Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/14/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Spring Revenue Forecast: Powerpoint | |
| HB103 | |
| HB76 | |
| HB128 | |
| SB3 | |
| HB167 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 103
"An Act relating to the practice of optometry."
3:37:42 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 2, line 27, following "practice.":
Insert "(a)" 3
Page 2, following line 30:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) A licensee may not perform ophthalmic
surgery unless the procedure is
(1) within the scope of the licensee's
education and training from an accredited
school of optometry; and
(2) authorized by regulations adopted by the
board.
(c) In this section, "ophthalmic surgery" means
an invasive procedure in which human tissue is
cut, ablated, or otherwise penetrated by
incision, laser, or other means to treat diseases
of the human eye, alter or correct refractive
error, or alter or enhance cosmetic appearance;
"ophthalmic surgery" does not include the
procedure described under AS 08.72.273."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, SPONSOR, explained the
amendment. She decided to advance an amendment in response
to some of the concerns expressed about the potential that
optometrists might work outside of their scope of practice.
The amendment would do two things to clarify and further
codify the restrictions the original bill stated. She read
directly from the amendment (See above). She conveyed that
the definition of surgery provided in the amendment was
borrowed from Washington state law and preferred by the
ophthalmologists. They would not practice any of the items
unless they were clearly trained in them by an accredited
school of optometry. It would ensure that there would not
be fly-by-night optometry trainings offered in hotel
conference rooms that could result in unsafe care.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted it on record that if either
amendment passed there was an ophthalmic surgery
definition. The amendments were different. His
understanding was that, regardless of her definition, it
would allow optometrists to continue doing things they were
doing presently. He did not want to limit their ability to
perform procedures they were currently allowed to do. He
asked her to comment. Representative Spohnholz responded
that there were two amendments. Amendment 1 would continue
to allow optometrists to practice as they did currently. It
was her understanding Amendment 2 would not. The second
amendment would roll back some of the authorization that
optometrists had to practice. She thought a member of the
Board of Optometry was available online.
Vice-Chair Gara did not want the amendment to stop
optometrists from doing the procedures they had already
been authorized to perform. He asked if the amendment was
aimed at future things that optometrists were thinking
about doing. Representative Spohnholz responded that the
language in Amendment 1 stipulated clearly that a licensee
could not perform ophthalmic surgery unless the procedure
was within their scope of education and training. Anything
that they were currently practicing were items they had
already received training in at an optometry school. The
amendment allowed them to continue with their practices.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to get on record that the amendment
should not be interpreted in a way that would somehow erase
their ability to practice what they were already
practicing.
Co-Chair Foster relayed the list of testifiers available.
3:43:05 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about removing foreign
bodies. He wanted to make sure they would be able to
continue to perform the surgery. Representative Spohnholz
responded in the affirmative because it was within the
scope of their training and licensure.
Representative Kawasaki mentioned the 40 schools of
optometry and asked if any of them taught Lasik surgery.
Representative Spohnholz thought Lasik surgery was not
within the scope of practice for optometrists. She deferred
to the doctor online for clarification.
DR. BARNEY, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, responded that Lasik was
not taught at any optometry school in the US.
Representative Wilson commented that the definitions were
the same. She was concerned that optometrists wanted to do
surgery. She was unclear of the purpose of the amendment.
She wondered what the amendment would do to change what
optometrists could do without the amendment. Representative
Spohnholz responded that the amendment codified some things
that had been verbally expressed on the record but not
explicitly stated in statute and the original bill. She
felt the amendment might give people more comfort and
clarity that there would not be a dramatic scope of
practice change. She emphasized the importance of
specifying that education and training needed to come from
an accredited school of optometry. The amendment clarified
that drive-by-night trainings in Lasik surgery offered at
hotels by non-accredited institutions and rammed through a
board of optometry was not possible.
Representative Wilson asked what procedure optometrists
could currently perform that fit within the definition
provided in the amendment. Representative Spohnholz
deferred to Dr. Barney. Dr. Barney provided a list of
procedures optometrists could currently perform that met
the definition of surgery as written in the amendment. The
list included corneal foreign body removal, rust ring
removal, epithelial debridement, removal of corneal
filament, and draining a hidrocystoma.
Representative Wilson wondered if all of the procedures he
mentioned had been taught at an accredited school. Dr.
Barney responded affirmatively.
3:48:41 PM
Representative Wilson was trying to address concerns that
were brought to her attention via email. She understood
there was a difference between the two groups concerning
surgery. She wanted to make sure people remained safe. She
had heard in testimony that they [optometrists] did not
want to do surgery. However, they were already doing what
was considered surgery based on the definition in the
amendment. She did not understand the purpose of the
amendment. Representative Spohnholz clarified that
accreditation was done by a separate nationally recognized
body which was true for all accredited universities. The
Alaska board was not in charge of accrediting universities
that offered optometric education.
Representative Wilson thought that the board could require
all training to be from an accredited university. Under
regulation, they [optometrists] could already perform
defined services. She believed the legislation allowed
providers to go beyond the scope of their training. She
would be voting based on the testimony she heard and
received.
Co-Chair Seaton thought that regulations required training
to be obtained by an accredited institution. He added that
the board could implement the same requirement. However, he
believed the amendment clarified that the training would
have to be obtained by an accredited school of optometry.
He thought the definition of surgery was too broad, based
on feedback from the entire medical field. He provided an
example of an optometrist removing a fishhook from a
person's eyes and it being considered a surgical procedure.
He indicated he was comfortable with the amendment.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
3:52:35 PM
Representative Wilson WITHDREW Amendment 2.
Vice-Chair Gara commented that he thought the bill should
be decided with a floor vote. Therefore, he would not
object to moving the bill from committee.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed that there was one fiscal note:
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) component number 2360
in the amount of $5,100 for the drafting and implementation
of regulations.
Representative Wilson clarified that the amount would be
paid for with program receipts rather than general fund
dollars.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 103 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 103 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2 (CED).
3:54:48 PM
At EASE
3:55:31 PM
RECONVENED