Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/09/2002 01:55 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 270(L&C)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Dispensing Opticians; relating to the regulation of
dispensing opticians; and providing for an effective
date."
HEATHER BRAKES, STAFF, LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
COMMITTEE testified in support of the legislation. She
observed that the legislation addresses concerns regarding
the Board of Dispensing Opticians that were brought to light
by a Legislative Budget and Audit Committee audit. Licensing
requirements were changed to allow easier access into the
profession. The legislation reduces the number of
apprenticeship training hours, adds requirements for a home
study educational course, removes a subjective practical
exam that had been a concern of auditors for a number of
years, and adds the passage of a national exam as a
requirement. Under the legislation a person who is not a
licensed dispensing optician may assist a licensed
physician, optometrist, or dispensing optician and may
perform dispensing optician tasks that have been delegated
by, and performed under the supervision of, the licensed
physician, optometrist, or dispensing optician. These
persons would not be licensed to work on their own, or be
forced out of employment. Currently they can only be
employed for six years before they are forced into licensure
or out of their employment. The Board would be extended for
two years. The legislation also addresses concerns regarding
the Board's fiscal deficit. Boards and Commissions are
supposed to be self-sufficient. The Board of Dispensing
Opticians is approximately $28 thousand dollars in deficit,
which continues to grow by about $14 thousand dollars a
year. The Division of Legislative Audit would review the
deficit issue at the next sunset review. She did not know
why the Board was collecting insufficient revenues.
Representative Bunde expressed concern that the Board would
not be self-sufficient for another three years.
Representative Harris asked why hours were decreased. Ms.
Brakes observed that it was a concern of the auditors. The
amount of apprenticeship hours was a barrier into the
profession. Hours were reduced, but educational requirements
were increased. There was not statutory authority to make
the change through regulation.
Representative John Davies observed that the federal
government requires 3,000 apprenticeship hours. Ms. Brakes
responded that 27 states do not regulate dispensing
opticians. The other 21 states have voluntary programs. Some
have a 6,000-hour requirement without the education
requirement. She noted that the current provisions are not
working.
Representative John Davies referred to page 4. He noted that
"direct" was deleted on line 16. Ms. Brakes stated that she
would not object to reinstating the word "direct".
Vice-Chair Bunde expressed concern that the Board is not
fulfilling the statutory requirement [to be fee supported.]
He questioned if there was discussion of an one-year
extension to allow fees to come in line with costs. Ms.
Brakes clarified that discussions included repeal of the
Board and retaining licensure. The abolishment of the
practical examine would eliminate the need for the Board,
since it's primary function is to administer the exam. The
costs should be reduced with the elimination of the exam.
Representative Bunde reiterated the need to cover costs and
suggested that a one-year extension would be a clear
statement of legislative intent. Ms. Brakes responded that
the sponsor would not object to a one-year extension.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
insert "direct" on page 4, lines 16 and 19 before
"supervision".
PAT DAVIDSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT,
provided information on the proposed amendment. She observed
that the word "direct" has been a concern of optometrists,
opticians and ophthalmologists. The word "direct" has led to
the interpretation that a supervisor must be physically
present. The intent was to move away from the word "direct."
Representative John Davies noted that the intent was not to
indicate that the supervisor needed to be present every
single hour, but emphasized that they would be taking direct
responsibility for the person.
Vice-Chair Bunde stated that he would not be comfortable
with "mail-order" supervision. He questioned if "regular"
supervision would be preferable.
Ms. Davidson noted that under regulation direct supervision
would indicate that the supervisor is physically present
while dispensing optician tasks are being performed. She
observed that "regular" did not carry a definition [in
statute] but that the Board could define it under
regulation.
Representative John Davies WITHDREW his amendment.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2: insert
"regular" where appropriate before "supervision".
Ms. Davidson provided the definition of supervision: (4)
"supervision" means the provision of any needed direction,
control, consultation, instruction, evaluation, and personal
inspection of work being performed.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 on page 1, line
14: delete "2004" and insert "2003".
Ms Davidson agreed that the Board should ensure that the
fees are sufficient, but pointed out that it is as much the
department's responsibility.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HCS CSSB 278 (FIN) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 270(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Community and Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|