Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124

01/26/2018 03:15 PM LABOR & COMMERCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ HB 240 PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 180 MONEY SERVICES BUSINESS: REQS; LICENSING; TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 180 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 273 EXTEND: MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 273 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 274 EXTEND: BD OF PSYCHOLOGISTS/PSYCH ASSOC. TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 274 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 275 EXTEND: BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 275 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
            HB 275-EXTEND: BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS                                                                      
                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
3:53:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KITO  announced that  the next order  of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 275 "An Act  extending the termination date of the                                                               
Board  of  Massage Therapists;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:53:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KOENEMAN,  Staff, Representative Kito, explained  that HB 275                                                               
extended the  massage therapist board  by four years.   She added                                                               
that as  a newly licensed  program, there would be  growing pains                                                               
and that the  board was actively working to  improve the industry                                                               
to better protect Alaskans.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:54:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON   asked  for  the  total   fee  massage                                                               
therapists would pay.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. KOENEMAN deferred to Sarah Chambers.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:55:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SARA  CHAMBERS,   Deputy  Director,  Division   of  Corporations,                                                               
Business  and  Professional  Licensing, Department  of  Commerce,                                                               
Community & Economic Development  (DCCED), replied that there was                                                               
a $200  initial application  fee for  a new  licensee and  a $290                                                               
biennial fee  for a total of  $490 for two years.   Additionally,                                                               
there  was a  $60 fingerprint  charge, which  was a  pass-through                                                               
amount.  Those renewing would pay $290 for a two-year renewal.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked  whether the fees were  set by the                                                               
board or by the division.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAMBERS replied  that  fees  were set  by  the division  in                                                               
consultation with  the board as set  forth in AS 08.01.065.   The                                                               
fees had  initially been  set higher, and  since there  were more                                                               
licensees it  had been lowered.   The division would  continue to                                                               
examine the fees annually and adjust accordingly.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  spoke  to   a  discussion  with  staff                                                               
regarding a number of letters  requesting the board be dissolved.                                                               
He expressed  a concern that  there was  not the buy-in  that had                                                               
been hoped for.  He asked  Ms. Chambers for her impression of the                                                               
amount of dissention.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAMBERS answered that she  worked closely with the board and                                                               
had not  heard of much  dissention until recently when  the board                                                               
faced the  new question  of education  and qualifications.   With                                                               
1,400  licensees,  there  had  not  been  a  majority  of  people                                                               
questioning the board's fitness.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JOSEPHSON   mentioned   a   bill   from   former                                                               
Representative  Westlake regarding  background  checks and  asked                                                               
whether  Ms.   Chambers  felt   Alaska  background   checks  were                                                               
adequate.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAMBERS  replied that  this was  the only  licensing program                                                               
which required  a background  check upon  every renewal  or every                                                               
two years.   No other of the  43 programs required that.   One of                                                               
the  missing pieces  in public  protection was  the licensure  of                                                               
massage   establishments   which    the   board   supported   and                                                               
Representative Kito had a bill which addressed that.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:01:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KITO  clarified that  HB  145  [subsequently withdrawn  by                                                               
sponsor] would  be heard in  committee as  well as HB  110, which                                                               
was his bill and he hoped  to keep those separate from the sunset                                                               
audit.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                              
4:02:00 PM                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   WOOL  asked   whether,  should   the  board   be                                                               
dissolved,  the  department's work  would  cause  an increase  in                                                               
fees.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAMBERS replied  that the only cost of the  board was travel                                                               
and board meeting expenses.   She estimated that should the board                                                               
sunset, at  least one  additional staff member  would need  to be                                                               
hired.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL  queried which was the  preponderant issue in                                                               
the letters of dissent.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAMBERS explained that being  a newly licensed industry, the                                                               
board was working  hard.  They had found  expectations for speedy                                                               
licensure were  not being  met.  The  issues were  that licensing                                                               
took too long and  there were too many hoops to  go through.  The                                                               
board was  currently analyzing its  systems and licenses  to meet                                                               
public safety concerns as efficiently as possible.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:05:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KITO  clarified the two major  issues were the cost  of the                                                               
board,  which  was decreasing  due  to  an increase  in  licensed                                                               
individuals, and the delay in the licensure process.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL asked  whether  the  background checks  were                                                               
responsible for the delays.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAMBERS elucidated  that the  Department  of Public  Safety                                                               
(DPS)  handled the  background checks  and had  to work  with the                                                               
Federal Bureau  of Investigations (FBI).   There was a  delay due                                                               
to the  volume in tracking  the fingerprints.   The board  had to                                                               
evaluate each  license and had  to give thoughtful  evaluation if                                                               
they get back  a negative report.  Additionally,  there was often                                                               
an appeal of the board's decision, and that could take time.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
4:08:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  mentioned  a letter  from  a  licensee                                                               
stating  that the  initial license  had cost  $610 and  cost $410                                                               
every two years.  He asked for confirmation.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAMBERS agreed  that  the initial  fees  had been  slightly                                                               
higher in  2016.   The license  fee of  around $600  was correct.                                                               
The department had since adjusted  that downward.  She added that                                                               
more recent licensees  had paid $290 plus  the $60 fingerprinting                                                               
fee.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    BIRCH     asked    about     the    enforcement                                                               
responsibilities of the board.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAMBERS replied  that  all of  the  licensing programs  had                                                               
enforcement provisions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked about the review process.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAMBERS  answered that there were  accrediting agencies that                                                               
were recognized by  the board as well as other  criteria that had                                                               
to be  met.   That was  one of  the more  recent issues  that the                                                               
board had faced.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH declared his  appreciation of the insight on                                                               
the polling and questionnaires carried out by the board.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:12:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP  mentioned  that the  board  was  licensing                                                               
individual massage  therapists and  asked about the  licensure of                                                               
institutions.   He asked whether  the owner of  the establishment                                                               
would have to be a licensed therapist.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CHAMBERS  replied there were currently  no statutes governing                                                               
massage establishments.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:13:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL surmised  that  if someone  were engaged  in                                                               
illegal activity, they probably would  not go through the process                                                               
of  applying  for a  license.    He  asked  whether it  had  ever                                                               
happened  that someone  had applied  and had  been discovered  to                                                               
have engaged in illegal activity.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHAMBERS replied  in the  affirmative, specifying  that with                                                               
the initial  licensing push  there had  been some  applicants who                                                               
did not meet  standards.  She believed that  the rationale behind                                                               
continuing  with  background  checks and  fingerprinting  was  to                                                               
ensure that all applicants were "on the up and up."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:14:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KITO   opened  public   testimony  on   HB  275.     After                                                               
ascertaining  that no  one wished  to testify,  he closed  public                                                               
testimony.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:15:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP declared  that he would support  the bill to                                                               
extend  the board.   He  stated he  felt HB  275 did  not go  far                                                               
enough  as it  did not  license the  massage establishments.   He                                                               
would work with the chair on some additional language.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KITO added  that he was interested in  addressing the issue                                                               
of  fingerprinting   frequency  and   of  licensure   of  massage                                                               
establishments.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:17:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report  HB 275 out of committee with                                                               
individual  recommendations and  the  accompanying fiscal  notes.                                                               
There  being no  objection, HB  275 was  reported from  the House                                                               
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB180 Money Services Business 1.22.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB180 Sectional Analysis 5.2.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB180 Sponsor Statement 5.2.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB180 Support Document Money Services Act Powerpoint 5.8.17.pptx HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB180 ver. A 5.2.17.PDF HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB180 HLC Follow Up 5.15.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB180 Support Document Money Services Act Powerpoint 5.8.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB180 Fiscal note DCCED-DBS 1.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 180
HB273 Ver D 01.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 273
HB273 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 273
HB273 Legislative Audit 01.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 273
HB273 Sponsor Statement 01.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 273
HB274 Sponsor Statement.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Version D.PDF HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 274
HB275 Sponsor Statement 01.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275
HB275 Version D 01.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275
HB275 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275
HB275 Legislative Audit 10.11.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275
HB240 Supporting Documents- PBM Business Model, 5.11.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Supporting Documents- PowerPoint, 5.11.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Supporting Documents- Storybook, 5.11.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 ver A.PDF HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Fiscal note DCCED DOI 1.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Fiscal note DOA DRB 1.18.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Sectional Analysis ver A 5.4.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Sponsor Statement 5.4.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Supporting Document-Response to Fiscal Notes 5.16.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Supporting Documents- Newsweek Article 5.16.17.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Opposition Letters 1.25.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Support Letters 1.25.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB275 Oppostion Letters 1.25.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275
HB275 Support Letters 1.25.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275
HB273 Support letters 1.19.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 273
HB240 opposition letter AHIP.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Supporting Documents-Time To Lift the Curtain On PBM Wheeling and Dealing 1.25.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Support Letters 1.26.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Supporting Document PowerPoint 1.26.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB240 Opposition Letters 1.26.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 240
HB275 Oppostion Letters 1.26.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275
HB275 Support Letters 1.26.18.pdf HL&C 1/26/2018 3:15:00 PM
HB 275