Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/31/2000 01:48 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO 105
"An Act providing for the licensing of speech-language
pathologists; and providing for an effective date."
Vice Chair Bunde spoke in support of HB 105. The legislation
was introduced at the request of speech-language therapists.
He disclosed that he has practiced as a speech therapist,
but is not currently practicing and would not be affected by
the legislation. The legislation would require speech-
language pathologists to obtain a license to practice in
Alaska. Licensure would be dependent on certification by the
American Speech-Language Hearing Association. He explained
that there are about 25 private practitioners in Alaska that
would be affected by the legislation. Alaska is one of only
6 states that do not require this protection. Vice Chair
Bunde provided members with Amendment 1:
Page 1, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
Sec. 2. AS 08.01.065(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except as provided in (1) and (g) of this
section, the department shall establish fee levels
under (a) of this section so that the total amount of
fees collected for an occupation approximately equals
the actual regulatory costs for the occupation. The
department shall annually review each fee level to
determine whether the regulatory costs of each
occupation are approximately equal to fee collections
related to that occupation. If the review indicates
that an occupation's fee collections and regulatory
costs are not approximately equal, the department shall
calculate fee adjustments and adopt regulations under
(a) of this section to implement the revisions for the
previous year under this subsection to the office of
management and budget. If a board regulates an
occupation covered by this chapter, the department
shall consider the board's recommendations concerning
the occupation's fee levels and regulatory costs before
revising fee schedules to comply with this subsection.
In this subsection, "regulatory costs" means costs of
the department that are attributable to regulation of
an occupation plus (1) all expenses of the board that
regulates the occupation if the board regulates only
one occupation;
(2) the expenses of a board that are attributable to
the occupation if the board regulates more than one
occupation.
Sec. 3. As 08.01.065 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) Notwithstanding (c) of this section, the department
shall establish fee levels under (a) of this section so
that the total amount of fees collected by the
department for all occupations regulated under AS 08.11
approximately equals the total regulatory costs of the
department for all occupations regulated by the
department under AS 08.11. The department shall set the
fee levels for the issuance and renewal of licenses
issued under AS 08.11 so that the fee levels are the
same for all occupations regulated by the department
under AS 08.11 .
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Vice Chair Bunde noted that the fiscal note would be changed
with the adoption of the amendment.
Representative Grussendorf questioned why the profession
should be regulated. Vice Chair Bunde responded that the
level of competency is in question. He pointed out that
individuals recovering from strokes could suffer from
inappropriate services.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the legislation is proactive or
reactive. Vice Chair Bunde noted that the providers
requested the legislation. He referred to an instance where
an individual was practicing without any experience or
training in the field. The legislation is both proactive and
reactive. People who need the services need assurance that
quality service will be provided.
Co-Chair Therriault asked how the legislation would impact
current practitioners. Vice Chair Bunde observed that all of
the 25 private practitioners would met the requirements.
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
provided information regarding the legislation. The Division
of Occupational Licensing would administer the program
without a licensing board. She thought that there might be
one person in Homer practicing with a bachelor's degree that
would be affected by the legislation.
Representative Austerman asked if the legislation provided
sufficient guidelines to administer the program. Ms. Reardon
stated that the legislation is similar to the Audiology
Licensing Program, administered by the Division. The
Division would not have general regulation authority. The
Division would have to administer the program from the
direct language of the bill, except for in the temporary
licensing sections.
Representative Grussendorf asked if there have been problems
with patients or clients.
Ms. Reardon replied that she had not been approached by any
clients or patients. She noted that other states license
speech pathologists. The Division has received inquiries
regarding licensing requirements from people entering the
state.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the 25 practicing speech-
language pathologists make a small pool. He noted that the
amendment would broaden the field by adding 45 audiologists.
Ms. Reardon spoke in support of merging the two groups. She
noted that there is still a danger of volatile fees.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the audiologists were
aware that one legal action could drive the fees up
substantially. Ms. Reardon stated that the fee structure was
explained to Ms. Bunting. She acknowledged that increased
fee costs could be difficult in the case of a serious legal
action.
Vices Chair Bunde stressed that the more people in the pool
the lower the cost but the higher the risk.
Ms. Reardon noted that the Division separated audiologists
from hearing aide dealers due to their liability.
Audiologists have not been difficult to regulate. She felt
that a license denial appeal would be the most serious legal
challenge.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that speech pathologists working
for school districts were exempted. Ms. Reardon clarified
that employees of school districts are exempt. The majority
of pathologists work for school districts.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if employees under contract
would need to be licensed. Ms. Reardon affirmed that
contract pathologists would need temporary or full licenses
under the law. A temporary license would allow them to work
for 60 days.
Representative Austerman noted that the Division does not
have the authority to do regulation. Their authority would
come from statute. Ms. Reardon pointed out that "has not
engaged in conduct that is a ground for imposing
disciplinary sanctions under AS 08.11.085" would allow the
Division to make a subjective decision. The Division could
accuse a pathologist of performing incompetently in
violation of one of the activities listed on page 5 of the
legislation. The accused would have a due process right to a
hearing. Any costs would be charged against the fee. She
detailed costs that could incur.
In response to a question by Representative Austerman, Ms.
Reardon clarified that the 25 individuals that would be
affected by the legislation are not practicing in school
districts.
Co-Chair Therriault reiterated questions for Ms. Bunting.
SUSAN BUNTING, PRESIDENT, ALASKA SPEECH AND HEARING
ASSOCIATION, HOMER testified via teleconference in support
of HB 105. She stated that the Association is aware that
fees will be charged and that there is a risk that
additional costs could be incurred through litigation. She
explained that the procedure for licensure of audiologists
was started in 1986. Speech-language was not added at that
time due to other concerns. There are only two other states
that do not have requirements for speech-language
pathologists in private practice. The legislation would be
proactive.
Representative G. Davis clarified that state regulations
will not be drawn up because standards of the American
Speech-Language Association would be adopted. He noted that
adherence to the American Speech-Language Association
standards is voluntary. Vice Chair Bunde clarified that
certification in the American Speech-Language Association
voluntary. Once an individual is certified they must comply
with the standards. The legislation would make compliance
mandatory.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. Representative
G. Davis OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Vice Chair
Bunde explained that the amendment allows the Division of
Occupational Licensing to combine audiologists and speech-
language pathologists in their calculations for financial
purposes.
Ms. Reardon noted that "the department may impose by
regulation additional limitations that it determines
appropriate on a temporary license issued under this
section." The Division only has regulation writing authority
to govern temporary licenses. She explained that the
Division could not write regulation to define grounds for
sanctions under page 5. She added that fee setting is a
regulation process. The Division has the general authority
to set fees through regulation under other statutes.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Vice
Chair Bunde noted that fees would be approximately $200
hundred dollars for the first year.
In response to a question by Representative Austerman, Ms.
Reardon interpreted the Division's regulation authority
under the legislation to address only the contents of the
bill and the fees that go with the bill. Representative
Austerman expressed concern that there could be a broader
interpretation. Co-Chair Therriault agreed with a narrow
interpretation. Ms. Reardon recalled that the intent of the
House Labor and Commerce Committee was to allow the Division
to provide public notice fee regulations before the
legislation takes effect. Vice Chair Bunde maintained that
the regulation writing authority only applies to HB 105.
Representative G. Davis WITHREW his objection.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Ms.
Reardon explained that licenses would have to be renewed
every two years. National certification would have to be
demonstrated. Ms. Bunting discussed certification
requirements. Continuing education is needed to maintain
certification. Alaska does not require continuing education.
She noted that classes are not available in Alaska.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Ms.
Reardon stated that the state is not involved in maintaining
standards. Ms. Bunting explained that examinations are
offered two times a year in various places in the
continental United States. Conference attendance is
voluntary and is generated by the interests of the
membership.
Representative Foster questioned why the legislation does
not cover speech-language practitioners working in school
districts. Ms. Bunting noted that most individuals working
in schools have masters' degree. Master degrees have on
going education requirements. Ms. Reardon added that since
the Department of Education and Early Development has master
level requirements their addition to the legislation would
amount to double regulation.
In response to a question by Representative Foster, Ms.
Bunting noted that private hospitals and Native Corporations
generally pay the fee for their employees. Some of the 25 in
question would fall into this category.
Representative Austerman questioned if Amendment 1 was
discussed with audiologists. Vice Chair Bunde noted that Ms.
Bunting has carried the message to the audiologists.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Ms. Reardon discussed the fiscal note. She observed that the
fiscal cost would be $7.5 hundred dollars for the first year
and $3.7 hundred dollars for each additional year. She
explained that the fiscal note was based on actual costs of
the audiology program in FY99. More money is needed in the
first year to cover attorney fees to review regulations and
postage related to advertising.
Representative J. Davies questioned if steps have been taken
to look at lumping adjudication costs into one category. Ms.
Reardon stated that discussions have occurred but that there
is dissention among the groups.
(Tape Change, HFC 00-20, Side 2)
Ms. Reardon continued to discuss the possibility of merging
licensing groups.
Representative Foster questioned the cost of the fee. Ms.
Reardon emphasized that the fee would be $315 dollars in
combination with audiologists. There would be an initial
application fee of $150 dollars. She observed that this is a
medium level fee. She noted that fees could be increased in
the future.
Representative Grussendorf questioned the need for
regulation. He indicated that he has additional questions
regarding the legislation.
Vice Chair Bunde noted that under the current law a person
with no training could call themselves a speech and hearing
pathologist.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 105 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying amended fiscal note.
Representative J. Davies did not object, but voiced concern
with the legislation. Representative G. Davis pointed out
that the public did not request the legislation.
Representative Foster asked for clarification regarding
individuals practicing with Native nonprofit groups. Ms.
Reardon stated that they would need a license. He questioned
if there was support for the legislation in rural areas.
Vice Chair Bunde clarified that those working in public
schools would be required to have a master degree. Those in
private practice would have to have certification at the
national level. He thought that those currently practicing
in Alaska already have their certification.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 105 (FIN) was Moved from
Committee.
CSHB 105 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and a new fiscal note by the Community and
Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|