Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/25/2002 09:17 AM Senate 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."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Therriault, testified this
legislation was drafted based on an audit conducted by the Division
of Legislative Budget and Audit and released by the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee on January 24, 2002.
Ms. Brakes stated that the audit "had several concerns about the
Board". She said this included the disparity between the number of
people who become licensed and the number of people registered to
be apprentices, noting the 6,000-hour requirement for
apprenticeship may unduly prohibit apprentices from obtaining their
licenses. The auditors, she pointed out, suggest the Board
reconsider the necessity of the 6,000-hour requirement. She
informed that the Board of Dispensing Opticians agreed to a
reduction, but requested a provision requiring completion of an
$800 correspondence course. She reiterated this would be a hardship
to the employee and could possibly be shifted to the employer.
Ms. Brakes listed another concern identified in the audit relating
to the Board's State examinations. She referenced a previous sunset
review report issued by the Division of Legislative Budget and
Audit in 1995, which recommended the Board "improve the objectivity
and consistency of the State's exam." After again finding that the
Board's process was "flawed", she remarked, the auditors suggest in
the current report that the Board "give serious consideration" to
discontinuation of the practical examination and instead utilize
the nationally recognized exams available. She pointed out the
nationally recognized exams are identified in SB 270.
Ms. Brakes cited language from the audit report, "The Board has not
resolved the prior sunset audit recommendations related to the
State practical examination. The objectivity and consistency of the
State practical examination did not improve over the current sunset
review period resulting in successful challenges by applicants who
originally were determined to have failed the test."
Ms. Brakes continued that although the Board has offered several
solutions, none would fully resolve the situation. She pointed out
the audit makes an assessment that "eliminating the Board does have
merit in the future". She emphasized the legislation before the
Committee does not eliminate the Board.
Co-Chair Kelly noted he reviewed the Legislative Budget and Audit
report and clarified this legislation does not provide an extension
date as long as normal because of the intent that the Board develop
a more objective examination.
Ms. Brakes replied the legislation provides for the removal of the
examination authority from the Board.
Co-Chair Kelly clarified the intent is that the Board would be re-
audited sooner than would normally occur, and that the examination
authority could be reinstated if the Board takes appropriation
action.
Ms. Brakes concurred.
Co-Chair Kelly then noted the legislation also reduces the
apprenticeship from 6,000 hours to 3,000 hours.
Ms. Brakes added that the legislation recognizes an associate's
degree as a substitute for apprenticeship hours.
Senator Green asked for further explanation of the Board's
recommendation for a course of study.
Ms. Brakes replied that the Board agreed to the audit's
recommendation to reduce the number of apprenticeship hours
required, however, the Board requested substitution of a
correspondence course that would cost the apprentice $800.
Co-Chair Kelly qualified this is not included in the bill.
Senator Green asked the reason.
PAT DAVIDSON, Director, Division of Legislative Budget and Audit,
testified the correspondence course requirement was not included in
the legislation because an employee of an Optometrist,
Ophthalmologist, or dispensing Optician, who assists in the
distribution of eyeglasses and contact lenses, must be an
Apprentice Dispensing Optician.
Ms. Davidson reiterated there is a "wide discrepancy" between the
number of apprentices and the number of dispensing opticians. She
listed one reason as the length of time required to complete the
apprenticeship, noting that many apprentices leave the field before
completion. She listed as another reason that some apprentices do
not intend on becoming a dispensing optician as a career choice.
Therefore, she stated that to require these employees to complete
an $800 course is unreasonable, given the lower salaries paid for
these positions.
Ms. Davidson detailed the two methods for becoming licensed as a
dispensing optician: experience in the field, or an associate
degree. She noted passage of a state examination is required for
both methods.
Senator Olson asked how this compares to other states.
Ms. Davidson responded that 22 other states either register
dispensing opticians or have no minimum requirements. She remarked
that the majority of states license dispensing opticians.
Senator Olson asked how the training requirements in Alaska compare
to the states that license the practice.
Ms. Davidson replied the current 6,000-hour requirement in Alaska
is not the highest, as a few other states require more time.
Senator Olson next wanted to know whether there is a difference
between opticians working under the "guidance" of an
ophthalmologist and those opticians working independently.
Ms. Davidson replied there is no difference for apprentices, as
they all must operate under the supervision of a dispensing
optician.
Senator Green asked if the apprenticeship is designed to train
apprentices to become dispensing opticians or whether the intent is
to provide an education.
Ms. Davidson answered both are correct. She stated that much of
training for the job of dispensing optician involves "hands on"
experience; however, a certain amount of studies is necessary to
pass the national examination. She qualified that an apprentice
could chose to take the correspondence class to prepare for the
examination, although it is not necessary to require the course for
everyone working as an apprentice.
Senator Wilken offered a motion to report SB 270 from Committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
There was no objection and CS SB 270 (L&C) MOVED from Committee
with accompanying $20,600 fiscal note #1 from the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|