Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/05/2003 03:30 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 270 - PHARMACIST LICENSING CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 270, "An Act relating to the licensure of pharmacists; and providing for an effective date." Number 0100 REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as the sponsor of HB 270. She explained that basically, the Board of Pharmacy can't deny a license to an applicant with a "checkered background," such as an individual with a felony, drug conviction, or drug abuse problem. However, public safety and the pharmacy profession are both compromised in this situation. This right to deny a license was unintentionally left out of the statute when originally drafted. This legislation provides a fix by allowing the Board of Pharmacy to deny a license to an applicant with a criminal background. She informed the committee that all members involved agree with the proposed changes to this statute. She noted that the committee packet should include letters of support from the Board of Pharmacy and the Alaska Pharmaceutical Association. She concluded by urging the committee's support for HB 270. Number 0226 CINDY AUDET, Pharmacist, announced her support of the passage of HB 270. Adding the proposed language would provide the authority the Board of Pharmacy needs to protect public safety when reviewing applications. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if there was actually a case that precipitated this legislation. MS. AUDET related her belief that there was a case, although she specified that she isn't a member of the Board of Pharmacy. She related her understanding that there was confusion with regard to an application that the Board of Pharmacy felt needed to have had more questions. It wasn't clear when more questions would automatically occur and when they wouldn't. Number 0323 REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed that there was an issue that could have potentially become a serious problem, and therefore this legislation is preventative. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if, prior to the passage of HB 270, an individual could've used the application procedure fraudulently to obtain a license, although the board may have felt the individual was fraudulent. MS. AUDET answered that the way the language read it could've happened as described above, although she didn't believe such a situation has occurred. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a situation ever arose in which the Board of Pharmacy felt an applicant was fraudulent and didn't give the applicant a license, and the matter was challenged. MS. AUDET related her belief that it was the other way around. She recalled that someone pointed out that the board was being more judicious [with the review process] than the statute allowed. Number 0402 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked, "Do you know if there are any people that would become covered under ... this change of the bill, that people would be looking to ... have their license removed?" MS. AUDET pointed out that the application language for licensed pharmacists has always existed. Therefore, she said she didn't know of any threat this proposal would create for any of the current licensees. In response to Representative Gatto, Ms. Audet related her belief that the existing regulations have existed 10 years or less because the last revision was in the early 1990s. Number 0476 MARGARET SODEN, President, Board of Pharmacy, informed the committee that a couple of years of ago there was an applicant seeking licensure in Alaska and the board wanted to deny that license. However, the board discovered that it didn't really have the authority to do so. The board was lucky because the applicant had lied on the application and thus the board didn't license the applicant based on false application. After the aforementioned case, the process to add the language "deny a license" to the board's statute began. She confirmed that in the 1990s the statutes were written and that authority wasn't given to the board. Therefore, the Board of Pharmacy wants this language added. Currently, there could be a situation in which a felon or an individual with a revoked license in another state would have to be granted a license as long as the applicant was truthful on his/her application. In such a situation, the board would have to take the applicant's license through a disciplinary sanction process. Ms. Soden pointed out that the Board of Pharmacy is only requesting that it be able to deny a license of an applicant based on the same criteria under which the board can sanction a license. She highlighted that the prolonged period for disciplinary sanctions is problematic because a person could continue to have a license and practice while the disciplinary sanctions are in place. CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify, announced that public testimony was closed. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related his understanding that Ms. Soden was saying that the legislation would speed up the process of taking a license. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she understood that the language would allow the board to move more succinctly through the process of reviewing an application and informing the applicant that he/she doesn't qualify for a license in this state. However, under the [current environment] the applicant could be hired or have their own business and a lengthy process [to take the license] would ensue. CHAIR ANDERSON directed attention to page 1, line 4, and explained that the language allows the denial of a license at the onset of the application. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, in relation to the language on page 1, line 4, asked if the applicant would receive a hearing. CHAIR ANDERSON reiterated that the new language specifies that the board can initially deny an applicant or can do so after a hearing, which is the existing law. Therefore, allowing the denial at the beginning of the application process would expedite the process. MS. SODEN noted her agreement. Number 0875 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if those applicants who are denied during the initial stages would have an opportunity to appeal. MS. SODEN replied yes, and clarified that the applicant would have to show why he/she should be granted a license. She noted that the applicant would have the ability to appeal. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the statute that discusses having a hearing refers to an "applicant" as compared to an individual already holding a license. MS. SODEN answered that under the disciplinary regulations, the board can sanction the license of an individual who has already registered in this state. She clarified that the Board of Pharmacy already has the ability to sanction an individual's existing license, but doesn't have the ability to deny an applicant. Therefore, the applicant would have to receive his/her license as long as there was no falsification of the application. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned to the statutes for a hearing and asked if there is reference to an individual who has already had his/her license denied or is it just those who already have a license that the board wants to address. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if the language "applicant" would have to be added to the hearing statute as well. MS. SODEN said that the Division of Occupational Licensing regulation specialists actually developed the language. Therefore, she assumed that the board has the authority [to provide a hearing process for an applicant] without changing any other language. Number 1064 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that he didn't want to pass this and find out that an individual who has had his/her application denied has no rights for a hearing because of the lack of a statutory reference for an applicant to have a hearing. CHAIR ANDERSON said that he guessed that there is always recourse, the ability to appeal, and the possibility for a hearing. Number 1144 ROBIN PHILLIPS, Staff to Representative Dahlstrom, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that the applicant will have an appeal process while the licensee has a hearing process. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that he wanted to be sure that this legislation isn't [inadvertently] denying the ability of an applicant to have a hearing. He asked if Ms. Phillips actually reviewed [the statutes] to know that it's consistent. MS. PHILLIPS replied no. However, she explained that an applicant wouldn't have a hearing because an applicant isn't a licensee. However, the applicant can appeal the process. In a sense, the aforementioned is the applicant's hearing. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the appeal process statutes refer to an applicant. MS. SODEN related her belief that this was all covered under the Administrative Procedures [Act (APA)] for licensing regardless of the profession. CHAIR ANDERSON related his belief that this is appealable. MS. SODEN pointed out that under the Board of Pharmacy's section, AS 08.80.050 specifies that the board shall comply with the APA. In further response to Chair Anderson, Ms. Soden explained that a graduate from pharmacological school would have to have a certain number of hours internship, be a graduate from an accredited college, answer background questions, and submit a license application. The Board of Pharmacy would review the applicant's license information. Occasionally, there are times when an individual has something "bad" in his/her background and currently the board can't deny the individual the license if this applicant told the truth. The individual would receive the license and then the board would take action against the individual. Until the denial happens, the individual could be working. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD surmised that everyone agrees that to deny a license to an applicant is appropriate. However, the question is whether the term "applicant" needs to be added to the statute referring to the appeal process. CHAIR ANDERSON announced that HB 270 would be held over in order to determine whether the statutes are consistent with the language being proposed. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested having someone from the Division of Occupational Licensing testify as to why this legislation is necessary because sometimes there is boilerplate licensing procedures [in division statutes that] allow for denial. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed to research these questions. [HB 270 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|