Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/26/1995 03:22 PM L&C

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
           HOUSE LABOR & COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE                           
                         April 26, 1995                                        
                           3:22 p.m.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                            
 Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman                                 
 Representative Jerry Sanders                                                  
 Representative Kim Elton                                                      
 Representative Gene Kubina                                                    
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 Representative Beverly Masek                                                  
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 HB 266:  "An Act relating to preferred provider agreements                    
          offered by hospital or medical service corporations."                
                                                                               
          HEARD AND HELD                                                       
                                                                               
 HB 251:  "An Act relating to Native corporations."                            
                                                                               
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
                                                                               
 HB 243:  "An Act relating to licensure of landscape architects."              
                                                                               
          HEARD AND HELD                                                       
                                                                               
 HB 260:  "An Act relating to marine pilots and the Board of                   
          Marine Pilots; extending the termination date of the                 
          Board of Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective               
          date."                                                               
 HB 217:  "An Act relating to employment of teachers."                         
                                                                               
          SCHEDULED BUT NOT HELD                                               
 HB 232:  "An Act establishing an economic development tax credit;             
          and providing for an effective date."                                
                                                                               
          SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                              
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 LARRY CARROLL, Senior Securities Examiner                                     
 Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations                              
 Department of Commerce and Economic Development                               
 P.O. Box 110807                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0807                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2521                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 251                             
                                                                               
 TIM BENINTENDI, Legislative Assistant                                         
    to Representative Carl Moses                                               
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol Building, Room 204                                              
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3764                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 251                             
                                                                               
 ROBERTA COUGHNOUR                                                             
 Employee Relations                                                            
 Municipality of Anchorage                                                     
 632 West Sixth Avenue, Number 610                                             
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 343-4517                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 266                                      
                                                                               
 CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist                                                      
 Alaska Regional Hospital                                                      
 P.O. Box 102286                                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99510                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 561-4773                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 266                           
                                                                               
 DOUGLAS BRUCE, Chief Executive Officer                                        
 Providence Health System in Alaska                                            
 P.O. Box 196604                                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99519-6604                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 261-3055                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 266                                 
                                                                               
 MARIANNE K. BURKE, Director                                                   
 Division of Insurance                                                         
 Department of Commerce and                                                    
   Economic Development                                                        
 P.O. Box 110805                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0805                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2515                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions regarding HB 266                      
                                                                               
 GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant                                          
   to Representative Pete Kott                                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 432                                                    
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3777                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Gave sponsor statement for HB 243                        
                                                                               
 CATHERINE REARDON, Director                                                   
 Division of Occupational Licensing                                            
 Department of Commerce and                                                    
   Economic Development                                                        
 P.O. Box 110806                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0806                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2538                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 243                                 
                                                                               
 DWAYNE ADAMS                                                                  
 13311 Cover Circle                                                            
 Anchorage, AK 99515                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 345-6958                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 243                           
                                                                               
 LINDA CYRA-KORSGGARD, Landscape Architect                                     
 1509 "P" Street                                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 279-9467                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 243                           
                                                                               
 LEE WYATT                                                                     
 P.O. Box 873768                                                               
 Wasilla, AK 99687                                                             
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 243                           
                                                                               
 BURDETT LENT, Landscape Architect                                             
 374 Sarah's Way                                                               
 Wasilla, AK 99654                                                             
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 243                           
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 266                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: HEALTH CARE PREFERRED PROVIDER PROGRAMS                          
 SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST                                       
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/17/95       778    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/17/95       779    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, HES, JUDICIARY                  
 04/12/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/24/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/24/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/26/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 251                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORPORATIONS                                              
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES, MacLean, Williams, Kott                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/15/95       741    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/15/95       741    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE                                  
 03/27/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/29/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/29/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/05/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/10/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/12/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/21/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/24/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/24/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 243                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: LICENSING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS                                
 SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/08/95       644    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/08/95       644    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE                   
 03/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/23/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/24/95       893    (H)   STA RPT 1DP 5NR                                   
 03/24/95       893    (H)   DP: ROBINSON                                      
 03/24/95       893    (H)   NR: JAMES, WILLIS, IVAN, GREEN,                   
                             PORTER                                            
 03/24/95       894    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                
 04/12/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/26/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 260                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: MARINE PILOTS                                                    
 SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION                                                    
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/15/95       745    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/15/95       745    (H)   TRANSPORTATION, LABOR & COMMERCE                  
 03/22/95              (H)   TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/24/95              (H)   TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/05/95              (H)   TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/05/95              (H)   MINUTE(TRA)                                       
 04/07/95      1170    (H)   TRA RPT  CS(TRA) 2DP 2NR 2AM                      
 04/07/95      1171    (H)   DP: BRICE, WILLIAMS                               
 04/07/95      1171    (H)   NR: MACLEAN, SANDERS                              
 04/07/95      1171    (H)   AM: JAMES, G.DAVIS                                
 04/07/95      1171    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                
 04/12/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/18/95      1356    (H)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 04/19/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/21/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/26/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 217                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: TEACHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS & RETIREMENT                           
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN                                            
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/29/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/01/95       531    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/01/95       531    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY                                    
 03/07/95              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/07/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/29/95              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 04/11/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 04/13/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 04/13/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 04/18/95      1344    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) NT 2DP 1NR 1AM                   
 04/18/95      1344    (H)   DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY                                 
 04/18/95      1345    (H)   NR: G.DAVIS                                       
 04/18/95      1345    (H)   AM: ROBINSON                                      
 04/18/95      1345    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DOE)                                 
 04/19/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 04/20/95      1408    (H)   L&C REFERRAL ADDED                                
 04/21/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 04/21/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/22/95      1446    (H)   JUD RPT  CS(JUD) NT 5DP 1DNP                      
 04/22/95      1446    (H)   DP: VEZEY, PORTER, GREEN, BUNDE,                  
                             TOOHEY                                            
 04/22/95      1446    (H)   DNP: FINKELSTEIN                                  
 04/22/95      1446    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)                            
 04/26/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 232                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT                                  
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT                                            
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/06/95       590    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/06/95       590    (H)   ECD, STA, L&C, FINANCE                            
 03/21/95              (H)   ECD AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/21/95              (H)   MINUTE(ECD)                                       
 03/22/95       850    (H)   ECD RPT  CS(ECD) 6DP                              
 03/22/95       850    (H)   DP: KELLY, MOSES, MACLEAN, KOHRING                
 03/22/95       850    (H)   DP: SANDERS, ROKEBERG                             
 03/22/95       850    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)                   
 03/22/95       850    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                                
 04/04/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 04/04/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 04/06/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 04/06/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 04/11/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 04/11/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 04/18/95      1345    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA) 4DP 2NR                          
 04/18/95      1346    (H)   DP: GREEN, PORTER, JAMES, OGAN                    
 04/18/95      1346    (H)   NR: WILLIS, ROBINSON                              
 04/18/95      1346    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)                   
 04/18/95      1346    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                           
 04/21/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/24/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 04/24/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/26/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
                                                                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-45, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was                   
 called to order by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:22 p.m.  He informed               
 the committee the teleconference printer, which prints who is on              
 line, isn't working.  He said he would poll the Legislative                   
 Information Offices (LIO) to see who was on line to testify on                
 scheduled legislation.  Members present at the call to order were             
 Representatives Sanders, Elton, Kubina, Rokeberg and Kott.                    
 Members absent were Representatives Masek and Porter.                         
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the order of business would be HB                
 266, HB 260, HB 232, HB 243 and if time is available, HB 217.  He             
 polled the LIOs so see who was on line.                                       
 HB 266 - HEALTH CARE PREFERRED PROVIDER PROGRAMS                            
                                                                               
 Number 099                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business would be the              
 continuation of HB 266, "An Act relating to preferred provider                
 agreements offered by hospital or medical service corporations."              
 He said testimony had been given on the bill the previous Monday.             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG interrupted to make a motion to                
 bring another bill, previously heard, before the committee.                   
 HB 251 - NATIVE CORPORATIONS                                                
                                                                               
 Number 116                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to rescind the committee's action               
 on tabling HB 251.                                                            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to rescind the committee's               
 action in tabling HB 251.                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is rescinding the tabling.  He                
 said he would move to take it off the table.                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said probably the appropriate motion would be to                
 move to untable.  He explained there is a question as to which                
 motion Representative Rokeberg wants.  He said the motion to                  
 untable is not debatable.  To rescind the committee's action is               
 debatable.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he wishes to rescind the committee's             
 action in tabling.                                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said he isn't interested in debating it.             
 He stated it doesn't matter which motion is made.  However, he                
 noted he had a question of Representatative Rokeberg.  He asked               
 why the motion is being made now.  He said it seems to him that a             
 message has been sent.  The bill was put aside for awhile and now             
 the bill is being brought up in a point in time when those who                
 are most interested in the bill aren't in the room.                           
 Representative Elton said it seems sudden to him.                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believes the committee was at a               
 point, at the last meeting when the bill was under consideration,             
 to take a vote when the committee lost a quorum.  He said as he               
 recalls that was the reason the committee didn't vote at that                 
 time.  However, there is a question as to the nature of the exact             
 document that the committee would vote on.                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he doesn't believe there was a question as to              
 which document the committee would have moved had they had the                
 quorum to move it.  He referred to Representative Elton's                     
 question of "why now," and said, "Why not now?"  He said the                  
 issue was debated.  He noted public testimony wasn't taken during             
 the last two hearings on the measure.  There is nothing that the              
 public could have offered.  Chairman Kott noted there is a                    
 representative from the Division of Banking, Securities and                   
 Corporations, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, in             
 attendance if there are any questions.  He asked Representative               
 Rokeberg which motion he desires to make.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 168                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to untable HB 251.                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to untable, bring it off the             
 table, HB 251.  He said that motion is not debatable.  He asked               
 if there was an objection.                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.                                                
                                                                               
 Number 182                                                                    
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Kott, Rokeberg,                  
 Kubina and Sanders voted in favor of the motion.  Representative              
 Elton voted against the motion.  So HB 251 was before the                     
 committee.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked for a copy of the bill that was              
 before the committee.                                                         
                                                                               
 A brief at ease was taken at 3:32 p.m.  CHAIRMAN KOTT called the              
 meeting back to order at 3:34 p.m.                                            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee has been provided with a                
 copy of the latest committee substitute (CS) for HB 251, Version              
 O, dated 4/24/95.  He said the CS increases the petition numbers.             
 He said 15 percent of the shareholders must sign a petition if                
 the corporation has 500 or more shareholders.  If there are less              
 than 500, then the number is 25 percent.  There is a provision in             
 the bill that extends the time from the previous CS of 90 days to             
 180 days after filing.  He explained on line 21, the years were               
 increased from one to two years.  Chairman Kott said all the                  
 civil and legal penalties were removed.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 204                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved Amendment 1, a conceptual                       
 amendment.  He explained that would be on page 2, line 15, after              
 the word "corporation" insert a "." and delete "within 180 days               
 after the filing."  Representative Rokeberg referred to line 21,              
 after the word "preceding" change "two" to "one".  Then change                
 the word "years" to "year".  He moved his amendment.                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Rokeberg to divide the                     
 question and to deal each of the changes separately.                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT recapped Amendment 1.  On page 2, line 15, after                
 the word "corporation" insert a "." and delete "within 180 days               
 after the filing."  REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is correct.             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 1 has been moved and he would object             
 for the purpose of discussion.                                                
                                                                               
 Number 254                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would prefer that the "two" to "one"             
 year was the first amendment, because that will affect the way he             
 will vote on the 180 day period.  For example, if the two year                
 period is maintained, he may prefer leaving the 180 days in.  He              
 said if chair and maker of the amendment doesn't object, maybe                
 the two amendments can be flipped.                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG and CHAIRMAN KOTT stated they didn't                  
 object.                                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 2 would be first.  He asked                      
 Representative Rokeberg to withdraw his motion.                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his motion on Amendment 1.  He               
 then moved Amendment 2, line 21, after the word "preceding"                   
 change "two" to "one".  Then change "years" to "year".                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to move Amendment 2.  He                 
 asked if there was an objection.  Chairman Kott said he would                 
 object for the purpose of discussion.  He asked why the number of             
 years is being reduced from "two" to "one."                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said in the interest of only modifying                
 the existing corporate regulations (indisc.) corporations, it is              
 the sponsor's belief that this would be more readily acceptable               
 to all parties in order to move the bill along.  He asked for the             
 committee member's support.                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he will maintain his objection.                            
                                                                               
 Number 254                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he believes the committee has done a                
 very good job reaching a middle ground, something that everybody              
 is starting to feel more comfortable with.  The committee has                 
 heard a lot of testimony.  He said he believes the people in his              
 district feels very strongly about one year rather than two                   
 years.  The issue that we are trying to get to is repetitive                  
 petitions or repetitive votes.  He believes this is acceptable to             
 both sides.  Representative Elton said he sees this as an attempt             
 to make it less onerous and, hopefully, smooth passage down the               
 road.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 263                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to his objection and said he thinks that               
 when you start reducing the amount of time, such as from two                  
 years to one year, you provide a mechanism that would cause some              
 disruption within the corporation and interfere with their                    
 ability to enhance the position of the shareholders.  Every year              
 the shareholders can come back if they acquire the number of                  
 signatures and cause disruption within the corporation.                       
 Therefore, probably cause some concern among the board members                
 and their ability to do their assigned task.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he believes the chairman has identified             
 a significant problem.  He said a majority of that problem comes              
 about when there is an annual meeting and things don't go the way             
 a shareholder would expect.  So the day after the annual meeting,             
 when a vote has been taken, they're on the street with a                      
 petition.  He said he thinks that is where most of the problem                
 occurs.  This provides for a one year cooling off period.  It is              
 his guess it would substantially meet the purposes to the                     
 repetitive petition.                                                          
                                                                               
 There being no further discussion on Amendment 2, a roll call                 
 vote was taken.  Representatives Rokeberg, Elton, Sanders and                 
 Kubina voted in favor of the motion.  Chairman Kott voted against             
 the motion.  So Amendment 2 was adopted.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 291                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved Amendment 1.  CHAIRMAN KOTT                     
 objected for the purpose of discussion.                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said by removing this requirement, we                 
 would take away one of the most divisive issues that the                      
 committee heard in public testimony.  That was to set up a                    
 limiting time frame as to how long the petitions could be                     
 circulated.  He said it would return the petitioning process to               
 the existing statutory language.  He asked for the committee's                
 support.                                                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said what he believes was done by changing two                  
 years to one year, and now taking away the time certain that the              
 shareholders have to collect the signatures, will place a great               
 degree of disruption within the corporation.  Now they would be               
 battling the petition and collection of those signatures for an               
 indefinite amount of time.  The committee has already, by                     
 adoption of the previous amendment, placed another problem in                 
 front of them.  He said he believes the committee is going in the             
 wrong direction.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 313                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he believes the amendment is more of a              
 problematic amendment then the others.  There is the one year                 
 cooling off period.  He said he guesses that if the language is               
 kept in the bill, it would be guaranteeing that a divisive issue              
 will be back perhaps within a year and a half.  If you take that              
 away, that divisive issue may not be back on the table for two                
 years.  What is being done is the amount of time is being                     
 extended between the divisive votes.                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the divisive issue may never go away based on              
 having unlimited amount of time to collet signatures.  He said he             
 would maintain his objection.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he has had communication from numerous             
 Native corporations and people involved with them.  What a lot of             
 them have realized is that they just have to have better                      
 communications.  A lot of them have solved this problem.                      
                                                                               
 Number 336                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said one of the provisions was agreed to by one of              
 the members on the panel, it was one of the shareholders who said             
 this would be acceptable.  Obviously, there has been a change of              
 heart and it is no longer acceptable by some of the members in                
 the shareholder community.                                                    
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representative Elton voted in favor              
 of the amendment.  Representatives Kott, Sanders, Kubina and                  
 Rokeberg voted against the amendment.  So Amendment 1 failed to               
 be adopted.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 355                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he has a problem he would like to                  
 discuss.  He referred to page 2, line 8, and read, "The notice                
 must state in detail the purpose of the special meeting and                   
 include a copy of the petition or request and all materials to be             
 used in connection with the solicitation."  Representative Kubina             
 said his problem is with the wording "and include a copy of the               
 petition or request and all materials to be used in connection                
 with the solicitation."  He said he understands that one of the               
 biggest problems was that they are trying to get some kind of                 
 mechanism so that what gets put out is factual.  This sounds like             
 they have to do this all at the beginning.  He said it seems this             
 is like a campaign and when you have a campaign, you may not have             
 everything at the beginning.  He said he was wondering if                     
 technically, could the corporation then use this to stymie their              
 free speech.                                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Larry Carroll to come forward.                            
                                                                               
 Number 375                                                                    
                                                                               
 LARRY CARROLL, Senior Securities Examiner, Division of Banking,               
 Securities and Corporations, Department of Commerce and Economic              
 Development, referred to Representative Kubina's concerns and                 
 said the point he raised is appropriate.  He explained it seems               
 to him that filing must be at the time that the petition is filed             
 and should include all materials which would then handicap people             
 if the course of the campaign needed to change and new materials              
 needed to be developed.  If materials weren't filed initially,                
 theoretically an objection could be raised.  Mr. Carroll referred             
 to material the department sent over and said it was suggested                
 that the notice be in detail for the purpose of a special meeting             
 and include a copy of the petition or request and stop right                  
 there so that they had some latitude of with what they would use.             
                                                                               
 Number 389                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he agrees with those statements.  He              
 said things do develop like a campaign and change as you go                   
 along.  However, the things that come along later would still                 
 need to be submitted.                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL said they have to file anything they use with his                 
 division.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if it isn't in the bill, would they              
 still have to file with the division.                                         
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL indicated they still would have to file with the                  
 division.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to the last sentence and said if               
 they don't comply, the petition is invalid.  He said what he                  
 fears is we will see these people in court.  He said he thinks it             
 would be appropriate for him to move that on page 2, line 8, put              
 a "." after the word "request" and delete the rest of the                     
 sentence.                                                                     
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said it would then read, "The notice must state in              
 detail the purpose of the special meeting and include a copy of               
 the petition or request."  Delete the remaining portion of that               
 sentence which reads, "and all materials to be used in connection             
 with the solicitation."                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 410                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected to the motion for the purpose of             
 discussion.  He said as the division has said it is necessary                 
 that the material be filed.  He said he thinks that is currently              
 the case.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said his problem is it appears that once                
 they submit it, they can't use any other material because it says             
 that all materials to be used in connection with this campaign                
 has to be submitted at the beginning.  If they used a different               
 flyer and sent it out to everybody, according to the last                     
 sentence the corporation could argue that the whole thing should              
 be thrown out.                                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is his understanding that by                  
 providing all those materials, at least there is public                       
 disclosure.  There is no question about what they're using.                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Carroll if we're talking about providing              
 this to the corporation.                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL said that is correct.  He said the division's                     
 requirement is that they be filed with them, and they (indisc.)               
 to our false and misleading standards and all the provisions of               
 the Securities Act, notwithstanding anything that is said in the              
 bill.  What they bill is saying is the corporation wants it in                
 its hands at the onset.  The division is saying that it has to be             
 filed with the division concurrent with distribution to                       
 shareholders.  That is what the Securities Act states.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the documents would then be                    
 available to the corporations at that point as they are public                
 documents.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL stated that is correct.                                           
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the bill sponsor's staff want to make a                
 comment.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 435                                                                    
                                                                               
 TIM BENINTENDI, Legislative Assistant to Representative Carl                  
 Moses, said the provisions (indisc.) originally knowing that                  
 material was automatically submitted to the division, it was put              
 in to help blunt or maybe to help (indisc.) groups to do a little             
 self policing on the so called "false or misleading statements"               
 or anything that later might become fuzzy.  In the third hearing              
 (indisc.) bill, this topic was discussed and, except for a couple             
 of the large corporations, it was pretty much agreed that we                  
 could do without this since the material is submitted                         
 automatically and anybody can get it from the division.  The                  
 sponsor was happy to (indisc.).  He said Representative Moses                 
 would support that direction.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Carroll if all Alaska Native                   
 Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations file with the Division             
 of Banking, Securities and Corporations.  He asked if the small               
 ones don't need to file.  Representative Elton asked if we would              
 only be talking about the larger corporations with a certain                  
 number assets.                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL said Representative Elton is correct.  The threshold              
 is corporations having $1 million in assets and the number of                 
 shareholders amounts to 500 or above.                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said what we're talking about is only for                
 certain (indisc.)                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 456                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the other side of that coin is that                
 the problem doesn't seem to be with the small corporations, it                
 seems to be with the larger ones that are asking for the changes.             
 He said what he is hearing from the smaller corporations is that              
 they don't want any change.                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it should probably be left in there              
 because there is no other disclosure material from the smaller                
 corporations.  This is the only means for disclosure.                         
                                                                               
 Number 465                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. BENINTENDI said he doesn't remember it being specifically                 
 being discussed with Representative Moses, but suspected that he              
 would support the removal of that as well as it ties so closely               
 to the other.                                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the last sentence could be removed and             
 it would say, "any subsequent material produced."                             
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL said the committee could possibly adopt language that             
 says, "concurrent with distribution."                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said leave that (indisc.) in all materials              
 and all subsequent...  He asked Mr. Carroll to restate his                    
 language.                                                                     
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL said, "The notice must state in detail the purpose of             
 the special meeting and include a copy of the petition or request             
 and all materials to be use in connection with the solicitation,              
 concurrent with their distribution to shareholders."                          
                                                                               
 Number 485                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said Representative Kubina's new Amendment 3 would              
 remove the "." after solicitation and insert the words                        
 "concurrent with their distribution to shareholders."                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated that is correct.                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to move Amendment 3.  He                 
 asked if there was objection.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he almost prefers the way it was the                
 first time round.  What the committee is doing is creating                    
 another bureaucratic hoop that the shareholders, the circulators              
 of the petitions, need to go through.  Currently, they are only               
 required to file those materials with the division.  The                      
 amendment would require another hoop for them to go through and               
 create another bureaucratic step upon which they could stumble.               
 He explained that is his observation and noted he doesn't feel                
 strongly about it.                                                            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Elton if he is removing his                
 objection.  REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is removing his                      
 objection.                                                                    
                                                                               
 There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.                            
                                                                               
 Number 499                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked who makes the determination as to                 
 whether the information is valid or not.  Somebody has to be a                
 rule maker.  He asked if the department would be doing that.                  
                                                                               
 MR. CARROLL said not for any corporations.  He said the petition              
 (indisc.) requests and materials for corporations less than 500               
 shareholders are not going to pass through the division's hands.              
 They are not going to be in a position to adjudicate whether                  
 those things were filed timely with the corporation or whether                
 they were not.  With respect to the larger corporations, it would             
 seem to him that the moving party will be the corporation that is             
 going to make the allegation that these things didn't occur.  So              
 it would be their water to carry.  Mr. Carroll said the statutory             
 language is very clear in that the petitioner request is invalid,             
 on its face.  He said he doesn't know who does make that                      
 determination.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 512                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that it would be the courts.                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he thinks that Representative Rokeberg             
 is right which is what bothers him.  REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said             
 that is what they are for.                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it probably would be the court.  The                
 180 day provision was left in the bill.  There is no provision                
 that the 180 day clock stops ticking while somebody goes to                   
 court.  He said it seems to him that what the committee is doing              
 is not just giving a corporation a hammer, it is giving them an               
 ax.                                                                           
                                                                               
 Number 521                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that the last sentence in paragraph                
 (m) on page 2, line 11, beginning with "If a petition..." through             
 line 13, be deleted.                                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to Representative               
 Elton's motion.                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.               
 He said his concern is without the last sentence, the entirety of             
 subsection (m) is not enforceable.  He said he would like the                 
 sponsors opinion.                                                             
                                                                               
 MR. BENINTENDI said he thinks that the sponsor would support that             
 motion.                                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he doesn't think that this would stop              
 them from going to court if the corporation still thinks that                 
 something was done illegally and the laws were (indisc.)  He said             
 the court still (indisc.) enforce the law.  What it does do is                
 say the whole thing is invalid.  The court may say, "Well, this               
 minor little fragment (indisc.) but that doesn't (indisc.) the                
 whole thing."                                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection in deleting                
 the language.  Hearing none, it was so ordered.                               
                                                                               
 Number 542                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that CSHB 251(L&C), Version O, as               
 amended, be adopted with any accompanying fiscal notes, and                   
 individual recommendations, be passed out of the House Labor and              
 Commerce Committee.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                 
 HB 266 - HEALTH CARE PREFERRED PROVIDER PROGRAMS                            
                                                                               
 Number 564                                                                    
                                                                               
 The next order of business was HB 266, "An Act relating to                    
 preferred provider agreements offered by hospital or medical                  
 service corporations."                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the bill had been heard the previous Monday                
 and there was quite a bit of testimony both for and against the               
 bill.  He noted there are a couple of people who have signed up               
 to testify.                                                                   
                                                                               
 ROBERTA COUGHNOUR, Employee Relations, Municipality of Anchorage,             
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  Ms. Coughnour                   
 explained that they have approximately 2,500 employees and about              
 250 retirees and their families who are covered under a group                 
 insurance plan.  About 1,500 are covered by collective bargaining             
 agreements.  Under the group insurance plan for the municipality,             
 they use preferred provider organizations (PPO) as a way to                   
 control costs rather than eliminating benefits.  They use                     
 hospital PPOs and managemental health PPOs.                                   
                                                                               
 MS. COUGHNOUR said in 1994, their PPO savings exceeded $1                     
 million.  Since the Municipality of Anchorage has a (indisc.)                 
 premium plan, that money stays with the municipality and doesn't              
 go to the insurance company.  Employees who have a co-pay, pay on             
 the reduced amount and not on the full amount that they would                 
 normally pay (indisc.) PPO.                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. COUGHNOUR explained that during 1995, the municipality will               
 be negotiating with their four bargaining units.  A major part is             
 that they are trying to negotiate PPO provisions into their plan.             
 One represented group has approved a new agreement.  It contains              
 a PPO agreement and projections for future premiums which were                
 based on the PPO provisions remaining in the plan.  Savings from              
 implementation of the PPOs were used in determining the amount of             
 funds that would be available to fund increases in wages over the             
 term of the contract.  Similar strategies are being used with                 
 their other three bargaining units.                                           
                                                                               
 MS. COUGHNOUR informed the committee if PPO requirements included             
 any willing or (indisc.) provider provision, it would eliminate               
 the ability of insurance (indisc.) to negotiate a passive                     
 discounts and allow (indisc.) by the municipality to control                  
 claims costs without (indisc.) benefits.  She said she would be               
 happy to answer any questions the committee may have.                         
                                                                               
 Number 601                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist, Alaska Regional Hospital, said his                  
 clients position on the PPOs is that the mechanism is very                    
 effective at helping contain costs in certain markets, but they               
 contend that the market requirements don't really fit in                      
 Anchorage or in Alaska.  The basis is a small population both of              
 providers and patients.  Mr. Miller explained that most                       
 successful manage care markets contain large numbers of patient's             
 insurance and large numbers of providers.  So a healthy                       
 competitive atmosphere exists that if you were to lose one                    
 competitive bid, you could tighten your belt, sharpen your pencil             
 on the next bid and still survive.  Therefore, the competitive                
 efficiencies would come into play.                                            
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER explained that in a market where we have very few                  
 patients and providers, conditions exist that don't exactly                   
 enhance the competition, but (indisc.) adverse conditions for                 
 competition.  Mr. Miller said in their particular area of the                 
 market, hospital care, there is only two in Anchorage and there               
 is a negotiation between the parties involved and they're not                 
 invited to bid.  What significance that could bring about as far              
 as more reduced costs, they don't know.  If it were a competitive             
 bid, perhaps the rates would even be lower.  That is not the case             
 and hasn't been the case.  The Alaska Regional Hospital has tried             
 to address that and have never been invited to the table.                     
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said if you take the relatively small population and               
 involve the patients, subtract Indian health care, federal                    
 CHAMPUS(Sp?) military programs, etc., the population becomes even             
 smaller than it appears at first.  Then we look at having a                   
 limited number of providers and if the providers aren't allowed               
 to bid, then your fighting competition and you are not enhancing              
 it.  The possibility exists that you'll even have less providers              
 in the future and there is absolutely no incentive to discount                
 when you get to the point where there aren't enough providers to              
 participate in active bidding if that were to occur later.                    
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER referred to volume discount and said it is a very                  
 valid argument, but once again in a large market it comes into                
 play.  In a smaller market where there hasn't been competitive                
 bid to date, it does really seem to fit.  The significance of any             
 cost increases is in question because there hasn't been bids or               
 competition.  The speculation is that it would be a large                     
 increase in costs.  He said Alaska Regional Hospital doesn't feel             
 that is the case any more then they could say for sure that the               
 price would go down if there were competitive bids.                           
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said previous testimony seems to imply that if any                 
 willing provider was passed in this market, that it would be an               
 all or nothing situation as far as cost containment.  He said the             
 Alaska Regional Hospital doesn't believe that would be the case.              
 To say there was a PPO negotiated, it saved $1 million, and if                
 any (indisc.) came in, there would be no savings... END OF TAPE               
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-45, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER continued ...and negotiation were to expand to include             
 more providers, there would definitely be discounts.  To say that             
 there is all kinds of cost savings involved without this and                  
 there will be no cost savings involved if it passes, the Alaska               
 Regional Hospital doesn't believe that to be true.  Mr. Miller                
 referred to his facility paying over $1 million a year in                     
 property taxes to the Municipality of Anchorage and they aren't               
 allowed to sit at the table and bid the job to pay for the health             
 care that their taxes help to provide.  It seems awkward to have              
 to come here and ask to be allowed to participate in something                
 when they pay taxes and can't bid the jobs the municipality                   
 provides                                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER explained another issue brought up was the control of              
 quality providers.  Alaska Regional Hospital decided that they                
 needed to address that and when they went through their last                  
 accreditation, they made a sincere effort to show the quality of              
 the facility.  They received the highest qualification you can                
 get from the accreditation people.  Mr. Miller said there are                 
 other tools available to payers to keep out bad providers.  He                
 said he thinks mechanisms already exist to control (indisc.) bad              
 positions in facilities if need be.                                           
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER referred to the other cost containment measures and                
 said all of those would stay in place.  Utilization review is                 
 very well established in the industry.  Preauthorization for                  
 surgical treatments for hospitals stays, utilization review to                
 prevent self referral by patients to a higher level of care than              
 necessary, etc., will still remain in place.  It is always a                  
 dynamic situation.  Sometimes people contest not being allowed to             
 self refer, but these mechanisms are well established and will                
 stay in place also.  So there still will be cost containment.                 
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said in previous testimony on mental health, it was                
 mentioned that what could happen if the bill passed is that a                 
 patient could self refer him or her self to a psychiatrist.  With             
 utilization review, that just wouldn't happen.  The patient                   
 wouldn't be reimbursed at full schedule because they would call               
 and talk to the payer, the payer would inform them that they                  
 would have to go through perhaps a mental health counselor for                
 assessment.                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER explained another aspect is whether or not there is a              
 place for the legislature or for the law to get involved in this              
 market.  Actually, the government is very well involved in this               
 market.  Certificate of Need prevents facilities from (indisc.)               
 capital expenses that would allow a facility, physicians clinic               
 or a particular provider to provide services that the department              
 feels are already provided and it would be unnecessary equipment.             
 If you have certain programs, other people that want to just                  
 spend money to get into the market and compete with you, it is                
 very difficult to achieve the approval to get these things.  That             
 is definitely government involvement.  There is a tax exempt                  
 status for certain payers and facilities that others don't enjoy,             
 regardless of their own charity care provision in the community.              
 He said his facility provides a considerable amount of charity                
 care and they also pay a considerable amount of taxes.  If that               
 isn't government intervention, he isn't sure how else it could be             
 defined.                                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said his organization doesn't believe it is                        
 inappropriate for the legislature to address this.  We have to                
 keep focused on the real issue which is, "What market are we                  
 dealing with here?"  We're not dealing with Southern California,              
 Puget Sound, or some of the really large markets that these                   
 things work in.  We're working in Alaska's market and Mr.                     
 Miller's client feels very strongly that this measure is                      
 appropriate for this market.  He urged to the committee to                    
 consider the bill and move it through the process.                            
                                                                               
 Number 104                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to a proposed amendment that had             
 been drafted and asked Mr. Miller if he has had the chance to                 
 review the amendment.                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said he has reviewed the amendment.  He said                       
 unfortunately he has been rather confused as far as last year                 
 when we tried to address the issue and a legislative attorney had             
 the opinion that (indisc.) Aetna disability group plans were                  
 already under restrictions that didn't allow PPOs.  There was                 
 further discussion this year in the Senate Labor and Commerce                 
 Committee on a related matter.  There was a memorandum                        
 distributed in reference to that testimony that the Division of               
 Insurance, at that time, felt that PPOs were allowed under 21.87,             
 the medical and hospital service corporations, but not under the              
 other types of health plans.  He said before the Monday hearing,              
 he was given a copy of the Attorney General's (AG) opinion which              
 goes the other way.  He said it would appear that the AG's                    
 opinion says that the bill, if it is going to have the effect                 
 intended, should address both major payers which is the medical               
 and hospital service corporations and the other insurers.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is the intent of the amendment.             
 He indicated he has concern.  He said HB 266 is a very important              
 piece of legislation that deserves a full review by all parties               
 involved.  Representative Rokeberg said he would prefer HB 266 go             
 to a subcommittee to be reviewed.                                             
                                                                               
 Number 143                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Miller if he is saying that he                 
 doesn't expect that the savings will disappear under HB 266.  He              
 said Mr. Miller seems to be saying that savings within the health             
 care system may be expanded because you're expanding the savings              
 that are there for the preferred providers to other providers.                
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said what he was trying to say was in the hospital                 
 area of the market, if there was a competitive bid process, there             
 could be savings that haven't yet been realized because no one                
 knows what discounts are available if there isn't a competitive               
 bid.  If more facilities or providers are enfranchised into the               
 system, he doesn't feel that it is an all or nothing savings as               
 far as the savings from the PPOs.  He said he doesn't anticipate              
 prices going down or up significantly if both of those things                 
 come into play.  He noted there are very limited major payers in              
 the state and perhaps negotiations would lead to good discounts               
 that were available to both facilities.  That is a possibility.               
 It is hard to say.  If you don't have a competitive bid, you're               
 not sure you have the best price.  Mr. Miller said that is what               
 he is trying to say.  He said he doesn't mean to say that if any              
 willing provider happens, you're going to see immediate                       
 expansions in the discount.                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 181                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is interested in what the current                
 process is when somebody goes out for a PPO agreement.  He said               
 he is trying to figure out what room full of animals could ever               
 design a bid process in something as complex as the medical                   
 field.  He said he doesn't see how you write a bid.                           
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER explained in most managed care markets that have PPO               
 networks, and these sort of arrangements, they do bid.  He said               
 he'd be glad to tell Representative Elton he knows how that                   
 works, but his organization has never sat at the table to                     
 negotiate on or have been given a bid package.  He said he                    
 doesn't know exactly how that would work.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Miller if he is saying that he                 
 doesn't know the shape of the table because he has never been in              
 the room.  MR. MILLER said they have attempted, at different                  
 times, to speak with the major payers, but they haven't been                  
 allowed to negotiate at least a portion of the contracts.  He                 
 said his client has been frustrated in those efforts.                         
                                                                               
 Number 206                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the bottom line is that Mr. Miller is                      
 suggesting that if the bill were to pass, it would instill                    
 greater competition and probably have an affect at lowering the               
 prices.                                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said with out a doubt in the long run, that would be               
 the case.  In a small market, if you manipulate the market so                 
 that only certain players are allowed to play, soon you'll have a             
 smaller number of players.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 227                                                                    
                                                                               
 DOUGLAS BRUCE, Chief Executive Officer, Providence Health System              
 in Alaska, was next to come before the committee to give his                  
 testimony.  He explained his organization operates Providence                 
 Alaska Medical Center, formally Providence Hospital; and                      
 Providence Extended Care Center, formally Our Lady of Compassion.             
 He noted they are in the development of Providence Horizon House              
 which will be the first assisted living facility for Alaskans.                
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said his organization is very concerned about the                   
 proposed bill.  Approving the "any willing provider" legislation              
 would have a very detrimental affect on the cost of health care               
 in the state.  Preferred provider contracting, that is an                     
 agreement between a provider of health care, a purchaser and                  
 individual company or insurance company has been the key tool to              
 reduce or at least slow the spiraling cost of health care in                  
 Alaska.  The provider in their case, Providence Alaska Medical                
 Center, agrees to provide a discount in return for volume.  Both              
 insurance companies and employers came to them and asked, "If we              
 send you all our Anchorage employees who need hospital care, will             
 you provide us a discount in return for the volume?"  Mr. Bruce               
 said they have responded to those requests and he believes that               
 the committee will find that it has benefitted all parties and                
 has kept the cost of health reasonable, as evidenced by previous              
 testimony.  If any willing provider is allowed to come into the               
 picture offering the same discounts, volume is disbursed.                     
 Without offsetting volume, those discounts are impossible to                  
 sustain.  Nobody would offer the same price for a service if the              
 volume is expected to be able to be disbursed to competitors.                 
 Therefore, instead of being competitive, it is an anticompetitive             
 legislative move.                                                             
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said there have been questions about the ability of                 
 employers being able to choose their health care providers.  In               
 Alaska, the choice of hospital providers used to work where                   
 employers purchase insurance at the going rate for their                      
 employees, paying all or most of the premiums.  There were no                 
 incentives for using a particular hospital.  Now a number of                  
 employers, either through a select insurance plan or by direct                
 contract in the case of self funded programs, are making these                
 preferred provider arrangements to better manage their                        
 organizations health care costs.  If these purchasers of health               
 care desired and believed that it was in their interest to                    
 include Alaska Regional in their bidding processes, they would.               
 They do not believe it is in their interest.  Mr. Bruce noted he              
 would explain why later.                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE explained the employers usually pay all or a majority               
 of the premium costs for the employee.  As the purchasers feel                
 they have the right to define the parameters of the benefit                   
 package, the employee subscriber still has a choice of which                  
 hospital to use but, of course, they have to be willing to pay                
 the difference in deductibles to honor the plan.  These PPO                   
 arrangements have not historically, in the state of Alaska,                   
 involved physicians.  They have been strictly arrangements with               
 hospitals.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said several issues have been raised by the initiators              
 of the bill say they are unable to compete on a level playing                 
 field because as a for profit organization, they have to pay                  
 taxes in Providence and a not for profit hospital does not have               
 to pay taxes.  He said to that, they have responded.  They have               
 the option of being a not for profit organization.  (Indisc.)                 
 there is a very good reason they have decided not to be.  They                
 are in the business and they do.  In contrast, the Sisters of                 
 Providence see the provision of health care as a ministry and not             
 as a revenue generator.  All earnings are kept in the state in                
 the further development of services to Alaskans.  Certainly,                  
 Providence must make sure their annual net revenue exceeds                    
 expenses and are to remain viable.  All revenue goes either to                
 provide charity care, community health care needs or to support               
 capital needs.                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said we've also heard that this legislation is an                   
 attempt to even the playing field between the large and small                 
 hospitals.  In response, he would like to remind the committee                
 that their competitor, Columbia, is the largest health care                   
 corporation in the world.  It is also the most profitable health              
 corporation in the world.  HB 266 has been introduced because                 
 Alaska Regional, which has earnings of about $4.5 million a year,             
 has not been willing to reduce its non competitive rates to                   
 purchasers.  Specifically, in the 1993 cost report, Alaska                    
 Regional's average charge per adjusted discharge was $14,241.                 
 That is the charge to the purchaser.                                          
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said, "Providence was $11,838 with costs to Alaska                  
 Regional, do to having a lesser case mix index, and when I say                
 lesser case mix index Providence does more difficult cases like               
 open heart surgery and other things which raises the cost up, of              
 more than $15,000 per average discharge less than Providence."                
 Mr. Bruce said insurance companies look at statistics and if your             
 average charge, per discharge, to an insurance company is                     
 $14,000, a competitors is $11,000, one of the factors is why                  
 would you invite that person to negotiate with you if it is not               
 in your interest.  Mr. Bruce said insurance companies, as do                  
 businesses, do what is in their interest, in the public interest              
 and in the interest of what is going to further the fulfillment               
 of their business needs.                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said Providence feels this issue is one which should be             
 worked out in the market place and not in the legislature.  He                
 said they are not crazy about the way the health system works in              
 this country.  They would much prefer collaboration rather than               
 confrontation in delivery of health care, but because they must               
 respond to the proposed legislation, they ask the legislators to              
 not interfere with one of the few tools to make health care                   
 affordable in this state.  Both hospitals have been very                      
 successful serving Alaskans.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 343                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to Mr. Bruce saying all his                    
 organization's earnings are kept in the state.  He said he has                
 heard otherwise.  He has heard that where they don't have                     
 profits, the extra funds they do have over and above operating                
 costs, are shipped out.                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said that is very inaccurate.  All earnings and net                 
 income is plowed back into local services and expansion of their              
 facilities.  He noted the Sisters of Providence keep that                     
 commitment in every state and community that they're in because               
 it is what they are all about.  They don't personally gain from               
 this endeavor.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 353                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thinks the most compelling part of               
 Mr. Bruce's testimony was the discharge cost and the comparisons              
 between Columbia and Sisters of Providence.  He said there has                
 been a suggestion that perhaps a part of the difference in                    
 discharge cost may be overhead.  He asked how much of the                     
 difference in discharge costs could be attributed to difference               
 in overhead because of taxation and other differences between a               
 nonprofit and a for profit corporation.  MR. BRUCE said it is a               
 very small amount, it is in the 4 percent range for that specific             
 item when you're talking about total revenues.  However, as a not             
 for profit, Providence Health System in Alaska is community                   
 benefit services way in excess of what we would pay in property               
 taxes.                                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if that was charity work.  MR. BRUCE               
 said it is charity work and the range is usually $6 million to $8             
 million a year.  One of the services that is a service to the                 
 state of Alaska is their thermal unit for burn patients.  They                
 are the only ones who provide that service.  It is a loser but it             
 does contribute overall.  That loss is in lieu of paying taxes.               
                                                                               
 Number 392                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said when he first saw the bill he was                 
 under the impression that this contract had been bid and that the             
 other hospital had lost the bid and now they were coming back                 
 trying to get in on it.  Then he understood this was not bided                
 but was negotiated.  He asked why it wasn't bid.  He asked Mr.                
 Bruce if he would mind if it was bid.  He asked how it could  be              
 bid.                                                                          
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE referred to previous testimony that bid prices would                
 automatically lower the cost that is (indisc.) itself,                        
 particularly for the reason that he stated.  In a small confined              
 market, as in all businesses, if you're in the trucking business              
 and two trucking companies each have a price for five units of                
 trucking and one of the shippers says, "By the way, if I could                
 give you seven of the units instead of five and the other one                 
 would get three of my shipping cartons, could you give me a                   
 better price?"  Mr. Bruce said you could do it because it is                  
 units, unit cost and units equals the price where you are able to             
 do it.                                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked why it is not bid.  He said he                   
 missed that part.  MR. BRUCE said it is not necessary.  If the                
 insurance companies, Carrs, BP Exploration, etc., can right now               
 through Aetna and Blue Cross say we choose to have it bid.  They              
 can do that but they don't because in their judgement, the costs              
 would be greater if it was bid than if it wasn't bid.                         
                                                                               
 Number 440                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated he had a letter from the Alaska             
 State Medical Association that he had received today and said he              
 would give a copy to Mr. Bruce.  The letter was from Doctor                   
 Donald R. Layman(Sp.?).  It said the State Medical Association is             
 in favor of this particular bill.  He said in prior testimony,                
 many physicians support the bill because they are concerned about             
 the relationship between the doctor and the patient, and also the             
 matter of choice among patients.  He asked Mr. Bruce cares to                 
 comment.                                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said under any willing provider, it is a different                  
 aspect for physicians than it is for the institutions.  Mr. Bruce             
 stated the most expensive thing in health care is a thing called              
 choice.  If you have ultimate choice in purchase, you will pay                
 more than if you have restricted choice, adequate choice of                   
 physicians, adequate choice of hospitals.  Any time you can                   
 choose whoever you want to go to in the case of doctors, you will             
 not necessarily get the best quality or the best choice.  In any              
 of deliver of health care there is what is called "outcome                    
 variance."  For the exact same kidney operation, open heart,                  
 etc., you have what is called the "outcome variance."  What you               
 want is a very narrow variance of what occurs to you and at what              
 price.  The more you don't have managed care and the more you                 
 have of the individual's choice, you have larger variances which              
 is more costly.  He said that doesn't make it good or bad.  You               
 do have to give up a little freedom for a lot of cost                         
 differences.                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that it be put on the record that               
 he is a long time supporter of Providence Hospital.  He had his               
 tonsils out in 1953, at Ninth and "L" street.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 475                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to having spent a short period of              
 time in business in the private sector and he has spent a long                
 time in the public sector and said he knows the difference                    
 between bidding in the public and private sectors.  He said you               
 have all sorts of options in the private sector for constructing              
 the type of bid you want to put out.  He asked Mr. Bruce what, in             
 his mind, is the reason that an insurance company is not                      
 structuring a bid so as to say, "Please give me a quote in these              
 areas with these confined restrictions," and then allowing the                
 winner of that bid to sit down and negotiate a final contract.                
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said they make judgements on what is the average cost               
 and what is the out come.  They do consumer referral pattern                  
 studies.  In other words, they find out who would be the provider             
 of your choice.  They go to their customers and say, "If I'm                  
 going to be signing up and answered your question around the                  
 table," one of the factors is they say, "Which provider in this               
 community, consumer, would you like us to have a relationship                 
 with?"  In Anchorage, more people choose Providence.                          
                                                                               
 Number 530                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to Mr. Bruce saying that his                   
 organization provides open heart surgery but the other                        
 institution doesn't.  He asked if there are things that the other             
 institution provides that Mr. Bruce's organization doesn't.                   
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said the answer is no.  He noted the other organization             
 is active in trying to get into doing open heart surgery.  Mr.                
 Bruce said he is strongly opposed to.  He said they are the only              
 open heart program in Alaska and they do about 300 hearts a year.             
 Anytime that you get less than 175 hearts in any program, the                 
 quality, due to the need for the frequency of the numbers and the             
 training of the nurses and physicians, is reduced.  He indicated              
 Alaska Regional Hospital has just announced that they are going               
 to start up a competing open heart program, but the number of                 
 hearts in this state are not sufficient to have two programs.                 
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE discussed how Alaska Regional Hospital got the contract             
 for the Veterans Administration (VA).  He noted that his                      
 organization was slightly under them on the bidding, however, the             
 VA built the facility on their campus.  They were given the                   
 contract based on other criteria other than cost.                             
                                                                               
 MR. MILLER said his organization recently announced that they are             
 going to start a heart unit.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 543                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he wants to make sure he understands                
 the essence of the argument.  He said Mr. Bruce is saying that                
 under any willing provider system, if it is open to a completely              
 free and competitive bid, there is no real incentive to do a low              
 bid.  He said, "Simply because so what if the competition gets                
 it, if you're allowed to match it..."                                         
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE interjected, "...or lose money."                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there is no real incentive under that               
 kind of a system for somebody to come in with a low bid.  MR.                 
 BRUCE indicated that is correct.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the competitive situation with               
 hospitals and said he has recently received some phone calls from             
 Human Affairs.  He referred to the argument of why come in with a             
 low bid if you can just match later on, and asked if that works               
 in the Human Affairs agreement that they have with the state or               
 is the logic somewhat different.                                              
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE referred to Human Affairs and said he assumes                       
 Representative Elton is talking about he mental health portion.               
 He said Human Affairs is a form of "gatekeeper" or "certification             
 program," so that patients in mental health don't self refer to               
 physicians and have bills.  That program is attachable to any PPO             
 or any non PPO.  It is an independent thing.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there would be no reason that anybody               
 could be a provider at that point as long as that person had the              
 appropriate professional certification.                                       
                                                                               
 MR. BRUCE said no matter who is going to be providing the                     
 service, the first gatekeeper will ask is, "Do you need the                   
 service."  If you get by that, whatever negotiated price you have             
 negotiated - that is what happens.  Where Human Affairs makes the             
 savings for its purchasers, it prevents unnecessary usage of at               
 whatever rate you've negotiated.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 583                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. COUGHNOUR said they contracted with Human Affairs for their               
 employees.  This is a managemental health program.  They do have              
 a select group of providers and that is how they get volume                   
 discounts for their referrals.  In a sense, they are a PPO of                 
 mental health professionals.  She said she also wanted to make it             
 clear that municipality does spread their insurance program and               
 their PPO is contracted through their insurance carrier.  If                  
 Alaska Regional or any other hospital wanted to bid on the                    
 municipality's business and they were partners with an insurance              
 carrier, they would have the opportunity to bid.  She said as far             
 as the municipality is concerned, they have not eliminated                    
 anybody from bidding on their business.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 614                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he has a proposed CS for HB 266.  He said it               
 is language that was suggested to him by the Division of                      
 Insurance.  It is CS "F," dated 4-26-95.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 635                                                                    
                                                                               
 MARIANNE K. BURKE, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of             
 Commerce and Economic Development, said she was provided a copy               
 of the amendment.  She said on Monday, Don Koch did provide some              
 suggested language which was included in the amendment.                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT informed Ms. Burke that the committee was dealing               
 with the CS and not the amendment.                                            
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-46, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said page 1 is the same as the original bill, but               
 subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 have been added.                                     
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said the CS does agree with her division's                          
 recommendations on some proposed compromised language.                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked MS. BURKE to explain the affect of the new                
 language.                                                                     
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said the affect is to say that if a provider is willing             
 to meet the terms and conditions of a preferred provider                      
 agreement, and the terms cannot be denied to a willing provider.              
 She referred to testimony that has already been given that the                
 contractual relationship that is entered into by the provider                 
 includes not only the discount for volume but it also imposes on              
 that provider as part of the contractual relationship.  The                   
 financial responsibility that is in lieu of the solvency of a                 
 regulator (indisc.).  She continued to give an example.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the state of Alaska goes out to                
 bid with Aetna, Blue Cross, etc.  MS. BURKE said the placement of             
 the state of Alaska insurance is done through the Division of                 
 Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration and she                 
 isn't familiar with their process.  She noted it is her                       
 understanding that it does go out to bid.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 078                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if she is saying, "If hospital A bids             
 or is awarded a PPO and hospital B agrees to meet the prices and              
 specifications of that contract, then hospital B may receive                  
 patients from the provider or from the group.  But that if it                 
 does, it must main -- it must --  hospital B must maintain that               
 services regardless of whether they are making money or not on it             
 or hospital A."                                                               
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said, "If the contractual arrangement, lets say that --             
 choose the state of Alaska because I can't imagine it running out             
 of money.  Lets just say employer A has entered into a PPO                    
 arrangement with hospital A.  This language would then say `If                
 hospital B is willing to meet the terms and conditions of this                
 contract then they would not be denied the ability to receive                 
 patients.'  And what I am suggesting, it is important to keep in              
 mind, it is not only the upside of this contract which means the              
 volume that you're going to get in exchange for the discount,  it             
 is also the potential downside.  If employer A does not have                  
 sufficient funds or for some reason this contractual arrangement              
 does not have the sufficient funds to provide that level of                   
 payment, then hospital B has agreed to provide this service even              
 if the cost is higher at that -- on the agreed upon rate.                     
 Hospital C also agrees to the same terms and conditions of the                
 contract."                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked who is running out of money.                      
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said, "Lets say hospital B's cost of doing this                     
 procedure increases 45 percent.  They're still stuck with                     
 providing the procedure at the same price.  They are a party to               
 the contract.  They can't back out of it."                                    
                                                                               
 Number 140                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would like to know whether Ms. Burke             
 thinks that the approach taken in HB 266 will affect the cost of              
 health care delivered in the state of Alaska.  He also asked                  
 whether that cost would go up or down if the bill is passed.                  
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said in the lower 48 where preferred provider                       
 arrangements have been put into place, there have been decreases              
 in cost.  The testimony offered at the meeting today is quite                 
 valid.  She said we are not Southern California.  We do not have              
 a unlimited number of providers.  We do not have the same                     
 competitive environment that is enjoyed in other areas.  Ms.                  
 Burke said from a economic point of view, it would appear that if             
 you can take it to the free market and bid on providing a                     
 service, you are also on the hook for providing that service                  
 whether you can make money on it or not.  It would seem to her                
 that the free market would very carefully evaluate and come in at             
 a price that they felt they could make a profit.  Ms. Burke said              
 she believes that the PPO concept will save money.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the adoption of HB 266 would mean               
 that we would no longer have a PPO environment in the state of                
 Alaska.  MS. BURKE said she doesn't think so.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 188                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the amendment that was                    
 brought forward and asked Ms. Burke to comment in terms of the                
 intent to cover the insurance companies and not just the other                
 portion of the insurance sector                                               
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said she isn't sure she understands the question.                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said because of the AG's opinion, the                 
 intent was to bring in premium paying companies, stock and mutual             
 companies.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said the AG's opinion did state that although there is              
 no enabling legislation currently on the books.  A stock company              
 or other indemnity companies can form PPOs.                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that was the intent of the                   
 amendment and if that is what has caused confusion.                           
                                                                               
 MS. BURKE said the legislation that is currently in place permits             
 PPOs.  What the amendment does is it says that if a provider is               
 willing to meet the terms and conditions, then it is open.  She               
 noted she is referring to the CS.  Ms. Burke said she would like              
 to point out that this is in AS 87, which is specific to the                  
 hospital and medical service corporations.  She said as she has               
 mentioned, the AG's opinion does state that any provider can                  
 enter into a preferred provider arrangement.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 223                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt CSHB 266(L&C),                 
 Ford, 3-26-95.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has given the committee a                     
 proposed amendment which clearly causes confusion.  He said he                
 hasn't seen the AG's opinion and, therefore, he would recommend               
 that the bill be moved to a subcommittee which he would be                    
 willing to chair.                                                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he believes the recommendation by                          
 Representative Rokeberg is appropriate.  He said the amendment                
 Representative Rokeberg is offering goes beyond the far reaches               
 of the original intent of the bill.  Chairman Kott said it would              
 be his recommendation that the CS and the proposed amendment be               
 forwarded to a subcommittee of three consisting of                            
 Representatives Rokeberg, Elton and Masek.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON OBJECTED for the purpose of a comment.  He               
 referred to the provision of the Human Affairs contract and said              
 he may need the mental health services afterwards.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the bill would be referred to a                      
 subcommittee.                                                                 
 HB 243 - LICENSING OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS                                  
                                                                               
 Number 271                                                                    
                                                                               
 The last order of business was HB 243, "An Act relating to                    
 licensure of landscape architects."  CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr.                  
 Dozier to come before the committee to explain the bill.                      
                                                                               
 Number 286                                                                    
                                                                               
 GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,             
 said currently, under state law architects, land surveyors and                
 engineers are regulated by the State Board of Registration for                
 Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors.  That means that this               
 board is in charge of admitting individuals to practice those                 
 professions.  The board is responsible for setting standards for              
 the safe practice of those professions.  It disciplines                       
 individuals that violates regulations and those who are not                   
 safely practicing those professions, thereby, serves the public               
 safety.                                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. DOZIER said currently there is no board, including this                   
 board, that regulates landscape architects.  He said it is the                
 chairman's position that landscape architecture is a separate and             
 distinct profession.  It calls for specialized knowledge in                   
 scientific, engineering, and biological principles.  He referred              
 to individuals that practice this profession and said if it isn't             
 done in a safe manner it could harm public safety.  HB 243 does               
 just that.  It brings, within the scope of coverage of the state              
 board, the practice of landscape architecture.  Mr. Dozier said               
 the bill is a large bill containing concept which is that                     
 landscape architecture should be regulated by the state.  The                 
 remainder of the bill, 99 percent of it, consists of conforming               
 amendments to existing statutes.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 316                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee members that there is a                  
 proposed CS.                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that CSHB 243(L&C), 9-LS0858C,                     
 Lauterbach, dated 4-12-95.  Hearing no objection, CSHB 243(L&C)               
 was adopted.                                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Dozier to explain the CS.                             
                                                                               
 MR. DOZIER said the principle change is in Section 29 which adds              
 subsections 10 and 11, which are not included in the original                 
 bill.  He said Section 11 was added for the purpose of making it              
 clear that individuals who have small business, and quite often               
 teenagers that do lawn and yard work, aren't included in the                  
 coverage of the bill.  He referred to Section 10 and said people              
 from the profession are available to testify and he would defer               
 it to them.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he just got "beat up" by a person from              
 the Alliance for all the unnecessary regulations that get into                
 the way of Alaska businesses.  He said he wanted the record to                
 reflect that here are Alaska businesses coming to the legislature             
 asking for regulation, and he is going to throw it back into                  
 their face the next time the Alliance comes down here because                 
 every piece of legislation is not being generated by a bunch of               
 legislators saying, "O.K., how can we over regulate."  He said                
 every statute that leads to regulation that he has seen is                    
 (indisc.) business.  He said he wanted the record to reflect very             
 very clearly that he is going to be business friendly by passing              
 this business request out of committee, but he going to throw it              
 back at them the next time they come down here and tell him that              
 he is over regulating them.                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 465                                                                    
                                                                               
 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,              
 Department of Commerce and Economic Development, said the                     
 department doesn't support the legislation because of the danger              
 to public health and safety posed by poor quality landscape                   
 architecture seems low to the department.  She said it is                     
 possible that more testimony on the bill will clarify and                     
 convince the department that there is danger.  At this point, the             
 department doesn't see danger that merits limitation of Alaskan's             
 opportunity to perform the work of their choice.  Ms. Reardon                 
 explained construction contractors who do the actual moving of                
 earth and plant material are currently licensed by the division.              
 It is a specialty contractor license that would not involve the               
 design of landscaping which the bill deals with.  All the                     
 landscape architects and architecture firms must currently have               
 business licenses.  She said that is how they regulate, only with             
 business licenses or through construction contractor licenses for             
 the actual landscape work.  Ms. Reardon said she agrees with Mr.              
 Dozier that landscape architecture is a separate and distinct                 
 profession from architecture and engineering which the department             
 currently licenses.  The question is a policy question as to                  
 whether the regulation is necessary to protect the public.  She               
 said the bill would certify people has having certain                         
 qualifications in landscape architecture so that it may benefit               
 consumers that the person they hire has some training in that                 
 area.  However, the restriction of the practice of landscape                  
 architecture for folks that don't have a license seems                        
 unnecessary or excessive at this time.  If supporters of the bill             
 do demonstrate that public health and safety concerns are                     
 involved, she would suggest that the licensing program be                     
 modified and made a bit more modest so that anyone who has passed             
 the national landscape architecture course could submit proof of              
 that and the division would license them.  Ms. Reardon said                   
 perhaps the use of the term "landscape architect" would be                    
 limited to those folks, but perhaps people who did not call                   
 themselves licensed landscape architects could do the same work               
 without going through the licensing.                                          
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON said the bill adds a nonvoting landscape architect to             
 the board.  She said she believes this was an effort to hold down             
 costs as the sponsors may have felt that having the member be                 
 nonvoting would somehow make the costs less.  She said she                    
 doesn't really think that will turn out to be the case because                
 the nonvoting member will still need to travel or participate in              
 meetings, although she supposes the nonvoting member could choose             
 to only participate by teleconference.  She said her suggestion               
 is to go a head and give that landscape architect the power to                
 vote as it would be a smoother way of operating the board since               
 everyone else who participates in meetings would be voting.                   
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON said if the committee does decide that there is                   
 public interest in restricting this profession to people with                 
 certain qualifications, she would suggest that Section 25 and 32              
 be clarified so that the definition of the practice of landscape              
 architecture does not overlap with engineering.  Those two                    
 sections point out that the definition of landscape architecture              
 does include some things which engineers do which landscape                   
 architects shouldn't be permitted to do.  Section 25 says, "This              
 chapter does not prohibit the practice of landscape architecture              
 by an engineer."  It also says that even if you are a landscape               
 and the definition of landscape architecture covers a certain                 
 procedure, if that procedure is really an engineering activity                
 you can't do it.  She said it seems that there needs to be more               
 thought put into exactly where the boarder is between engineering             
 and landscape architecture to eliminate some of the overlapping.              
 She stated Section 25 needs clarification and work on the                     
 definitions.                                                                  
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON said there needs to be a technical amendment needed               
 in Section 24.  It appears a subsection "A" needs to be added at              
 the beginning of Section 24 because Section 25 says,                          
 "Notwithstanding A of this section."                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to making the nonvoting member a                
 voting member and said we would then end up with a board that has             
 ten members.  He said most boards have odd numbers.  He asked Ms.             
 Reardon if she recommends that two be added or replace one of the             
 others.                                                                       
                                                                               
 MS. REARDON said she would not recommend removing one of the                  
 engineers or architects without having discussed that with those              
 boards.  She said adding another public member would increase the             
 overall number of people and would increase the cost of the                   
 board.                                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said Section 5 seems to say that the                    
 nonvoting member wouldn't be entitled to per diem and travel                  
 expenses.  MS. REARDON said that is true, but it seems that for               
 the person to participate on the board, they would need to                    
 participate in the meetings.  Therefore, she assumes there would              
 be teleconference costs.  She noted the meetings seem to be two               
 day meetings.  It will not necessarily be a savings over just                 
 flying to Anchorage or Juneau and participating.                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would take testimony from Anchorage.                    
                                                                               
 Number 492                                                                    
                                                                               
 DWAYNE ADAMS testified from Anchorage.  He said he is (indisc.)               
 in a landscape architecture firm of many people.  Mr. Adams                   
 referred to the items Ms. Reardon brought up and said most of                 
 them were worked out with the Occupational Licensing Division                 
 about a year ago.  It came to his attention about three weeks ago             
 that were some concerns in the department.  Mr. Adams referred to             
 the public health and safety issues and said, for example, there              
 is nobody licensed for the design of playground equipment.  He                
 said there are liability and safety issues involving the design               
 of playground equipment.  He pointed out playground equipment                 
 structures, the height a child could fall, the type of equipment,             
 etc., are unlicensed in the state of Alaska, but are licensed in              
 45 other states.                                                              
                                                                               
 MR. ADAMS said the universal design standards for accessibility               
 is one of the things that landscape architects deal with on a                 
 daily basis.  It is in the public heath and the safety concerns               
 that landscape architects be licensed and the people designing                
 walkways and the facilities should be knowledgeable of these.  It             
 is important that landscape architects be licensed for the design             
 of (indisc.) structures, simple walls and foundations that go                 
 into landscape architectural designs.  He said the relationship               
 of civil engineers is (indisc.) of architects and structural                  
 engineers.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. ADAMS said landscape architects need to be licensed.  As the              
 owner of an eight person firm, he finds that he loses a                       
 significant amounts of (indisc.) to landscape architects.                     
 Approximately 50 percent of the work in the state in the realm of             
 landscape architect is done by out of state landscape architects.             
 The Alaska Native Hospital their (indisc.) designs all by out of              
 state landscape architects.  He continued to give more examples               
 of organizations using out of state landscape architectures.                  
                                                                               
 MR. ADAMS explained that people who do this work should                       
 understand the Arctic conditions, the fundamentals of snow                    
 removal, salt, sand, plant materials, walking surfaces.  Those                
 are the fundamentals that landscape architects need to know.  A               
 component of the licensing requirement still should require that              
 arctic engineering be a fundamental part of the training of                   
 landscape architects licensed in this state.  He thanked the                  
 committee for listening to him.                                               
                                                                               
 Number 524                                                                    
                                                                               
 LINDA CYRA-KORSGGARD, Landscape Architect, testified from                     
 Anchorage.  She said she is licensed as a landscape architect                 
 both in Washington and Maine.  The contribution of this                       
 profession to the health, safety and welfare of Alaskans warrants             
 registration of the practice.  The SOA(?) members are currently               
 employed in Alaska's private landscape architectural offices and              
 are publicly employed by federal offices of the Forest Service,               
 the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the                  
 Bureau of Land Management.  In addition, they are employed in                 
 state offices of the Department of Natural Resources and the                  
 Department of Environmental Conservation.  Municipalities employ              
 landscape architects in park and recreation departments.                      
 Professional qualifications for landscape architects include a                
 professional four or five year degree from one of over 40                     
 accredited colleges or university programs.  Landscape                        
 architecture is a profession licensed in 45 out of 50 states.                 
 Ms. Cyra-Korsggard explained the Alaska Professional Design                   
 Council, which is made up of (indisc.) land surveyors has taken a             
 vote and has agreed to support them in their efforts to become a              
 licensed profession.  The AELS has also made that same                        
 determination.                                                                
                                                                               
 MS. CYRA-KORSGGARD said some the areas of expertise that                      
 (indisc.) are laws and regulations protecting the environment are             
 signage and scenic road and trail pull out designs, official                  
 analysis of impacts of roadway and utility corridors, trail                   
 alignment, geometry and user conflicts, erosion control                       
 principals, relationship of recreational activities, fertilizers,             
 insecticides, etc.  Ms. Cyra-Korsggard continued to inform the                
 committee of laws and regulations protecting the environment.                 
 She thanked the committee for listening to her.                               
                                                                               
 Number 559                                                                    
                                                                               
 LEE WYATT testified from the Mat-Su teleconference site.  He said             
 he is a 21 year resident of Alaska.  When he first came to                    
 Alaska, it was to work on the pipeline and he came as a landscape             
 architect.  He said Aleyska called him a visual impact engineer.              
                                                                               
 MR. WYATT explained he earned a five year professional degree in              
 landscape architecture from the University of Washington in 1968.             
 In 1972, he took a four day 36 hour exam to receive a national                
 (indisc.) which allowed him to become a registered certified                  
 landscape architect in the state of Washington.  He has been                  
 registered and has practiced in the states of Oregon, Montana,                
 Colorado and Nebraska.  He is currently licensed in the state of              
 Idaho.                                                                        
                                                                               
 MR. WYATT said he personally believes that in one form or                     
 another, the basic principles and (indisc.) of the practice of                
 Alaska architecture, on a daily basis, are utilized in his                    
 position as the City Administrator/Public Works Director for the              
 City of Wasilla.  Landscape architects are normally trained and               
 educated to be knowledgeable in almost all the professional                   
 design disciplines, as we know them, that are addressed in the                
 other portions of this particular statute.  Licensing would test              
 knowledge and capability and would ensure competence in the                   
 market place.  It would also allow people who are in the current              
 practice to compete against those people who come from out of                 
 state to practice in this state, not knowing about the special                
 considerations of Alaska.  Some of the considerations relate to               
 arctic engineering, climate, plant materials, frost, etc.                     
 Landscape architecture is an honorable profession.  HB 243 is not             
 over regulation.  It would protect the citizens rights and all                
 those who visit.  He urged passage of HB 243.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 584                                                                    
                                                                               
 BURDETT LENT, Landscape Architect, was next to testify from the               
 Mat-Su teleconference site.  He said he has been a landscape                  
 architect for about 34 years.  He informed the committee that the             
 types of projects he has been involved in since he has been in                
 Alaska include residential planed unit development, site                      
 planning, planning and zoning, commercial and office building                 
 landscaping, highway landscaping, health care facilities, local               
 parks, etc.  He said these were done for a variety of clients                 
 from small residents up to projects involving land use.                       
                                                                               
 MR. LENT said to hire people from out of state to do some of the              
 projects is not in the state's best interest.  He said he has                 
 worked on projects where there are large amounts of funds being               
 invested in infrastructure for health care facilities.  He said a             
 lot has already been mentioned about health, safety and welfare               
 issues.  He noted a landscape sprinkler system that is not                    
 properly designed can poison a domestic water system.  Mr. Lent               
 said 45 of 50 states have registered landscape architects, and                
 therefore, provides a source of income for those landscape                    
 architects.  In Alaska, we have an unequal footing with other                 
 professions where they are asked to do work of equal statute, but             
 they are not protected from people coming in from out of state to             
 do that same type of work.  It is inconsistent.  Another                      
 inconsistency in state law is the fact that landscape contractors             
 are licensed and are controlled with insurance requirements.                  
 They carry far less responsibility than landscape architects do.              
                                                                               
 MR. LENT said by licensing landscape architects, it will help                 
 familiarize the profession to other Alaskans who do not                       
 understand the profession.  Local communities will adopt                      
 landscape standards as the large cities in Alaska have done.  Mr.             
 Lent said the benefits will accrue to all residents of Alaska in              
 the proper planning of the development of our natural resources.              
                                                                               
 Number 635                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would recess until further              
 notice as the committee members have been summoned to the House               
 Chambers.                                                                     
 TAPE 95-46, SIDE B                                                            
 HB 260 - MARINE PILOTS                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN KOTT reconvened the meeting.  He said the committee                  
 would address HB 260, "An Act relating to marine pilots and the               
 Board of Marine Pilots; extending the termination date of the                 
 Board of Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date."                 
 Chairman Kott referred to the last meeting on the bill and said               
 Representative Kubina was going to offer an amendment.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he had asked all the groups involved               
 to try to come to an agreement amongst themselves.  He said he                
 isn't comfortable in moving any amendment to which they can't                 
 come to an agreement on.  He said he doesn't believe they have                
 done so.  Representative Kubina asked if the committee had                    
 adopted a CS at the previous meeting.                                         
                                                                               
 An unidentified speaker said the committee had adopted two                    
 amendments at the previous meeting.                                           
                                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 There being a call on the House floor, CHAIRMAN KOTT promptly                 
 adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Committee meeting.                     
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects