Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
03/14/2008 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB300 | |
| SB280 | |
| SJR18 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 280 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 288 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2008
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bettye Davis, Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Vice Chair
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Fred Dyson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 300
"An Act establishing the Alaska Health Care Commission and the
Alaska health care information office; relating to health care
planning and information; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 300(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 280
"An Act requiring health care insurers to provide insurance
coverage for medical care received by a patient during certain
approved clinical trials designed to test and improve
prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or palliation of cancer;
directing the Department of Health and Social Services to
provide Medicaid services to persons who participate in clinical
trials; relating to experimental treatments; and providing for
an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 288
"An Act relating to the procurement, use, storage, and handling
of pesticides and broadcast chemicals; and relating to notice
and record keeping requirements pertaining to pesticides."
BILL POSTPONED TO 3/19/08
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18
Requesting the President of the United States to direct the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission to test the
materials used in children's toys and other children's products
for toxicity and to make the results publicly available.
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 300
SHORT TITLE: HEALTH CARE: PLAN/COMMISSION/FACILITIES
SPONSOR(s): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/06/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/08 (S) HES, FIN
03/12/08 (S) HES AT 5:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/08 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/08 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 280
SHORT TITLE: MEDICAID/ INS FOR CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
02/19/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (S) HES, L&C, FIN
03/14/08 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SJR 18
SHORT TITLE: CHILD PRODUCT SAFETY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
02/19/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (S) HES, L&C
03/14/08 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM OBERMEYER
Staff to Chair Davis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Read the sponsor statement for CSSB 280.
DR. JEANNE ANDERSON, Medical Oncologist
Anchorage, AK,
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 280.
DR. ALAN LICHTER, CEO
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 280.
DR. STEPHEN COMPTON, Clinical Cardiologist
Alaska Heart Institute (AHI)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 280.
DENNIS BAILEY
Legislative Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about CSSB 280.
DEBORAH APPERSON, representing herself
Anchorage, AK,
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 280.
KRISTA RANGISCH, representing herself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 280.
DR. MARY STEWART, Oncologist
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT:
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT:
CLAIRE WADDOUP, representing herself
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT:
LINDA HALL, Director
Division of Insurance
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered to work with the committee on some
verbiage.
DR. LARRY WICKERHAM, Associate Chairman
National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)
Address not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 280.
BEVERLY K. WOOLEY, representing herself
Director, Alaska Division of Public Health
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 280.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 18.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 18.
Susan Ely, Legislative and Communications Manager
Alaska Conservation Alliance (ACA)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 18.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BETTYE DAVIS called the Senate Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:35:20
PM. Present at the call to order were Senators John Cowdery, Kim
Elton, Fred Dyson, Joe Thomas and Chair Bettye Davis.
SB 300-HEALTH CARE: PLAN/COMMISSION/FACILITIES
1:35:53 PM
CHAIR DAVIS announced consideration of SB 300. She said she had
changed the bill so that the department rather than the
commission would be responsible for hiring a contractor to
perform the CON study and asked if anyone on the committee
wanted to comment.
SENATOR ELTON said he was prepared for a motion.
SENATOR DYSON said he was a little uncomfortable that they were
ducking the CON issue; it needed to be addressed. He believed
the rest of the bill had value and needed to be done, but wished
they had time to work through this issue. He said that, even
with Chair Davis' change, it was still possible that the results
could be "stacked," and asked if she had considered having the
department submit a short list of 2 or 3 contractors to the
legislature for a final decision.
CHAIR DAVIS said she had not, but they could look at that when
it got to Finance.
SENATOR DYSON said Finance was so backed up that he doubted much
of that kind of work was going to get done. He pointed out that
Chair Davis had enough votes to pass this out and he would not
strenuously object.
CHAIR DAVIS said she would like to have Senator Dyson's vote
too, and she wanted to hear from Senator Elton on the matter.
She asked Senator Elton if the current version of the bill gave
him more confidence than the previous one had.
SENATOR ELTON thanked her for asking. He was not sure they would
ever get to his comfort level or Senator Dyson's; they might
just have to assume good behavior was going to happen. He said
he was prepared to go with her solution.
1:40:00 PM
SENATOR COWDERY moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
CSSB 300, labeled 25-LS1, Version \C, as the working document of
the committee. There being no objection, the motion carried.
SENATOR DYSON said he would have more comfort with moving this
bill today if she would commit to move the Governor's bill out
in the next week.
CHAIR DAVIS said the bill would be moved, but she could not
commit to a specific time frame as there was still work to be
done on it.
SENATOR DYSON said he trusted her to do that, but didn't always
trust the process and was worried it might die because of
timing.
SENATOR COWDERY moved to report SB 300 from the committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
1:42:07 PM
SENATOR DYSON objected.
A roll call was taken. Senators Cowdery, Elton, Thomas, and
Davis voted yea and Senator Dyson voted nay. Therefore the
motion passed 4:1 and CSSB 300(HES) moved from committee.
Senators Dyson, Elton and Thomas left to attend a Finance
meeting.
SB 280-MEDICAID/ INS FOR CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS
CHAIR DAVIS announced consideration of SB 280.
1:45:02 PM
TOM OBERMEYER, Staff to Chair Davis, read the sponsor statement
as follows:
This is an Act requiring health care insurers to provide
insurance coverage for medical care received by a patient
during certain approved clinical trials designed to test
and improve prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or palliation
of cancer; directing the Department of Health and Social
Services to provide Medicaid services to persons who
participate in clinical trials; relating to experimental
procedures; and providing for an effective date.
Clinical trials are research studies that test how well new
medical approaches work in patients. Each study answers
scientific questions and tries to find better ways to
prevent, screen for, diagnose, or treat disease. Patients
who take part in cancer clinical trials have an opportunity
to contribute to the knowledge of, and progress against
cancer. They also receive state-of-the art treatment from
experts in the field. The National Cancer Institute, as
part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, reports
6,000 cancer trials in the United States at any one time.
They include trials in prevention, screening, diagnosis,
treatment, quality-of-life, and genetic studies.
SB 280 removes important barriers to the participation of
patients in cancer clinical trials in Alaska. It requires
that all health care plans, including Medicaid, cover
routine patient care costs for patients enrolled in all
phases of clinical trials, including prevention, detection,
treatment, and palliation (supportive care) of cancer.
Currently Alaska health plans can exclude coverage for
routine patient-care costs while a patient with cancer is
enrolled in a clinical trial. Providers of health care
plans often conclude that money is saved by excluding care
while patients participate in clinical trials. But these
patients, if not enrolled in clinical trials, will continue
to receive conventional therapy at roughly the same or
slightly increased costs in the short-run.
Studies have shown that only 2-3 percent of eligible adult
patients enroll in clinical trials with a 6.5 percent
increase in costs for clinical trial participants compared
to nonparticipants. (National Conference of State
Legislatures ncsl.org/programs/health/clinicaltrials,
accessed 2/27/08) Without in-state facilities and support
of clinical trials participants in Alaska currently have to
travel out of state, increasing the cost of non-emergency
transportation which is about 3 percent of total Medicaid
costs.
In FY 2007 an estimated 4,600 patients received cancer
treatments through Alaska's Medicaid program at a cost of
$21.5 million. The average payment per beneficiary was
about $4,675. The federal government reimburses the state
at about 50 percent of the total costs. Based on an
estimated 2.5 percent participation rate per above, about
115 patients are expected to participate in clinical trials
each year. A 6.5 percent increase for 115 persons would add
$35.00 per year to Medicaid for cancer treatments. Non-
emergency transportation costs for the same group are
estimated to add another $15.00 per year. The fiscal note
adds an estimated $50,000 per year with the federal
government paying half of this.
Twenty-three states have passed legislation or instituted
special agreements requiring health plans to pay the cost
of routine medical care patients receive while
participating in clinical trials. Passage of SB 280 will
result in more successful outcomes in cancer treatments in
Alaska, increase retention of patients in Alaska for their
cancer care, and also, after full implementation, result in
cost savings in the short and long term.
1:49:17 PM
DR. JEANNE ANDERSON, Medical Oncologist, Anchorage, spoke on
behalf of Alaska cancer physicians and patients. She thanked
Chair Davis and the Health and Social Services Committee members
for sponsoring and considering this bill. She disclosed that
2650 Alaskans were expected to be diagnosed with cancer in 2008,
and many more would be diagnosed with a recurrence of cancer. In
the 1970's only 50 percent of cancer patients lived 5 years
after diagnosis. In 2008 it was predicted that 66 percent of
patients would survive 5 years. Cancer physicians in Alaska were
committed to providing the best care possible to their patients
to relieve suffering and reduce deaths from cancer, and they
often turned to clinical trials as providing the best treatment
for their patients. As the sponsor statement indicated, clinical
trials provided a formal and scientific way to test whether a
new treatment was safe, effective and superior to existing
treatments. The physicians and hospitals in Alaska supported
clinical trials and there were currently at least 50 of them
open in the state for cancer patients however, only a small
number of their patients, about 40 patients per year, enrolled.
The reasons included lack of knowledge or interest on the part
of either the patient or the physician; lack of availability of
an appropriate trial for the patient; and lack of insurance
coverage, or fear by the patients that they would lose coverage
if they did enroll. Passage of this bill would clearly remove
that one important barrier to access to clinical trials for
their patients. She believed it would result in improved care
for patients, reducing the burden of cancer in the population,
and facilitating patients to stay in Alaska for state-of-the-art
care.
SENATOR COWDERY asked Mr. Obermeyer why the fraternal benefit
societies were excluded on page 2, line 5, Section C.
CHAIR DAVIS said that they would discuss the bill after taking
public testimony and asked Senator Cowdery to hold his question.
1:52:28 PM
DR. ALAN LICHTER, CEO, American Society of Clinical Oncology
(ASCO) said the Society had close to 26,000 members in 112
countries around the world. He reiterated that a clinical trial
was a research study to find out if a new treatment was safe or
effective, if treatment A was better than treatment B; it was
governed by a rigorous review and oversight process; and it was
the critical step in achieving progress in cancer treatment. In
fact, the pace of progress against cancer was largely determined
by the pace at which they could complete clinical studies. While
they were making progress in clinical studies, the pace was not
fast enough to satisfy them; less than 5 percent of adults went
on to a cancer clinical trial. There were many reasons for that
but, as stated, one of them was the uncertainty of whether their
insurance would cover their routine clinical care costs if they
were treated as part of a trial, or the certainty that it would
not. He found it ironic when he realized that insurers
increasingly asked physicians to practice evidence-based
medicine, then turned around and told patients that if they
participated in a clinical trial to gather such evidence, their
care costs would be denied. For 15 years ASCO had fought to
ensure coverage for those routine clinical costs and were
successful in convincing Medicare to change their policy about
10 years ago. About 20 states had already passed legislation
such as this and, when they asked their members in those states,
over 2/3 said the passage of that law had been helpful in
facilitating the entry of patients into clinical studies.
Insurance companies were concerned over costs; and at least 4
major studies had been done that showed the routine care costs
of treating a patient in a clinical trial were no greater than
the costs an insurance company would pay anyway. He said he was
extremely encouraged that Alaska was considering passage of this
bill; these bills were critical if they were to continue the
pace of discovery in cancer.
1:56:47 PM
DR. STEPHEN COMPTON, Clinical Cardiologist, Alaska Heart
Institute (AHI), said he specialized in clinical cardiac
electrophysiology, the care of heart rhythm problems. He was one
of about 23 cardiologists in the state, and they wanted to
second the testimony of Dr. Lichter and others. Cardiologists
faced the same problems; they clearly had not solved the problem
of heart disease in the world and there were many unanswered
clinical questions that needed to be addressed. In Alaska, they
had had 2,000 patients involved in various clinical studies and
trials during the previous 8 years. He thought it was naïve of
insurance companies to think that medicine was a static issue;
his own job didn't exist 20 years ago because it had been only
in the past 20 years that they had learned enough about heart
rhythm problems to routinely cure disabling or life-threatening
arrhythmias. Treatments for these conditions were developed
through progress in research based on clinical trials. He cited
the development of implantable devices for heart failure
monitoring and treatment as another example of devices that
clearly improved quality of life, heart function and survival;
the only way to learn about these strategies was through
clinical trials.
In closing, Dr. Compton said the need for clinical trials
applied to every area of medicine and he fully supported this
bill.
2:00:36 PM
MR. OBERMEYER advised Chair Davis that Dennis Bailey with
legislative legal would be available for only a short time to
address Senator Cowdery's question about the inapplicability of
fraternal benefit societies that now appeared on page 2, line 20
of Version \C. He restated the question for Mr. Bailey.
DENNIS BAILEY, Legislative Legal and Research Services Division,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, explained that a fraternal
benefit society was an organization similar to the Elks or Moose
Lodge, that provided specific benefits for their members. It was
a category that was not exactly insurance and that was exempted
from almost all mandatory insurance coverages already in the
statutes.
CHAIR DAVIS asked if such organizations could voluntarily be a
part of this despite the exclusion.
MR. BAILEY replied that, if a fraternal benefit society wished
to include coverage or provide a benefit for clinical trials,
they could do so.
2:03:07 PM
DEBORAH APPERSON, representing herself, was a 3 time cancer
patient. She said she would like to participate in a clinical
trial but could not do so unless insurance would pay for the
routine care. The treatments she had undergone were available
due to the participation of others in clinical trials, and she
wanted to "pay it forward" for those patients to come. With this
bill, she could do so.
2:04:32 PM
KRISTA RANGISCH, representing herself, said she was a cancer
research nurse at Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage.
She said that when a clinical trial was recommended to a patient
by his physician as the best treatment option, the patient was
referred to her office. Part of her discussion with the patient
about that study included informing them that insurance might
not cover some or all of the costs associated with the cancer
care while on the study; she strongly encouraged all patients to
find out what their policy said about clinical trial coverage.
It was at this stage that they encountered the majority of
roadblocks. She stressed that patients went through a lot
emotionally and financially when they were diagnosed with cancer
and the last thing they needed to worry about was finding out
whether their insurance would cover a clinical trial that the
physician thought was in their best interest. One of the biggest
reasons that patients did not go on in clinical trials was lack
of, or fear of lack of, insurance coverage. In addition, there
were many instances in which, due to the severity of the cancer,
it was necessary to start treatment right away and there was not
sufficient time to investigate coverage or to wait for the
insurance company to determine coverage. In closing, she said
that if insurance companies were mandated to cover clinical
trial costs, she was confident many more people would be able to
participate in clinical trials, which in turn would increase the
likelihood of improved cancer care and someday finding a cure.
2:06:48 PM
DR MARY STEWART, Oncologist, Anchorage, had been treating
patients for over 20 years. During that time she had treated
hundreds of patients with cancer; some went on to cure, but
others traveled the path of a terminal disease, seeking more
time to be with friends and loved ones. Every day radiation and
medical oncologists struggled with difficult and life-altering
questions. She related the cases of three patients whose lives
were cut short by diagnoses of cancer and said she wanted to
know how to do a better job for them.
DR. STEWART said that the oncologists' collegial group in
Alaska, the Denali Oncology Group (DOG), had a loose
affiliation, putting together yearly conferences on the latest
in cancer treatment for the past 24 years. Last year they became
an official affiliate of The American Society of Clinical
Oncology (ASCO). When they met in Homer in September, they asked
what they should do to make their first priority to improve the
treatment of all Alaskans. They wanted to enhance enrollment of
patients on clinical trials, for that was where they learned
what worked and what didn't. SB 280 would reduce barriers to
patient enrollment. She pointed out that the costs of patient
care changed very little and those patients would still need
blood tests, X-rays, CT scans and MRIs no matter what. The
physicians did not gain financially from this, but hoped to gain
better clinical insight and treatment for the patients in their
care. She urged the committee to move SB 280 forward.
2:09:42 PM
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director, American
Cancer Society, Anchorage, emphasized that clinical trials were
a critically important part of the fight against cancer. She
also confirmed what Dennis Bailey had said, that the fraternal
benefit society exclusion was common to all of this type of
legislation but did not preclude participation.
2:11:20 PM
CLAIRE WADDOUP, representing herself, Anchorage, said she was in
a clinical trial that involved treatment to improve her chances
of not having a recurrence of cancer. Ultimately, this treatment
would save the insurance company money if she stayed clear. She
wished Deb Apperson the very best and thanked the committee for
hearing her testimony.
2:12:39 PM
LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development, wanted first to
comment on mandates in general. The division was concerned that
mandates in Title 21 tended to apply only to approximately 40
percent of Alaskans because the other 60 percent were covered by
some type of self-insurance plan that would not be subject to
the mandate. That meant the mandate applied only to individual
and small group policies; none of the self-insured large
employer plans would be subject to it. She felt there was a
misunderstanding that when they did a state mandated health
benefit, it applied to everyone who had coverage and that was
not accurate.
MS. HALL said the division had reviewed other states that had
coverage for clinical trials and felt that this bill was written
with a fairly broad scope. She mentioned the medical
oncologists' reference to coverage of "routine medical costs,"
and noted that 17 out of 20 states, according to their research,
had language that only required coverage of routine medical
costs. She said she would like to work with Senator Davis and
her staff on the ability to have deductibles or co-pays more in
line with other mandates in Title 21, and to make sure it did
not expand into areas that were traditionally covered by the
sponsors of the clinical trials.
2:17:08 PM
DR. LARRY WICKERHAM, Associate Chairman, National Surgical
Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), one of the National
Cancer Institute's cooperative trials groups, said the NSABP
conducted large studies that compared standard treatments with
newer, innovative therapies in patients with early stage breast
and bowel cancers. The group's mission was to improve survival
and quality of life for these patients. Over the years, they had
entered over 130,000 individuals into their various trials; they
had 200 centers and 300 satellite centers located through the
US, Canada, Puerto Rico and Ireland, and had several centers
participating in trials in Alaska. The results of their previous
trials had a major impact on the care of both breast and bowel
cancers; the results of their breast cancer trials were
invaluable in eliminating radical mastectomies, demonstrating a
lumpectomy was an effective alternative and that adjuvant
therapy in addition to surgery, (chemo-therapy, hormonal therapy
and the newer targeted agents) could improve survival. Figures
from the American Cancer Society demonstrated that the mortality
rates from breast cancer in the US had declined for over a
decade. These improvements were thought to be the result of
screening mammograms and improvements in treatment. These
improvements in care came primarily from clinical trials like
those conducted by the NSABP. The more patients who entered
these trials, the more quickly they got the results and the
faster they could improve care. Unfortunately, for a variety of
reasons as Dr. Lichter mentioned, less than 5 percent of adult
cancer patients actually entered clinical trials. Cost was
indeed a major barrier to their participation. Requiring health
care insurers to cover the standard-of-care costs for
individuals participating in cancer clinical trials would
substantially remove one of the significant barriers to
increasing participation. Any research trial included 2 general
categories: research costs, expenses the patient would not
routinely incur if he/she were not part of that trial; and
routine standard-of-care costs, expenses that would occur
whether or not that patient entered a clinical study. NSABP
studies routinely identified the non standard-of-care
components; they provided the drug or drugs being studied free
of charge and typically provided additional non-federal funding
to help defray the costs of clinical trial participation,
including the cost of non standard-of-care items. The goal was
to minimize any additional cost to the patient, improve trial
participation and improve cancer care in general. He urged them
to enact this bill so that patients in Alaska would have access
to state-of-the-art studies like those already available to
patients in other states.
2:20:22 PM
BEVERLY K. WOOLEY, Director, Alaska Division of Public Health,
speaking for herself as a cancer survivor, said few things in
life could rock you to the core like hearing that you have
cancer. She had to go through that with her diagnosis in 2004;
despite her family history of extensive cancer, her diligent and
aggressive check-ups, it did hit her and she was not ready for
the emotional turmoil. She admitted that her whole focus was on
survival at that point; and it was soon after her diagnosis that
she was told she was eligible for a clinical trial. She spent
days researching it and came to the decision that it was the
best news for her, not only because it gave her the best chance
for survival, but because her young daughter, because of her
diagnosis, was at a higher risk. "At a time when I didn't have
much hope," she said, "thinking that, regardless of what
happened to me, I could take part in something that might make
her future and that of other young women better, gave me a
silver lining. My enthusiasm was short lived however, when I
found out my insurance might not pay." She started on an
emotional roller-coaster, due in part to the fact that she had
lost her father to cancer at 17 after a 3 year fight that took
all of their family's savings and nearly cost them their home.
Her 80 year old mother was still paying for the loss of those
savings that could have made her life better, and Ms. Wooley
feared that it was going to happen to her. It took time, but
fortunately they worked with her and eventually her insurance
did come through so she was able to go forward with the trials.
She got the best care possible and was able to give hope to
future generations through the research that was done at that
time.
MS. WOOLEY closed by saying that she did not know what would
have happened if she had not been able to take advantage of that
trial. To have the hope of the best possible care held out to
you and to be afraid you could not take advantage of it was
absolutely devastating. She pressed that they had the power to
make a statement against cancer by moving this bill forward, and
asked them to please move the bill out and get clinical trials
for as many people in Alaska as possible.
2:23:54 PM
CHAIR DAVIS announced she would hold SB 280 in order to complete
some work on it with the division of insurance, and would bring
it back in a short time.
2:25:13 PM
CHAIR DAVIS announced a brief at ease.
SJR 18-CHILD PRODUCT SAFETY
2:26:05 PM
CHAIR DAVIS announced consideration of SJR 18.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, sponsor of SJR 18 said he had first-
hand experience with concerns about toy safety because his 15
month old daughter had a lot of toys and put everything into her
mouth. He had no idea whether the toys were safe, if they had
lead or methylates in them or not. The testing mechanisms just
didn't exist.
KAT PUSTAY, Staff to Senator Wielechowski, read the sponsor
statement as follows:
SJR 18 calls on the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) to test the materials used in
toys and children's products for hazardous chemicals
like lead. Over $15 billion worth of toys and
children's products were brought into the United
States in 2006. In 2007 almost $10 billion came in
from China alone. In 2007 over half the toy and child
product recalls by the CPSC were due to lead or
chemical poisoning hazards.
The CPSC is an independent federal regulatory agency
that was created in 1972 by the Consumer Product
Safety Act to protect the public against unreasonable
risks of injury and death associated with consumer
products. Currently the CPSC conducts tests only to
determine if a toy presents a choking, aspiration or
ingestion hazard, but relies on toy and child product
manufacturers to self-regulate the materials used (and
thus toxicity levels) in their products.
In essence, the CPSC checks for choking hazards but
not the effects of sucking on a pacifier for many
hours a day. Children's bodies and brains are
developing and are more susceptible to the hazardous
impacts than adults. We should do what we can to limit
their exposure.
Alaskan parents rely on the regulatory agency to
insure the health of their children just as Senator
Wielechowski said in his own experience, so we ask
that the Alaska State Legislature urge the CPSC to
increase safety testing on chemicals used in toys and
child products.
2:29:11 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, offered support for
the legislation . She said that Congress was considering
legislation called the Consumer Product Safety Modernization
Act, which addressed this issue and others; so it was timely
that they would urge the President to approve this legislation.
2:30:17 PM
Susan Ely, Legislative and Communications Manager, Alaska
Conservation Alliance (ACA), a consortium of 40 conservation
groups based in Alaska, thanked the committee for allowing her
to testify in support of SJR 18 . This legislation addressed an
issue that had recently come to the forefront as over 29 million
toys were recalled the previous year, many because of high
levels of lead, sometimes as much as 200 times over the safety
limit. The most recent recall occurred on Wednesday [March 12,
2008] when the CPSC recalled the X Force Commander airplanes and
Super Famous cars and motorcycles because of excessively high
lead concentrations.
MS. ELY stated that Congress had not adopted any major changes
to this legislation in over 18 years; 85 percent of toys were
being manufactured in other countries, many of them without
product safety standards. The number of imports had increased
about 200 percent in 10 years and, as of October 2007, the CPSC
had only one person testing toys, only 15 inspectors policing
all of the consumer imports, and no federal agency studying the
cumulative effects of toxicity. She said the United States
Senate recently approved a bill that would increase staff and
budget and create a public database of product complaints. It
would also give power to state prosecutors if they felt that the
federal government was not doing enough. In closing, she said
this resolution would encourage the federal government to give
the CPSC the tools and resources it needed to test the toys
entering homes across America and give Alaskan parents a tool to
make sure they can make safe and healthy decisions about the
toys they are buying and bringing into their homes. She added
that Alaskans were exposed to more than the average citizen
because of the deposition of chemicals in Northern climates and
encouraged the committee to pass SJR 18.
CHAIR DAVIS said she didn't have a quorum to move the bill so
she would hold SJR 18 in committee until Monday.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 2:34:18 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|