Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/28/2003 03:18 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2003
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to claims and court actions for defects in the
design, construction, and remodeling of certain dwellings;
limiting when certain court actions may be brought; and amending
Rules 79 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
- MOVED CSHB 151(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act establishing the Radiologic Technology Board of
Examiners; requiring licensure of occupations relating to
radiologic technology, radiation therapy, and nuclear medicine
technology; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 186(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act declaring legislative intent to reject the continuity of
enterprise exception to the doctrine of successor liability
adopted in Savage Arms, Inc. v. Western Auto Supply, 18 P.3d 49
(Alaska 2001), as it relates to products liability; providing
that a successor corporation or other business entity that
acquires assets of a predecessor corporation or other business
entity is subject to liability for harm to persons or property
caused by a defective product sold or otherwise distributed
commercially by the predecessor only if the acquisition is
accompanied by an agreement for the successor to assume the
liability, results from a fraudulent conveyance to escape
liability for the debts or liabilities of the predecessor,
constitutes a consolidation or merger with the predecessor, or
results in the successor's becoming a continuation of the
predecessor; defining 'business entity' that acquires assets to
include a sole proprietorship; and applying this Act to the
sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of assets by a
corporation, a limited liability company, a partnership, a
limited liability partnership, a limited partnership, a sole
proprietorship, or other business entity that occurs on or after
the effective date of this Act."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act increasing the fee for a state business license; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED to 04/04/03
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE:DWELLING DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MEYER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0396 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0396 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/05/03 0407 (H) FIN REFERRAL REMOVED
03/26/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/26/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/28/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE:LICENSING RADIOLOGIC TECHNICIANS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ANDERSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/12/03 0511 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/12/03 0511 (H) L&C, HES, FIN
03/26/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/26/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/28/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 151, presented the bill
and answered questions.
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist
for Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 151 and answered
questions.
ALAN WILSON, Legislative Group Co-Chair
Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 151, describing
homebuilders' difficulty in obtaining general liability
insurance.
TERRY BANNISTER, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
POSITION STATEMENT: As drafter of HB 151, answered questions
about changes in Court Rule 82.
HEATHER BEATY, Staff
to Representative Tom Anderson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described the changes in the proposed CSHB
186.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director of Legislative and Governmental
Affairs
General Teamsters, Local 959, Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of proposed CSHB 186.
CHRISTINE LUNG, Director of Government Relations
American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT)
Albuquerque, New Mexico
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 186.
DONNA RUFSHOLM, President
Alaska Society of Radiologic Technologists
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described why her organization requested
legislative action in the form of HB 186.
DALE COLLINS, Program Chair
Radiologic Technology
Medical Imaging Sciences Department
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 186, described the
current 19-month radiologic technologist program offered at UAA.
RICK URION, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about writing
regulations for HB 186.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Lynn, Dahlstrom, Gatto, Rokeberg, Crawford, and
Guttenberg were present at the call to order.
HB 151-DWELLING DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS
Number 0050
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 151, "An Act relating to claims and court
actions for defects in the design, construction, and remodeling
of certain dwellings; limiting when certain court actions may be
brought; and amending Rules 79 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure."
Number 0067
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 151, testified that this legislation gives homeowners and
construction professionals a process to work out building
defects without going through litigation. This action is called
"a notice and opportunity to repair process." He said this is a
national movement; 20 other states are considering similar
legislation; at least six states have passed it. This bill
requires homeowners to provide a written notice at least 90 days
prior to going into litigation so that the homebuilder has the
opportunity to fix the defects. In Alaska, contractors and
homebuilders are required to have liability insurance. As the
result of some [court] judgments, liability insurance is harder
to get and is very expensive, he testified, and unfortunately,
that expense gets passed onto the homebuyer. Representative
Meyer said he agreed to carry HB 151 because it is a consumer
protection measure. The bill allows for timely repairs within
90 days. Otherwise, if people have to go through the courts,
resolution [of the problem] can drag on for years. He said
there is a lot of motivation by the homebuilders to get defects
fixed before the dispute goes to court.
Number 0252
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 151, Version 23-LS0499\I, Bannister,
3/27/03, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version I was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained the two minor changes in the CS.
The language on page 2, line 1, clarifies that the bill deals
with a construction defect in a substantially completed dwelling
or a remodeling job. He said the original language was too
vague and needed to reflect the wording on page 2, lines 6-9,
paragraph (b)(2). The second change is on page 6, lines 2-18,
and requires that statutory language be added to the contract.
This change gives the consumer and the homebuilder information
on the statute that governs claims brought under this process.
Number 0412
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the "notice of claim" is
preparatory to a formal court action or is it separate.
Number 0472
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist for the Alaska State Homebuilders
Association, replied that HB 151 requires the homeowner to serve
a notice on or send a certified letter to the builder. Once the
defect is discovered, the homeowner sends the notice; this step
must be done before a homeowner can file a claim in court. The
process is found on page 2, lines 12-24, "Notice of claim."
Throughout the whole process, if discussions break down, the
homeowner always has the option of going to court, he said.
Under HB 151, the builder has the opportunity to get the problem
fixed before litigation gets started. Currently, the homeowner
is reluctant to have any work at all done on the defect because
it's evidence [in a potential lawsuit]. If the defect is
unhealthy, for example, causing a mold problem in the person's
home, it's important to get the problem fixed [right away], he
added.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that when [a problem arises with] a
new house, the homeowner calls the homebuilder, who will come
over and fix it. There may be times when the homebuilder gets
busy; then the homeowner needs to put the request in writing.
Then the clock starts, and the homebuilder has 90 days to fix
the problem. If it's not repaired, it can be litigated.
Number 0627
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked when the one-year clock begins and
if it includes the 90 days.
MR. BITNEY replied that according to the language on page 1,
line 13, the claimant must notify the builder within one year of
discovering the defect. That year must fall within the 10 years
after the completion of the construction or remodeling. The law
will still have the same 10-year statute of limitation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG confirmed that the consumer can bring a
complaint within 10 years. For purposes of this statute, he
only has a year to bring the complaint to the builder.
MR. BITNEY reiterated that the complaint must be reported within
a year after discovery, within the 10-year timeframe. He
clarified that if the defect is discovered after 9 years and 2
months, the consumer has 10 months to notify the builder of the
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how an unscrupulous contractor could
exploit HB 151.
Number 0772
ALAN WILSON, Legislative Group Co-Chair, Alaska State
Homebuilders Association, replied that his group does not
believe this [bill gives homebuilders an unfair advantage]. He
said that nothing in HB 151 prevents a homeowner from bringing
in an expert to do further investigative work on a problem. If
the homeowner asks the contractor to repair an item, and more
problems are discovered, then the homeowner can still request
the contractor to fix additional things; the homeowner can start
the process again and again. He testified that a majority of
homebuilders are trying to deliver a quality product and want
the opportunity to fix the problem rather than go to court.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that this bill narrows the
options of buyers and builders who are abusers. He asked if
this bill establishes a lemon law for bad homes.
MR. WILSON replied [HB 151] does not go that far.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Wilson to describe the
insurance problems in his industry. He noted the example of
Chuck Spinelli, an Anchorage contractor, whose insurance
increased from $50,000 to $400,000 a year.
Number 0933
MR. WILSON said the bigger issue for the homebuilding industry
is insurance - not so much the cost, as the availability. Some
builders have experienced a 600 percent increase in premiums, he
testified. A few years ago, a business could look elsewhere for
insurance and find another company writing the same coverage for
less money. Today, he said, there are only two insurers in the
state writing general liability policies for the homebuilder
industry. The builder might get a policy at a higher cost but
with reduced coverage. He said that insurance companies are not
covering mold problems; they're not even willing to write
product liability any longer. He said that the insurance
industry wants to see action by homebuilders that will reduce
these lawsuits with high awards. He said that HB 151 is a step
in that direction.
Number 1004
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether this bill is a mini tort
reform or an alternative dispute resolution that benefits the
consumer. He noted that HB 151 prevents the consumer from
getting attorney's fees in court if the consumer rejects the
homebuilder's offer or doesn't allow the homebuilder to repair
the defect.
MR. WILSON replied that HB 151 is a form of alternative dispute
resolution. He said that experience shows that when these cases
go to court, the repairs happen years later; the damages are
often greater than they were on day one. Often, there's not
enough money left after the court costs are paid to get the
problem fixed. That's unfair to any consumer, he said. This
bill is really consumer protection legislation, he added.
Number 1071
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how HB 151 will help homebuilders
in their dealings with consumers.
MR. WILSON replied that HB 151 forces clients and builders to
communicate, which should resolve a lot of issues. He said it
puts consumers in a more advantageous position when they're
dealing with builders. The bill allows consumers to avoid going
to court, which can be a costly and lengthy process.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO mentioned that 9 of the 12 letters from
contractors in his bill packet are identical. He said this
looks like a campaign to get legislators to support this bill.
MR. WILSON acknowledged that his association sent out sample
letters to its members.
CHAIR ANDERSON added that the letters show that these companies
endorse the bill.
Number 1177
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if HB 151 covers [building] code
violations.
MR. WILSON replied that code violations are typically caught
during the construction phase, final inspections, or the
certificate of occupancy phase. If a problem was missed, the
homeowner could address that as a defect.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that previously Rule 82, [Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure,] allowed the person prevailing in a lawsuit
to collect 20 percent of the settlement [for attorney's fees].
He asked if Rule 82 is modified in HB 151.
Number 1236
TERRY BANNISTER, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, drafter of the bill, confirmed that the title of HB 151
amends Rule 82. Language on page 7, Section 4, starting on line
29, indicates that AS 09.45.889(b) also changes Rule 82 "by
allowing the court to deny costs to a claimant in the situation
described in AS 09.45.889(b), even if the claimant is the
prevailing party." It changes the rule to that extent, she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the bill intends to deny the
prevailing party the usual right to have some of his expenses
paid by the losing party.
MS. BANNISTER explained that she can't speak to the intent of
the bill.
Number 1308
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked about the language on page 2,
line 21, referring to rules of evidence and discovery. He noted
that the legislature is trying to encourage a resolution between
a contractor and a builder.
MS. BANNISTER said this language describes what a claimant must
produce in order to show [the builder] what [the defect is].
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the court rules of evidence
are a higher standard than just saying, "Here's a picture of
what I found."
MS. BANNISTER said she doesn't know if it's a higher standard;
it's an ascertainable standard. If the rules of evidence allow
the information [to be used in court], the person has to [follow
that procedure].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this is a mini-discovery
process.
Number 1392
MS. BANNISTER agreed that it's a discovery process and the bill
uses as the criteria the [Alaska] Rules of Evidence. It's about
what [information] can be produced.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he wants this to be an easy
process so two people can say, "The faucet is broken." He said
he wants this [conversation between consumer and builder] to go
smoothly; he doesn't want to have somebody come back later and
say, "You didn't follow the rules of evidence."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the sponsor may want to look at
this issue of using court rules of evidence. He asked whether
there's a simpler method of [describing the defect]. He said he
prefers that before the claimant hires an attorney and follows
the court rules, the person will call up the builder and say,
"Hey, we've got a problem." And the builder will say, "Okay,
I'll come out and fix it." He suggested this procedure might be
self-correcting. He said he doesn't want somebody to have to
hire an attorney to get the faucet fixed.
Number 1532
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 151, Version 23-
LS0499\I, Bannister, 3/27/03, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the committee fiscal notes that will be
provided. There being no objection, CSHB 151(L&C) was reported
from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 186-LICENSING RADIOLOGIC TECHNICIANS
Number 1576
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act establishing the Radiologic
Technology Board of Examiners; requiring licensure of
occupations relating to radiologic technology, radiation
therapy, and nuclear medicine technology; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 1607
The committee took an at-ease from 3:47 to 3:48 p.m.
Number 1618
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the proposed CSHB 186,
Version 23-LS0380\S, Lauterbach, 3/25/03, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version S was before the
committee.
Number 1639
CHAIR ANDERSON, as the sponsor of HB 186, explained that members
of the [Alaska] Society of Radiologic Technologists approached
him last summer about introducing a bill that would license
radiologic technicians and create a board of examiners. He said
the bill has been introduced several times in the past 10 years.
He said he favors careful scrutiny and licensing of people
employed in the health care field. He stated that an error by a
technician doing a mammogram, for example, could result in
overlooking a case of breast cancer.
Number 1723
HEATHER BEATY, Staff to Representative Tom Anderson, Alaska
State Legislature, summarized the changes in the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 186. She said these changes
were discussed with staff from the Division of Occupational
Licensing. On page 4, line 12, Sec. 08.89.130, new language
gives the Radiologic Technology Board of Examiners authority to
evaluate educational programs from out of state. The bill's
original language required that all applicants for full
licensure must have graduated from an in-state educational
program. The proposed CS language provides for graduation from
any program that the board decides meets the criteria outlined
within the section. The change on page 6, line 1-4, Sec.
08.89.160, makes the same revision.
MS. BEATY explained that another change on page 7, line 4, Sec.
08.89.180, removes language [in the original bill] pertaining to
a lapse in licensure. By removing this subsection, the
licensees would be governed by the centralized licensing
statute, which allows for a grace period in renewal of licenses
and allows the board to charge a late penalty for renewals made
after the expiration date. The original language in HB 186
would require a licensee to begin a new application process if
there were any lapse in licensure. Ms. Beaty explained that
this is consistent with the way other boards in Alaska provide
licensure and allows for a small lapse. On page 8, line 10,
Sec. 08.89.300, the words "holding a license or permit" are
added after "person." Sec. 08.89.330 on 8, starting on line 26,
adds language indicating the board's authority to deny an
application or renewal of licensure for disciplinary reasons.
She explained that this change was made at the request of
division officials. The last change on page 10, line 13, adds
"dentists" as a "licensed practitioner" qualified to supervise
the performance of radiologic examinations by licensees.
Number 1929
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director of Legislative and Governmental
Affairs, General Teamsters, Local 959, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 186 and the changes in the proposed CS. She said
the Teamsters represent radiologic technologists at hospitals in
Homer and Kodiak. The members support the requirement that
individuals working in the industry, whether in a hospital or
clinic setting, are certified and are therefore able and
eligible to perform the tasks, whether it's mammography, MRI or
bone density tests. The work is important because physicians
use it to make recommendations for the next step in treatment.
She said the Teamsters also support the bill from a public
health and safety perspective, giving patients the assurance
that qualified people are doing the job.
Number 2038
CHRISTINE LUNG, Director of Government Relations, American
Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT), explained that her
professional organization was founded to promote the proper and
safe delivery of medical imaging and radiation therapy
procedures. She said ASRT is concerned about the risks from
unnecessary radiation exposure. She stated that 90 percent of
public exposure to radiation results from medical procedures,
primarily diagnostic x-ray exams performed by radiologic
technologists. Ms. Lung stated that the federal Food and Drug
Administration, Bureau of Radiologic Health, estimates that 30
percent of exposures to manmade radiation are unnecessary, and 5
to 10 percent of unnecessary exposures are attributed to
repeated x-ray exams. She said that ASRT is concerned that
overuse as well as the improper use of medical radiation is an
ever-increasing health hazard to the public.
MS. LUNG testified that currently a physician using x-ray
equipment in his practice is under no obligation to require any
credential or specific education of the employee who operates
medical imaging or radiation therapy equipment. She said in
Alaska, anyone off the street can be hired in the morning to
operate this potentially dangerous equipment that the afternoon.
She said her society believes that HB 186 will help alleviate
this disparity in health care.
Number 2115
MS. LUNG said there are over 400 radiologic technologists
registered in the State of Alaska by a voluntary certification
body, the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT).
However, she said, there's no way of knowing how many people
with minimal training and no certification are operating x-ray,
radiation therapy, and other medical imaging equipment in
Alaska. These people are administering potentially harmful
radiation without having demonstrated scientific knowledge,
technical understanding, clinical competency, or professional
responsibility. She said that 36 other states currently license
radiologic technologists and radiation therapists. She said she
hopes the State of Alaska will join these other states in making
sure that the people performing medical imaging and delivering
radiation therapy are properly educated and credentialed, as
evidenced by being licensed.
Number 2172
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the federal Consumer-
Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981 requires workers
in the field to be certified.
MS. LUNG responded that this federal law sets voluntary
standards for the states. She said that HB 186 would meet these
voluntary requirements. She said that her organization and 16
other national societies representing radiation and medical
imaging personnel are pursuing an amendment to the 1981 federal
law, H.R. 1214. This amendment would require states to comply
with the law's mandates at the risk of losing state Medicaid
matching funds for radiologic procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked questions about whether the ASRT
provides educational courses or certifications.
MS. LUNG replied that the ASRT does not provide courses for
people entering the profession but it does do continuing
education training for registered radiologic technologists. She
explained that it does not offer certifications; rather it
represents professionals in the field. She explained that a
national agency, the ARRT, provides the examination and
credentials.
Number 2289
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if HB 186 meets a national
standard or conforms to other state's norms for radiologic
technologists.
MS. LUNG replied yes.
Number 2352
DONNA RUFSHOLM, President, Alaska Society of Radiologic
Technologists, reiterated why the Alaska organization requested
Representative Anderson to sponsor HB 186. She said that HB 186
ensures that Alaskans will have access to safe and high-quality
radiologic care without geographical limitations. She cited the
problems identified in the written testimony submitted by the
State of Alaska's radiologic health specialist. These examples
included operators exposing patients to as much as 60 times more
radiation than necessary for medical procedures; operators who
practice by exposing each other to x-rays; unrestricted x-ray
beams; inexperienced, untrained and under-trained personnel
performing radiologic procedures on patients.
TAPE 03-24, SIDE B
Number 2379
MS. RUFSHOLM stated that many patients assume that people
performing medical procedures know what they are doing. She
said that licensure through HB 186 will give Alaskans the
confidence that they'll have access to high quality radiologic
care whenever they go into a facility for an x-ray.
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked about the cost of the licensing.
CHAIR ANDERSON explained that the fiscal note would be discussed
after the witnesses testify.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired about the availability of
trained personnel, particularly in rural Alaska. He asked
whether the bill allows a multi-tiered level of licensure that
would assist people at the entry level of the profession.
MS. RUFSHOLM explained that the University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA) has a 19-month associate degree program in radiologic
technology. UAA is also working with the society to develop a
program for limited licensure so that individuals in rural areas
can perform radiologic procedures safely and with confidence.
Number 2238
DALE COLLINS, Program Chair, Radiologic Technology, Medical
Imaging Sciences Department, University of Alaska Anchorage,
described the program that started in 2001 for career-entry
radiographers. Currently, 27 students are enrolled in the
program, seven of whom will graduate in May as qualified
radiographers. They will have the education stipulated by the
ASRT and well as the competency requirements determined by the
national registry organization, the ARRT. There are classes at
UAA and at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
MR. COLLINS said that UAA will soon offer a four-month semester-
long program, which includes three courses that would cover all
the elements necessary for a limited scope of practice license
developed by the ARRT. This program would fill a training need
for staff in rural communities around the state. This program
could be implemented if HB 186 passes the legislature.
Number 2135
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether developing the four-month
program depends on passage of this bill.
MR. COLLINS explained that implementing this curriculum is
independent of passage of HB 186.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether most health service
providers that hire people in this field require ARRT
certification.
MR. COLLINS said that certification of radiologic technologists
is usually required by the providers' accrediting organization.
For example, JCAHO, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations, requires hospitals to employ ARRT-
registered technologists.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the impact of a $543 license
biennial fee on an entry-level technologist.
Number 2081
MR. COLLINS replied that an entry-level wage for a radiographer
ranges from $36,000 to $40,000. He said the graduates of the
UAA program will earn a minimum of $40,000 annually in the
Anchorage area.
Number 2002
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she found answers to her question
about the cost of licensing on the fiscal note. She noted her
concerns about limited licenses for those practicing in the
rural communities but said she is confident that the next
committee of referral, the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee, will carefully review this issues.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the bill requires the Division
of Occupational Licensing to implement regulations for the
licensing of radiologic technologists.
Number 1967
RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development, replied yes.
When asked whether his staff has discussed doing advance work on
these regulations, given the bill's effective date of July 1,
2003, he answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that the division consider
such advance work, if given authority to proceed by the
Legislature. He suggested that the bill has not moved in past
years because of its large fiscal note. He noted that its
chances may be improved because a law passed several years ago
allowing license fees to be treated as program receipts. He
noted that the fiscal note and license fee of $543 is based on
400 people becoming licensed. He commented that occupations
which are regulated by boards generally have high overhead.
CHAIR ANDERSON advised that members of the Alaska Society of
Radiologic Technicians agreed to the $543 license fee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why HB 186 is necessary if the
ARRT is already certifying radiologic technologists.
Number 1800
MS. RUFSHOLM responded that the registry is a nationally
recognized board. Individuals sit for the ARRT exam after they
have finished their education and their clinical training to
become radiologic technologists. This a voluntary exam, and the
person must meet certain educational criteria to be able to sit
for this exam and become certified. The individuals who
practice in the rural areas without proper education or
credentialing cannot even consider sitting for the ARRT exam.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he appreciates these efforts to
protect the public. Because of the realities of rural Alaska,
this bill could limit services by medical providers in rural
Alaska.
Number 1725
MS. RUFSHOLM said her group's intent is not to bar health
services in the rural areas. She explained that the Alaska
society is asking that those individuals who are taking x-rays
in the rural areas get some sort of education so they understand
what they are doing. She stated that radiation is accumulative;
it's a health hazard if not administered properly. She said
that's why the UAA is working with her society to offer training
for a limited license. The intent is not to require an
associate degree for everyone working in the field.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if having every operator in the
state register with the ARRT would accomplish the same thing.
He asked why create a board; why not require everyone who
operates a machine to be certified.
Number 1646
MS. RUFSHOLM said there are other options besides creating a
board. For example, another approach is having the state's
radiation health office regulate radiologists.
MS. LUNG said that some states require a radiologic technologist
to be registered with the ARRT, rather than having a
professional board oversee them. Another option is requiring
regular inspections of x-ray machines on a regular basis. She
said patients in outlying areas of Alaska are entitled to the
same quality of care that they would receive in an urban
hospital from a registered radiologic technologist. She
emphasized that radiologic procedures are not only done in a
hospital; 40 percent are done in an outpatient setting or in a
physician's office. These facilities don't have the same JCAHO
requirements of hospitals.
Number 1516
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the CS for HB 186,
Version 25-LS0380\S, Lauterbach, 3/25/03, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objections, CSHB 186(L&C) was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|