Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/30/1996 03:16 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 30, 1996
3:16 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 43(L&C)
"An Act relating to registration by the Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors; clarifying the meaning
of practicing or offering to practice architecture, engineering, or
land surveying; and amending the definition of `practice of land
surveying.'"
- PASSED CSSB 43(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 253(FIN)
"An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of prostate cancer
or cervical cancer detection."
- PASSED CSSB 253(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First Public Hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 43
SHORT TITLE: ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/23/95 71 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/95 71 (S) L&C, FIN
03/07/95 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/07/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/20/96 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/20/96 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/27/96 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/29/96 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/12/96 2706 (S) L&C RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
03/12/96 2706 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DCED)
04/22/96 3433 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
04/24/96 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/24/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/24/96 3490 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/24/96
04/24/96 3520 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/24/96 3520 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/24/96 3521 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/24/96 3521 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 43(L&C)
04/24/96 3521 (S) PASSED Y17 N3
04/24/96 3521 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/25/96 3578 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/25/96 3580 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/26/96 4033 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/26/96 4033 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/30/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 253
SHORT TITLE: INS.FOR PROSTATE & CERVICAL CANCER TESTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DUNCAN, Ellis, Salo, Zharoff, Lincoln,
Kelly; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Robinson, Kubina, Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/96 2279 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/96 2280 (S) L&C, FIN
02/05/96 2309 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ELLIS, SALO
02/07/96 2330 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ZHAROFF
03/07/96 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/07/96 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/12/96 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/14/96 2736 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 1NR
03/14/96 2736 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED, ADM)
03/28/96 (S) FIN AT 8:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/02/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/03/96 (S) RLS AT 1:15 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/03/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/03/96 3042 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP NEW TITLE
04/03/96 3042 (S) ZERO FN TO CS (ADM)
04/03/96 3042 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
04/10/96 3112 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/10/96
04/10/96 3115 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/10/96 3115 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y18 N2
04/10/96 3115 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y14 N6
04/10/96 3136 (S) COSPONSOR: LINCOLN
04/10/96 3116 (S) THIRD READING 4/11 CALENDAR
04/11/96 3167 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 253(FIN)
04/11/96 3168 (S) PASSED Y19 N1
04/11/96 3168 (S) KELLY NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/12/96 3205 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/12/96 3205 (S) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
04/12/96 3206 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18 N1 E1
04/12/96 3220 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/15/96 3733 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/15/96 3733 (H) L&C, STATE AFFAIRS
04/15/96 3783 (H) HES REFERRAL ADDED
04/15/96 3785 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROBINSON, KUBINA
04/22/96 3936 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): NAVARRE
04/23/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/23/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/25/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/25/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/26/96 4042 (H) HES RPT HCS(HES) 2DP 1NR 2AM
04/26/96 4042 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY
04/26/96 4042 (H) NR: G.DAVIS
04/26/96 4042 (H) AM: BRICE, ROBINSON
04/26/96 4043 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DCED) 3/14/96
04/26/96 4043 (H) SEN ZERO FNS (ADM/ALL DEPTS) 4/3/96
04/30/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MARY VOLLENDORF, Administrative Assistant
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
176 West Fourth, Suite 520
Telephone: (907) 258-8189
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for CSSB 43(L&C).
KRISTINE PELLET, Student Intern
to Senator Jim Duncan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4766
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for CSSB 253(FIN).
GENE DAW, Volunteer
American Association of Retired
People; Veterans of Foreign Wars
Box 20995
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3816
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of CSSB 253(Fin)
SENATOR JIM DUNCAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4766
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 253.
BILL CHISHAM, State Employee
6550 North Douglas
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-8911
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 253(FIN).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-42, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was called to order
by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:16 p.m.. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Elton, Kubina, Rokeberg, Masek and Kott.
CSSB 43(L&C) - ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the first order of business would be
CSSB 43(L&C), "An Act relating to registration by the Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors;
clarifying the meaning of practicing or offering to practice
architecture, engineering, or land surveying; and amending the
definition of `practice of land surveying.'"
MARY VOLLENDORF, Administrative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,
sponsor of the measure, testified via teleconference on behalf of
Senator Leman. She said the bill is a architects, engineers and
land surveyors (AELS) cleanup bill. Section 1 relates to the
qualifications and (indisc.) territory (indisc.) or a foreign
country. They would have to have their application verified by the
board and then have their application reviewed and register in
accordance with regulations of the board.
MS. VOLLENDORF explained Section 2 relates to requiring status
registration. On retiring from the practice of engineering, there
is a one-time fee and once the registrant is in good standing they
may apply for the conversion of a certificate of registration to a
retired status registration. They will not be able to practice
architecture, engineering or land surveying, but may reapply for a
certificate of registration.
MS. VOLLENDORF said Section 3 just adds the word "or."
MS. VOLLENDORF explained in Section 4 a couple of technical words
were added for the (indisc.) of land surveying.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSSB 43(L&C),
Version U, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was anyone else wishing to testify.
Hearing none, he stated the motion is to move CSSB 43(L&C) from
committee with individual recommendations with the accompanying
zero fiscal note. He asked if there was an objection. Hearing
none, CSSB 43(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
CSSB 253(FIN) - INS.FOR PROSTATE & CERVICAL CANCER TESTS
Number 230
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would hear CSSB 253(FIN),
"An Act relating to insurance coverage for costs of prostate cancer
or cervical cancer detection."
Number 230
KRISTINE PELLET, Student Intern to Senator Jim Duncan, came forward
to explain CSSB 253(FIN). She read her statement into the record:
"Thank you for scheduling Senate Bill 253, `An Act relating to
insurance coverage for costs of prostate cancer or cervical cancer
detection.' Prostate cancer accounts for 36 percent of all male
cancers and is the second leading cause of death in men, after lung
cancer, as reported by the National Cancer Institute. Although
often presumed to develop slowly, nearly two-thirds of new prostate
cancer cases has spread beyond the prostate gland by the time of
diagnosis.
"In addition to coverage for screening of prostate cancer, Senate
Bill 253 would require screening of cervical cancer screening.
Cervical cancer accounts for about 16 percent of all cancers in
women, is estimated that nearly half of the approximately 15,000
women who are diagnosed annually with the condition never underwent
early screening procedures.
"Senate Bill 253 makes health issues a priority. I recommend that
the committee consider this Senate Finance Committee's version of
Senate Bill 253. This version retains the mandatory aspect that I
had originally intended with the bill. I would welcome your
support in requiring that insurance companies cover the cost of
prostate and cervical cancer testing."
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Pellet to point out the
difference in wordage between the two bills.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to the page 2, line 1 of the
House Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee's
version of the bill it stated the bill says, "required to be
offered". The Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill says,
"required by this section".
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there isn't a title change. He noted the
committee is working on Version G.
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA moved to adopt CSSB 253(FIN), Version F.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He said, "We did have a work
session on this and related matters. I think there was a
substantial amount of confusion, particularly after we received the
testimony in this committee on Senate Bill, I believe, 193 which
was Senator Salo's bill on child care extension of birthing periods
under insurance and frankly, Mr. Chairman, I was a little
disappointed because I think that this committee was somewhat
misled, not intentionally of course, but by the testimony received
from leg counsel when this issue was brought before us the last
time on another bill, which is very similar - it's the very same
type of language, and a distinction made between what was mandated
in the insurance coverage and what could be offered. And this is
this is a concern I have that is a distinction and I would caution
the members of the committee that what I thought it was the
intention as brought forward by legislative counsel at our last
meeting on that bill is not the nature of the beast as we assumed.
We thought that the ability of an insurer -- of an insured, that is
the consumer, was best maintained or would be maintained by the
original language and in this case the Finance language supported
by the sponsor and that option really isn't there is my
understanding. Lets see if I can think this through here. The
problem and the real distinction becomes between the - a group plan
and the individual plan. And right now if the sponsor's preferred
version - it is my understanding that this would be mandated by all
coverage and there would be no optional provision on the part of
the consumer to take it or leave it, and correct me if I'm wrong
here on that. Because a lot of the testimony on these bills we've
had has been from the group side, for example, AETNA was (indisc.)
and so forth. And my concern, frankly is for the people that are
individually purchasing insurance, not group plans and that have
all the economic power and abilities to come down. And the
thinking being that this - any types of well treatments like this
that are mandated under a policy will have the ultimate impact of
increasing the amount of premium that the insured would have to
pay. So I think the desire of the HESS Committee and so forth was
to allow a matter of choice on the part of the insured and not to
mandate the coverage and that was really the - kind of a
philosophical issue and somebody correct me if I'm not telling this
right. I'd just like to make sure the committee is getting the
whole story. I'm not sure I'm doing a good enough job to explain
it. I was thoroughly confused along with you the other day, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said as it was explained by leg counsel or the legal
folks it was his understanding that what was being addressed was
what was heard in a subsequent hearing, the work session. He said
it is basically a policy call - one of requiring or one as
requiring to offer. If it is required to be offered under the
group plan, the employer is, in fact, going to make the choice for
the employee. Chairman Kott said his opinion under the group
policy plan is he would much rather see the employee have the say
so in having it required. He said he can understand Representative
Rokeberg's concern with the individual policy. Chairman Kott
suggested the committee hear from someone who represents the
industry.
Number 800
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained he has a little bit of first hand
knowledge of this and that is why he feels so strongly that it be
a required thing in the policies. He said with his and his wife's
insurance through the school district, it was not in the policy.
He asked Chairman Kott if this is the appropriate time to debate
the bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT suggested he withdraw his motion for the purpose of
taking testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA withdrew his motion.
Number 849
GENE DAW, Volunteer, representing American Association of Retired
People and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, came before the committee
to address SB 253. He said the organizations he represents thinks
the bill is good for all Alaskans. Mr. Daw indicated this is the
fifth time he has testified on the bill. He referred to prostate
cancer and indicated he has had the screening test three times.
His doctor told him that this test is one of the quickest ways for
detecting prostate cancer. This type of cancer spreads very fast
so the sooner you catch it, the better chance you have of stopping
it. Once it spreads, it is hard to do anything about it. Mr. Daw
said insurance people gave testimony at some of the other hearings
on the measure where they said that this test is an experimental
test. It is not an experimental test, it is a well established
test and most doctors use it. It should be provided for by
insurance companies to encourage people to have this test. He
explained if the screen tests aren't paid for by an insurance
company, it would be easy for someone to say, "Well, maybe I'll
have it next year or the year after." Mr. Daw noted he is a
disabled veteran and he is lucky the Veterans Administration pays
for his medical expenses. He stated that the prostate and the
cervical cancer tests are good. Prostate cancer is the second
largest killer of men in America. He urged passage of CSSB
253(FIN).
Number 1138
SENATOR JIM DUNCAN urged the committee to pass CSSB 253(FIN) out of
committee. He added he believes it is very important to include
the word "provide" in the legislation instead of "offer." If you
say "offer," it does nothing more than what is the present status
quo because they can currently offer. Senator Duncan said several
years ago, there was similar legislation passed relating to
mammograms and it has been very successful and is a very good
preventive health care step, not only for breast cancer but for
prostate and cervical cancer.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled reading an article which indicated
that the PSA test had about a 30 or 35 percent efficacy. There was
also another article which pointed out that there was a new test
coming. He referred to subsection (e) on page 2 which said, "In
this section, `prostate cancer screening tests' includes a prostate
antigen blood test or another test that is equivalent or better in
cancer detection," and questioned if this would include another
test.
SENATOR DUNCAN indicated that if there is another test that comes
along that has better and more accurate findings and results than
the PSA test, then it should be provided. He said the PSA test may
not always be accurate, but the medical providers he has talked to
indicated that the test is very helpful and is one they recommend
be done.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believes there is some controversy
about "experimental nature" of this. So if there is a new better
version, he would presume unless it has significantly higher
positive rates, it could be categorized as experimental also.
Number 1274
SENATOR DUNCAN said he isn't sure that providers nor would he say
that PSA is experimental. It has been used. He said he would say
that the accuracy rate is not 100 percent, but it is a good test
for early detection of prostate cancer and it has been very
successful. Surely, it is better to have the test than not to have
it. Even if there is a misleading result, it is better to have it
than not to have it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there was testimony in other hearings
where some insurers call it experimental.
SENATOR DUNCAN referred to subsection (e) and said it was written
with providers and others involved. Clearly, he believes that
indicates that prostate antigen blood tests or another test if one
is developed that is equivalent or better would be included. If a
better test comes along he doesn't say that it should not be
provided.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "However this bill comes out, I'm
gunna be supporting I want you to know."
SENATOR DUNCAN said he hopes that he will support it with the word
"provide," because if it is supported with "may offer," nothing
changes. What they'll do is give a laundry list of coverages that
people may select, there will be a long list and you'll have to
read through and select it and most people won't do that.
Number 1394
BILL CHISHAM, State Employee, came before the committee to testify
in support of the bill. He said he has a background in insurance
law. He said he is in favor of the specific words, "will provide,"
and nothing that gives them an opportunity to make it optional.
Mr. Chisham said in 1992 and 1993, his physician recommended this
test on his annual physical. So he had it and AETNA paid for it.
The following year he had the test and AETNA said they wouldn't pay
for it. He called and questioned why and they said, "Well, we
apparently made a mistake in paying for last year." Mr. Chisham
said since then, he has been paying for it. It runs between $70
and $75. He said he personally feels it is a good test to take as
a backup, particularly to the other tests, and to some extent
somewhat more comfortable to take. Mr. Chisham continued to
explain the process of the test and said he will continue to have
the test whether AETNA will pay for it or not. He urged that the
legislation move forward. He noted he prefers the original
version, but if that isn't possible, he would prefer a version that
does make this specifically required by the insurance carrier.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the proper way to do the test is
to have both the digital and the PSA test together because of the
higher level of accuracy.
MR. CHISHAM said he can't speak as a doctor, but as an individual
if there was a choice of one or the other, he would pick the PSA
test first. If possible, he would prefer to have both.
Number 1614
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted it is his understanding that if the test
is flawed, it gives false positives, not false negatives. Having
a PSA test originally doesn't preclude the backup test if you get
a false negative.
Number 1614
MR. DAW said he would like to note that his doctor has told him the
PSA screening test is 95 percent positive and if there is any type
of infection or prostate cancer, 95 percent of the time they'll
detect it. He explained he would rather have the PSA test.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, for the record, that he saw a Larry
King show with Michael Milken (Sp.?) who was underwriting a major
genetic study of prostate cancer and Mr. Milken, General
Swartzkoph, Lynn Donson and Jack Kemp were also on the show. They
all had false negative PSA tests and without the digital and follow
up, they would have not been diagnosed timely.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was anybody else wishing to testify.
there being none, he close the public hearing.
Number 1715
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA moved that the committee adopt CSSB 253(FIN),
Version F.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA informed the committee that his wife, through
their school district insurance policy, would not cover this. At
one time when his wife went to get a check up, the insurance
company wouldn't cover the test under their insurance so they
decided to pay for it themselves. Some cervical cancer was
discovered. Representative Kubina said the district has now
negotiated for the cervical test so that if a doctor required it,
they would pay for it. He noted that was something they had to
negotiate outside of the policy. Our dental health insurance is
all preventive, but the health insurance isn't preventive at all.
Representative Kubina said he has been told that this isn't a big
cost factor to insurance companies - yes, the cost will get passed
on, but there are major insurance companies that are not objecting
to this.
Number 1818
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said you could come up with a good reason for
adding a whole bunch of tests to the bill. The point is when a
insurance company offers coverage, they cost it out with specific
testing and coverage in mind and that's what they're covering. If
new tests come along or the individual policy holder did not opt
for a certain kind of coverage, that isn't provided.
Representative Porter said philosophically, he is opposed to
mandating these kinds of things. The section in (e) that has been
added to take care of developing expertise in these kinds of areas
might have an effect of not being negligible cost even to the group
policies. As it stands, it has an effect on individual policies,
but not knowing what it is that this better detection test involves
or how much it's going to cost, we could be setting up a scenario
that could run into a whole lot of money. He said he would support
the G version of the bill.
Number 1915
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he has had some discussion with some of the
major insurance carriers in the state and they are comfortable with
Version F, which is the Senate Finance Committee's version. The
small amount of money that these tests costs is clearly a minor
amount compared to not discovering the cancer at a later stage
which would then entail some exorbitant costs that will have to be
paid for by the insurance company. He said he thinks they are
willing to prevent or to detect early on any types of cancer which
would reduce some of the expenses from their behalf. Chairman Kott
said he will support the Senate version of the bill. He noted he
is philosophically opposed to mandating coverage in most cases and
that's basically what the insurance company said, but in this
particular case they were willing to make some concession. He said
he believes they're looking out for their long-term interest.
Number 1987
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said indicated that substituting Version G for
Version F essentially does nothing. He said he would encourage the
committee to move Version F.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said Representative Elton indicated that
Version G would have no value at all. He said it seems to him that
by mandating the offer of coverage, it institutes a line item on a
menu - it's a menu type selection, whereas today he isn't aware
that a consumer coming in to buy an individual policy would be
offered this coverage at all. Therefore, Version G would mandate
that they be offered coverage.
Number 2092
SENATOR DUNCAN said he concurs with Representative Elton. He said
he believes if the committee adopts the House HESS Committee
version, you really are doing nothing because insurance companies
can now offer a coverage for PSA or can offer coverage for a pap
smear. So really the committee would be doing nothing but saying,
"You must offer it." That doesn't mean that it will be provided or
that anyone will select it. The problem would be that most people
when they get their insurance probably aren't going to spend a lot
of time going through the long laundry list of options available to
then and, therefore, in many cases wouldn't select it. Senator
Duncan said if you are going to use the words "must offer," you
really are not solving or addressing the problem. He said when it
was mandated that mammograms be covered, there wasn't a great jump
in health care premiums. So there wouldn't be a great jump in
health care premiums because of this. Unfortunately, the fiscal
notes can't reflect what the true savings are. We don't know, but
we do know that preventive health care saves money. To spend $75
on a PSA test may save many months in the hospital later on because
you have cancer and many other expensive procedures.
Number 2187
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said in his school district the people
covered doesn't receive a list. The school district actually
determines what coverage they are going to accept. He said he
thinks why the insurance companies would be supportive of this is
because they probably understand the benefit of it. When employers
come to negotiate the package that they're going to get, they want
the cheapest one they can get, so it could fall off the list. If
it is required the insurance company can't say, "Well, it's off the
list."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggesting defining the wording "to offer."
To use the wording "to offer" doesn't mean it will come up on the
menu.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained it says "shall offer."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that doesn't mean it has to be on a menu
list. It just means that if they're asked, they have to offer it.
He said he doesn't believe that "to offer" means that it is going
to be one of the lists of options. He said he thinks that it means
if somebody asks for it, they're going to have to offer it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it doesn't say that to him. From his
perspective, everybody seems to be talking about the group plans,
fiscal notes, etc. He said he happens to represent small business
people in this state and nobody talks about the person who goes in
for an individual policy and those are the people he is concerned
about. They will directly pay that policy increase. He said he is
all for this particular bill and the concept of it, but he wants to
be able to make sure it is a matter of choice for those people who
do make those choices when they go as consumers to buy that policy.
Representative Rokeberg said his understanding of the cervical
cancer/pap smear test, because it is an annual test, it is
recommended by all gynecologists to be done yearly from an early
age in the 20s for all female patients, where the PSA tests are for
men over 50.
Number 2337
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted when he was in the military, his wife had
annual physicals in the doctor's offices on military instillation.
She could have rejected it, but as part of the physical they
require her to have a pap smear. Obviously, there is a reason
behind that. They are trying to look at it from a long-term
perspective, if they catch it early, you pay it now or pay later.
Chairman Kott said he understands Representative Rokeberg's concern
over the small group type employers, but from the insurance
perspective they could offer it and you could reject it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would point out that after
mammograms were mandated, some insurers did provide that as
required by statute but they put caps and limits on the coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if you have an individual policy and it
is mandated, you're saving costs down the road too. Maybe it has
a negative effect on the premium over time. He said he can't prove
that will happen, but he certainly thinks that there is a cost
savings down the road.
TAPE 96-42, SIDE B
Number 001
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a roll call vote. Representatives Masek,
Kubina, Elton and Kott voted in favor of the adoption CSSB
253(FIN), Version F. Representatives Porter and Rokeberg voted
against the adoption CSSB 253(FIN), Version F. So CSSB 253(FIN),
Version F was adopted.
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to pass CSSB 253(FIN), Version
F, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSSB
253(FIN) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Labor and
Commerce Committee, CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting at 4:06
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|