Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/03/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB328 | |
| HB293 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 328 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 293 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 324 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2014
8:41 a.m.
8:41:04 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:41 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Sponsor; Mary Schlosser,
Staff, Representative Benjamin Nageak; Diane Kyser,
Proprietor, Artemis Enterprise; Victoria Dance, Massage
Therapist, Juneau; Sara Chambers, Director, Division of
Corporations, Business, and Public Licensing, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Chere Klein,
Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson; Amy Erickson, Director,
Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jill Motz, Licensed Massage Therapist, Chugiak and Eagle
River; Amanda Unser, Alaska Massage Therapy Licensing
Coalition, Anchorage; Volker Ruby, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 293 BEAR LICENSE PLATES
CSHB 293(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(ADM).
HB 324 CONTROLLED SUBST. PRESCRIPTION DATABASE
HB 324 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 328 BOARD/LICENSING OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
CSHB 328 (L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(CED).
Vice-Chair Neuman relayed that HB 324 had been removed from
the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 328
"An Act establishing the Board of Massage Therapists;
relating to the licensing of massage therapists; and
providing for an effective date."
8:41:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN NAGEAK, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He stated that HB 328 established a Board of
Massage Therapists and provided regulation for
certification. The legislation included ethical standards,
accountability, business development, grievance processes,
and facilitated better access to therapy.
MARY SCHLOSSER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN NAGEAK,
shared that Alaska was one of six states that did not
regulate massage therapy. She relayed that regulation was a
matter of public safety and professionalism. Regulation
facilitated standards for care and the state was "behind
the curve" in regulation of massage therapy. Licensure
allowed massage therapists to become "in network" providers
and directly bill insurance companies, which "endorsed
small business" by allowing the therapist to operate more
independently. She cited that Forbes Magazine (Fall 2013)
rated states for business friendliness; Alaska rated 37th
out of 50 and Alaska was ranked 44th for its regulatory
environment. She believed that the legislation encouraged
greater professional opportunities in a growing profession.
Eighty-four percent of massage therapists supported state
licensure. She urged the committee to support the
legislation.
Representative Wilson asked how regulating the industry
would make the state more business friendly.
Ms. Schlosser replied that licensure allowed the massage
therapist to directly bill insurance companies which
encouraged self-employment.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked for an explanation of changes
contained in the House Labor and Commerce
Committee Substitute (CS).
Ms. Schlosser explained that the change on page 3, line 28
added a board approved apprenticeship program. Another
change tightened exemption language for structural
integration practitioners and Rolfers. The third change
located on page 8, lines 1 through 8 combined a category of
exempted practices without naming the individual
modalities. She cited page 3, line 24 and page 4, line 18,
and noted that the word "board" was changed to "department"
for application processing purposes. Located in the
transition language, the 500 hour requirement for licensure
was waived for massage therapist already practicing in the
state as long as outlying standards were met.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked if the sponsor agreed with the
changes.
Ms. Schlosser replied in the affirmative.
Representative Munoz asked where the apprenticeship program
was located in the legislation.
Ms. Schlosser replied that the provision was located on
page 3, line 28.
Representative Munoz supported the program and was glad to
see the bill moving forward.
Representative Edgmon appreciated the bill and viewed it as
a pro-business bill. He asked for clarification regarding
the required 500 hours for licensure.
Ms. Schlosser replied that a person would have to attend a
board approved massage schools and that currently none
existed in Alaska.
Representative Edgmon wondered whether the legislation
would foster the establishment of a massage therapy school
in the state.
Ms. Schlosser thought that presently not enough demand
existed in the state.
Representative Edgmon asked whether licensing fees would be
determined by the department.
Ms. Schlosser deferred the question to the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED).
Representative Guttenberg supported the legislation. He
questioned the membership of the board. He wondered whether
the composition of the board; four practicing massage
therapists and one member of the public, was standard
practice of board membership. He thought that more of a
balance between members of the public and licensed
practitioners was typical for other boards.
Ms. Schlosser answered that the board was small and would
allow more therapists to participate on the board.
JILL MOTZ, LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPIST, CHUGIAK AND EAGLE
RIVER (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
legislation. She announced that she was a massage therapist
and believed that the legislation would further the
profession by assuring educational standards and an
opportunity to fully participate in the "evolving" field of
health care. She thought that the public was entitled to a
minimum level of protection provided by the bill. She
reported that she currently practiced massage in two
Burroughs and was assessed licensing fees in both locations
and estimated that the state licensing cost would be less
expensive than under the current structure. She did not
believe the proposed licensing costs were burdensome.
8:55:08 AM
AMANDA UNSER, ALASKA MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING COALITION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
bill. She stated that she served on the board of the Alaska
chapter of the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA).
She explained that the coalition was formed in 2012 for the
purpose of crafting a licensing bill. Other healthcare
professions such as Chiropractors supported HB 328. She
clarified that there was currently two massage therapy
schools in Anchorage that offered 500 hour, nationally
approved programs.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether she was the head of
the coalition and if she was aware of the responsibilities
of licensing board members.
Ms. Unser replied in the affirmative and relayed that
discussions were held with other professional board
members. She believed massage therapists were ready to
govern their profession.
VOLKER RUBY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the legislation. He related that he was the
Treasurer of the Alaska chapter of the AMTA and practiced
massage therapy for twelve years. The bill would provide
therapists with the freedom to practice massage anywhere in
the state and only pay one yearly fee. He thought that the
fees would be less expensive than municipal fees. The
licensing fees would fund the board, which eliminated costs
for the state. The proposed state license sets professional
standards for massage therapy, protected the public, and
expanded opportunities for massage therapists. He urged the
committee to support HB 328.
DIANE KYSER, PROPRIETOR, ARTEMIS ENTERPRISE, testified in
support of the legislation. She reported that she operated
her own massage therapy business for twenty years. She
spoke to her work history and various duties related to
massage therapy. She voiced that the legislation set a
standard for massage therapy training in the state. She
pointed to page 3, line 22 and lines 26 through 29 that
required evidence that the practitioner completed a 500
hour course of study to qualify for a license. The bill
would authorize the board to determine the requirements for
continuing education. She estimated that three massages per
year would pay for her annual licensing fees and stated
that the cost was tax deductible. She believed that HB 328
would provide consistent and updated educational standards
for massage therapy in the state and ensure consumer
protection.
Representative Guttenberg thanked Ms. Kyser for her
testimony. He noted that many people were nervous about
going to massage therapists.
Ms. Kyser replied that she provided education and
information to first-time clients on massage procedures,
what to expect during a massage, and how to be a smart
consumer of massage therapy services.
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that
currently massage therapists could not bill clients
directly and that HB 328 would authorize direct billing by
the massage therapist.
Ms. Kyser replied in the affirmative.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether a referral was
necessary.
Ms. Kyser answered that direct insurance billing required a
professional licensing board and referral from a medical
doctor or chiropractor. She reiterated that the bill would
provide massage therapists the option to bill insurance.
Representative Wilson wondered whether she understood that
the licensing fee could be increased in the future.
Ms. Kyser replied in the affirmative. She had served as a
medical licensing assistant and understood the issue.
Representative Gara noted that he had signed on as a
cosponsor.
9:07:13 AM
VICTORIA DANCE, MASSAGE THERAPIST, JUNEAU, spoke in
opposition to the bill. She reported that she was a
licensed massage therapist in Arizona since 1984, was a
member of AMTA, and currently worked for six years in a
massage therapy clinic in Juneau. She offered that she only
opposed the bill in its current structure. She confirmed
through the AMTA that the 500 hour standard was arbitrary.
The only available data was from AMTA through its Entry
Level Analysis Project that concluded that competency was
achieved at 625 hours of training. She proposed that the
500 hour requirement in the legislation should be
increased. She stated that massage therapists would not be
able to bill insurance directly if the bill passed. She
pointed to prior testimony from Marty Hester, Deputy
Director of the Division of Insurance, DCCED. She spoke to
the licensing fees associated with the bill. She cited an
email she had received from Don Habeger, Director, Division
of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, DCCED
that stated that the fee would be approximately $550. The
fee was different than what the coalition had stated, was
higher than what municipalities charged, and higher than
the amount a doctor paid. She felt the cost would be a
"burden." She added that California only required voluntary
certification and massage was regulated through municipal
ordinances. She believed that municipalities were
regulating massage cost effectively and was not sure that
state law was necessary to regulate the field.
Ms. Dance reported that the massage therapy board was
modeled after the social worker board. She believed that
massage therapy licensure was "vulnerable" to higher
licensing fees due to investigations. The "massage parlor"
trade did not exist in other professions and made massage
therapy more susceptible to investigations. She was
informed that investigative costs were not the
responsibility of the board but discovered that was not
true. She mentioned that other boards were currently in
deficit and the investigation issue "made her nervous" in
relation to the potential for increasing licensing fees.
She related that she was confused by the fiscal note.
Ms. Dance continued to discuss her opposition to the bill.
She communicated that she had received 22 signatures in the
past one and a half days in opposition to the bill and
wondered why the supporters of the legislation spoke of
"overwhelming support." The legislation did not define
massage therapists as health care providers. She reiterated
her concerns related to the bill.
Ms. Dance stated that a competency standard of 500 hours
was sufficient for relaxation massage but not adequate for
medical massage. She noted the flaw in the survey used to
justify support for the bill. She pointed out that only 40
percent of 43 survey participants wanted licensure if the
bill "was done right." She shared that her goal was to
ensure massage licensing was "done right."
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that Sara Chambers, Director,
Division of Corporations, Business, and Public Licensing,
DCCED would address the committee.
Ms. Dance requested that Ms. Chambers show the committee
how the licensing fees were calculated and whether it was
possible to calculate fees in relation to projecting board
deficits which take years to accrue.
Representative Guttenberg did not believe the legislature
was qualified nor could develop a perfect model for the
board. He noted that the board could set higher standards
if it wanted. The legislature approved an optimum model for
setting up the board and let the professionals govern
themselves. He indicated that the therapists would not want
the legislature micromanaging its board. He stated that a
perfect bill was hardly ever seen.
Ms. Dance spoke about the Alaska Constitution. She was
inspired by the process of its creation. She noted that
when massage therapy was initially licensed mistakes were
made. One-third of states in the Lower 48 had increased
hour requirements. She recommended that the bill include a
provision that the board could raise hour requirements.
Representative Guttenberg noted that the board did not need
the legislature's permission.
Ms. Dance asked for clarification.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that the department would respond.
Representative Edgmon wondered what professional
experiences in or out of the state were driving her
opposition to the bill and how long she had been practicing
massage in Alaska.
9:20:30 AM
Ms. Dance answered that she had been in Juneau for 6 years
and had been a massage therapist for 30 years. She relayed
that she was close to retirement and "had nothing to gain"
in her position on the bill.
Representative Edgmon clarified that he was not trying to
undercut Ms. Dance's testimony. He wondered whether a
health care provider should be added to the board.
Ms. Dance responded in the affirmative. She explained that
it was especially important in light of the professions
movement into medical massage. In some state statutes
massage therapists were designated as health care
providers. She felt that the designation was important and
recommended inclusion if the bill aimed to support the
profession.
Representative Wilson commented on municipal ordinance
versus state licensing. She noted the opposing points of
view. She wondered whether the municipalities could
regulate massage therapy.
Vice-Chair Neuman surmised that municipalities had the
authority to require licenses.
Representative Thompson agreed with the statement.
Representative Wilson wondered whether municipalities would
be relieved from licensing with passage of the bill.
Representative Thompson stated that with passage of the
bill both entities would be involved in licensing. He
discerned that the reason municipalities regulated massage
therapy was to ensure public safety. Once a community or
municipality realized that massage therapy was state
licensed and regulated they would most likely withdrawal
their requirements.
Representative Wilson wondered whether municipalities would
relinquish its regulatory role if the bill was adopted. She
questioned whether the legislation allowed for direct
insurance billing.
Ms. Unser replied that the insurance company dictated the
billing requirements; who can bill and whether a referral
was necessary. She shared that she was licensed in
Washington and billed insurance for 6 years. She cited page
9, Section 7 beginning on line 12 and noted that the
section clarified the state versus municipality licensing
issue:
Sec. 7. AS 29.35 is amended by adding a new section to
read: Sec. 29.35.146. Licensing of massage therapists.
(a) The authority to license massage therapists is
reserved to the state, and, except as specifically
provided by statute, a municipality may not enact or
enforce an ordinance requiring professional licensure
of massage therapists. (b) This section applies to
home rule and general law municipalities.
Ms. Unser reported that currently Anchorage, Valdez,
Fairbanks, and Palmer regulated massage therapy. Each
municipality regulated massage differently and state
licensure would homogenize regulations. She stated that
once state regulation was established "municipalities would
more than likely withdraw."
Representative Munoz asked how many practitioners were
anticipated to take advantage of the legislation.
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS, AND PUBLIC LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, replied that the
department estimated approximately 600 licensees.
Representative Munoz reported that the fiscal note (FN1
(CED) contained an annual appropriation of $50 thousand and
would be revenue neutral. She noted that divided among 600
licensees the $550 figure quoted for annual fees was high.
She asked what the anticipated amount of the annual
licensing fee was.
Ms. Chambers answered that the fiscal note appropriation
did not reflect the department's full costs. She explained
that the fiscal note was prepared according to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) standards and did not
include potential future anticipated additional costs
outlined in the last paragraph of the fiscal note analysis.
The fiscal note and additional costs were based on
comparable existing licensing programs such as the Board of
Social Work Examiners. The division's rough estimate was
approximately $550 to $600 and the first biennial could
cost more than the out years due to set up costs.
Vice-Chair Neuman requested that she discuss the
information regarding all of the fiscal aspects, true
startup costs, and indirect costs of board establishment.
Representative Munoz stated that a $550 fee would generate
over $250 thousand in revenue and that the fiscal note
appropriated $69.8 thousand in FY 14 and $49.9 thousand in
the out years. She asked for clarification.
9:31:06 AM
Ms. Chambers replied that the fiscal note indicated the
"difference in the requested appropriation not the full
cost of the program."
Representative Munoz asked whether the program costs would
increase to $250,000 to $300,000.
Ms. Chambers answered that the fiscal note was based on
anticipated expenses according to the fee setting statute,
AS 08.01.065.
Representative Munoz believed that the figure was very high
and requested "more clarity" on the issue. She asked
whether massage therapist would be able to directly bill
insurance.
Ms. Chambers expressed uncertainty and offered that the
issue was a Division of Insurance function.
Representative Wilson asked whether there was a sunset
included in the bill.
Representative Holmes pointed to Section 3, page 2, lines
14 through 15 and relayed that the board sunsets on June
30, 2018.
Representative Wilson observed that short sunset dates
provided for revisions if necessary.
Vice-Chair Neuman noted that there would be a mandatory
legislative budget and audit sunset review. He asked about
the fiscal implications of the board costs, startup costs,
and indirect costs.
Ms. Chambers responded that the Board of Social Work
Examiners provided the most similarities for the division
the use as a model for the massage therapy board. She
detailed that the division employed the information from
the social work board extracted from the divisions annual
report provided to the legislature (found on DCCED
website). The division averaged the cost figures for the
social work board over the last six years, or three
biennium (the licensing period ran for one biennium and the
report spanned three biennium). The costs were
approximately $200,000 for the last three biennial periods.
The costs had increased slightly and total revenues for
each biennium had been $200,000. The social work board had
varied above and below the $200,000 figure and the division
planned to recommend a fee increase. She continued that the
direct expenditures of the board included personal services
for staff and travel, contractual services with entities
such as Department of Law (DLAW) and Office of
Administrative Hearing, and day-to-day commodities and
totaled roughly $200 thousand in the last biennium. The
investigative cost was included in the direct costs for the
board.
Ms. Chambers discussed investigative procedures. She
expounded that each board was mandated to investigate any
potential licensing violations and were carried out by the
division's investigative unit. The board of massage therapy
would fall under the department's purview of normal
operation of investigations concerning civil investigations
in order to maintain standards and the board would bear the
full cost of civil investigations. Criminal investigations
such as prostitution would fall under the jurisdiction of
municipal law enforcement. The costs were not incurred by
the licensees. She mentioned that if a licensee was
convicted of prostitution the conviction could lead to a
license action. She noted that the law was not atypical and
her examples were based on very "real possibilities of
investigative action."
Ms. Chambers related that indirect expenditures were a cost
allocation program that filtered down through the division
and born by all licensees and reflected an "overhead cost
of doing business." She listed some indirect costs: lights,
desks, human resources, technical support, etc. The law
required that all of the costs were the responsibility of
the licensee.
Representative Munoz, in response to a question by, Vice-
Chair Neuman, reiterated her concern regarding the
licensing fee matching the costs of the program and not
assessing higher fees than necessary.
Ms. Chamber restated that the fiscal note "was not the
method used to determine the full costs" for the licensees.
She offered to provide a more detailed analysis than
provided in the fiscal note.
Representative Thompson questioned the amount that doctor's
paid for their professional licensing.
Ms. Chambers explained that the full cost of the activity
incurred by the board was shared by the number of
licensees. A 600 member board had a higher licensing fee
than a larger board of 2,500, which was the size of the
board for physicians. Other factors that affected costs
were operational and investigative costs. The direct costs
of the massage therapy board were estimated to be less than
the physician's board. The medical board paid approximately
$200 biannually.
9:41:23 AM
Representative Edgmon remarked that the bill was very
detailed but he did not see provisions regarding board
member confirmation. He cited page 11 and noted the
provision which required initial board members to have
practiced massage for three years prior to appointment. He
asked for clarification about the subsequent confirmation
process.
Ms. Chambers replied that the division would review the
transitional language with the governor's Office of Boards
and Commissions determining the process of "grandfathering"
individuals based on their background. The transitional
language would be used to determine eligibility for the
initial board appointments.
Representative Edgmon wondered why the massage therapy
board members would not need confirmation by the
legislature.
Ms. Chambers understood that the typical confirmation
process would be followed for the massage therapy board and
legislative approval was required.
Representative Edgmon asked why a licensed massage
therapist had to wait three years before a therapist could
be appointed to the board.
Ms. Chambers deferred to the sponsor to answer the
question.
Ms. Unser answered that massage therapists requested three
years of experience prior to board appointment to be able
to make more informed decisions from a real world
understanding of the profession.
Representative Edgmon wondered why a licensed health care
professional was not designated a seat on the board.
Ms. Unser replied that the members of the coalition did not
want another health care provider on the board to avoid
conflicts of interest with the health care provider's
particular profession.
Representative Guttenberg asked about qualification for
licensing. He noted that certification required at least
500 hours of education or via a board certified
apprenticeship program. He surmised that the board could
increase the 500 hour requirement but could not decrease
the requirement below 500 hours or the individual must
attend an accredited school. He asked whether his statement
was correct.
Ms. Chambers understood that the board would have the
discretion to increase the number of hours above 500 if the
board determined the increase was in the best interest of
the profession.
Vice-Chair Neuman CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Gara requested a legal opinion from
Legislative Legal Services regarding the confirmation
process. He declared that the prosecution of prostitution
would not be an additional cost borne by the board.
Representative Munoz requested clarity on the direct
billing question.
Representative Wilson reviewed the fiscal note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development,
FN1 (CED). She noted that $69.8 thousand was appropriated
in FY 15 and the amount of $49.9 thousand was appropriated
in the out years FY 16 through FY 20.
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 328(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for discussion. He
appreciated the dialog and believed HB 328 was "a model
piece of legislation," which allowed the board to govern
their profession.
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 328 (L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).
9:51:19 AM
AT EASE
9:53:20 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 293
"An Act relating to motor vehicle registration plates;
and providing for an effective date."
9:53:43 AM
CHERE KLEIN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, discussed
the legislation. She explained that the bear license plate
was originally the state's bicentennial license plate and
was recognized in the Lower 48 as an iconic "symbol of
Alaska." She cited a recent carinsurance.com pole that
discovered that Alaska's plain yellow license plate was the
least favored of all states. The legislation provided
residents the option of obtaining the bear plate as their
primary license plate. She referenced a discussion with a
past commissioner of the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
who explained that the bear was chosen in 1975 because the
bear represented a commonality for all Alaskans. Bear
habitat was found throughout the entire state. She reported
that the legislation changed words in statute for specialty
license plates for "active" and "former" firefighters and
EMTs. The bill removed the words "active" and "former" so
that all firefighters; volunteer, paid, former, or retired
had the opportunity to be recognized for their service and
it decreased the years of service requirement for former or
retired firefighters and EMTS from ten years to five years.
The cost of the license plate would be $30.
Vice-Chair Neuman suggested that the license plate could
more easily identify a person as medical personnel.
Representative Holmes appreciated the bill. She expressed
support for the bill. She clarified that the intent of the
legislation was to provide two official license plates at
the cost of $30.
Ms. Klein replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson discussed the fiscal note from the
Department of Administration (DOA) FN1 (ADM). She relayed
that $3.2 thousand was appropriated in FY 15 and was a
zero note in the out years.
AMY ERICKSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, responded to Representative
Holmes' question regarding cost. She commented that the
legislation would not change the fees and the bear would be
an alternate primary plate.
Representative Holmes shared that people she polled
preferred the look of the original license plate calling
the design "retro." She requested that the department keep
the original design.
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 293(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 293(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN1 (ADM).
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
"An Act relating to the controlled substance prescription
database."
HB 324 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
10:01:16 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 293 Bear plate.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| HB 293 Sponsor Statement Finance.docx |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| HB 293 Sponsor Statement Finance.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 Alaska DMV List of specialty plates.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 Alaska DMV Specialty Plates Pictures.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| CSHB 324 Sponsor.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| CSHB 324 Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 Alaska Opioid Prescribing Policies.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| CSHB 324-C Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 CDC report.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 Prescription painkiller overdoses.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 Prudue Pharma support.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 Sub Abuse AK.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB293 DMV Alaska specialty plate info for 5 yrs.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 CS-P Support Emails.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 CS (P) Sectional Finance.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 293 |
| HB 328 Opposition Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 328 |
| HB328 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 328 |
| HB328 Supporting Documents-AMTA Fact Sheet 2014.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 328 |
| HB328 Supporting Documents-Email and Letters.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 328 |
| HB328 Supporting Documents-Map of Regulated States.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 328 |
| HB328 Sectional CSHB 328 version N.PDF |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 328 |
| HB 328 Testimony Kyser.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 328 |
| HB 324 NACDS letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/3/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 324 |