Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/11/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB239 | |
HB240 | |
HB241 | |
HB242 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | HB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 242 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 241 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Marital and Family Therapy; and providing for an effective date." 2:33:17 PM CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD detailed that HB 241 would extend the Board of Marital and Family Therapy for four years to June 30, 2018. There had been three recommendations from the Division of Legislative Audit regarding the board. The division believed the board was licensing and regulating the community of marital and family therapists. KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT relayed that the division had conducted an audit of the board to determine whether the board was serving the public's interest and whether the termination date should be extended. The division had determined that the board was serving the public's interest by effectively licensing and regulating marital and family therapists. The division recommended a four-year extension from June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2018. The reduced extension was primarily due to the board not fully addressing a prior audit recommendation regarding adopting regulations that benefit the public interest specifically related to distance therapy and supervision. Ms. Curtis discussed that marital and family services were not widely available to many areas of the state; therefore, distance therapy and supervision was regarded as a way to help address the need. During the audit period the board had extensively researched and discussed the topic; however, it had made little progress in moving forward out of the discussion phase. The audit recommended that the board develop a strategy to address the need for distance services. Ms. Curtis communicated that the audit also included two additional recommendations. The first recommendation was directed to the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing and addressed improvements needed in the division's case management system. Secondly, the division recommended that the Office of the Governor and the board work together to fill vacant board seats in a timely manner. 2:35:16 PM Representative Wilson asked why the board was responsible for providing the distance counseling. Ms. Curtis replied that the finding pertained to criteria used to evaluate whether the board was serving the public's interest. She explained that marital and family services were not widely available in many of the non-urban areas; however, the need existed. The issue came to light when in a review of board minutes the division had observed the significant amount of time the board had spent on the issue. The division had made the observation during the prior sunset review; however, the board had been unable to move beyond the discussion phase. Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the role of a marital therapist. 2:36:35 PM Ms. Koeneman referred to AS 08.63.900, which defined the practice of marital and family therapy as "the diagnosis and treatment of mental and emotional disorders that are referenced in the standard diagnostic nomenclature for marital and family therapy whether cognitive, effective, behavioral, or within the context of human relationships particularly marital and family systems." She remarked that marital and family therapy was for treating, coping, and helping couples. She relayed that the board was working with DOL and the Division of Legislative Audit on drafting regulations to address the need for distance therapy; however, it was determined that a statutory change was necessary in order to make the changes. The board was working on language, which would continue over the upcoming interim. Representative Wilson remarked that people choose where they live and know what services are available in their communities. She believed saying that a certain service was not provided throughout the state was overstepping what was known about an area. She remarked that the areas may be serviced by another option. She opined that if a community could afford to support the business it would be available. She believed the public need could be there even if every area of the state did not have access. She would follow up to increase her understanding of the issue. Representative Guttenberg wondered whether four years was too long to wait before a recommendation was made on distance services. Ms. Curtis answered that the four-year time frame had been settled upon because it put the board on the same sunset schedule as professional counselors, psychologists, and social work examiners; therefore, the division would have the ability to review the issue across similar boards. Representative Gara wondered why boards were being punished for not having a statute that the legislature would need to pass. He believed it was odd. He stated the fact that the legislature had not passed a statute was beyond the control of the therapists. He believed a full [eight-year] extension was in order. 2:40:24 PM Ms. Curtis paused at the term punished. She communicated that the recommendation was directed at improving the board's operations. She detailed that individuals working to become therapists were required a certain amount of supervision; they were currently unable to work towards the supervised time requirement through teletherapy or long distance. Making changes to distance services would increase the number of licensees, which would in turn address the distance therapy needs. In general the recommendation would enable the division to review the board's progress. She referred to members' comments questioning whether or not distance therapy or supervision qualified as a public need. Representative Gara agreed that the services were a good idea. He asked whether a statute change would be required to make changes related to the distance services. He contended that if a statutory change was required, the board's extension was being cut in half because of statute the legislature had not passed. He believed the issue was incongruous. Ms. Curtis answered that the recommendation was for a four- year period because the board did not move out of the discussion phase related to distance services. The movement to adopt regulation was new in response to the division's audit. Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. HB 241 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB239 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 |
HB239 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 |
HB240 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
HB240 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
HB241 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 241 |
HB241 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 241 |
HB242 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 242 |
HB242 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 242 |
DCCED CBPL Board Expenditures 2-11-14.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 HB 239 HB 240 HB 241 HB 242 HB 240 HB 241 HB 242 |