Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/12/1999 03:27 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 12, 1999
3:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 8(FIN)
"An Act relating to the minimum plumbing fixtures required for
females and males in the state plumbing code; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 8(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 185
"An Act exempting certain small water utilities from regulation by
the Alaska Public Utilities Commission."
- MOVED CSHB 185(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 29(RLS)
"An Act relating to licensure of physicians; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 8
SHORT TITLE: MINIMUM REQUIRED PLUMBING FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Kelly Tim, Wilken
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 15 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/8/99
1/19/99 15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 15 (S) STA, FIN
3/04/99 (S) STA AT 3:45 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/04/99 (S) <MEETING CANCELLED>
3/09/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM
3/09/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/09/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/18/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/23/99 646 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
3/23/99 646 (S) NR: WARD, ELTON; DP: PHILLIPS, WILKEN
4/07/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/07/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
4/07/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/08/99 (S) RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/08/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/08/99 820 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DOT)
4/08/99 820 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 3NR 1AM NEW TITLE
4/08/99 820 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
4/08/99 820 (S) WILKEN, DONLEY; AM: GREEN; NR: PETE
4/08/99 820 (S) KELLY, ADAMS, LEMAN
4/08/99 820 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN TO CS (DOT)
4/09/99 845 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/9/99
4/09/99 848 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/09/99 848 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/09/99 848 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
4/09/99 848 (S) UNAN CONSENT
4/09/99 848 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 8(FIN)
4/09/99 848 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN
4/09/99 849 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
4/09/99 849 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/09/99 849 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/12/99 884 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/12/99 885 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/13/99 785 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/13/99 785 (H) L&C
5/07/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
5/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
5/07/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
5/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 185
SHORT TITLE: SMALL WATER UTILITIES EXEMPT FROM APUC
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/09/99 702 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/09/99 703 (H) URS, L&C
4/21/99 (H) URS AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
4/21/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/21/99 (H) MINUTE(URS)
4/28/99 (H) URS AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
4/28/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/30/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/30/99 (H) <PENDING REFERRAL> <BILL CANCELLED>
5/05/99 (H) URS AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
5/05/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 185(URS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
5/05/99 (H) MINUTE(URS)
5/06/99 1200 (H) URS RPT CS(URS) NT 4DP 2NR
5/06/99 1200 (H) DP: PORTER, KOTT, COWDERY, HUDSON;
5/06/99 1200 (H) NR: BERKOWITZ, DAVIES
5/06/99 1200 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
5/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 29
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR PHYSICIAN'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/20/99 28 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/20/99 28 (S) L&C, FIN
2/04/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/04/99 (S) BILL POSTPONED
2/04/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
2/11/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/11/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
2/25/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/25/99 (S) MOVED CS(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/25/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
2/26/99 374 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE
2/26/99 374 (S) NR: MACKIE, TIM KELLY, DONLEY;
2/26/99 374 (S) DP: LEMAN
2/26/99 374 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
4/21/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/21/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/29/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/29/99 (S) MOVED CS(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/29/99 (S) RLS AT 11:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/29/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/29/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/29/99 1168 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 4NR (L&C)CS
4/29/99 1168 (S) DP: TORGERSON, GREEN, PETE KELLY;
4/29/99 1168 (S) NR: PHILLIPS, ADAMS, DONLEY, WILKEN
4/29/99 1168 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
5/03/99 (S) RLS AT 12:45 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
5/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
5/04/99 1221 (S) RLS TO CAL W/CS 5/4/99 SAME TITLE
5/04/99 1221 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
5/04/99 1224 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
5/04/99 1224 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
5/04/99 1224 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
5/04/99 1224 (S) UNAN CONSENT
5/04/99 1224 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 29(RLS)
5/04/99 1225 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
5/04/99 1225 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/04/99 1225 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
5/05/99 1260 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
5/05/99 1260 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y19 N1
5/05/99 1261 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
5/05/99 1262 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
5/06/99 1193 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/06/99 1193 (H) L&C
5/10/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
5/10/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
5/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Scott Ogan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3878
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 185 on behalf of the bill
sponsor.
MARK HODGINS, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Jerry Ward
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4522
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 29 on behalf of the bill sponsor.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2543
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 29.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-58, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:27 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro, Harris
and Cissna. Representative Murkowski arrived at 3:54 p.m.
Representative Sanders arrived before 3:58 p.m. Representative
Brice was not present.
CSSB 8(FIN) - MINIMUM REQUIRED PLUMBING FACILITIES
Number 0051
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
is CSSB 8(FIN), "An Act relating to the minimum plumbing fixtures
required for females and males in the state plumbing code; and
providing for an effective date." The chairman noted that the
committee had heard SB 8 the previous week [May 7]. He also noted
he had not been in attendance and had requested that the bill be
held in order to have a chance to talk with committee members.
Chairman Rokeberg said he had done so and was satisfied with the
bill sponsor's acceptance of the amendment [made at the May 7
hearing]. He confirmed there was no other discussion regarding SB
8.
Number 0090
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move HCS CSSB 8 [1-LS0074\X,
Bannister, 5/8/99] out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS
CSSB 8(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
HB 185 - SMALL WATER UTILITIES EXEMPT FROM APUC
Number 0109
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business before
the committee is HB 185, "An Act exempting certain small water
utilities from regulation by the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission."
[Before the committee was CSHB 185(URS). Under discussion were
Sections 2 and 3, added by an amendment, and an amendment to that
amendment, in the previous committee. Section 2 read: "This Act
does not apply to utilities with open dockets before the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission until those dockets are closed."
Section 3 read: "This Act takes effect July 1, 2000."]
Number 0147
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant to Representative Scott
Ogan, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the
sponsor. He noted that the amendments to HB 185 made in the House
Special Committee on Utility Restructuring ("URS Committee")
created conflict between Sections 2 and 3 in terms of the purposes
of the bill. He indicated that Representative Ogan had discussed
the possibility of removing that conflict. This bill represents a
compromise, he said. Noting that two parties in the valley are in
a dispute before the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC), Mr.
Stancliff advised members that the URS Committee had felt they
didn't want to do anything to interrupt resolution of that dispute.
He told members that assurance had been received from the APUC that
a resolution is forthcoming.
MR. STANCLIFF then stated, "However, on the merits of the bill,
Representative Ogan felt that, like electric and telephone
utilities that do under $50,000 of business a year, it would be not
in the state's best interests to involve small water utilities.
There's approximately 700 of them in the state, and when disputes
occur and the APUC gets involved, it drags them away from much more
important issues with regard to tariff and larger sums of money and
policy questions. So, he proposed that we exempt - as we have done
for telephone and electric in existing statute - small water
utilities.
MR. STANCLIFF continued, "The effective date of July 1, 2000,
basically was an amendment that Representative Ogan agreed to, to
give the APUC to that point to resolve this conflict; and they have
assured him that that will be the case. ... Amendment Number 2
would be Section 2, that basically undoes the effect of Section 3,
because ... they wouldn't be under any incentive to ever address
the docket, because it is presently open, and the effective date
wouldn't have any effect on a docket that is open. So, he felt
that the effective date giving them additional time was probably -
and Representative Hudson felt that that was - a reasonable
compromise. So, he would prefer that Section 2 be removed, Mr.
Chairman."
Number 0341
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to related correspondence, the file,
and testimony from the URS Committee. He asked if the APUC only
gets involved with this type of situation when someone has a
consumer question or complaint.
MR. STANCLIFF affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated his understanding that the APUC's
workload is not all that heavy.
MR. STANCLIFF answered that with regard to disputes such as this,
Representative Halcro is correct. Unfortunately, this case has
dragged on for a year, and 46 property owners in the subdivision
can't sell their homes because of the clouded title. Mr. Stancliff
stated, "APUC had not decided that they even had jurisdiction, and
now they're going to make that decision, since the legislature's
gotten involved. However, it was not Representative Ogan's intent
to get the legislature involved in swaying the decision, but merely
on a public policy call, after he looked at other utilities, to not
get them in these kind of disputes in the future."
Number 0421
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her understanding that if the APUC
doesn't hear a case like that, the option is that it goes to court.
MR. STANCLIFF said he wishes that were the case, but it is not. The
court will simply wait until the APUC takes it up because they do
not consider the administrative remedies resolved. This could be
in limbo for a long time, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA clarified that she was asking, if this bill
passes, would the parties in similar cases go to court instead of
going to the APUC.
MR. STANCLIFF said that is correct.
Number 0486
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that countries have gone to war over
water issues. Unlike with telephone service, where people look
for increasing opportunities to connect with others, there is a
finite amount of water. She asked why the APUC would be important
to people who have water problems.
MR. STANCLIFF replied that one concern of the APUC is that being
dragged into a situation where two people are feuding offers
opportunities for others to take the same route. "They have not
been in this type of dispute before, but they do intend to make a
decision," he added, pointing out that the policy call for
legislators is whether the APUC should be involved in this level of
dispute in the future.
Number 0602
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked when Mr. Mellish first filed a
complaint with the APUC.
MR. STANCLIFF said it was approximately last spring.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that it had been a year.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added that Mr. Mellish was the subsequent owner
and had bought into the development; the situation regarding Phase
II had already been established.
MR. STANCLIFF said the good news is that both parties want
resolution; therefore, anything the legislature does to speed that
up will be helpful to both parties.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the parties are talking to each other
now.
MR. STANCLIFF said he believes the attorneys are talking, at least.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO, noting that the committee had dealt recently
with two APUC-related bills, expressed concern about the APUC's
state of limbo. He suggested retaining Sections 2 and 3; if
something happens and the APUC doesn't render a decision in the
next year, he wants to ensure that this docket is addressed since
the person has been in the process in the last year.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Stancliff to respond, noting that an
amendment had been requested. He remarked that he doesn't see
where this is entirely in conflict with Sections 2 and 3, but that
perhaps it would become so after July 1, 2000.
Number 0730
MR. STANCLIFF said that is exactly right. He explained that
Representative Hudson, Chairman of the URS Committee had conferred
originally with both parties, and Section 3 was the agreed-upon
amendment. These titles shouldn't be clouded any longer than that,
and everyone wants a resolution.
MR. STANCLIFF noted that Section 2 was an amendment in the URS
Committee, and Section 3 was an amendment to the amendment. There
had been confusion about whether the sections would conflict.
Furthermore, Representative Cowdery, believed that taking Section
3 as an amendment to the amendment would do away with Section 2.
Mr. Stancliff concluded, "This does create confusion, and it does
take away the effect ... of the two years' span of time here, if we
leave Section 2 in. And I think these property owners are entitled
to relief, as is Mr. Mellish, but I think taking over two years is
unreasonable, Mr. Chairman."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented that they had heard from some
"industry folks" who said it has taken four or five years to get a
decision from the APUC. Going through the documentation and
considering what is at stake, he agreed that timely resolution is
important. However, his concern is that with so much up in the air
with the APUC now, if something happens and this case falls through
a crack, this person will be left out simply because of the
transitional status of the APUC.
Number 0848
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that it isn't clear why they wouldn't
want to get rid of the July 1, 2000, effective date, as opposed to
Section 2, if the intention is to keep the heat on the specific
parties and to remove the APUC's jurisdiction. He asked whether or
not the desire is to keep the APUC involved.
MR. STANCLIFF said there is a good argument either way, adding,
"Mr. Chairman, I know Representative Ogan would defer to your
judgment in this matter."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that allowing open dockets to be closed
makes common sense, as does providing for a period of time in which
those dockets can be closed, and other dockets are not taken. He
said he doesn't find them at odds.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO responded that if the sponsor's intent is to
relieve the APUC from dealing with water utilities that gross under
$50,000 annually, this will direct them to stop doing so. He
stated, "Fine. But we want to protect those that already have open
dockets. So, the effective date, to me, ... reading this, you're
going to give people another year to file with APUC and create an
open docket."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that seems right, if the primary intent is
to change the jurisdiction.
Number 0990
MR. STANCLIFF specified that the agreement reached in the URS
Committee was the language in Sections 1 and 3. Section 2 was an
add-on, and he believes it confuses things.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that Representative Halcro's question
is: Why not have the Act take effect more quickly? He noted that
open dockets are covered now by the transitional provision.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the suggestion was elimination of
Section 3, rather than Section 2.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said they could eliminate Section 3 or change the
date to 1999.
MR. STANCLIFF responded, "That would be a favorable, logical
solution, from our perspective." He indicated they would have the
APUC communicate with Representative Halcro about their intent in
terms of handling it, if that would alleviate his discomfort.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Stancliff had attended the two URS
Committee hearings on this bill. He said he isn't sure that he
recalls the APUC testifying on this legislation.
MR. STANCLIFF replied that he was at the second hearing. The APUC
didn't testify, but Representative Hudson had indicated he had
spoken with them. In addition, Representative Ogan had spoken with
them about their ability and intent to take this matter up, which
the APUC had affirmed.
Number 1128
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether anyone from the APUC had said
how they feel about this particular bill.
MR. STANCLIFF explained that the APUC has been very careful not to
speak specifically on the bill, or to indicate how they might rule
in this case or their feelings about it. When queried as to how
much longer it would be, or whether they felt they could get to
this for some type of resolution, however, the APUC had been more
candid, but that was through personal calls and contacts with the
offices of Representatives Hudson and Ogan. Mr. Stancliff added
that he doesn't believe that the APUC was asked to testify.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that the APUC was not on teleconference
that day.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that it seems there might be some
real concern about the water issue. She asked, "Do we want them in
court?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that the policy issue, as stated by Mr.
Stancliff, is whether the APUC should have jurisdiction to try to
resolve small consumer complaints over community water systems, or
whether those should go directly to court. Chairman Rokeberg said
he tends to think there is an issue over whether this is correct,
but he wants to move the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to correspondence from Mr. Mellish
and his law firm. Noting that the APUC's engagements with small
utilities are few and far between, he agreed that there is a
question about whether it is worth having them. However, he is
concerned that Mr. Mellish's case will somehow fall through the
cracks.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested a motion to either amend Section 3 to
July 1, 1999, or delete it.
Number 1313
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to amend line 11, changing the
year "2000" to "1999". There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked about the appeal process, inquiring
whether the docket would still be considered open.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said yes, noting that the appeal process now in
the APUC is to the courts.
Number 1351
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSHB 185(URS), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 185(L&C)
moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CSSB 29(RLS) - REQUIREMENTS FOR PHYSICIAN'S LICENSE
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the committee's next order of
business is CSSB 29(RLS), "An Act relating to licensure of
physicians; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1378
MARK HODGINS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Jerry Ward, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to present SB 71 on behalf of the
bill sponsor. Mr. Hodgins stated that SB 29 pertains to foreign
medical graduates applying for licenses in Alaska. The bill
increases their training from one year to three years. It also
deletes the citizenship requirement that they must be a citizen of
the United State or lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
This can be done because of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act which lays out a specific time period
that people must be in the country. Most of these physicians would
require an H-1b visa that allows them to do some internship
residency and receive the necessary training. He noted that this
bill is supported by the Alaska Medical Board and the veterans'
associations across the state.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Hodgins to explain why the veteran's
associations endorse SB 29.
MR. HODGINS explained that the Veterans Administration right now is
having difficulty filling certain medical specialty positions. He
gave an example of a cardiologist position that could not be filled
with an American doctor. Some foreign medical graduates applied
for the position. These foreign medical graduates are only allowed
to treat patients in Veteran's facilities. He pointed out that the
bill increases their training from one year to three years. He
stated that the Alaska Medical Board felt that it gave them a
little more comfort to have an idea of the proficiency of these
foreign medical graduates.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS referred to the sponsor statement on SB 29
which states that 43 states currently have a three-year
requirement. He wondered if that was done after the federal law
was passed.
MR. HODGINS stated that each state has had an opportunity to put in
their own time limit for training. If SB 29 passes, Alaska will be
in compliance with 43 other states. He said there is a letter from
Dr. Sarah Isto, head of the Alaska Medical Board, which lays out
the thoughts of the Alaska Medical Board on that issue and gives a
little background information.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why osteopaths were listed as a
specific specialty.
MR. HODGINS indicated that osteopaths are specifically talked about
in the current legislation and, in order to be in compliance, they
need to be included.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Distinct academic disciplines, although,
meaning much the same end result. And those guys are such snobs
that they wouldn't want to be confused."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there was anyone opposed to SB
29. She wondered if there are any other medical organizations who
are not in support of the bill.
MR. HODGINS did not know. He stated that there were some
difficulties with SB 29 earlier when "we had the requirement of
boosting up the medical internship and residency of American and
Canadian physicians." He said the same problem would be
encountered with SB 71. Mr. Hodgins knows of no other organized
medical group that is opposed to SB 29 the way it is written.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was opposition to SB 71 because of
that or has the bill been changed.
MR. HODGINS said that portions of SB 71 had been in SB 29. He
stated that there was quite a bit of opposition to some of the
items in SB 29. Therefore, some of the items were removed and
there have been no further difficulties with the bill.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he had spoken with Dr. Eyal Herzog,
a cardiologist employed with the Elmendorf Air Force Base Hospital.
Even though Dr. Herzog had spent several years at Columbia
University in New York, without this change in this law he would
not be able practice. Apparently, some of these physicians,
because they are specialists, would be allowed to practice at the
Veterans Administration clinics and hospitals, but "we are not able
to use them because they don't have a state licensure." He
wondered if this is what is happening.
MR. HODGINS replied yes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are two physicians in the state
that are not licensed, but would like to be and need this bill.
MR. HODGINS stated that there are probably several medical doctors
that would like to see this as would several people in Bush
communities. The concern is having proper medical care for
Alaskans, veterans and military personnel in Alaska. He imagines
this would not affect a lot of different physicians.
Number 1840
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), stated that
her division provides staff support to the State Medical Board.
She said DCED and the medical board both strongly support SB 29.
She pointed out that there is a zero fiscal impact.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the medical board has the same opinion
about SB 71.
MS. REARDON answered in the affirmative. She does not anticipate
testimony against SB 71.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the bill has metamorphosed from its
earlier, more controversial nature.
MS. REARDON feels that it is very positively received.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that SB 29 would be held.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1903
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee at 4:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|