Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/27/2004 03:11 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 502-DISPENSING OPTICIANS: BOARD & REGULATION
Number 1940
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 502, "An Act relating to dispensing opticians and
dispensing optician apprentices."
Number 1936
MATT RUDIG, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 502 on behalf of Representative Holm,
sponsor of HB 502. He told the members that the bill clarifies
the education and training requirements to become an optician,
allows qualified opticians from other states to practice in
Alaska, and sets out requirement to fit and sell contact lenses.
This bill will increase the amount of hours necessary to become
a dispensing optician or an apprentice. Mr. Rudig explained
that a few years ago the levels of training hours were lowered
below any other state that requires training hours and this bill
would restore that requirement.
MR. RUDIG warned that the members may hear objections from
national interests such as Wal-Mart and Target who want to put
18 year olds out there and call them opticians. This bill will
ensure that the necessary training hours in Alaska is comparable
to other states. The Alaska Opticians Board brought this issue
forward, and Representative Holms believes Alaskan opticians
should regulate their own industry, he said.
Number 1844
CHAIR WILSON asked how many training hours were necessary before
there was a reduction in education and training.
MR. RUDIG replied there were 6,000 hours. He added that there
was no distinction between training for eyeglasses and contact
lenses. There was a request that there be a distinction drawn
between the number of hours for each of these. HB 502
accomplishes this, he commented.
CHAIR WILSON asked how the requirements for education and
training were reduced. What was the reasoning behind this
reduction, she questioned.
MR. RUDIG responded that it was done "under the 24-hour rule by
the National Opticians and Optometrists."
CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification that this was a nationwide
move done in Washington, D.C.
MR. RUDIG replied that he believes it was done at the state
level in various states that had optician boards. He suggested
that someone on the optician board could provide more definitive
information on that question. In response to Chair Wilson's
inquiry, Mr. Rudig said that Alaska has an opticians' board and
the Opticians Association of Alaska. The Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee has recommended that the opticians board be
sunsetted. This bill does not extend that sunset, but transfers
the burden of licensing and apprentice program authority to the
U.S. Department of Labor.
Number 1772
CHAIR WILSON asked if she understands correctly that several
years ago the Alaska Board of Opticians asked for the number of
hours of training and education be reduced, and the legislature
approved that reduction.
MR. RUDIG agreed and said that he believes the reduction in
training and education occurred two years ago.
CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification on his comment regarding
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's recommendation.
Number 1737
MR. RUDIG pointed to the audit in the members' packet [Alaska
Division of Legislative Audit, Audit Digest #08-20022-03]. In
that audit there was no recommendation with respect to the
number of hours of training needed for opticians. He offered to
get back to the committee with additional information on the
recommendations in the audit. However, he suggested that
perhaps one of the opticians who will testify could provide
further clarification.
Number 1558
RANDALL DAHL, Opticians Association of Alaska, testified in
support of HB 502 and answered questions from the members. He
told the members that he could not comment on the questions
Chair Wilson posed. Mr. Dahl said that his main point in
testifying is to express his strong support for increased
training and the apprenticeship program. He said that he has
been a licensed optician in Alaska for 22 years and one of his
main duties has been to train opticians. Under the prior
statute that preceded 2002 the apprenticeship program was not
structured. Even though there was a 6,000-hour apprentice
requirement, there was no program. The new program which will
be administered through the U.S. Department of Labor is quite
structured, he explained. There are learning objectives,
training schedules, and sign offs. Mr. Dahl said he supports
the required 6,000 hours of training as an apprentice, including
4,000 hours of training for eyeglasses and at least 2,000 hours
for contact lenses. This bill would bring the state's
requirements into alignment with the U.S. Department of Labor's
requirement for its apprenticeship program. Mr. Dahl summarized
that he believes this is a very good bill and urged the members
to pass the bill out of committee.
CHAIR WILSON asked how many hours the U.S. Department of Labor
requires for licensure as an optician.
MR. DAHL responded that the U.S. Department of Labor has a
4,000-hour requirement, but he noted that he is not sure if that
is inclusive of the spectacles and contact lenses training.
CHAIR WILSON commented that normally Alaskans like to do things
independently, separate from federal involvement. She asked why
he believes this is a good idea.
Number 1522
MR. DAHL replied that the state program was not structured even
though there was a lot of time spent administering the program.
The U.S. Department of Labor has an existing nationwide,
cohesive program already in place, he added.
Number 1475
CHRISTI BRAND, President, Optician Association of Alaska,
testified in support of HB 502 and answered questions from the
members. She told the members that opticians found themselves
in the position of having to sign up every employee as an
apprentice, even if the individual had no interest in being an
apprentice. It was required by state law. Two years ago, SB
270 provided for separate classification for optician's
assistants. In this way an employee can work in the office, but
not be classified as an apprentice unless that is their desire,
she explained. This bill would formalize the training through
the U.S. Department of Labor's program which would enable
employers to apply for grants and provide an incentive to hire
unemployed people. This program would clean things up, Ms.
Brand said. In summary, if the state does sunset the board of
opticians it is important to have this program in place, she
added.
Number 1381
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if he is correct in assuming that
there are no education requirements for an optician's assistant.
MS. BRAND replied that is correct. An optician's assistant is
more of a sales clerk who helps a customer pick out glasses or
sells glasses. An assistant would not be able to help a
customer with a prescription or provide advice regarding vision.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that there are currently
distinctions between an optician's assistant and an apprentice.
MS. BRAND responded that is correct. This bill would maintain
that distinction, she added.
Number 1314
JAMES ROTHMEYER, Chair, Board of Dispensing Opticians, Division
of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic
Development, testified in support of HB 502 and answered
questions from the members. He told the members that the
education and training of apprentices use to be left to chance.
If an apprentice got a good sponsor or employer then the
individual received the training, but many did not, he said.
This bill will provide that only those who are career bound need
to register as apprentices. All the apprentices will have the
same structured training through the U.S. Department of Labor.
This bill will also fix the problem of the expenses connected to
the board in administering the apprenticeship program, he added.
Number 1258
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification that if the Board
of Dispensing Opticians sunsets, then the apprenticeship program
will be administered by a federal regulatory program.
MR. ROTHMEYER responded that if the board sunsets there will be
no licensing or oversight of dispensing of contact lenses or
spectacles in the state, other than a doctor of optometry or
ophthalmologists.
CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Rothmeyer whether the legislative audit
recommended a sunset of the board.
MR. ROTHMEYER replied that the legislative audit had two major
concerns. The first is that the training for apprentices is too
subjective and prone to challenge by license applicants. The
bill provides that there would be a structured educational
opportunity through the U.S. Department of Labor.
CHAIR WILSON surmised that Mr. Rothmeyer is saying the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee recommended sunsetting
the Board of Dispensing Opticians.
MR. ROTHMEYER replied that the audit provided several
recommendations, one of which was sunsetting the board, and
another was to move to a voluntary certification program. Under
the voluntary plan there would not be anyone to oversee the
continuing educational components, he added.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that several boards are being
eliminated and the duties and authority are being assumed by the
Division of Occupational Licensing.
MR. ROTHMEYER responded that the Division of Occupational
Licensing is ill prepared to assume the mantel of distinguishing
a licensed opticians duties and the continuing education
required. It would be licensing in name only and no oversight
would actually be provided, he said.
Number 1088
FRANKLIN ROZAK, Secretary-Treasurer, National Association of
Optometrists and Opticians, testified on HB 502 and answered
questions from the members. Mr. Rozak told the committee
several companies that are members of the association provide
services to Alaska. He told the members that Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee has recommended that the board be sunsetted
for a variety of reasons. Mr. Rozak commented that he will
focus in on one main reason which is manpower. At the present
time, according to the Legislative Audit for FY03 there are 107
licensed opticians in Alaska. That is far below what is
necessary to effectively have a pro-competitive and pro-consumer
market for Alaskan consumers, he said. He pointed out that
FY00, FY01, and FY02 there were between 34 and 40 apprentice
opticians registered. In FY03 there are 11 registered
apprentice opticians. There is a significant drop off, he
stated. Mr. Rozak commented that some of that may be due to the
discussions of doubling the education requirements which is in
HB 502. In 2002, the legislature decreased the education
requirements for eligibility to take the exam for licensure, Mr.
Rozak commented. Two things happen when there is a shortage of
manpower, prices go up, and accessibility is diminished, he
explained. If the board is to continue then the association
would support doing whatever is necessary to increase the
availability of qualified manpower in Alaska.
Number 0997
MR. ROZAK pointed to page 19 of the report [Alaska Division of
Legislative Audit, Audit Digest #08-20022-03] which shows that
there was a total of eight complaints, only one of which was a
consumer in the previous 48 months. The balance of the
complaints came from competitors, he said.
MR. ROZAK shared that the departments of health in Kansas,
Colorado, and Minnesota have written formal reports where it was
advised against the need to license opticians. It was found
that there was no public health or protection benefit. It was
also found that adequate existing training was provided through
apprenticeships by various corporations, optometrists,
ophthalmologists, and other dispensing opticians. Mr. Rozak
told the members that these reports showed that there were
numerous means of regress for customer problems. In summary, he
said, it was found that licensing would result in an economic
disadvantage for optical consumers.
MR. ROZAK said that increasing the number of hours for
apprenticeship is not the way to increase manpower, given the
fact that the number of apprenticeships is going down. He
supports the U.S. Department of Labor's efforts to run an
apprenticeship program, but believes the department will be
hamstrung if it necessary to meet the number of hours required
in HB 502.
Number 0872
MR. RUDIG asked Mr. Rozak where he is calling from.
MR. ROZAK responded that he is calling from Marblehead, Ohio.
Number 0854
CHAIR WILSON commented that she agrees that when the
requirements are increased on an area where there is a shortage
prices usually do go up. It is a concern for rural area of
Alaska, she stated.
MR. RUDIG agreed that is a good point. He questioned why the
prices did not go down when the requirements were lowered a few
years ago. He told the committee he respects Mr. Rozak's
opinion, but believes that Alaskan opticians have a better
handle on what is happening here in Alaska.
Number 0768
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the members that the legislative
audit is recommending not to extend the board which would mean
it would terminate on June 30, 2005. He commented that there is
at least one more legislative session before this would take
effect. Representative Seaton asked Mr. Rudig if there have
been discussions about the audit because he cannot understand
the recommendation not to extend the board. He asked if
Representative Holm rejects the recommendations of the audit.
MR. RUDIG responded that the sponsor has accepted the
recommendations of the audit. This bill allows the board to
sunset because it was losing money and the opticians wished to
move to the program [offered through the U.S. Department of
Labor].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that this bill is in line with
the Legislative Audit, #08-20022-03.
MR. RUDIG replied that is correct.
CHAIR WILSON suggested that a checklist of recommendations made
by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee be provided at the
next hearing of the bill. She announced that HB 502 will be
held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|