Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/01/2003 03:02 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2003
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to provider responsibility for ocular
postoperative care; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 142 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 171
"An Act repealing the charter school grant program; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 171 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE:RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARE AFTER EYE SURGERY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HEINZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/03/03 0358 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/03/03 0358 (H) HES, FIN
04/01/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 171
SHORT TITLE:REPEAL CHARTER SCHOOL GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0445 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0445 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/05/03 0445 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/05/03 0445 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/03 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/13/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/13/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/13/03 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/14/03 0539 (H) EDU RPT 5DP 2DNP
03/14/03 0539 (H) DP: WILSON, COGHILL, SEATON,
WOLF,
03/14/03 0539 (H) GATTO; DNP: KAPSNER, GARA
03/14/03 0539 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/20/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/20/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/27/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/01/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 142, testified on the bill
and answered questions from the members.
CARL ROSEN, M.D., President
Alaska Academy of Ophthalmology
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142 and answered
questions from the committee.
CARLOS BUZNEGO, M.D.
Center for Excellence in Eye Care;
American Academy of Ophthalmology
Miami, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142 and answered
questions from the committee.
GARY JACKSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in support of
HB 142.
KEVIN SWEENEY, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 171 and responded to
questions from the committee.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
Representatives Wilson, Gatto, Coghill, Seaton, and Cissna were
present at the call to order. Representative Wolf arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 142-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARE AFTER EYE SURGERY
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to provider responsibility
for ocular postoperative care; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0050
REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 142, said the purpose of the bill is to ensure proper
ocular postoperative care, primarily with respect to cataract
surgery. The bill allows for postoperative care to be delegated
by a surgeon only to another ophthalmologist and only under
certain conditions. It requires that the physician be available
to the patient for up to 120 hours after surgery. She explained
that currently comanagement agreements exist between
optometrists and ophthalmologists. Optometrists provide the
patients to ophthalmologists who perform the surgery, but the
ophthalmologist does not follow the patient postoperatively.
Potential risks to patients exist with this arrangement. The
bill is intended to protect the patient to ensure good
postoperative care by a qualified physician, in this case an
ophthalmologist.
Number 0243
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told the committee he contacted Dr. Rosen
this morning to talk about the bill. He asked if in the case of
noncompliance, for instance, if the physician leaves town, who
would investigate the case. Who funds the investigation?
Number 0320
CARL ROSEN, M.D., President, Alaska Academy of Ophthalmology,
testified in support of HB 142 and answered questions from the
committee. He told the committee that he is an ophthalmologist,
is fellowship-trained, and board-certified; and is a neuro-
ophthalmolgist, orbital surgeon, and oculaplastic specialist.
In response to Representative Gatto's question, he told the
committee the Alaska State Medical Board has the authority to
investigate physicians in cases of negligence or malpractice.
Number 0395
CARLOS BUZNEGO, M.D., Center for Excellence in Eye Care; and
American Academy of Ophthalmology, testified via teleconference
from Miami, Florida, in support of HB 142 and answered questions
from the committee. He told the committee Congress has been
talking about patient protection, and it is important that state
legislators debate the merits and act upon state health policy
to improve the system and quality of care. He said he is
representing the American Academy of Ophthalmology, which has a
membership of approximately 27,000 ophthalmologists. Dr.
Buznego told the committee he serves as a volunteer on the
academy's governing committee for state affairs and is a
practicing ophthalmologist.
Number 0459
DR. BUZNEGO provided a brief overview of health policy issues
with respect to HB 142. He said this bill addresses abuse of
surgical practice of a surgeon. Ocular care is one of the rare
areas where non-physicians inappropriately perform postoperative
care after eye surgery. He explained that comanagement is the
sharing of postoperative responsibilities between the operating
surgeon and another health care provider. In theory, this
arrangement is to be entered into only in cases when it is in
the best interests of the patient, for example, when it is too
far for the patient to safely travel. If this were the only
kind of comanagement around, he said he would not be speaking
today. In practice, there is abuse, and there are times when
this behavior is unethical.
Number 0542
DR. BUZNEGO said in the interest of patient safety he believes
the enactment of HB 142 will eliminate the pressure that allied
health professionals place on surgeons to enter into such
unethical agreements. Blatant unethical behaviors in
comanagement occur when a surgeon enters into a comanagement
agreement with an allied health care provider for economic
considerations, specifically, as an inducement for surgical
referrals or as a result of coercion by the referring
practitioner. This bill would eliminate the unethical behavior
by carefully regulating when surgical referrals can include an
agreement to comanage only when it will be in the patient's best
interest. In such cases, the surgeon in consultation with the
patient will use his/her judgment to determine the most
appropriate postoperative care. The bill does not ban
comanagement of patients, but it ensures that such arrangements
are truly in the best interests of patients. It recognizes
unique challenges of delivering health care services to the
citizens of Alaska. In addition, the bill permits flexibility
in cases of emergencies and unexpected circumstances. Dr.
Buznego told the committee this bill would improve responsible
surgical practice in Alaska. Finally, it would not raise costs
to the patients, since all providers are reimbursed at the same
rate for their services. He said this is a patient-friendly
bill, and he urged the committee's support of this legislation.
Number 0616
CHAIR WILSON shared a concern about her mother, who will have
cataract surgery tomorrow. She explained that there are no
surgeons where she lives, so someone is driving her mother about
an hour away from her home to have the procedure done. However,
she has lung problems and she coughs a lot. Chair Wilson said
she is concerned about who is doing the follow-up care because
of the coughing. Chair Wilson asked if this might be the kind
of special circumstances Dr. Buznego has been talking about.
Number 0679
DR. BUZNEGO responded that Chair Wilson is correct. One of the
important issues of cataract surgery is not solely what happens
during the surgery, although that is obviously critically
important, but there are certain complications that can arise in
the first several weeks following cataract surgery. Often these
complications have very subtle signs; in the situation of
comanagement, oftentimes the practitioner seeing that patient on
the first postoperative day may not recognized early signs of
difficulty. For example, a significant amount of inflammation
in the eye, which is often very subtle and can be one of the
earliest sign of an eye infection after cataract surgery, is a
potentially blinding complication. Dr. Buznego said that in
cases like Chair Wilson's mother, where the patient is coughing
a lot, the coughing could raise the pressure in the eye and
cause the wound to open and the implant could be displaced. He
said he is sure the surgeon who is taking care of her mother
will provide some medications that will decrease coughing and
make sure that the incision is nice and tight.
DR. BUZNEGO said it is critically important during those first
several postoperative visits that the surgeon identifies
complications and fixes them. Dr. Buznego said one of the
current problems of postoperative care being provided by non-
ophthalmologists is the possibility that they may not be able to
recognize complications. He said in the case of Chair Wilson's
mother, even if a problem is identified and she needs to be re-
operated on or she might need intravenous medications, none of
those things could be done by a comanaging optometrist. It
would be hard to find someone to fix the problem.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is a Florida academy of
ophthalmology.
DR. BUZNEGO replied there is the Florida Society of
Ophthalmology.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded that the president of the Alaska
Academy of Ophthalmology provided information to the committee.
That information said that HB 142 provides that unless a surgeon
enters into a written comanagement agreement with the patient,
the bill requires a surgeon to be physically available to a
patient for postoperative care in the community in which the
operation was performed for 120 hours after the surgery.
Representative Gatto said that when most people go into surgery,
they have a stack of papers that they sign before surgery.
There usually is very small print and multiple pages, and the
patient just signs the bottom. He pointed out that usually
patients do not take an attorney with them to the doctor's
office; it is usually a spouse or child. He said his guess is
that there is going to be a form in there that says the surgeon
is associated with a licensed optometrist who will see the
patient after surgery. People will look at that and say, "Okay,
why not?" He said he is curious about what Florida's experience
has been and what has been done when this kind of practice has
been discovered.
Number 0872
DR. BUZNEGO replied that it is a critically important point. It
is possible that kind of agreement could be slipped into the
paperwork given to patients, since the surgeon would have to
have consent. The spirit of the law is not just having a paper
signed. When the surgeon talks to patients about cataract
surgery and the risks, he/she should talk about complications
and postoperative care. Theoretically, even if the patient
signs something, if the doctor does not talk about it, the
doctor could be held to a higher standard in court.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if in Florida there is a paper signed
by patients that has dialog that says when a person signs this
paper that person is giving up the right to insist upon his/her
ophthalmologist's care. He asked if there is a form that Alaska
could use as a guide.
DR. BUZNEGO responded that Florida nearly passed this kind of
legislation. He said it passed the House and the Senate by a
simple majority, but because of confusion in parliamentary
procedure, it is not currently law. The bill is being brought
up again this year. At this time, there is not a form he could
provide. He pointed out that it is an important national issue
and that both the American Academy of Ophthalmology, which is
the largest association, and another organization that is just
cataract surgeons provided national position papers on
postoperative care because they felt it is that important.
Number 1036
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if in Florida HMOs [health
maintenance organizations] typically use a surgeon, but not for
postoperative care [as in a comanagement agreement]. He asked
if that is the reason this legislation was proposed in Florida.
Number 1076
DR. BUZNEGO responded that is not the reason. He said this
legislation actually predates the time when HMOs actually became
popular. He said the reason that this is a significant issue is
that many optometrists will talk to an ophthalmologist and say
they will send the surgeon patients for cataract surgery if the
surgeon will then send the patient back to them for comanagement
[postoperative care]. For example, in Florida there is a doctor
who will send his patients in Key West to Boca Raton because he
gets comanagement rates. This doctor sends his patients on a
four-hour drive, when he could send the patients across the
street to a doctor who does not believe in comanagement and
takes good care of his patients.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she recalls reading about "surgery
mills" where there is an unusually aggressive person without the
proper credentials doing surgery and where the emphasis is on
making money. She asked if Dr. Rosen would comment on that
issue.
Number 1183
DR. ROSEN said he knows of two good examples in Anchorage.
There is a group from Washington state that comes up to Alaska
and has a comanagement arrangement. Specifically, Pacific
Cataract and Laser Institute has a surgeon come to Anchorage
twice a month and operates on anywhere from 10 to 30 people per
month. An optometrist follows the patients postoperatively.
The surgeon leaves the state after the surgery. Not only does
the surgeon leave, but he also has not accepted the
responsibility that every other ophthalmologist in Alaska has
accepted, which is to respond to calls. He said he does not
like to get called into the hospital, but if Providence Hospital
calls him at 3:00 a.m., he responds. This doctor has said that
he is such an expert and so specialized and patients are so
privileged that he does not have to do that. Another example is
an outfit that not only does cataract surgery, but also is
primarily a refractive surgery outfit, which is called Laser
Vision of Canada. They had plenty of patients, and advertised
$1,000 for two eyes and 20-20 vision without glasses. Not only
is that not true, but these guys are no longer around. They
went out of business and now there are abandoned patients. He
said he and his partners have to take care of these people. Dr.
Rosen said these are two good examples of mills that have gone
awry.
Number 1281
GARY JACKSON testified via teleconference in support of HB 142.
He shared his experience when he was referred by his optometrist
to the PCLI [Pacific Cataract and Laser Institute] for cataract
surgery. Following the procedure, he was referred back to the
optometrist for follow-up the next day. He said he did not see
the actual surgeon for two weeks. An infection developed, which
was treated by the optometrist. Finally, the surgeon saw him
two weeks later when he returned to Alaska and additional laser
repair was done. For this reason, he urged passage of HB 142 to
ensure that proper follow-up by the surgeon is given to the
patient.
Number 1444
CHAIR WILSON commented that Mr. Jackson ended up having two
surgeries instead of one.
MR. JACKSON said that is correct. He said he does not know the
reason for the infection, but he required laser repair to the
original surgery. In response to Chair Wilson's question about
further surgery, he responded that since that experience, he has
had unrelated surgery done by Dr. Rosen. Mr. Jackson said he
wanted to make one further point and that is that he never met
the surgeon who did his cataract surgery. He said he was given
a video to watch. In contrast, the surgery he had done with Dr.
Rosen was preceded by a meeting; Dr. Rosen stayed with him after
the surgery was finished, and called him at home that night to
make sure everything was okay. Mr. Jackson said he had an
appointment with him the following day when the bandage was
taken off. Dr. Rosen has been totally accessible. It was a
very different experience.
Number 1450
DR. ROSEN reiterated previous points made about HB 142. He said
that while the option of comanagement was originally designed
with good intentions, patients' safety has been compromised. He
told the committee patients really entrust surgeons with their
best interests. There is nothing more noble or coveted than
this bond, and this is what medical schools teach budding
surgeons and physicians. A surgeon must ensure that following
surgery any problems and complications be recognized and dealt
with in a timely fashion.
Number 1599
DR. ROSEN told the committee there are legitimate reasons for
comanagement in distant or rural places, for example, where it
is too inconvenient or inaccessible due to weather. He said it
is important that an equally trained and competent surgeon be
responsible for the patient's postoperative care. There are
some wonderful optometrists who do their job brilliantly, but
surgery is not part of the optometric training. He said it is
not possible for someone to know all the complications, let
alone the simple nuances that can occur after surgery. It takes
an ophthalmology residency, which is a surgical residency for
three years, an internship for one year, and a fellowship [in
Dr. Rosen's case] for 14 months to understand what can happen
from surgical manipulation and instrumentation of an eye or
orbit. A weekend course, a book, or pictures simply do not do
it. It is necessary to do surgery to understand what can
happen.
DR. ROSEN pointed out an unscrupulous arrangement that can occur
between an optometrist and an ophthalmologist as a result of
financial gain. He said that his practice is not affected by
this kind of arrangement because his patients come to him
largely because the patient has been injured or has cancer and
needs reconstruction of the patient's bone or eyelid tissue.
However, as the president of the [Alaska Academy of]
Ophthalmology, it is his job to point out this kind of
unscrupulous arrangement. When financial gain is involved, it
is really a kickback for every patient sent to a surgeon by an
optometrist. There are some wonderful public relations and
marketing deals that have come about and that have mesmerized
some optometrists into bringing this about. When patients find
out, they wonder why no one told them. Dr. Rosen said a patient
does not have to go to a mill to get better care. He said he is
a Harvard graduate and his colleague graduated from Yale. They
will provide better postoperative care because they live in the
community.
Number 1700
DR. ROSEN summarized that the crux of the problem is that when a
surgeon leaves town, the patient is being left in the care of
someone less qualified. If a complication occurs, the hope is
that the optometrist can recognize it and deal with it so the
patient does not end up in the emergency room late at night. In
these instances, the patient and family are inconvenienced and
the local ophthalmologist ends up being responsible for these
problems and must take care of the patient. He asked the
committee to pass the bill to protect unwitting patients for
five days [after surgery]. He noted that there are exclusions
for emergencies. However, it is important that an equally
qualified surgeon be available for the patient.
Number 1734
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE summarized that this bill will send a
message to physicians outside of Alaska that the state does not
abide these kinds of practices. She said that Alaskans are
proud of their ophthalmologists, and this is a dangerous
practice that may affect something very precious to all people,
their eyesight. Representative Heinze asked the committee to
vote to move this bill out of committee.
Number 1765
CHAIR WILSON commented on her experience in assisting doctors in
doing eye surgery, which is so delicate that it must be done
using a microscope. The sutures used are so tiny that they
float and are even finer than hair.
Number 1796
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL questioned whether the bill would provide
for more civil and criminal liability. He noted that there are
a lot of exceptions. He suggested this will create a lot more
room for litigation if not followed closely. He said he is
wondering what the medical board sees as a way of enforcing
complaints coming before them and what they might anticipate
with respect to regulation. He asked if there has been any
testimony from the state medical board on how they might
implement this statute in regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE responded that there has not been any
testimony by the medical board on how they would regulate the
law.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it appears that in Sections 5-7 the
effective dates are awaiting the development of the regulations.
He asked if Representative Heinze could explain how that might
work. He said it looks as though Sections 1-4 take effect
differently than Section 5. Is that to allow for regulations to
be implemented?
Number 1912
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE responded that she does not know.
Number 1919
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to the Legislative Legal and
Research Services sectional analysis on Sections 5 and 7, where
it says that it allows the state medical board to begin the
regulations process before the rest of the bill takes effect.
She said she believes that would take care of Representative
Coghill's concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that he would like to know what
the state medical board anticipates and what part the
legislature plays in that discussion. He said he is not sure it
is wise to pass the bill before knowing what that discussion
will be.
Number 1946
DR. ROSEN responded that he does not see that as an issue. He
said the medical board can easily take care of that question and
it falls within the realm of their capability by looking at
other examples of what they do now.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he believes the policy call is good
and does not plan on holding up the bill. He expressed his
concern about what may come from this legislation.
CHAIR WILSON told Representative Heinze that it would be wise to
have the answers to these questions prior to hearings in the
next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said she would be providing the committee
with any information requested.
Number 2013
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 142 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 142 was reported out of the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
HB 171-REPEAL CHARTER SCHOOL GRANTS
Number 2053
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act repealing the charter school grant
program; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2061
KEVIN SWEENEY, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Education and Early Development, testified on HB
171 and responded to questions from the committee. Mr. Sweeney
explained that this bill eliminates the state-funded grants for
charter school startup. He explained that the Department of
Education and Early Development has been working with the U.S.
Department of Education to secure funds that will actually
increase the level of startup grants provided by the federal
government. He said the money that will be coming from the
federal government exceeds the amount provided in the past by
state and federal money combined. The new federal money that
will be allocated to a new school, in the amount of $150,000 for
the first three years and $45,000 for the fourth year,
eliminates the need for the state's supplemental grant.
Number 2105
CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Sweeney if he is sure no funds will be
lost to new charter schools if this bill is passed.
MR. SWEENEY replied this is correct. He explained that what has
happened in the past is that a new charter school was given a
federal grant and then the state supplemented that grant for a
total grant for startup purposes. For the charter schools that
have come on board, the total amount of funding for a charter
school has ranged anywhere from $164,000 to $478,000 for the
state and federal combined funds. In comparison, charter
schools coming on board in 2003 will get $450,000 for the first
three years and $45,000 for the fourth year, for a total of
$495,000, so, in fact, the funds would be increased to new
charter schools.
Number 2146
MR. SWEENEY asked the committee to note that this legislation
does not take effect until next July. He said the delayed
effective date in the bill is so the state can live up to its
commitment to two charter schools that will be receiving funds
from the department in their final year of funding. He also
added the department believes that the delay will allow them the
time to make certain the funding will come in and the state's
application will be approved hopefully by June or July of this
year. Mr. Sweeney said the state is saving money and the
charter schools are getting more money than in the past.
Number 2170
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if any charter schools will be caught
in the middle, for example, too late for state funding and too
early for federal funding.
MR. SWEENEY said no schools will be caught in the middle. Only
two schools are currently owed one more year in funding under
the old regulations whereby they will get their state and
federal funding combined.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked the name of the two schools.
MR. SWEENEY said the schools are Soldotna Montessori and Chinook
Montessori. He commented that four new schools that are
proposed to start are Frontier, Highland Technical, Horizon, and
Tongass, and their grants will fall under the new level of
funding. The department expects that there will be 17 new
schools in the near future, based on what the department has
heard from school districts. That is the number of schools the
state has applied for under the new funding by the federal
government and for which the department expects to hear approval
by this July.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that he had heard Horizon was
trying to start up over a year ago. The school board told them
they were a little premature; normally it takes a year, and now
the year is over. He asked Mr. Sweeney if this means that
Horizon will now have to wait another year.
MR. SWEENEY responded that he is not certain, but thinks Horizon
will be starting in 2003. He explained that the way the process
works is that a charter school goes through the local school
district, and then the application comes to the Department of
Education and Early Development for approval. The local school
district is where a lot of the investigation and review of the
charter school's plan is done. By the time the application
comes to the state, the local district has already approved it.
He commented that Horizon may have had some challenges at the
local district that he would be unaware of.
Number 2228
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded that Mr. Sweeney had mentioned
Horizon as one of the four schools that would be covered under
the new federal money.
MR. SWEENEY replied that is correct. He believes Horizon opens
next fall; however, he is not sure when it opens, but he knows
that Horizon is identified as one of the new schools. In fact,
he believes Horizon was just approved at the last state board
meeting, so it will get the new funding through the federal
government.
CHAIR WILSON asked in what school districts the charter schools
are located.
MR. SWEENEY responded that he does not know.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Sweeney if the state can expect
many more charter schools, to the point where charter schools
would take a significant number of students from traditional
public schools.
MR. SWEENEY replied that in the past, federal grant funding for
15 charter schools was $2.5 million, and now the state is
looking at getting $10.5 million for upcoming charter schools.
It is something the U.S. Department of Education is pushing, and
the state anticipates that there will be a lot of applications
statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if he knows the failure rate of
charter schools.
MR. SWEENEY responded that he does not know.
Number 2325
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 171 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 171 was reported from the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
TAPE 03-31, SIDE B
Number 2306
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|