Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2002 01:35 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CHAIRMAN BEN STEVENS called the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and announced SB 220 to be up for consideration. Ms. Jeri McIntosh, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, sponsor of SB 220, said there was a proposed committee substitute that the sponsor wanted to be adopted for discussion purposes. SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved to adopt the CS to SB 220. There were no objections and it was so ordered. MS. MACINTOSH explained: CSSB 220 amends AS 08.13.170(f), which authorizes the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers to issue a hairdressing license that includes the temporary removal of superfluous hair on the face and neck and the application of basic make-up. These services are typically assumed to be available from a hairdresser. The removal of unwanted hair by means of hair waxing and the application of basic make-up are services that hairdressers should be allowed to practice. Hairdressers are trained and tested in these areas and have always performed these services. Both waxing and basic make-up are a part of the curriculum required to graduate. By statute, current training required for a hairdressing license is 1650 hours. Included in the 1650 hours are fifteen practical operations of eyebrow arching and hair removal by means of waxing, tweezing and the use of depilatories and fifteen basic make-up applications including skin analysis, complete and corrective make-up and the application of false eyelashes (12 AAC 09.160). Although the curriculum requires that they perform these operations during the instructional phase, once they are licensed, Alaska state law prohibits them from performing either service for their clients. I respectfully request your support of CSSB 220, allowing trained professionals to continue a practice that they are fully qualified to do. MS. BEATRICE CAUJOLLE, Owner and Aesthetician of A Certain Charm Institute of Skin Care, said: Mr. Chairman, this regards the committee substitute for SB 220. I'm writing to comment on the proposed amendments to the statutes governing occupational licensing contained in CSSB 220. I've been an aesthetician and an instructor for 13 years and have received substantial supplementary training in Europe and the United States to stay current with the rapid new developments in my field and to acquire the skills to be able to safely make these advances available to my clients. Many skin problems and conditions can now be successfully treated by a well-trained aesthetician, but previously would have had to be treated by a physician at a much greater cost. For example, we now have in cosmoceuticals collagen applications, elastin applications, chemical exfoliations, such as glycolic acids, enzyme peels, light chemical peels. We also have creams and lotions with higher levels of active ingredients that are available over the counter. In addition, there are numerous electrical devices such as lymphatic drainage assisting pumps, high frequency stimulators, facial toners, microdermabrasion, steamer and ozone procedures, electric brushes and exfoliating aids. The field of aesthetics is one which is growing increasingly technical and increasingly effective as new technologies are brought to bear. Several developing technologies that have promise of great benefits for clients are on the horizon. For example, new technologies include safe low-level laser hair removal devices that until now only the powerful and expensive lasers that are required by physicians were available. The cost of the machines alone kept small towns like Juneau from being able to have such services. Another device, the Lam Probe, is for safe removal of surface capillaries and minor imperfections. Because of this, the direction of licensure of the field of esthetics should be in the direction of further defining this growing and changing field so that the public is both protected and has available at reasonable cost the advantages of the many advances in the esthetics field. The proposed amendment to increase the licensed practice of a hairdresser to include limited esthetics is a move in the opposite direction of the field's movement. The main activity - training and experience of the hairdresser - is as a hairdresser. The training needed for the most basic tasks of an aesthetician is probably provided in a hairdresser's training so a hairdresser could safely perform them. However, that's not true of many, if not most, procedures beyond the most basic, which requires specific training to be used safely and/or effectively. For that reason I feel the licensure of an aesthetician should be entirely separate from the hairdressers. This would also permit the periodic review of each field as it develops and allow amendments appropriate and needed for each field. MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, said her division staffs the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, which regulates aestheticians and hairdressers and a number of other professions. She understands that the Board supports hairdressers being permitted to do eyebrow waxing and tweezing and make-up application, not the fuller range of aesthetician services. SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if aestheticians are covered at all under current law. MS. REARDON replied that they are. There is a definition of what the practice of esthetics is and an individual must have that license in order to perform those functions. She thought the issue was whether hairdressers should be permitted to do a segment of the aesthetician's scope of practice. This bill permits the hairdressers to perform limited esthetics as defined. Possibly the definition of the limited aesthetician functions a hairdresser could perform was too broad. CHAIRMAN STEVENS said that aestheticians in Senator Green's office and the Board had been trying to find a solution to some of these issues and had proposed amendment #1. He asked if she had seen the amendment. MS. REARDON replied that she had. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked her if the Board didn't favor the CS. MS. REARDON replied that they hadn't seen the work draft, so they took their position on the broader issue. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if she said they were in favor of removing something, but that this goes farther than that. MS. REARDON replied that she was concerned that the (b) section went farther. CHAIRMAN STEVENS noted that the amendment would bring it back. SENTOR TORGERSON asked which Board regulated the people who do this now. MS. REARDON replied the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. It's a different license, but the same board. They license hairdressers, barbers, aestheticians, manicurists and tatooists and body piercers. CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if they should repeal all of Title 8 that deals with barbers and hairdressers. SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if they need to be licensed. MS. REARDON replied that industry and consumers seemed to think so. SENATOR TORGERSON moved to adopt amendment #1. SENATOR AUSTERMAN wanted to know the difference between the amendment and the existing CS language. They are deleting "manual" and "electric tweezers". MS. CAUJOLLE explained that they just simplified the explanation. She said further: Regarding the original bill with limited esthetics - In 13 we have (a) the removal - eyebrow arching by use of wax. What is taken out is "manual or electric tweezers or depilatories." Electric tweezers are essentially electrolysis. So we really don't want that to occur without another license actually. Depilatories - those deal with skin again because of the skin irritations that you can receive. So it would be best to not have it in there. Then we have also the application of makeup - we've taken out in (b) skin analysis. With fifteen preparatory applications of makeup, there's no way that a hairdresser can know skin. You need hours of education to understand and analyze skin. So, we took that out - to make it simple makeup application as if an individual was going to get married and they want to have the service done within the salon, not having to go to different places. Everything is in one place. That's why we went ahead and simplified it. So that it's a simple application of makeup and false eyelashes, if necessary. That's essentially the difference. CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if there was objection to amendment #1 being adopted. There were no objections and it was adopted. CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked where the amendment came from. MS. CAUJOLLE added that it came from the Board. CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if everyone was in agreement. MS. CAUJOLLE replied, "Yes, sir." CHAIRMAN STEVENS said they would hold the bill to allow Senator Green to look at it.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|