02/07/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 109 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2005
3:23 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to occupational licensing fees and receipts;
extending the termination dates of the Boards of Barbers and
Hairdressers, Social Work Examiners, Pharmacy, Professional
Counselors, Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners,
and Veterinary Examiners; relating to an exemption that allows
one bill to continue more than one board, commission, or agency
program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 123 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to establishing a screening, tracking, and
intervention program related to the hearing ability of newborns
and infants; providing an exemption to licensure as an
audiologist for certain persons performing hearing screening
tests; relating to insurance coverage for newborn and infant
hearing screening; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 109 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: OCCUPATIONS: FEES & EXTENSION OF BOARDS
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
02/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (H) L&C, FIN
02/07/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: SCREENING NEWBORNS FOR HEARING ABILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
01/26/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/05 (H) L&C, HES, FIN
02/04/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/04/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/07/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
RICK URION, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economics
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony and support for HB 123.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony for HB 123.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney
Legal Services and Research Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony for HB 123.
ANNE HENRY, co-secretary/counselor
American Counselors Association of Alaska (ACAALASKA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 123.
DIANA STRAUB, hairdresser
Member of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 123.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109.
MARGARET LANIER-KOSSLER, Program Manager
State of Alaska DHSS/EHDI program
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:23:13 PM. Representatives Lynn,
LeDoux, Guttenberg, Crawford, and Anderson were present at the
call to order.
HB 123-OCCUPATIONS: FEES & EXTENSION OF BOARDS
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "an Act relating to occupational
licensing fees and receipts; extending the termination dates of
the Boards of Barbers and Hairdressers, Social Work Examiners,
Pharmacy, Professional Counselors, Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners, and Veterinary Examiners;
relating to an exemption that allows one bill to continue more
than one board, commission, or agency program; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR ANDERSON started off by announcing that there was an
amendment for this bill, and that he would get to it after the
public testimony.
3:26:12 PM
RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economics, gave his
support for the bill, and noted that the sections of the bill
that warranted his strongest support are the extensions. He
then announced that he is here today to explain and clarify the
first four sections of the bill, which will explain the fines
and penalties of the bill.
MR. URION explained that the law required that the aggregate
cost for regulating the profession itself divided by the number
of licensees, becomes the licensing fee. Included in this fee,
were the fines and penalties that were generated from
disciplinary action. He then said that that the professions pays
the cost of any disciplinary action and thus it seems only fair
that the profession would receive any rewards from monies gained
from these actions.
CHAIR ANDERSON interjected, and referring to the amendment
suggested by Mr. Urion, asked if it is adopted, would the fees
and adjustments acquired that do not equate to the operational
costs of the professional board be returned in someway or
adjusted for accordingly.
MR. URION stated that existing law says that the division can
charge whatever it costs. This is determined every year, and is
adopted into regulation. He then said that there is a required
30-day public notice period before it is enacted. The amendment
eliminates this expensive regulation and the 30-day requirement.
CHAIR ANDERSON moved that the committee adopt the amendment as
suggested by Mr. Urion. He ended by asking if there were any
objections to adopting it into the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that they have lumped a lot
of bills together here that cover several professional boards
and he asked if all the changes made in HB 123 were uniform to
all the professional boards mentioned in the bill.
3:30:23 PM
MR. URION answered that the changes to fines and penalties to
all the licensed professions.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG then asked if these changes are
uniformly applied to all boards and commissions.
MR. URION asserted that generic language was used and it was
applicable to all the licensed professions.
CHAIR ANDERSON pointed out that a number of bills regarding
professional licensing were introduced. However, Josh Applebee,
staff to Representative Anderson, compiled all of these
disparate bills into one bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his understanding that none of
this legislation addressed any of the recommendations from the
legislative audits.
3:32:02 PM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
discussed Sections 5-10, which dealt with extension deadlines.
She began by stating that in 2005, 12 boards and commissions
will reach sunset status, which amounts to almost half of all
boards and commissions. The alignment of these sunsets happened
for various reasons. During the course of these audits, the
audit division wanted to be more strategic about the date
extensions being recommended. For this reason, the division
investigated a period of six years. Given the particular
circumstances for each board and commission, the division made
individual recommendations to spread out the sunset dates.
Although it appears as if they are weighted to the year 2010,
there is a spectrum of dates spread out evenly.
MS. DAVIDSON announced that the division had a few changes for
the committee to consider. She mentioned that the division
recommended that the board of hairdressers and barbers be able
to delegate the practical examination to the training schools
and supervisors. This, she said, could be spot checked by the
board without any undo costs and would not create a public
hazard. With regard to the Board of Pharmacy, she said that
they had a concern with the actual licensing fee increases. For
the Board of Psychologists and Psychological Associates she said
that there were two recommendations. The first was that there
needed to be an increase in licensing fees to finance the
board's deficit, and second, that the governor make timely
appointments to the board.
3:36:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG (looking at the unqualified law exempt
section of Alaskan Statute 44.66.050 E) asked if Ms. Davidson
was familiar with the 1977 legislation (amended in 2002) that
basically describes the enactment of a bill that provides for
more than one board, commissioner, or agency. He then asked her
if she was informed of the history and intent of the statute and
the 1977 legislation that created it.
MS. DAVIDSON specified that the 1977 legislation was the
original legislation and her understanding is that the intention
of the bill to have each board and commission be looked at
separately and to have individual audits. The whole process is
a very involved process and significant use of resources.
Though reviewing the boards on an individual basis is the spirit
of the law, the legislature faces almost half of the boards
right now due to their sunset alignment this year.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there is a legal opinion on
this interpretation of the statute.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, agreed with Ms. Davidson's
interpretation, which was generally the way the law is
understood.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his understanding of the boards
being discussed in HB 123, there are, save one, no substantive
recommendation from the audits to make any additions or
corrections to the statute.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that the only substantive change would be
whether the legislature decides to merge two of the professional
boards into one.
3:40:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, asked if the committee would be remiss
in its legislative oversight if it were to pass this bill and
lump all of these boards under one statute that addresses all
sunset extensions.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that it was up to the pleasure of the
committee.
CHAIR ANDERSON mentioned that he believed that he was saving the
legislature money and time with HB 123. He then directed a
question to Ms. Mischel if section 13, which adds the new
section exempting from the prohibition to combine legislation
concerning regulatory boards and commissions, is legal and
conforming.
MS. MISCHEL answered by stating that Chair Anderson, being a
later legislator could, in fact, modify the implementation of a
previously legislated statute, which is what you are doing here.
CHAIR ANDERSON then asked if it were valid when, as the
committee goes from one board to another, and by section within
each board, the changes that are being considered will simply be
attached to the relevant sections of the professional boards
governing statute. By doing so, he said, there is no change to
the construct of the bill. He commented that additions and
deletions will not affect the extension of the board regardless.
MS. MISCHEL indicated that she is not one hundred percent sure
what the Chair was getting at and then offered her
interpretation. She stated that if you change the dates on the
board extension pursuant to the recommendation, and then asked
the chair if he meant, given this, would he be in compliance.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that if we are in the spirit of the law-
within section 13 of the past legislation, the committee is not
obligated to just extend dates, and that if a committee desires
to change the fee structure, it can do this in this legislation.
MS. MISCHEL confirmed that legislative oversight does exist
within the present legislature.
3:43:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the single subject rule would
be violated if a committee wanted to create a substantive
amendment for one of the boards.
MS. MICHELE answered that such a situation would not violate the
single subject rule. She noted that there is a broad line of
cases that define the single subject rule quite well. However a
change that described here like this would require a title
change because the title does not encompass licensing standards.
3:45:16 PM
MS. MICHELE said that the title does not encompass licensing
standards, but that it extends the termination dates of the
board and refers to licensing fees.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the bill as amended is before the
committee. He indicated that he was a little hesitant, since he
did not want to see the different aspects offered now, without
having the various boards present to hear the suggestions. He
indicated that he only wanted to address the extension aspect of
the bill, not any fee increases.
MS. DAVIDSON interjected that these fee increases are not
statutory changes, but instead they are merely suggestions. The
responsibility of the fee increases lays with the Division of
Occupational Licensing. She pointed out that the only statutory
changes were to allow the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers the
ability to delegate the supervision of the state practical
licensing exam to the actual schools and training facilities,
and to merge the Board of Marital and Family Counseling and the
Board of Professional Counseling into one board.
3:47:18 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON reminded the committee that the Amendment 1 which
was adopted does state that the division itself can make
statutory changes to the fee structure accordingly. He then
offered the addition of Amendment 2 which provided for a date
change for the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers which would
extend the board to the year 2011. Other additions in this
conceptual amendment were extensions of the professional boards
of social work examiners, pharmacy, professional counseling,
pharmacy, and psychological associate examiners, to 2010, and
veterinary examiners to 2009. This is all per recommendation by
Ms. Davidson. He announced that Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if the amendments being adopted
would affect fee collection, and would the division have the
ability to collect fees over a number of years as it can now.
3:50:49 PM
MS. DAVIDSON clarified that although the Division of Legislative
Audit recommends fee increases based on its analysis, the
Division of Occupational Licensing actually calculates the
license fees. She indicated that the one thing that would throw
off any board's estimated fee schedule would be licensing
investigations because they are time intensive and they are
expensive. She then stated that that the Division of
Legislative Audit had the view that no provision in law allows
the recoupement period to be extended into the future. However,
the Division of Occupational Licensing has extended it out to
four years to recoup fees over time.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG supposed that, in the past, a board that
uses its own money to perform an investigation and a subsequent
fine is imposed, yet the money garnished by the board from the
individual or group is placed into the state general fund, even
though the regulatory board spent their own money to conduct the
investigation. He then stated that HB 123 corrected this
problem.
MR. URION related an example of a very expensive investigation
of a real estate agent which resulted a fine of $ 25,000.
However, the cost to get this fine allocated did exceed this
amount. Amendment 1 addressed the aforementioned problem.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG highlighted that each board is self-
supporting, but the misconduct of one within a group can result
in the other people in the profession having to pay for it as a
group. They get in other words, a double penalty, since they
have to come up with the cash to prosecute and then, when this
is done, they get none of the benefits of the monies gathered by
the administration of the fine.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if there is any opposition to the
merger of the Board of Professional Counselors, and the Board of
Marital and Family Counseling.
3:56:21 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON indicated that there was opposition to the
proposed merger, and that he wanted to wait on that question
until they had heard from some people in the public that were
testifying on behalf of these groups.
ANNE HENRY, Co-Secretary/Counselor, American Counselors
Association of Alaska, related that the Licensed Professional
Counselors Board oppose the merger for many reasons. The
merger, she said, would increase the fees because it would
increase the number of meetings. She noted that she discussed
this merger with the American Association of State Counseling
Boards who said that in states that this has happened, the
result has been problematic due to more meetings, and a rise in
turf issues.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD announced that he is concerned with
adding more than a sunset clause in the legislation. He then
expressed the need for more committee discussion.
CHAIR ANDERSON indicated that for the record, the legislature is
not merging the boards and that the committee has not adopted an
amendment to do so. This bill is particularly focused on sunset
clauses that affect various professional boards. He ended by
stating that the opposition is safe and there will be no further
talk of merger.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX confirmed this by asking again whether the
committee would definitely not be doing anything with the board
of family and marital therapy.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that this was again correct. He went
on to say that it was only a recommendation from Legislative
Audit that this bill could be the appropriate vehicle for
administering the merger of the two boards.
4:00:02 PM
DIANA STRAUB, Hairdresser, Member of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers, stated that the board is a hard working board, as
evidenced by how they dealt with the licensing of tattoo and
piercing facilities that took place a couple of years ago. She
expressed her desire for the board to continue in the same
manner it has in the past.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony and said that he would
entertain a motion from the members at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected his belief that the
legislature as illustrated by this present legislation, has the
ability to exempt itself from its oversight abilities.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the merger ideas were slated to
be revisited on another bill platform before this committee.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that these boards are under sunset this
year, and will go through this year and will end by next year.
She then said that it will then be eliminated.
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised that it would be next year or the one
after that when legislation will be introduced to deal with it.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pontificated that her understanding still
was that it was going to be sunsetted next year, according to
what was being said. She then said that if the committee does
not do anything, the board gets sunsetted.
MS. DAVIDSON informed the committee that there are only two
groups, the Board of Marital and Family Therapy and the Board of
Dental Examiners, that are not being covered by this
legislation. She specified that between HB 123 and other bills,
all the boards and commissions under sunset this year are
covered.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:04:11 to 4:04:48.
4:04:49 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON informed the committee that the Board of Marital
and Family Counseling and the Dental Examiner Board is being
dealt with in other bills. He then requested for a motion to
move the bill out of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report HB 123, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 123(L&C) is so
moved from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 109-SCREENING NEWBORNS FOR HEARING ABILITY
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to establishing a
screening, tracking, and intervention program related to the
hearing ability of newborns and infants; providing an exemption
to licensure as an audiologist for certain persons performing
hearing screening tests; relating to insurance coverage for
newborn and infant hearing screening; and providing for an
effective date."
4:06:35 PM
JANE PIERSON, staff for Representative Jay Ramras, announced
that she had no other comments add to her testimony from the
previous hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was any testimony from
the insurance industry as to the cost of the mandates under
Section 5.
MS. PIERSON answered that Mr. Stoops did speak about the history
of the mandates and how section 5 may impact insurance rates.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the sponsor had any discussion
regarding offered underwritten coverage versus the managed
underwritten coverage.
MS. PIERSON deferred to Margaret Lanier-Kossler, who would be a
better person to answer this particular question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated his question concerning the
coverage provided by insurance companies and whether it would be
offered versus managed.
MARGARET LANIER- KOSSLER, Program Manager, Early Hearing Testing
and Intervention Program, regretted to inform the committee that
she was not the person who could answer this question.
MS. PIERSON explained that this has already been covered by the
insurance companies and is included in birthing costs. She said
this is not a big leap from the current situation.
CHAIR ANDERSON believed that this can be debated.
4:10:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG announced that there are very important
issues. He said that one of the goals of this committee has
been to make health insurance more affordable and available for
everyone. He then said that the committee today has to be aware
of the real issue here. He explained that the difference
between the two types of insurance was that the offered coverage
is coverage that is offered and the insurance company can charge
the individual a premium for it. However, the mandated coverage
entails a cost that is spread out throughout the insured
community of that company. A vast majority of people are not
affected by this bill. Only 20-35 percent of Alaskan people are
affected, because the majority of people are under the ERISA
program, or are self-insured coverage and they don't pay.
4:11:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded that all this would do is to
make the insurance bill to the small business more unaffordable.
4:11:54 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON shared this concern with Representative Rokeberg,
and indicated that he felt the same about small businesses
absorbing the cost. However, he felt that the tests themselves
on the children of the state far outweigh the cost to the small
businesses of Alaska. He ended by stating that it would be good
to know specifically what the medical costs would be before the
bill leaves this committee and goes on to the finance committee.
MS. PIERSON said that she believed that such cost information
was provided by the March of Dimes. She recounted the number
being $420,000 in special education and over $1 million for
undetected deafness for each child over a lifetime.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that this was the balancing that we have
to assess.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that there were ways to
figure out how to measure costs. The larger picture, which is
the health of the families and individuals is more important
than the ledger book of some company, and needs to be addressed.
4:15:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD surmised that this legislation doesn't
impact any union insurance plans, but rather it only impacts
small employers and solitary individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered this by stating that some
unions are underwritten and administered/insured by major
insurance companies. He indicated that there may be one state
bargaining unit that may have an underwritten plan, but all of
the others are exempt from this mandate. In further
explanation, Representative Rokeberg clarified "you're not
paying towards the cost it incurs when you mandate the cost into
all other policies." The aforementioned is part of the cost
shifting that occurs.
CHAIR ANDERSON clarified this by stating Representative Rokeberg
is saying that by imposing the screening cost, it filtrates to
the smaller businesses and not the masses.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked whether this legislation mandates
that union healthcare plans are required to cover hearing
screening.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered by stating that these union
health plans are federally covered by ERISA, which exempts state
regulation of their plans, even though the legislature has
mandated hearing screening.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stipulated then, that the ironworker
union's healthcare plan is not required to pay for the mandated
hearing screening.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG retorted that this is the inequity of a
cost shift. He ended by highlighting that Alaska has a limited
number of insurance companies that want to come and write
policies here for small groups or insurance for individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the cost of a newborn hearing
screening would be for the individual.
MS. PIERSON answered that it was between 20-60 dollars. In
further response, she informed the committee that it was 10,000
new babies are born in AK every year.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the definition of a
fraternal benefit society.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that there are certain
underwriting groups that are founded on fraternal organizations
and that there are Alaska statutes that separate these from
actual insurance companies. These special provisions are
probably analogous to other insurance groups.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX then asked if they are governed by ERISA.
She then asked what the rational was in distinguishing between
fraternal benefit societies and normal insurance providers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the state allows the
fraternal organizations a little more flexibility in
underwriting criterion that is peculiar to their membership.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that it sounds like the committee
needed to make a policy decision as to whether or not anyone
that offers insurance would be required to be part of the
coverage. She revealed that she had a hard time distinguishing
between fraternal organizations and any other insurance group.
MS. PIERSON recalled the testimony of Reid Stoops at the meeting
of the American Association of Health Plans, who said that
generally he supported the bill. She also recalled that he said
that the American Association of Health plans would rather have
a mandated offering rather than a benefit elective insurance.
She noted that this only affects 25 percent of people.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG directed attention to page two, line
13, and asked what the bill is looking to find. The phrase
"subject to availability" is ubiquitous in legislation and law
making.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this is not an appropriation
bill, and the language is merely intent language.
4:25:22 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that public testimony is closed and
reminded the committee that a CS was adopted at an earlier
juncture.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that although he had concerns, he
will support moving it out of committee. He expressed a need
for a comprehensive examination of costs and benefits, and
impacts on both consumers and the insurance companies. He
clarified that he absolutely supports the spirit of the bill and
the issue behind it.
MS. PIERSON related that Mr. Stoops had said that every time the
legislature mandates the policies, it costs the individual
policy owners an additional $75.
4:27:44 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON suggested that further concerns can be addressed
on the floor. He then reminded the committee that the sponsor
Representative Ramras is a small business owner and is probably
keeping this in mind and weighing the issues being discussed
today and looking at what the greater good might be in this
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG questioned the societal savings to
private industry from these ten or twelve mandated benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 109, Version 24-
LS0450\G, Mischel, 2/04/05, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objections, CSHB 109(L&C) was reported out of the House Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:29:35 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|