Wilda Marston Theatre, Loussac Library

3600 Denali Street, Anchorage

Alaska Common Ground is a non-profit organization that works to engage Alaskans in conversations about major public policy issues facing the state.

For more information, go to www.akcommonground.org or call (907) 952-3353.

The atmosphere was quite "McCarthyistic," - I Don't Think So

It seems we're down to "Yes" or "No"; that we're down to ACES or SB 21.

That's not at all how we should be thinking about Alaska oil taxes.  ACES wasn't perfect, and SB 21 is far from perfect.  But it's just not either/or.  There is a wide range of options for tinkering with ACES that would take care of what people say is wrong with it - that it's too taxing at the high end.  But if that were the problem really, I'm guessing it would have been tinkered with already.  The real problem, as I see it, is that the oil companies, with their former attorney/lobbyist, Governor Parnell, representing the people of Alaska at the bargaining table, had enough power to get a big tax cut. 

Roger Marks is a retired state economist, who is also a friend.  When he published his article on ACES a couple of years ago, he sent me a copy, I read it carefully, and asked him questions.  Other things were going on and it just was too complicated for me to take the time I felt I needed to write about it well.  But basically, I found that his criticism of ACES seemed to boil down to the belief that when oil prices get really high ACES reduces incentives.  I asked at the time whether we couldn't leave things as they were for a while and see what happened and then make adjustments to ACES as needed.  Meanwhile we'd be getting a higher state return than with the alternatives.  I don't want to put words in Roger's mouth, but I recall that he did allow that as a viable option.

ACES can be adjusted.  It didn't need to be replaced, and certainly not with SB 21.  A yes vote on Alaska's Proposition 1 will most definitely lead to adjustments of ACES.  A no vote will most definitely give the oil companies most of what they wanted all along - back when Gov. Murkowski had private negotiations with them and tried to force the oil companies' tax bill on the legislature - events that led to an FBI investigation and a dozen or more people pleading or being convicted.

I cover this as a little historical perspective on the comments I'd like to make now on Roger Marks' Compass piece in the ADN Tuesday, entitled "History of ACES offers perspective." (At least in the print version it had that title.  Tuesday marked the day that the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Dispatch websites merged, and while I can find an online copy,  its title is different from the print version.)  Marks wrote:

As ACES was going through the Legislature in the fall of 2007, much was unclear about the extent of the scandal. By early November 2007, juries had returned guilty verdicts against two legislators charged with VECO-related corruption. There were many rumors that other legislators, and perhaps the oil companies, might get charged. For example, a published report (a blog post from a KTUU reporter) suggested that 26 total people would be indicted. The public was enraged.
That kind of talk created anxiety for a number of legislators. The atmosphere was quite “McCarthyistic,” the implication being that if you did not support a large tax increase, you were corrupt. Paranoia spread as the bill went from committee to committee, and the tax rates kept escalating. The tax structure that became the final ACES bill passed the legislature on November 15.

Let's get this straight.  What happened in Juneau in 2007 wasn't anything even close to the McCarthy period.  'McCarthyistic' is NOT a synonym for "legislators were concerned about their reelection"  and "paranoia" is a mental health condition you can read about here.  It's not an accurate description of what was spreading in Juneau.

It's true that people often exaggerate and use such terms to make their points.  But Marks is writing as an expert.  His bio on the piece describes his professional background as a petroleum economist.  He's not writing just as a private citizen.    But when he strays into political science and psychology he uses these terms - McCarthyistic and paranoia - like a talk show host.

Let's look at what PBS says about McCarthyism:

Capitalizing on those concerns, a young Senator named Joseph McCarthy made a public accusation that more than two hundred “card-carrying” communists had infiltrated the United States government. Though eventually his accusations were proven to be untrue, and he was censured by the Senate for unbecoming conduct, his zealous campaigning ushered in one of the most repressive times in 20th-century American politics. . .

Known as McCarthyism, the paranoid hunt for infiltrators was notoriously difficult on writers and entertainers, many of whom were labeled communist sympathizers and were unable to continue working. Some had their passports taken away, while others were jailed for refusing to give the names of other communists. The trials, which were well publicized, could often destroy a career with a single unsubstantiated accusation. Among those well-known artists accused of communist sympathies or called before the committee were Dashiell Hammett, Waldo Salt, Lillian Hellman, Lena Horne, Paul Robeson, Elia Kazan, Arthur Miller, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Charlie Chaplin and Group Theatre members Clifford Odets, Elia Kazan, and Stella Adler. In all, three hundred and twenty artists were blacklisted, and for many of them this meant the end of exceptional and promising careers.

In Juneau at that time, the FBI had recorded conversations in the hotel room of oil company support industry executive Bill Allen during the legislative session as he told legislators how to vote.  Juries convicted two Alaska state legislators based on tapes which showed that money was given to them for votes.  Others involved cooperated with the FBI and pled guilty without a trial.

No one held innocent people in terror, wrongfully deprived them of their livelihoods based on totally made up accusations.  If legislators were afraid that the voting public might think them corrupt, it might have had something to do with the amount of money they got from the oil industry and their votes on oil taxes, not on some totally false accusations.  Or maybe it was because they were hat carrying members of the Corrupt Bastards Club.

Comparing Juneau in 2007 with McCarthyism suggests ignorance of the facts of McCarthyism (or Juneau), a serious problem with analogies, a careless use of terms, or a combination of several or all.

When people make comparisons to Nazi Germany, there tends to be a strong pushback, even if the comparison is accurate and limited to a specific aspect of Nazi Germany, such as their propaganda machine.   I don't think my reaction here is that kind of pushback.  I just think that McCarthy was a far more significant threat to many, many more people, plus the details of the McCarthy hearings have no counterparts in what happened in Juneau.  I don't see any part of McCarthyism that fits here:

• the level of fear wasn't the same
• the people affected weren't innocent members of the public
• any danger to the Alaska legislators came from the electorate
• no tribunal was set up to persecute innocent people 
• people didn't lose jobs simply because their name was on a blacklist
• there were no false accusations that were totally made up
• those who were accused could have a fair hearing in a federal courtroom

I'm just saying that, unlike the McCarthy period, if legislators were worried about their reelection, they probably had good reason to be based on their own behavior, and the legislators were totally unlike the private citizens who lost their jobs because of McCarthy's baseless accusations.

Legislators are threatened all the time by private interests if they vote 'wrong' on an issue.  The targeting of candidates by people and groups like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, or the NRA cause a lot more election angst than any of the Alaska legislators could even remotely have felt, yet no one compares that to McCarthyism.  And they shouldn't.  In fact, when Sen. Harry Reid called the Koch brothers 'un-American,' Mother Jones editor, Daniel Schulman, responded:

You know, I think it’s a very dicey strategy by Reid. He has actually come out and called the Koch Brothers un-American. Now, that’s kind of an absurd thing to say. And it’s almost McCarthyite rhetoric.

But he very specifically linked Reid's use of the word 'un-American' here - the key word that McCarthy used and the name of his Senate committee.

Marks also writes:

ACES passed by the same three-to-one margin that PPT did a year earlier, with the legislature 80 percent the same people. The difference between PPT and ACES can be characterized as displaced VECO frenzy and vengeance.

I'm not saying here that legislators who were afraid of crossing oil company executives when they voted for PPT, a year later were not afraid of crossing voters.  I am saying that any fear of voters' wrath that caused them to vote for ACES was no more McCarthylike than was their fear of the loss of oil company support the year before.  But people take the power of the oil companies as the normal state of affairs here.

FBI surveillance was exhaustive. At the end of the day four legislators were found guilty of felonies related to the VECO scandal: 56 out of 60 were not. Most likely those four did not affect the outcome in 2006; they were not the most influential lawmakers. There was no evidence of taxpayer (oil company) culpability.

The FBI surveillance may have been exhausting but it wasn't exhaustive.  It was surveillance of one hotel room in Juneau during one legislative session and a few folks wearing wires for a short time.  No one was recording in oil company boardrooms or even oil company phones that we know of.  And, in fact, there was some evidence of "taxpayer (oil company) culpability."    There was a mention of Bill Allen making a report of how he was doing with legislative votes to an oil executive, but that didn't get followed up.

Finally, I'd note that Marks also writes:

SB 21 will bring in more revenues than PPT or the original ACES.

We keep hearing from the governor and all the others who are campaigning against Proposition 1 (the repeal of SB 21, which would have us revert to ACES), that SB 21 will generate more oil production and more revenue for the state.

On June 10  Senators Wielechowski and French challenged the governor.  They cited the state's own forecasts of lower production.  They wanted the governor to put up or shut up essentially.  Their challenge was new legislation that would require:

"If by 2018, SB 21 does not increase oil production by 1 barrel or increase revenue by $1, then ACES would be applied to oil companies retroactively."

They agreed to withdraw support for Proposition 1 if such legislation were passed.  If the governor and those supporting him were as certain that the state (and not just the oil companies) would do better under SB 21 than under ACES, they would have no trouble taking up this challenge.  And they could stop spending the millions they have dedicated to defeating Prop. 1. 


I've really focused on semantics here (the use of 'McCarthyistic') rather than substance.  That's mainly because getting into the nitty gritty of the two tax measures is very complicated.

But I'd note that both Scott Goldsmith (who recently published a report saying SB 21 was a better deal for the state than ACES) and Marks are economists whose analysis is totally focused on numbers, many provided by the oil companies, and based on assumptions about oil production and prices they can't be certain of.

In my conclusions, I'm also factoring in the history of the oil industry around the world, the redistricting that broke the bi-partisan coalition, the oil corruption trials of 2007 and 2008, and the knowledge that we (the people of Alaska, the state of Alaska, and the economists) simply do not know the actual numbers necessary to make the predictions.  And we don't know to what extent the oil companies held off investments before SB 21 passed and to what extent they're doing things on the oil fields now to improve numbers to help defeat Prop. 1.  What we do know is that they are investing a lot of money to convince the voters of Alaska to vote no.  And they've made no guarantees whatsoever about production levels or the tax revenues the state might expect to receive.  No reasonable person would risk their own money based on the lopsided availability of information and guarantees that Gov. Parnell and the legislature accepted from the oil companies.  And the people of Alaska have to wonder how well the governor, who used to come to Juneau as an oil company attorney and lobbyist, understood and represented the people of Alaska in negotiations with his former employers.  So, yes, I'm adding politics, sociology, psychology, history, and the study of power to the mix in addition to economics when I conclude that Prop. 1 should pass. 

Wielechowski/French Challenge Governor; Plastic Gyre and Kobuk at Museum - Preview Post

I rode through the light drizzle this morning to check on the press conference being held by Rep. Bill Wielechowski and Sen. Hollis French challenging the governor to stand by his claims.  It was scheduled at the Legislative Information Office which doesn't have any walls at the moment.  I thought that would make an interesting backdrop and I needed to get on my bike and get some exercise.

In this post I'll just give a preview of future posts.

Here are the two legislators at their red oil barrel.  Basically, they said the governor has been pushing SB 21 as legislation that would increase oil production and state revenues compared to the previous tax structure ACES.

Sen. French and Rep. Wielechowski showed in the charts the governor's own agencies' predictions that production and revenue will go down.

They challenged the governor to call a legislative session to pass legislation that says, "If by 2018, SB 21 does not increase oil production by 1 barrel or increase revenue by $1, then ACES would be applied to oil companies retroactively."

I'll put up more details and some video later.

Since the rain had gotten a little more serious by the time I got out of the meeting, I decided to stop at the museum and give it a chance to lighten up a bit.  I'd been wanting to see the GYRE exhibit - about the plastic continents floating in the Pacific - anyway.

WOW!  Everyone should go.  I'll put up more, but here's sneak peek.

 Scientific information of the GYRE is there, but the key is that artists have been invited to do pieces to help bring this issue home.


This "Present From The Pacific"is part of a much bigger piece by Steve McPherson.  I chose the lego pieces to highlight because it  should resonate with most people.  These are items found in the sea or washed up on beaches, packaged into gifts.



This exhibit will be here for the summer - then it travels the world.  We're the first city to see it.  Take the kids.  Don't put it off until September, you might want to go back.

And, of course, this does relate to the press conference I'd just been at, because . . .


. . .well of course, the vast majority of today's plastic comes from petroleum.

I'll have to go back and see if the museum made that connection.  I didn't see it there.

Another exhibit I almost missed because it's all by itself on the top floor is a series of photos of the Kobuk sand dunes and some explanation of how scientists today are studying the dunes to get clues about the sand dunes of Mars.

Kobuk Sand Dunes from photo at Anchorage Museum

And then I got back on my bike in something a little more than a drizzle and made my way to the bike trail which is so incredibly beautiful now, even in the rain.  Flowing down the green trail on my bike seems to cleanse me of the detritus of civilization (like the plastic gyre).

Gov's Rejection of ACA Funds Like The Religious Couple Refusing Medical Care For Their Ill Child

 NPR (and others) reported in April 2013:

A faith-healing Philadelphia couple on probation after they refused to seek medical care for a son who later died has now lost a second child.

Instead of taking $2.9 billion in federal aid to expand medicaid (with a cost of about $250 million to the state over seven years) and taking about 20,000 Alaskans off the uninsured list, our governor instead relies on the "Invisible Hand" of the free market to take care of these people.

To me that's very similar to not taking your sick kid to a doctor because you believe in God's will.

How many Alaskans will suffer and die because of his refusal to take the ACA funding?

This is not to say that the free market doesn't make a very significant contribution to US prosperity, but unregulated, it also makes a huge contribution to the massive transfer of wealth to what's been popularly called the 1% from the rest. 

I've already posted about the study that the Governor himself commissioned that said expanding medicaid would cost the state  $240 million from 2014-2020
and gain the state $2.9 billion from the Feds.    And about 20,000 fewer Alaskans would be uninsured.

Instead the Governor's ideological beliefs in the miracles of the free market, apparently, have led him to not accept the Federal ACA funding to expand Medicaid in Alaska.

I have no doubt that many people will become unnecessarily ill, miss work, even lose their jobs, and many will die prematurely because of the governor's decision.  Just like this child in Pennsylvania died because of his parent's decision to let God, not modern medicine, save their child. 

I'm reminded of this because of  a new study by Chuck Burnham, Legislative Analyst from the Alaska Legislative Research Services  requested by Sen. Senator Bill Wielechowski.  It adds to the previous studies already showing the overwhelming benefits to the state of expanding Medicaid.   Here's the summary:

Summary  

Among the provisions of  the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111 ‐ 148), or ACA, when it was enacted is a requirement that states expand Medicaid programs to cover individuals with incomes of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. 1 Pursuant to the June 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , Medicaid expansion under the ACA became optional for the states. As you know, on November 15, 2013, Governor Parnell announced his intention to reject Medicaid expansion. Although this decision will have far ‐ reaching and, to some degree, unknown impacts, we confine this report to the specific questions you raised.

Mortality

Although we located no Alaska ‐ specific research on the possible impact on mortality of rejecting Medicaid expansion, a significant body of research shows that health insurance improves access to medical care and outcomes related to a wide range of serious illnesses and disease. Recently published research specifically on Medicaid expansion in other states suggests that rates of mortality decrease among those who are enrolled in the program as compared to the uninsured. Due to differences among populations and Medicaid eligibility thresholds, we believe applying specific numerical finding to Alaska’s uninsured population based on these results would be improper and problematic; however, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the specific benefits found elsewhere would generally accrue to newly enrolled Medicaid participants in Alaska.

Impacts on Healthcare Facilities

The ACA requires reductions in certain payments and reimbursement rates to hospitals. These reductions are more than offset, however, by the reductions in uncompensated care and increased revenues that are projected to occur through expansion of Medicaid. Nationwide, the net effect is estimated at $2.59 in revenues for every $1 in reductions. In Alaska, hospitals expect additional revenues of roughly $60 million per year and a reduction in uncompensated care of over 85 1 Text of the ACA can be accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/f dsys/granule/PLAW ‐ 111publ148/PLAW ‐ 111publ148/content ‐ detail.html . Portions of the federal healthcare overhaul are also contained in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111 ‐ 152), http://www.gpo.go v/fdsys/pkg/PLAW ‐ 111publ152/pdf/PLAW ‐ 111publ152.pdf .  L EGISLATIVE R ESEARCH S ERVICES , LRS 14.117 J ANUARY 8, 2014 — P AGE 2 S ELECTED I MPACTS OF R EJECTING M EDICAID E XPANSION percent. However, because Alaska declined to expand Medicaid, hospitals will absorb the reductions implemented by the ACA without the offsetting benefits.

Effects on Health Insurance Premiums

Research suggests that in 2009 uncompensated care added roughly $257 to premiums per privately insured individual Alaskan, or about eight percent of total private insurance premiums. We are unable to isolate the impact of rejecting Medicaid expansion on insurance premiums; however, implementation of the ACA’s health insurance exchanges coupled with Medicaid expansion in Alaska has been projected to result in savings that could reduce the premium increases associated with cost shifting from $301 in 2014 without the ACA / Medicaid expansion to $45 with the healthcare act fully implemented.

Job Creation

One study estimates that additional Medicaid spending under the ACA would result in the creation of over 1,500 jobs in 2014 with annual increases through 2020 when 4,000 new positions are expected. In that year, these jobs could provide approximately $220 million in wages.

Federal Funding

Three studies on Medicaid expansion projected resultant additional federal funding in “mid ‐ case” enrollment scenarios at between roughly $1.1 billion and $2.9 billion in aggregate for the years 2014 to 2020. Increases in state spending in the same projections ranges from $79 million to $240 million. All three reports estimated federal to state spending ratios under expansion would be over $12 to $1

Four Alaskan Senators Point Out "Alaskans are among the least insured in the nation with 20.6 percent of our state living without health insurance" And Ask Governor What He Plans To Do About It

I reported recently that Alaska Senator Bill Wielechowski had sent a public records request to the Parnell administration requesting that the Lewin Group study of the impact of expanding Medicaid in Alaska under the Affordable Care Act be made public.  (It was completed in April.)

Today the Senator was joined by Senators Berta Gardner, Johnny Ellis, and Hollis French in a letter to the Governor asking him not only to release the report, but to get moving since the time for signing up for insurance has already begun.  Particularly, they note that Parnell's administration has abdicated any participation in the insurance exchange for Alaska, thus leaving it totally to the federal government with no Alaskan input. 

They also note Alaska's low level of health insurance coverage and a study by the Alaskan Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) that finds many benefits for Alaskans in expanding Medicaid. 


Here's the beginning of the Senators' letter:

Governor Sean Parnell
550 W. 7th
Avenue, Suite 1700
Anchorage, AK 99501
4 October 2013

Dear Governor Parnell,

Fall is upon us, and with it, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. While many provisions of the Act have yet to take effect, one of the more important changes, the health insurance marketplace, has just come online October 1st of this year. With this deadline only recently passed, we believe now is the appropriate time for your administration to address a variety of questions Alaskans have regarding the state’s role in ensuring a smooth transition into a more affordable, efficient health care system. 

We’ve heard, mostly from media sources, that the exchanges have yet to be set up and that your administration decided not to participate in any decision-making processes that would have allowed for an Alaska-specific exchange. While we question the wisdom of giving up Alaska’s ability to have an exchange specifically designed for and adaptable to Alaska’s unique needs, that decision is past, and we hope to have a more public and open discussion about expanding Medicaid in Alaska.

According to a study by The Society of Actuaries, Alaskans are among the least insured in the nation with 20.6 percent of our state living without health insurance. The study found that, should you decide to accept the Medicaid expansion, the percentage of uncovered Alaskans would drop to just over 8 percent.

It is critically important for legislators, as well as the public, to have access to the information the administration is using to make its decision with regards to the Medicaid expansion. We ask that your administration finalize the Alaska DHSS sponsored Lewin Medicaid Expansion Recommendation Report so that Alaskans can more fully understand the issues and benefits. .  . 

The whole letter is here.

I would also recommend that the Senators, if they haven't already, look at 

the study the Lewin Group did for the State of New Hampshire.  (Phase I)

It shows huge advantages for the state in expanding Medicaid, far more than the costs.  I'm not sure what New Hampshire contracted Lewin to study, but my look at the Alaska contract with Lewin caused me to believe that they were basically asked to look at what it would cost and not how the state might benefit. 

Here's the Table of Contents for Phase II (January 2013) of the study: (Note, this is Phase II)

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 1

I.  INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 11

II.  SUMMARY OF PHASE I ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 13

III.  PHASE II ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................................. 15

   A.  Impact on Other State Programs ..................................................................................15

   B.  Impact on the Uninsured ............................................................................................. 19

   C.  Impact on Providers .................................................................................................... 24

   D. Economic Impact ......................................................................................................... 37

   E.  Impact on Commercial Market ....................................................................................41

IV.  METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 46

   A.  Impact of ACA on Medicaid DSH Payments ........................................................ 46

   B.  Health Systems ............................................................................................................ 47

   C.  Federally Qualified Health Centers ..............................................................................52

   D.  Community Mental Health Centers ........................................................................55

   E.  Cost-Shifting ...................................................................................................57

   F.   Economic Impact ..........................................................................................................58

I'm sure a lot of what it contains will be duplicated in the Alaska study.  At the very least, comparing the two studies should prove interesting.  How are they the same and how are they different and why?  Because the data are different, or because the instructions are different?

Was Lewin Contracted By Alaska To Find Fault With Medicaid Expansion Under Affordable Care Act?

I posted the other day about Sen. Bill Wielechowski's unsuccessful attempts to get a copy of the Lewin Group's completed report on the impacts of Alaska expanding Medicaid under the  Affordable Care Act.  It was finished last April but, apparently in violation of the state's public access laws, the Parnell administration has not released copies of the report.

The original press release that alerted me to this, did, however, have a copy of the contract the state had with the Lewin Group.

As I read this contract, I only see them being asked to identify the potential problems, not the benefits of expanded Medicaid in Alaska.   Look for yourself:


[Sorry, the PDF was in a format that didn't allow copying text.  These are screen shots - rather than writing it all out.  You can see the original contract here.]

You can click on the images to enlarge them considerably

 

(A) through (I) ask for costs.  

(E) is particularly cynical.  It asks for the costs of people who will lower their income to become eligible.  I do know a few folks who are forced into keeping their income low to stay qualified.  One is a graduate student at UW who was paralyzed from the waist down in a motorcycle accident and has other accident related problems.  His parents are not alive.  He's pretty much on his own.  He had to turn down a job because it would put him at an income level that would make him ineligible for Medicaid and his medical expenses are huge.  The job didn't offer insurance, but would have made him ineligible.  

I also know an FAS kid who has some serious deficits  which make living a normal life difficult.  But he also has some great skills which means he can hold down a low level job, which he has done for a number of years now.  But he has to watch how much he makes or will lose his Medicaid eligibility which would end any health care.  

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe they're just trying to calculate the costs of this sort of person.  But I have a hunch they believe there are all these welfare cheats out there who love being poor so they can live on government handouts.  I know such people exist, but most people would love to have a good paying job that had health coverage.  

There's only one item in the list of deliverables - #8 - that looks for positives.  #8 is cost savings due to reduction or elimination of existing programs.


As I mentioned in the previous post on this, the Lewin Group's study on the same topic for New Hampshire lists the costs to the state of New Hampshire to be around $100 million.  BUT it then goes on to explain that New Hampshire will get about 20 times that much (about $2 billion) in Federal revenues to the state.   It also says that 22,000 fewer people in New Hampshire will UNinsured.

This Alaska contract doesn't seem to call for these positives.  It doesn't ask for how much federal money will come in or how many people will become eligible for Medicaid and sign up.  Well, that's not exactly true.  It does ask for different categories of folks who will likely sign up - but the focus of the contract is not on the benefits of more people being covered.  Rather it seems to be on the liabilities to the state of more people being covered by health care.  My sense is they see people who have Medicaid as deadbeats. 

I always try to acknowledge that I might be missing something.  I might, so if my thinking here is overlooking key points, I hope readers will point that out to me.  But from what I see of the contract, the Parnell administration was contracting for a report that would support their position against the state expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  An honest study would look at the costs AND the benefits and then determine the right policy. 

Public Records Act Says "Shall Give On Request" NOT "Shall Give When They Get Around To It"

I get press releases every day and I don't usually do anything with them, but this one appears to demonstrate a case of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services refusing to obey the law on public records. 

According to part of the press release from the Alaska Democratic Party:

"The report, prepared with nearly $80,000 in State funds by the Lewin Group for the Department of Health and Social Services, has been complete since April 12, 2013.  Several individuals and organizations have requested release of the report, including at least one news organization, but the Department has refused to release it.  This refusal violates the Alaska Public Records Act, according to attorneys with the non-partisan Legislative Legal Services Division." 

The Alaska Public Records Act is pretty clear.  Here are the guts:

AS 40.25.110. Public Records Open to Inspection and Copying; Fees.

(a) Unless specifically provided otherwise, the public records of all public agencies are open to inspection by the public under reasonable rules during regular office hours. The public officer having the custody of public records shall give on request and payment of the fee established under this section or AS 40.25.115 a certified copy of the public record.

Note:  It says:  "shall give on request."   It doesn't say, "shall give when they get around to it"

So, what are the exceptions?  Read through them.  I think you'll agree that none of these apply here.  Then read the bolded section at the end.  It repeats the message above, but instead of staying 'request' it says 'demand.'

AS 40.25.120. Public Records; Exceptions; Certified Copies.

(a) Every person has a right to inspect a public record in the state, including public records in recorders' offices, except

(1) records of vital statistics and adoption proceedings, which shall be treated in the manner required by AS 18.50;

(2) records pertaining to juveniles unless disclosure is authorized by law;

(3) medical and related public health records;

(4) records required to be kept confidential by a federal law or regulation or by state law;

(5) to the extent the records are required to be kept confidential under 20 U.S.C. 1232g and the regulations adopted under 20 U.S.C. 1232g in order to secure or retain federal assistance;

(6) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of the law enforcement records or information

(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;

(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of a suspect, defendant, victim, or witness;

(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source;

(E) would disclose confidential techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;

(F) would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or

(G) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual;

(7) names, addresses, and other information identifying a person as a participant in the Alaska Higher Education Savings Trust under AS 14.40.802 or the advance college tuition savings program under AS 14.40.803 - 14.40.817;

(8) public records containing information that would disclose or might lead to the disclosure of a component in the process used to execute or adopt an electronic signature if the disclosure would or might cause the electronic signature to cease being under the sole control of the person using it;

(9) [See delayed repeal note]. reports submitted under AS 05.25.030 concerning certain collisions, accidents, or other casualties involving boats;

(10) records or information pertaining to a plan, program, or procedures for establishing, maintaining, or restoring security in the state, or to a detailed description or evaluation of systems, facilities, or infrastructure in the state, but only to the extent that the production of the records or information

(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with the implementation or enforcement of the security plan, program, or procedures;

(B) would disclose confidential guidelines for investigations or enforcement and the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or

(C) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual or to present a real and substantial risk to the public health and welfare;

(11) the written notification regarding a proposed regulation provided under AS 24.20.105 to the Department of Law and the affected state agency and communications between the Legislative Affairs Agency, the Department of Law, and the affected state agency under AS 24.20.105.

(12) records that are

(A) proprietary, privileged, or a trade secret in accordance with AS 43.90.150 or 43.90.220(e);

(B) applications that are received under AS 43.90 until notice is published under AS 43.90.160 .

(b) Every public officer having the custody of records not included in the exceptions shall permit the inspection, and give on demand and on payment of the fees under AS 40.25.110 - 40.25.115 a certified copy of the record, and the copy shall in all cases be evidence of the original.

(c) Recorders shall permit memoranda, transcripts, and copies of the public records in their offices to be made by photography or otherwise for the purpose of examining titles to real estate described in the public records, making abstracts of title or guaranteeing or insuring the titles of the real estate, or building and maintaining title and abstract plants; and shall furnish proper and reasonable facilities to persons having lawful occasion for access to the public records for those purposes, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, in conformity to the direction of the court, as are necessary for the protection of the records and to prevent interference with the regular discharge of the duties of the recorders and their employees.

Why withhold documents?

Aside from the legally valid reasons, officials withhold information that makes them look bad.  Some examples:

• It refutes what they have told people.
• It doesn't support the position they espouse.
• It confirms what their critics have charged.
• It reveals incompetence or otherwise is embarrassing

Public records acts, in general, often have provisions that allow an agency to withhold documents while a policy is being formulated.  Section 11 above seems to be for that purpose and the link goes to the kind of information that would be exempted.  It's more about communication between the Department of Law or the Legislative Affairs Agency.

However, this is an independent report that is complete and will not change.  It's been paid for with State money.  The people have a right to see what it says.  If the Governor were really open to the best options for the people of Alaska he would share the report so it could be studied and its strengths understood and its weaknesses found. That's why the Public Records Act was written.  

I can't think of legitimate reasons for withholding such a document this long.  Yes, the agency is still working on its policy but that policy won't change this report.  

My guess is that the report doesn't support what the Governor wants to do.   [This accidentally got left out of the original post:  In 2009 The Washington Post quoted Lewin Group Vice President John Sheils

"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.

Except when they are a government that has public disclosure laws.] 

Who is the Lewin Group?

The Lewin Group, the company that did the report, is based in Falls Church, Virginia.

They tout their integrity and independence,  and they acknowledge they are owned by UnitedHealth Group:

"The value we place on accuracy, independence and objectivity is reflected in the trust our clients place in The Lewin Group. As such, The Lewin Group must safeguard its integrity, and address any appearance of conflicts that may stem from the organization’s relationship to other health care businesses owned by our parent company, OptumInsight, and its parent entity, UnitedHealth Group."

Sourcewatch writes:

Despite its corporate ownership, opponents of health care reform often cite the Lewin group as an impartial, non-partisan or independent source of information. House Rep. Eric Cantor (Virginia), has referred to it as "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee have called it an "independent research firm." Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, referred to the Lewin Group was "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country." They do not mention, however, that the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group.
The Lewin Group has a reputation as the "go to" firm for beleaguered organizations in need of reports and research to support controversial positions and issues. In one example, in 2005 the American Hospital Association hired the Lewin Group to study the causes of skyrocketing health care costs. The study results blamed increased hospital spending on the rising costs of goods, a workforce shortage and greater demand for hospital services, but did not mention health insurance company profits, stock values, shareholder returns, etc. (Aug. 29, 2005, p. 8).^[3]

So, the Parnell administration went to a firm that is endorsed by Eric Cantor, a powerful House opponent of Obamacare.  He should expect a report that's favorable to his position and have no problem releasing it.  But they've held it since April.

We can guess that the report would have been released already if it concluded that the Affordable Care Act would be a disaster for Alaska - as the Governor has claimed:  

"The state of Alaska will not pursue unlawful activity to implement a federal health care regime that has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Parnell told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, to applause, Thursday."

But what if a company endorsed by Cantor said the Affordable Care Act would be ok for Alaska?  The Parnell administration wouldn't be able to blame the company's "liberal bias.' The Lewin Group's website has a summary of a study they did on expanding Medicaid in the State of New Hampshire:

The report they did for the State of New Hampshire concluded that while there would be a modest reduction in state spending over six years if the state did not expand Medicaid, if it did it would be a huge improvement in health care access for people in New Hampshire and it would bring billions in federal revenues to the state. 

"This report provides estimates on Medicaid enrollment and costs under the option of not expanding Medicaid compared to the option of expanding the program under various program design options. We find that if the state does not expand Medicaid, it could reduce state Medicaid spending by $66 to $114 million over the 2014-2020 period. However, expanding Medicaid would (1) reduce the number of uninsured in the state by an additional 22,300 people, (2) provide subsidized coverage for low income adults in the state, who would not have access without the expansion, and (3) increase federal revenues in the state by $1.8 to $2.7 billion over the 2014-2020 period."      

 If that's not clear, it says

• if you don't expand, you'd save around $100 million BUT
• lose 20 times that much in Federal revenues and
•  cut out 22,000 uninsured people. 

Senator Bill Wielechowki's most recent request to see this report was linked in the press release.  It's dated September 25, 2013, but it also refers to previous requests for the report - one in March and one in August.  It also goes into much more legal detail than I have.  You can read it here.

Here's the Department of Health and Social Services response to his August request.

From:  Hooley, Jason M (GOV) [jason.hooley@alaska.gov]

Sent:  Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:34 PM

To:  Michelle Sydeman  [Wielekowski's staff]

Subject:  Re: Request for contract re: actuarial analysis of Medicaid expansion

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your request for a copy of the contract with the firm completing the actuarial analysis of Medicaid expansion costs and effects.  A copy of the contract is attached.

Like many other states, Alaska looks to move cautiously and deliberately towards a decision on this issue. The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) has reviewed actuarial analyses of cost estimates and effects that sketch out what Medicaid could look like in expansion scenarios.

  

The report is not meant to advocate for or against a particular position, rather it will be used as one point of data as we develop our recommendation. DHSS’s actuarial study completed by the Lewin Group on April 12, 2013 entitled “An Analysis of the Impact of Medicaid Expansion in Alaska,”  is not yet available for distribution.

It will be made available once DHSS has completed its analysis and submitted its recommendations to the Governor.

Jason Hooley

|

Legislative Liaison

Office of the Commissioner

| Department of Health and Socia

l Services

3601 C Street (#902) | Anchorage, AK 99503

(o) 907.269.7806 |

(c) 907.341.7806

What about the language that says "Shall give on request?"  It's been available since April 12.  The key reasons I can imagine that it has not been released is to prevent Sen. Wielechowski from having enough time to review the data.  Or because the report is not favorable to the governor's position.  

If you go to Wielechowski's request, you'll see it spells out the specific legal reasons why the document should be released and shows why it doesn't qualify for any of the exceptions. 

It would appear that the State is illegally withholding information that the people of Alaska bought and paid for. 

Did Redistricting Board Intentionally Target Tea Party Members?

At the Sunday Redistricting Board meeting, I met a woman who had an email that had been sent out to, I think, Republican legislators from Randy Ruedrich with a:

• list of sitting Senators
• what percent of their district remained the same
• if they had to run in 2014

The woman was angry.  The Board had gerrymandered, she told me,  so that two Republican senators and two Republican representatives had to run against each other.  And a third Anchorage area Republican Senator only had 50% of her old districts while a bunch of Anchorage Democrats had 100% of their old districts.  And that Senator had to run again in 2014 and only for a two year term.

I pointed out that the Board was made up of four Republicans and one Democrat.  That didn't seem to matter - she said something about them not being real Republicans.  I also mentioned that since there are a lot more Republicans in the legislature than Democrats, so if every thing was done without bias, Republicans would be more likely to be affected than Democrats.  She seemed to have her mind made up and nothing I said made a dent. 

Rep. Tammie Wilson

Sen Fred Dyson Introducing Joe Miller 2012

But as we look at the Republicans who got pinched in these things - Tammie Wilson in Fairbanks (paired with Doug Isaacson) and Fred Dyson in Eagle River (paired with Anna Fairclough) - we see that both Wilson and Dyson supported Tea Party favorite Joe Miller in 2010. 

Cathy Giessel, the Anchorage Republican Senator who lost half her constituents and who, thus,  has to run again in 2014  and for only a two year seat is also of that far, far right Republican persuasion.  Is this all a coincidence?  The Republican Party has had a big internal fight between Tea Party activists and the traditional power brokers of the Party.  Randy Ruedrich, until recently the Chair of the Republican Party, has feuded with the Tea Party Republicans.  He was also very involved in creating the AFFER map and actually made a comment from the audience when the Board was discussing truncation and determining how to figure out the two year and four year seats.  Although audience members are not allowed to speak, they let him, took a recess, and came back with the solution he had suggested from the audience: to renumber some of the districts.  

But, in fairness, both Isaacson and Wilson are listed as from North Pole and one of the principles in redistricting is to leave political subdivisions intact.  So perhaps it was the previous redistricting that allowed two different North Pole districts that was the problem.  Also, though not as critical, pairing the two Eagle River house seats into one Senate seat makes a lot of sense.  Finally, Giessel's old Senate district included the northern Kenai House district and this time they tried to keep Kenai more intact.  But those issues didn't prevent the Board from breaking Matsu twice, even though Calista offered a map that would have kept Matsu whole.  And I'm sure if they had wanted to, they could have kept these incumbents in different districts.

Anyway, below is an adaptation of the chart from the email.  I added the letters of the current (2012 election) and new (2014 election) Senate seats and I added the last column, because the email didn't say how long the terms would be for people not running in 2014. 

Republican or D (current - new District)	Kept of 2012 District	Status	Next Term
Kelly  (B-A)	97.6%	running 4 yr seat
Coghill (A-B)	77.0%	not running	2 years
Bishop (C-C)	46.8%	running 4 yr seat
Huggins (E-D)	96.9%	not running	2 years
Dunleavy (D-E)	52.0%	running 4 yr seat
Open (M-F)	49.3%	running 2 yr seat
Fairclough (M-G), Dyson (F-F)	50.1%	running 4 yr seat
D-Wielechowski (G-H)	100%	not running	2 years
D-Gardner (H-I)	100%	running 4 yr seat
D-Ellis (I-J)	100%	not running	2 years
D-French (J-K)	100%	running 4 yr seat
McGuire (K-L)	100%	not running	4 years
Meyer (L-M)	100%	running 4 yr seat
Giessel (N-N)	50.1%	running 2 yr seat
Micciche (N-O)	50.3%	running 4 yr seat
Stevens (R-P)	51.3%	running 2 yr seat
D - Egan (P-Q)	92.7%	running 4 yr seat
Stedman (Q-R)	90.7%	not running
D - Hoffman (S-S)	54.3%	running 4 yr seat
D - Olsen (T-T)	80.3%	running 2 yr seat

Some background for people who haven't been keeping track of these things:

Senators have four year terms.  The terms are staggered so that ten senators run in one election and ten in the next.  That way there are always at least ten Senators who aren't brand new.

If a new Senate district is changed so that a substantial number of people are new, the seat is truncated.  Truncation means that instead of serving out their full term (if it would not be up at the next election), their term is cut to two years and they must run in the next election.  The reasoning here is that a substantial number of people will now be represented by someone they didn't have an opportunity to vote for (or against.)

So, how many is substantial?  Last year's discussion of truncation said that any district that had more than a 10% change would be considered substantially changed.  Last year there was only one district that was less then 10% - Juneau - and the next was 65%.  This year they decided that the cut off would be 70%, which allowed Sen. John Coghill (75% change) not to have to run for reelection in 2014.  (Generally, people set standards before they know who will meet them and who won't so they aren't biased by knowing how the standards will affect real people.)  In any case, Coghill was also a Joe Miller supporter, so that would suggest that they weren't necessarily after Tea Party folks.

The gerrymandering charges this year were from Democrats.  But might it be possible the Tea Party is going to challenge the redistricting plan?  Can you charge gerrymandering when it's Republicans out to get Republicans?  (I'm not saying that happened here, just a hypothetical.)  Maybe this isn't over yet.