Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/03/2002 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 2002
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44(L&C)
Relating to preparation of a joint state-federal research and
development plan.
- MOVED HCS CSSJR 44(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 270(L&C)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Dispensing Opticians; relating to the regulation of dispensing
opticians; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska State Board of Public Accountancy
Margerie Kaiser
Steven Tarola
Sandra Wilson
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Ellen L. Ganley
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors
Linda Cyra-Korsgaard
Donald J. Iverson
Scott McLane
Patricia Peirsol
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
William "Randy" Graf
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Dr. Gregory M. Culbert
Dr. Carol J. Davis
Dr. R. Clark Davis
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Dental Examiners
Dr. Robert J. Allen
Dr. William L. Gerace
Dr. Rebecca Neslund
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Dispensing Opticians
James Rothmeyer
David Matthews, Jr.
Cindy Tidd
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Alaska Labor Relations Agency
Roberta Demoski
Aaron T. Isaacs
David D. Rasley
Raymond P. Smith
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Marine Pilots
Jack G. Poulson
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Marital and Family Therapy
Larry Holman
Bill Platte
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
State Medical Board
Dr. Allan G. Schlicht
Thomas H. Wilson
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Martha J. Falkar Linden
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Nursing
Barbara Berner
Dr. Nancy L. Sanders
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Examiners in Optometry
Dr. Erik D. Christianson
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Pharmacy
Gerry Knasiak
Laura Lee Nelson
Margaret Soden
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board
Sundi M. Hondl
Laura McDonough
Linda Newman
Dr. George D. Rhyneer
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Professional Counselors
Janet McGillivary
Dr. Allan A. Morotti
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners
Dr. Carey S. Edney
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers
Judy Kemplen
Stephen F. Turner
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Real Estate Commission
Lowell (Tom) T. Freeman
Jeannie Johnson
Susan Rainey
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Will Abbott
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Social Work Examiners
Lorraine M. Jaeger-Kirsch
Denny Patella
Sammye Pokryfki
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
Dorothy Bradshaw
John Giuchici
Stephen T. Hagedorn
James (Jay) N. Rhodes
Philip E. Ulmer
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 44
SHORT TITLE:STATE-FEDERAL JOINT RESEARCH PLAN
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/09/02 2683 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/09/02 2684 (S) L&C, FIN
04/16/02 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/16/02 (S) Moved CS(L&C) Out of
Committee
04/16/02 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/17/02 2807 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
04/17/02 2807 (S) DP: STEVENS, TORGERSON,
LEMAN, DAVIS
04/17/02 2807 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.L&C)
04/24/02 2923 (S) FIN RPT CS(L&C) 7DP 1NR
04/24/02 2923 (S) DP: KELLY, GREEN, AUSTERMAN,
HOFFMAN,
04/24/02 2923 (S) WILKEN, LEMAN, WARD; NR:
DONLEY
04/24/02 2923 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.L&C)
04/24/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/24/02 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
04/24/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/26/02 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/26/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/29/02 3022 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/29/02
04/29/02 3026 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/29/02 3026 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/29/02 3026 (S) ADVANCED TO 3RD READING FLD
Y13 N6 E1
04/29/02 3026 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
4/30 CALENDAR
04/30/02 3051 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR
44(L&C)
04/30/02 3051 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/30/02 3054 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/30/02 3054 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 44(L&C)
05/01/02 3252 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/01/02 3252 (H) L&C
05/03/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 270
SHORT TITLE:DISPENSING OPTICIANS:EXTEND BD/REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET & AUDIT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/02 2089 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/02 2089 (S) L&C, FIN
02/14/02 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/14/02 (S) Moved CS(L&C) Out of
Committee
02/14/02 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/19/02 2222 (S) L&C RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/19/02 2222 (S) DP: STEVENS, DAVIS,
TORGERSON;
02/19/02 2222 (S) NR: AUSTERMAN
02/19/02 2222 (S) FN1: (CED)
03/25/02 2517 (S) FIN RPT CS(L&C) 5DP 3NR
03/25/02 2518 (S) DP: KELLY, AUSTERMAN, OLSON,
WILKEN,
03/25/02 2518 (S) LEMAN; NR: DONLEY, GREEN,
WARD
03/25/02 2518 (S) FN1: (CED)
03/25/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/25/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/25/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/28/02 (S) RLS AT 8:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/28/02 (S) -- Time Change --
03/28/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/02/02 2586 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/2/02
04/02/02 2588 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/02/02 2588 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/02/02 2589 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/02/02 2589 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
270(L&C)
04/02/02 2589 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
04/02/02 2589 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/02/02 2593 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/02/02 2593 (S) VERSION: CSSB 270(L&C)
04/03/02 2770 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/03/02 2770 (H) L&C, FIN
04/12/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/17/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/17/02 (H) <Bill Postponed>
05/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(L&C)
05/03/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
RUSS KELLY
Legislative Intern to Senator Leman
Room 516
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSJR 44.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, AK 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed Version S of SB 270.
LARRY HARPER
Board of Dispensing Opticians
534 West Second Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501-2208
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 270.
DAVID G. MATTHEWS JR.
Board of Dispensing Opticians
P.O. Box 1138
Kotzebue, AK 99752
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 270.
ROBERTA RAWCLIFFE, Public Member
Board of Dispensing Opticians
PO Box 623
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended changes to [HCS CSSB 270,
Version S].
JIM GRAVES, Optometric Physician
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of [HCS CSSB 270]
Version S.
ALICIA MILES
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During testimony on SB 270, noted support
of the voluntary licensure.
JAMES ROTHMEYER, Chair
Board of Dispensing Opticians
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During testimony on SB 270, urged the
[legislature] and committee to pass a simple continuous bill for
four years or leave things as they are.
PAM GAJDOS
Image Optical
1867 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 270.
JOANNE YANAG, dispensing optician
Image Optical
1867 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 270.
MARIA MASSEY, Licensed Optician
Image Optical
1867 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 270.
CHRISTI BRAND
201 Old Steese Highway, Suite 2
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to postpone any action
on SB 270 because it isn't in the public's best interest in its
current form.
JAN AMUNDSON
PO Box 75177
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to continue licensure
for opticians and not take action on SB 270.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-71, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Kott, Rokeberg, and Crawford were
present at the call to order. Representatives Halcro, Meyer,
and Hayes arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SJR 44-STATE-FEDERAL JOINT RESEARCH PLAN
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44(L&C), Relating to
preparation of a joint state-federal research and development
plan.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reminded committee members they had previously
heard the House version of this legislation.
RUSS KELLY, Legislative Intern for Senator Leman, paraphrased
the sponsor statement as follows:
CSSJR 44 (L&C) requests that state and federal
agencies work together to develop a joint research and
development plan to help expand and diversify Alaska's
economy, strengthen and maintain state research
institutions and protect the health of Alaskans and
the environment of Alaska.
Alaska's economy is heavily dependent on the research
and development activities of public, private, and
academic sectors to attract investment, jobs, and
revenue to the state. Effective research and
development apply knowledge toward efficient resource
extraction, resource protection, provision of human
health, and the export of intellectual property.
The goal of the joint effort will be to develop and
present to the legislature a plan to identify and
assess areas of high economic potential for resource
development and tourism on federal and state lands in
Alaska.
MR. KELLY sighted the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation
(ASTF), the University of Alaska, and the U.S. Arctic Research
Commission as examples of the research and development
institutions the resolution addressed. He explained that two
members of the House of Representatives and two members of the
Senate would be assigned to make sure that the legislature has
input in research and development plans in the future.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that there was an amendment in front
of the committee. She marked it as amendment one.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1. There being
no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Kelly if the omission of the North
Pacific Research Board was due to an oversight.
MR. KELLY answered it was.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that the amendment also added the
chair of the North Pacific Research Board.
Number 0307
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved CSSJR 44(L&C) as amended from
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection HCS CSSJR 44(L&C) was
moved from committee.
An at-ease was taken from 3:32 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.
SB 270-DISPENSING OPTICIANS:EXTEND BD/REGULATION
Number 357
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 270(L&C), "An Act extending the
termination date of the Board of Dispensing Opticians; relating
to the regulation of dispensing opticians; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reminded the committee that before it was
Version S, which it had adopted at the May 1, 2002, meeting.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED),
informed the committee the Division of Occupational Licensing
staffs the Board of Dispensing Opticians. She believed three of
the five board members were on teleconference. Although they
had not had a formal board meeting in the last two days because
of public meeting requirements it was her clear understanding
that the board strongly opposes the Version S.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Reardon if redefining the definition
of dispensing optician was by direction from the board.
MS. REARDON explained that following the previous committee
hearing legislative aides requested she supply an alternative
definition for the practice of dispensing optician. She
responded to the request and supplied the aide with the
information. Ms. Reardon said she believes the purpose of the
request for a revised definition was that if the definition of
dispensing optician were narrower and limited to the most
potentially risky activities, perhaps the legislature would be
more willing to continue with mandatory licensure.
MS. REARDON pointed out that Version S does two significant
things: eliminates the Board of Dispensing Opticians and moves
from mandatory licensure to voluntary licensure. It would no
longer be required that someone hold a dispensing optician
license in order to practice that profession, she explained.
She responded to the suggestion of a more limited definition
because it is an unsettling idea to dispensing opticians who
believe it is important that individuals be licensed.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether or not that might have been a
directive from the board.
MS REARDON answered it was a staff request. She related her
understanding that the board would like to stick with the
existing definition of dispensing optician as well as the
mandatory licensure requirement.
Number 0673
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to correspondence from a
dispensing optician that said the board rewrote their
examination in April and after administering the new examination
to six candidates, only one passed it. Representative Rokeberg
said that the aforementioned results seemed to indicate there is
need to have some examination and practicum to ensure these
people know what they are doing.
MS. REARDON said she believes that is how the board interpreted
those results. Ms. Reardon pointed out that the bill also
eliminates the practical examination and reduces the number of
apprenticeship hours required for licensure. She felt the
correspondence Representative Rokeberg referred to was an
example of why dispensing opticians believe it is important to
keep the practical exam that the bill eliminates.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if removal of the board would
eliminate the ability to administer the exam.
MS. REARDON answered that the bill will eliminate the practical
exam. If a practical exam is returned to the law, it is helpful
to have a board to administer it otherwise the Division of
Occupational Licensing must contract with someone to write and
administer a practical exam.
Number 0850
LARRY HARPER, Board of Dispensing Opticians, explained that he
along with the Chairman of the Board of Dispensing Opticians,
Mr. James Rothmeyer, and other board members worked many hours
at their expense and completely revised the test. They
contracted with Colts Laboratory to provide lens specimens that
the applicants would have to identify and neutralize. The board
wanted to make it a first class test and this test is now very
objective, there are no gray areas and it is very clear. A
gage master for the equipment was brought in and used so the
applicants themselves could test the accuracy of the equipment.
In the past about 90 percent of what the board was questioned on
from the test takers was whether the equipment was accurate and
how to go about proving that. "So everything that the
legislative budget and audit found to be a problem with our
examination we have addressed." He said he would give
legislative audit every bit of due on this because they brought
this subject up time and time again.
MR. HARPER pointed out that this is a brand new board and over
the previous 18-24 months has addressed the issues of greatest
concern. Mr. Harper noted his pride in the work the board has
done. "We still have a miserable pass rate and quite frankly it
was obvious from the test takers that they simply came untrained
and unprepared to the testing site, he said." Mr. Harper
referred to a letter to committee members that outlined a
program called the Career Progression Program (CPP) administered
by the National Academy of Opticianry. The program usually
takes a year and a half to two years for an applicant to
complete. There are three people involved, the apprentice, the
apprentice's sponsor who is local and a Professor of Optics.
The Professor of Optics works as a mentor for both the teacher
and the student. This is a distance learning program that is
absolutely ideal as it is custom tailored for rural Alaskan
situations as well as urban settings. Coordinating this program
eliminates so many problems that were inherent in the
apprenticeship program from the lack of guidance.
MR. HARPER concluded by relating that the board felt it had
addressed the main issues, although there are going to be other
issues the board would like the opportunity to address. The
board not only opposes the committee substitute, he said, but it
also opposes SB 270 in its original form.
Number 1045
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Harper if the board opposed
Version F.
MR. HARPER replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that Version F kept the
board of directors. He asked Mr. Harper about the
apprenticeship issue in terms of the hours.
MR. HARPER said the board had already undertaken a reduction of
apprenticeship hours based on bringing in the CPP program at the
same time. The board wanted to turn it from a time and grade
type program to a results-orientated program. Therefore,
someone who was on the ball, had good sponsors, and worked hard
could get through the program sooner. There is no reason to
hold an apprentice back because some abstract hours had not been
met. The board decided the 3,000-hour requirement would
ultimately work the best in conjunction with passing the CPP
final exam and would suffice as a minimum entry level training.
That individual would then be free to take their practical exam.
MR. HARPER informed the committee he had been on the Board of
Directors of the National Contact Lens Examiners (NCLE) for nine
years. This national certification agency writes the test the
State of Alaska uses as a written exam. That test was never
designed in its entirety to sit as a stand-alone exam for
licensure. The test must be used in conjunction with a
practical examination.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the Dispensing Opticians Board
wants the practical exam and a 3,000-hour requirement as well as
a correspondence course.
MR. HARPER said yes, a distance learning program.
Number 1243
DAVID MATTHEWS JR., Board of Dispensing Opticians, gave the
following testimony as a new member of the board who had lived
in Kotzebue for over 20 years. He informed the committee that
going to school in Albuquerque, New Mexico for about four years
to obtain an Associates Degree in Optomic Technology was costly
for his family. The CPP course the board recommends is a great
opportunity for people in the Bush to study to be an optician
and be able to take the practical exam, he said. The practical
exam is very important and is necessary to protect the public as
evidenced by the test results.
MR. MATTHEWS agreed with Mr. Harper that the American Board of
Opticians and the NCLE written certification exams do not prove
the competency of the applicant for licensure; the practical
test is necessary to protect the public. People who have not
trained but have gone through the process of the CPP course
along with the 3,000-hour apprenticeship could potentially go to
the Bush and incorrectly fit a patient. This could endanger the
patient's vision such that he/she may have to obtain care
outside of their Bush community, which costs the state more
money through Medicaid. Getting rid of the practical exam would
only have negative results, he charged. At his first board
meeting the practical exam was administered and it was obvious
there had been a large amount of personal time spent developing
this practical exam. Having taken the old practical exam, Mr.
Matthews said the new test is much better; it is a really
professional test.
MR. MATTHEWS, in response to Chair Murkowski, explained that the
practical exam basically covers what an optician should know.
Therefore the exam includes a portion on menthrometry (ph),
reading prescriptions, fitting, and calculations.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI recalled that Mr. Matthews commented earlier
that during the practical exam, the applicant is tested on those
things that might impact public health and safety. She
specified that she was trying to understand how the practical
exam related to consumer protection.
MR. MATTHEWS explained that lensometry is the actual reading of
the prescription. Before a pair of glasses are dispensed, the
glasses must be checked in order to confirm that the glasses
meet minimal standards. There is an American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standard in optics that must be met.
Number 1566
ROBERTA RAWCLIFFE, Public Member, Board of Dispensing Opticians,
testified via teleconference. She informed the committee that
she was appointed to the board in 1999 and takes her obligation
seriously. She highlighted that this is the third exam she has
sat through and the first re-write of the new exam. Ms.
Rawcliffe turned to Version S and said, "To me, the bottom line
to this draft is money plain and simple: who gets to make more
and at whose expense?" Ms. Rawcliffe related her belief that
it's not in the public's interest to allow just anyone to fit,
dispense, or fabricate eyewear. The only benefactors to such
legislation [as Version S] would be the owners of optical shops.
She expressed the need for [folks who fit, dispense, or
fabricate eyewear to pass a written exam as well as [an exam] on
use of the necessary machinery. If Version S is enacted, Ms.
Rawcliffe said she believes that the cost will be higher than
the current cost to the state. Currently, the licensees pay the
expenses of all the oversight provided by the state as well as
for the expense of the board.
MS. RAWCLIFFE felt that it would be irresponsible to enact
legislation removing the safety net provided by licensing
requirements. Therefore, Ms. Rawcliffe suggested that SB 270 be
amended to include the following: retention of the practical
examination as a requirement for licensure, licensure as a
requirement for a dispensing optician in the state, and an
insertion of a [registration] requirement for those who wish to
become licensed apprentices. For those who don't wish to become
an optician, Ms. Rawcliffe recommended allowing those folks to
be frame fitters and work in an optician's office without
registering as an apprentice. For those who want to become an
apprentice, Ms. Rawcliffe suggested the inclusion of a
requirement for the career progression program for apprentices.
She further suggested that apprentices only have to serve as an
apprentice for 3,000 hours rather than the currently mandated
6,000 hours. Moreover, she suggested that the apprentices be
required to take the national certification course exams and
pass the practical examination.
MS. RAWCLIFFE turned to Representative Rokeberg's question
regarding the results of the six candidates that took the exam.
She informed the committee that five of the six seemed to be
unprepared for the exam and they didn't have a clue how to use
the lensometer. Therefore, she said she feared that without a
licensure requirement there could be a car lot attendant passing
out and fitting glasses. This would ultimately be at the
expense of the consumer. In conclusion, Ms. Rawcliffe
recommended that the committee [not pass along] Version S but
rather rework SB 270.
Number 1828
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised that Ms. Rawcliffe would hold the
opinion that it would help to provide a more specific definition
for [an apprentice].
MS. RAWCLIFFE agreed. She pointed out that the definition of
dispensing optician under AS 08.71.240 is clear. However, the
definition of an apprentice is unclear and could be amended.
Currently, an apprentice has to put in 6,000 hours worth of
apprenticeship before being allowed to sit for the practical
exam. She reiterated the need to recognize that there will be
some employees of an optician who don't wish to [become
apprentices], and therefore the board, in recognition of that,
suggested that the number of apprentice hours be shortened to
3,000 hours and inserted a requirement for a career progression
program. This is not unlike becoming a beautician.
Number 1971
JIM GRAVES, Optometric Physician, testified via teleconference
in support of Version S. Dr. Graves provided the following
testimony:
Since laboratory or bench opticians are exempted from
the law and unlicensed, this testimony is specific to
the people who adjust glasses, frames, and nose pads,
measure the head for frame size set by (indisc.) or
Progressives and ... pick a flattering frame.
Opticians do not need mandatory license to do this and
they do not need a license to simply fill a contact
lens prescription, a Class II FDA medical device.
These devices are, by law, prescribed and followed by
the doctors in the state of Alaska. As to unlicensed
opticians being a threat to the public, I truly feel
that there's more threat to the public in a
receptionist working for an optometrist or
ophthalmologist who doesn't understand the difference
between emergency, immediate care, and routine
appointments. Some opticians claim that they are
skilled in the medical field, but there is no evidence
of this or a requirement to show proficiency in this
area for licensure. Some also claim that they provide
eye care as licensed opticians but it is not in the
optician definition in statute. Some may wish the
standards were higher, but they are not and any
expanded duties are delegated by a doctor who is
responsible for them.
Also, what about the higher educated, ... such as
para-optometrics, optometric techs, ophthalmic techs,
surgical techs, visual therapy techs, contact lens
techs, and vision techs for screening, et. cetera.
These necessary individuals are unlikely unregulated
and certainly can often do dispensing optician duties
and usually much more. And their primary functions
are to assist the doctors in practice. When opticians
try to enforce that these individuals, somehow, need
mandatory optician apprenticeship and licensure
status. In my clinical experiences over 20 years,
that doesn't make sense. A national TV show did a
research project where they had 10 different optical
shops making up glasses, then they tested those
glasses. All 10 were incorrect. This is why when
patients go to an optician in various optical shops,
... the prescribing doctors will tell them, "Bring
your glasses back for a free evaluation to be ...
certain that the prescription is filled correctly.
In 27 states and D.C., opticians are not even
regulated and find no valid reason to do so. No state
has adopted licensure in over 21 years. There has
been no experience of harm reported. Some are better
than others when it comes to opticians, but that's the
way it is with all service providers. This has been a
simple monopoly turf protection at the expense of the
public. I would rather have tattoists and piercers
regulated because hepatitis can definitely be more
threatening than an ugly pair of glasses. Licensure
is the most stringent form of regulation imposed by
the state legislature upon occupations and professions
that pose a clear and present danger to the public's
health, safety, and welfare. Opticians currently
perform their services without any apparent harm to
the public, and therefore should have optional
licensure. I agree with the audit report. I support
the current committee substitute to reduce the costs
for consumers and also for those desiring an opticians
license. Again, I am in support of Version S and I do
think they should have licensure. Now, that would
protect those with current licensure status ....
DR. GRAVES recalled Mr. Harper's mention that opticians are
experts in physiological optics. Dr. Graves disagreed because
[physiological optics] is related to visual science and more
specific to a physician. Therefore, he said he thought Mr.
Harper meant to refer to ophthalmic optics. He also recalled
Mr. Matthews' testimony that a bad pair of glasses could cause a
lesion on one's eye. To the best of his knowledge, Dr. Graves
said he knew of no lesion that could be induced by a bad
prescription. Dr. Graves reiterated his belief that most of the
responsibility lies with the physician rather than the
dispensing optician.
Number 2225
CHAIR MURKOWSKI requested that Dr. Graves speak to the practical
exam and the need for it. "Is there anything a dispensing
optician does, in your opinion then, that could potentially
effect the public health of an individual," she asked.
DR. GRAVES replied, "I don't." He reiterated that he doesn't
feel that there should be mandatory licensure. With regard to
the earlier reference to lensometry, there are automatic
lensometers that anyone can learn how to run. Furthermore,
there is another digital device that can cross reference the
optical center. Although Dr. Graves acknowledged that some
opticians consider lens parameters a threat to the public, he
felt the greatest threat would have to do ... [tape changes
sides].
TAPE 02-71, SIDE B
Number 2327
ALICIA MILES testified via teleconference. She informed the
committee that she sat on the Board of Dispensing Opticians for
eight years and is very familiar with the state process, the
budget and audit process, and the testing process. During those
eight years, she experienced several audits with the state.
Some of the concerns brought to light with the audits continue,
such as the objectivity of the exam. One of the statements the
board heard from the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and
Audit was that the exam must be of minimum competency. She
noted that [during her time on the board], the board was pleased
when there was a 50-60 percent passing rate.
MS. MILES reiterated Dr. Graves' testimony with regard to
contact lenses being fit under the supervision of and in
conjunction with physicians so that problems with a contact lens
would be caught by the physician. She remarked that the contact
lens licensure can probably do the most damage to someone if
there was an error. She informed the committee that of the 102
licenses, only 29 have contact lens licenses. Of those 29
contact lens licenses, four don't live in the state. She
informed the committee that the fabrication of glasses is done
by bench opticians, who have never been required to have a
license. She echoed Dr. Graves' point that most of today's
equipment has been computerized and is much more accurate than
people can be.
Number 2212
MS. MILES turned to the apprenticeship issue. She informed the
committee that there are 102 licensed opticians in Alaska while
there are 172 apprentices in the state. Alaska's law specifies
that apprentices can only be an apprentice for six years and
then must take the exam. However, the law doesn't specify any
consequences for not taking the exam. She related that she knew
of several instances in which the apprenticeship has lapsed and
the individual has re-applied and done another six years as an
apprentice. Furthermore, the consequences for unlicensed
activities are only class B misdemeanors. She noted that when
she sat on the board and the board received a complaint in this
vein, the investigator would investigate but actually going to
court was difficult. Most of the complaints were related to
unlicensed practices.
MS. MILES recalled that about 10 years ago, the legislature
decided that the board should become self-supporting. Of the
last few audits performed, only one of those audits showed the
board [to be self-supporting]. In the last audit for the
renewal period, the board was $14,000 in the red and the next
renewal period left the board another $14,000 in the red for a
total of $28,000. She recalled that last year the new fees,
$580 to renew an opticians license, were unveiled. However, two
weeks prior to the renewal deadline, the fee was decreased to
$280, which she attributed to public pressure. Therefore, the
board would remain in a deficit situation because the board's
budget was $53,000. In order for the board to cover its cause,
the next renewal license would need to cost $800 each, based on
a 102 people holding a license. Ms. Miles concluded by noting
her support of the voluntary licensure because it holds folks to
a standard while making the cost of a license much more
affordable, which could be a great advantage in recognition of
the state's fiscal gap.
Number 2074
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if Ms. Miles felt that the six-year
apprentice is an effort to avoid the high fees currently
assessed on the dispensing opticians.
MS. MILES opined that the continued apprenticeship is done to
avoid the high fees and the testing fee. Furthermore, many
folks don't like to take tests and will avoid doing so at all
costs. In further response to Chair Murkowski, Ms. Miles
informed the committee that an average salary for an optician is
between $30,000 and $40,000.
Number 1959
JAMES ROTHMEYER, Chair, Board of Dispensing Opticians, testified
via teleconference. Mr. Rothmeyer provided the following
testimony:
Opticianry is a complex and technical field that
requires those engaged in it to be educated and
trained in basic optics and physiology and how they
play a role in the design, fit, and fabrication of
prescription eyewear and other ophthalmic devices.
The method best suited to determine or demonstrate the
individual's ability to apply this knowledge is by a
mandatory practical or clinical licensing examination.
I believe that the state and public is being better
served by mandatory licensure through examination. I
see no apparent good come of proposing lower standards
of education and training requirements. Poor service
and less protection of the public by having less
training and less qualified persons dispensing
prescription eyewear and fitting contact lenses is
not, in my opinion, a good idea and it doesn't deserve
support. As a board we fixed most of the past
problems. It seems to me we have hangnail-size
problem and they're being told we must cut the finger
off to fix it. I think this is a rush to judgment; I
think there's a lot of issues that need much further
investigation and understanding to make such sweeping
changes in the way the public receives prescription
eyewear and contact lenses. I would urge the
[legislature] and committee to pass a simple
continuous bill for four years or leave things as they
are. I would like to keep working with the [Joint
Committee on Legislative] Budget and Audit ... to
resolve any problems in the future.
MR. ROTHMEYER, in response to Chair Murkowski, informed the
committee that the board meets once a year. The next board
meeting is scheduled for April 2003. He noted that the board
members participate via teleconference or commute.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI explained that she is trying to understand how
much the board has had an opportunity to digest the
recommendations from the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget
and Audit as well as Version S.
MR. ROTHMEYER pointed out that the board has rewritten the
practical examination. Furthermore, the board has followed the
Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit's recommendation
to decrease the apprenticeship hours from 6,000 hours to 3,000
hours. Mr. Rothmeyer noted that the board has adopted the
nationally recognized career progression program. Therefore,
everyone has the ability to acquire the same knowledge base to
understand and better perform tasks in this occupation as well
as being better prepared to pass the state's licensing exam.
Number 1810
PAM GAJDOS, Image Optical, testified via teleconference. She
informed the committee that she is a business owner and served
on the Board of Dispensing Opticians for two terms in the 1990s.
Ms. Gajdos emphasized that from the beginning she has promoted
the adoption of the career progression program. She pointed out
that although the career progression program was [adopted] two
years before her term was over, the legislature changed the
language to "may" which was very disappointing. Furthermore,
she agreed with shortening the [apprenticeship] hours as long as
the career progression program was required. Ms. Gajdos
compared this situation to that of the dental hygienist who
isn't a dentist but does a lot of the work along side the
dentist. Ms. Gajdos noted her concurrence in the statements of
Ms. Rawcliffe in regard to the lack of understanding as to how
any lowering of the standards would benefit the public in any
way. Ms. Gajdos informed the committee that the test was
changed this year not only because of the audit but also because
the test has been worked on at the national level for the last
few years. In this situation, the public is what matters and
what opticians do is imperative, she remarked. Ms. Gajdos
requested that the committee take no action and let the regular
sunset continue with the adoption of the career progression
program and the reduction in apprenticeship hours. She further
remarked that the definition of apprentice should be changed in
order to allow folks to be a desk clerk or frame clerk.
MS. GAJDOS emphasized the need for the opticians to remain
licensed. She noted her disagreement with earlier comments that
people allow their training hours to lapse because of financial
reasons. Ms. Gajdos related her belief that people aren't
sitting for the test because these folks never had the desire to
[become licensed] to begin with. Ms. Gajdos also noted that the
automated equipment can produce different measurements. In
conclusion, Ms. Gajdos announced her opposition to SB 270.
Number 1253
JOANNE YANAG, dispensing optician, Image Optical, testified via
teleconference. She said, "As a second year dispensing optician
apprentice, I feel that it would be a great disservice to the
public to eliminate the Board of Opticianry and licensure." One
of the benefits of the program is that apprentices are trained
in the field with supervision while receiving extensive
education through the career progressions program. Both of the
aforementioned are measured by the current system. She said
that she can personally affirm that [to become a dispensing
optician] requires a combination of on-the-job training and
education to learn the profession and provide the highest
quality of service to the public. As an apprentice, her
measurements are verified by an licensed optician. Therefore,
the [licensed optician] helps her provide the correct lenses for
each patient while teaching her the how and why for each
particular prescription, she related. "There's just so much
more to being an optician than selling frames," she stated. Ms.
Yanag requested that the state licensing board continue, and
therefore she also requested no action on SB 270 [Version S].
Number 1411
MARIA MASSEY, licensed optician, Image Optical, testified via
teleconference. Ms. Massey requested the continuance of the
Board of Dispensing Opticians and that no action be taken on SB
270. More time is required to make the necessary changes. In
order to do the job well, there must be trained medical staff.
Furthermore, she said she was sure that most doctors would like
trained medical staff.
Number 1358
CHRISTI BRAND testified via teleconference. She informed the
committee that she has worked in the eye care field in Fairbanks
since 1986 and her education [led to the opening] of her own
optical shop in 2000. Ms. Brand expressed concern with regard
to the future of her profession as well as the public's safety
and quality of care. She stressed that prescriptive eyewear
directly impacts the quality of life of the wearer. She
reviewed the effects of incorrectly prescribed lenses and
contacts. Ms. Brand informed the committee that contact lenses
have been classified by the Food & Drug Administration as a drug
and the fitting and dispensing of contacts should be limited to
licensed qualified people. Mandatory testing and licensure must
be continued in order to ensure the public's safety. Ms. Brand
urged the committee to postpone any action on SB 270 because it
isn't in the public's best interest in its current form.
Number 1253
JAN AMUNDSON testified via teleconference. She informed the
committee that she has been working in opticianry for 30 years.
She related how she began as a receptionist [in] a wholesale
fabricating lab and moved through the licensure process and
ultimately opened her own business. Ms. Amundson said that she
was lucky to have performed her apprenticeship under highly
competent licensed opticians. She noted that over the years she
has had several apprentices licensed under her license.
Therefore, she said she takes the responsibility to train this
folks seriously. Ms. Amundson informed the committee that she
has been employed by an optical chain store and the optometrists
were unable to supervise or train the staff. She stressed that
most of the employees [in the optical chain store] had little or
no experience and thus things were done by trial and error. Ms.
Amundson emphasized her serious concern with the standard of
care for those in Alaska. Ms. Amundson concluded by requesting
that the Board of Dispensing Opticians be continued and SB 270
squelched.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed the public testimony on SB 270.
[CSSB 270(L&C) was held over.]
CONFIRMATIONS
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the last order of business would
be the confirmation hearings. She informed the committee that
all of the names presented do meet the qualifications as set out
in statute. Therefore, the committee will make recommendations
regarding whether the names should be forward to the full body
for confirmation. Chair Murkowski explained that she would read
through the names for each board.
Number 0958
Alaska State Board of Public Accountancy
CHAIR MURKOWSKI began with the appointees to the Alaska State
Board of Public Accountancy and asked if there were any
objections to forwarding the following names: Margerie J.
Kaiser, Steven R. Tarola, and Sandra R. Wilson. There being no
objection, the aforementioned names were forwarded to the full
body for consideration.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointee to the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the name of Ellen L. Ganley. There being no
objection, the aforementioned name was forwarded to the full
body for consideration.
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to the appointees to the State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors and
asked if there were any objections to forwarding the following
names: Linda Cyra-Korsgaard, Donald J. Iverson, Scott McLane,
and Patricia Peirsol. There being no objection, the
aforementioned names were forwarded to the full body for
consideration.
Number 0882
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers and asked if there were any objections
to forwarding the name of William "Randy" Graf. There being no
objection, the aforementioned name was forwarded to the full
body for consideration.
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved on to the appointees to the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the following names: Dr. Gregory M. Culbert, Dr.
Carol J. Davis, and Dr. R. Clark Davis. There being no
objection, the aforementioned names were forwarded to the full
body for consideration.
Board of Dental Examiners
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Board of
Dental Examiners and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the following names: Dr. Robert J. Allen, Dr.
William L. Gerace, and Dr. Rebecca Neslund. There being no
objection, the aforementioned names were forwarded to the full
body for consideration.
Board of Dispensing Opticians
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Board of
Dispensing Opticians and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the following names: James Rothmeyer, David
Matthews, Jr., and Cindy Tidd. There being no objection, the
aforementioned names were forwarded to the full body for
consideration.
Alaska Labor Relations Agency
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Alaska
Labor Relations Agency and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the following names: Roberta Demoski, Aaron T.
Isaacs, David D. Rasley, and Raymond P. Smith. There being no
objection, the aforementioned names were forwarded to the full
body for consideration.
Board of Marine Pilots
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved on to the appointee to the Board of Marine
Pilots and asked if there were any objections to forwarding the
name of Jack G. Poulson. There being no objection, the
aforementioned name was forwarded to the full body for
consideration.
Number 0794
Board of Marital and Family Therapy
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved on to the appointees to the Board of
Marital and Family Therapy and asked if there were any
objections to forwarding the following names: Larry Holman and
Bill Platte. There being no objection, the aforementioned names
were forwarded to the full body for consideration.
State Medical Board
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the State
Medical Board and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the names of Dr. Allan G. Schlicht and Thomas H.
Wilson. There being no objection, the aforementioned names were
forwarded to the full body for consideration.
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved on to the appointee to the Board of
Certified Direct-Entry Midwives and asked if there were any
objections to forwarding the name of Martha J. Falkar Linden.
There being no objection, the aforementioned name was forwarded
to the full body for consideration.
Board of Nursing
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Board of
Nursing and asked if there were any objections to forwarding the
names of Barbara Berner and Dr. Nancy L. Sanders. There being
no objection, the aforementioned names were forwarded to the
full body for consideration.
Board of Examiners in Optometry
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to the appointee to the Board of
Examiners in Optometry and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the name of Dr. Erik D. Christianson. There being no
objection, the aforementioned name was forwarded to the full
body for consideration.
Board of Pharmacy
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved on to the appointees to the Board of
Pharmacy and asked if there were any objections to forwarding
the following names: Gerry Knasiak, Laura Lee Nelson, and
Margaret Soden. There being no objection, the aforementioned
names were forwarded to the full body for consideration.
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the State
Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board and asked if
there were any objections to forwarding the following names:
Sundi M. Hondl, Laura McDonough, Linda Newman, and Dr. George D.
Rhyneer. There being no objection, the aforementioned names
were forwarded to the full body for consideration.
Board of Professional Counselors
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Board of
Professional Counselors and asked if there were any objections
to forwarding the following names: Janet McGillivary and Dr.
Allan A. Morotti. There being no objection, the aforementioned
names were forwarded to the full body for consideration.
Number 0687
Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved on to the appointee to the Board of
Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners and asked if
there were any objections to forwarding the name of Dr. Carey S.
Edney. There being no objection, the aforementioned name was
forwarded to the full body for consideration.
Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers and asked if there were any
objections to forwarding the following names: Judy Kemplen and
Stephen F. Turner. There being no objection, the aforementioned
names were forwarded to the full body for consideration.
Real Estate Commission
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Real Estate
Commission and asked if there were any objections to forwarding
the following names: Lowell (Tom) T. Freeman, Jeannie Johnson,
and Susan Rainey. There being no objection, the aforementioned
names were forwarded to the full body for consideration.
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to the appointee to the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the name of Will Abbott. There being no objection,
the aforementioned name was forwarded to the full body for
consideration.
Board of Social Work Examiners
CHAIR MURKOWSKI continued with the appointees to the Board of
Social Work Examiners and asked if there were any objections to
forwarding the following names: Lorraine M. Jaeger-Kirsch,
Denny Patella, and Sammye Pokryfki. There being no objection,
the aforementioned names were forwarded to the full body for
consideration.
Number 0617
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
CHAIR MURKOWSKI concluded with the appointees to the Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board and asked if there were any
objections to forwarding the following names: Dorothy Bradshaw,
John Giuchici, Stephen T. Hagedorn, James (Jay) N. Rhodes, and
Philip E. Ulmer. There being no objection, the aforementioned
names were forwarded to the full body for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER inquired as to whether there is a good
balance on the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his belief that a statutory
balance is required for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|