Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/04/2000 01:40 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2000
1:40 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Mackie, Chairman
Senator Tim Kelly, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Dave Donley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 296(L&C)
"An Act relating to partnerships; amending Rule 25(c), Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
-MOVED CSHB 296(L&C)OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 48(RLS)
Relating to the free flow of people and the fair trade of goods and
services across the border between the United States and Canada.
-MOVED CSHJR 48(RLS)OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 280
"An Act relating to licensing common carriers to dispense alcoholic
beverages; and providing for an effective date."
-MOVED SB 280 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 297(L&C)
"An Act relating to the licensing of chiropractors and to
disciplinary actions against chiropractors."
-MOVED CSSB 297(L&C)OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 296 - No previous action to consider.
HJR 48 - No previous action to consider.
SB 280 - No previous action to consider.
SB 297 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Pat Harmon, Aide
Representative Pete Kott
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 296.
Mr. Art Peterson, UCCUSL
Uniform Law Commissioner
350 N. Franklin Street
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 296.
Mr. Scott Petsel, Aide
Representative Gail Phillips
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 48.
Mr. David Gray, Aide
Senator Jerry Mackie
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 280 and SB 297.
Mr. Doug Griffin, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 280.
Mr. Irving Bertram, Associate General Counsel
Alaska Airlines
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 280.
Ms. Sharon Clark, Aide
Senator Mike Miller
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented in SB 297.
Ms. Catherine Reardon, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 10806
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 297.
Dr. Morgan, President
Chiropractic Society
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 297.
Ms. Mary Veale
American Physical Therapy Association
P.O. Box 240286
Douglas, AK 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297.
Ms. Karen Grafton, President
Alaska Physical Therapy Association
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 297.
Mr. George Salmon
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297.
Ms. Cheryl Sackett
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-13, SIDE A
Number 001
HB 296-UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT
CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and announced HB 296 to be up for
consideration.
MR. PAT HARMON, Aide to Representative Pete Kott, said HB 296 is
the Uniform Partnership Act. Present statutes are seriously out of
date and based on the 1914 version. Two things have changed over
the years; one is that the individual concept in the 1914 Act is a
partnership entity and the other is the way the default
classification for businesses works. Now the default
classification is a partnership.
MR. ART PETERSON, Uniform Law Commissioner, stepped to the witness
stand for comments.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE stated that Mr. Peterson had been before this
committee for many years for updating statutes. They all had a lot
of respect for his knowledge and the work that he does on these.
He asked if he could touch on the highlights of this and inform
them of significant changes that may or may not have controversy.
MR. PETERSON said he had a lot of materials from the National
Conference. He said the original Uniform Partnership Act was
enacted in all states except Louisiana. The partnership law of
this country is the Uniform Partnership Act plus the court
decisions interpreting it. When that Act changes, Alaska has to
flow with it or we're going to be doing a number of business
entities a great disservice. There are provisions in there for
conversion from a regular partnership to a limited partnership and
provisions dealing with limited liability partnerships. This has
already been enacted in 24 states and four states have enacted the
1994 version without the limited liability partnership provisions
that this bill includes.
The revision reflects modern business practices and more than eight
decades of court decisions and scholarly analysis in recognition of
how business is done.
The basic changes are the statutory statement of the entity concept
of partnerships changing from the earlier version of the aggregate
of individuals concept. The current law is a confusing mix of the
two concepts and the bill before them clearly adopts the entity
concept and the ramifications of that appear throughout the bill.
The basic one being, when a partner leaves the partnership, it
doesn't collapse as it does under current law. The partnership
will continue and there are provisions for how a partner gets out,
etc.
The Department of Community and Economic Development had one
concern that they presented in the House - changing annual reports
to biennial. Another changes is the transition period from a five
year period to a three year period. Everyone is agreeable with
that. The bill carefully tracks the national version.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that there were all "Do Passes" throughout
the committee process and it passed 36 - 0 in the House.
SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSHB 296 (L&C) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
HJR 48-ACCESS ACROSS UNITED STATES/CANADA BORDER
CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced HJR 48 to be up for consideration.
MR. SCOTT PETSEL, Aide to Representative Gail Phillips, sponsor,
HJR 48 relating to the free flow of people and fair trade of goods
and services across the border between the U.S. and Canada.
Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 calls for the implementation of an
automated entry/exit control system to record all entries to and
departures from the Unites States regardless of the person's
nationality, regardless of the location of entry, and regardless of
the method of entry. These controls are slated to be in place by
March 2001. The resolution is specific to Canadians and the
borders between the United States and Canada.
Currently, if you are a traveler coming from Canada, you are
required to stop at the U.S. border and show them your "papers."
As you leave the country, you're not required to stop at the U.S.
border crossing station.
Under Section 110, all travelers would have to stop in both
directions and fill out detailed paperwork regarding personal
information and trip details. This would create quite a traffic
jam at several of the border crossing stations. It also goes
against years of cooperative agreements between the United States
and Canada including the Shared Border Accord of 1995 and the
Canadian/US Partnership Forum.
The resolution is a variation of one passed by the Council of State
Governments West late last year. HJR 48 specifically calls for
U.S. Congress to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to provide for the exemption of
Canadians from requirements of Section 110 at all land border
crossing between the U.S. and Canada.
As background, MR. PETSEL said, Canadians spent a total of $7.3
billion dollars in the United States last year. Bilateral trade
between the countries was $397 billion in 1998. In 1998 with
Alaska alone, Canadians traded a total of $492 million worth of
goods. Other states have adopted resolutions of varying levels of
support for the repeal of Section 110 or the amendment to exempt
Canadians from Section 110 from the Act of 1996. Also, on the
federal level, there has been a lot of actions in various
Congresses of the past to either call for the repeal of Section
110 or the exemption of land border crossing from Section 110. A
recent update from Congressman Young's office says that a
bipartisan group is working right now on an agreement on how to
approach the Section 110 issue with the interest of increasing our
capacity at borders to facilitate the free flow of tourism and
trade. He asked for the committee's support.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass CSHJR 48(RLS) from committee with
individual recommendations. SENATOR KELLY said that he has some
trouble with this. He thought the U.S. should be strengthening its
borders as opposed to weakening them. He didn't think that most of
our Canadian friends would be a problem, but there were other
people who get into this country through Canada. He probably
wouldn't support this legislation.
MR. PETSEL said the resolution does nothing to change the current
requirements. It doesn't lessen them, but it doesn't add control
requirements. In part, the resolution asks for support to exempt
Canadians from land border crossings between the U.S. and Canada,
not other borders and not other nationalities.
There were no objections to moving the bill from committee and it
was so ordered.
SB 280-COMMON CARRIER LIQUOR LICENSE
CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 280 to be up for consideration. He
said he introduced the bill on behalf of the committee at the
request of Alaska Airlines and his staff, David Gray, would tell
them what it does.
MR. GRAY said Alaska Airlines has requested that the current
licensing requirements for common carrier beverage dispensing
licenses be modified for two reasons: first to simplify the
requirements so that adding aircraft will not require an additional
new application process involving filling out the application,
supply and support exhibits, posting and publishing the application
for the license. Alaska and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC) agree that modifying the statute to simply obtaining
additional common carrier licenses will reduce the clerical and
administrative work for both Alaska Airlines and the Board and is,
therefore, in the public interest.
Secondly, Alaska Airlines would like the fees reduced. They
currently have 89 planes and plan to add six or more aircraft each
year. The growth of the Alaska Airlines fleet substantially
exceeds the growth of its interstate flying. Since every aircraft
must be separately licensed and every license costs them $450 per
year (a $700 biennial, plus a $200 yearly license fee), the fees
have become quite high and continue to escalate at a faster rate
than its interstate fleet will escalate.
Alaska Airlines only operates a small portion of its fleet on
interstate routes on any given day. In addition, it should be
noted that none of the other major airlines serving Alaska, with
the possible exception of Delta, obtain Alaska liquor licenses
because they don't operate interstate. Alaska Airlines believes
they pay substantially more for the common carrier licenses than
any other licensee in Alaska. It seems fair to reduce the fees to
more accurately reflect the costs to the Board of issuing licenses
and the interstate presence that Alaska Airlines actually has.
If the proposed bill becomes law, they will still pay more in fees
to Alaska than it pays to any other state.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if they have 89 or 95 aircraft after this
year, if they currently have to license every one of them, even if
they are not flying in Alaska because of the way the law was
written.
MR. GRAY said that was correct. Any plane in their fleet that may
come into Alaska once within a year's time will have to have a full
license.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE commented that they were trying to bring their fees
more into line with the number of aircraft they actually have
flying in the State and asked how that would be done.
MR. GRAY replied under the bill, 10 licenses would be the full
licenses. After that, other planes would have a reduced licensure.
In other words, the whole fleet would be licensed this way.
Number 1209
MR. DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, ABC Board, said Alaska Airlines made a
presentation to the Board last summer when it met in Fairbanks
regarding this issue. He echoed Mr. Gray's comments and said the
Board was sympathetic. They also raised concerns about how
complicated it was to license all those aircraft even though the
Board had done everything they could to streamline that process.
The root of the problems is the need for a statute change. The
statutes in Alaska regarding common carrier liquor licenses reflect
needing to license every vehicle, airplanes, boats, railcars, and
those types of things. This is just a growing pains issue for
Alaska.
MR. GRIFFIN said it would be a loss of revenue for the State, but
the Board looks at the fairness issue versus what is a fairly small
loss of revenue. The draft of SB 280 was presented to the Board
when it met in February. They didn't take a position at the time
and expressed interest in trying to tie the licensing to something
versus the number ten that was picked out of thin air. They worked
with Alaska Airlines to find something that in some way would
reflect the number of planes that were actually flying within the
state, for instance, during a given day. He said the Board would
like to use a number that's used in terms of how many licenses they
have to buy at full price that reflects the actual number of craft
that fly in the State. That keeps it on par with other types of
vehicles that are operating within the State. He concluded that
they would support some kind of modification to the common carrier
provisions in Title 4.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Mr. Griffin if Section 1 allows for the Board
by regulation to make some of those determinations, in terms of
numbers.
MR. GRIFFIN said section 1 by itself doesn't allow them to do that.
They talked to Mr. Irving Bertram, legal counsel for Alaska
Airlines, about taking a snapshot of a day in the life of Alaska
Airlines in the State of Alaska and how many planes they actually
had operating flying between points in Alaska on a given day. They
picked January 1, the first day of a licensing cycle. They came up
with 22 planes. The Board felt that they should license the number
of planes that actually operate up here and if they bring in
additional planes from within their fleet, it could still operate
within that 22(or so) license. They would basically be licensing
routes and the number of planes that operate on an average in the
State. The difference in money between this bill and the original
bill isn't that great.
SENATOR LEMAN said on the fiscal note, the next to the last line
says if the filing fee is waived for licenses after the first 10,
an additional $16,000 in revenue would be lost every two years and
asked if that was a discretionary action.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that they were interpreting that to mean they
would continue to pay the $200 application or renewal fee. For any
licenses in excess of 10, the application fee is actually more than
the license fee which seems a little at odds. This is assuming
they are going to continue to pay a $200 fee for each license. If
the $200 fee is also waived for any licenses greater than 10, there
would be additional cost to the State. They are not interpreting
it that way, however.
SENATOR LEMAN said if there's any possibility it might be
interpreted differently, wouldn't it make sense to clarify that.
Is that something in regulation.
MR. GRIFFIN answered that's a statutory thing. SB 280 doesn't
alter the application fee. He thought it good to put on the record
that the intent is not to have it waived.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said that certainly wasn't the intent of the
sponsor and that's why they are talking about the other fee, not
the renewal fee.
MR. IRVING BERTRAM, Associate General Counsel for Alaska Airlines,
said he has been the party negotiating to acquire and finance
aircraft for the company for over 20 years. Alaska Airlines
currently has a fleet of 89 aircraft and because of the way they
establish routings, it's impossible for them to say with any degree
of definiteness that they can keep one of their aircraft out of the
State of Alaska or off an intrastate routing. They need to have
the operational flexibility, if they have a mechanical, to
substitute another aircraft. The result is they are continuing to
operate more and more aircraft in Alaska, because they are
acquiring more aircraft. On the other hand, the actual number of
aircraft they operate on a given day has been about 16 - 18 to
maybe 20, depending on which particular day of the year it is.
That hasn't changed a lot, although during the summer they operate
more aircraft. The intrastate routing doesn't go up as much as the
interstate routing does.
Their major competitors that serve Alaska don't really operate
intrastate. So they don't obtain liquor licenses and he thought
they avoided serving liquor on the ground and just serve in the air
and escape licensing completely. There is a little competitive
disadvantage at this point.
He felt some relief would be if they obtained a liquor license for
the company and had gone through all the application process, they
should be able to license each additional aircraft by paying a fee.
They hoped to provide the State with a reasonable amount of money
to cover the administrative duties of the Board and to recognize
their intrastate operations in Alaska where licenses are necessary.
Secondly, they wanted to keep the costs to the company down so that
as they continue to add aircraft and enhance their fleet, they can
comply and continue to offer alcoholic beverage service on
intrastate portions of their flights without being concerned that
this is going to cost them a great deal of money.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked where the first 10 licenses came from in
section 2 and he asked if it's more like 16 - 18.
MR. BERTRAM replied that idea behind the number was to pick one
that was high enough so Alaska Airlines would not be depriving the
State of any revenue for anyone else. They thought they had more
licenses than anyone else by quite a number and found that there
wasn't another licensee that has more than 10 vehicles licensed.
They are picking a number that is high enough to avoid providing a
benefit to anyone else.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE stated he thought they made a good case for
fairness and streamlining the ABC Board's activities.
SENATOR KELLY moved to pass SB 280 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 297-BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS
CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 297 to be up for consideration.
MS. SHARON CLARK, Aide to Senator Miller, said this bill was
introduced on behalf of the chiropractors. She said that SB 297 is
an act relating to licensing of chiropractors. It amends the
licensing statute for Alaskan chiropractors.
Section 1 allows for a temporary permit to practice chiropractic in
Alaska. It is for fifty days initially and may be extended by the
Board of Chiropractic Examiners. It is subject to the same terms
and conditions of a regular license.
This section also provides for a licensee who does not practice in
the State to hold an inactive license. It also provides for a
retired licensee. A person holding a retired license may not
practice chiropractic in the State. They may apply for an active
license subject to terms and conditions set by the Board.
Section 2 provides new reasons why the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners may refuse to issue a license in the State. These
include a conviction of a felony or other crime that would affect
the person's ability to practice competently and safely.
Commission of crime involving the unlawful procurement, sales,
prescription or dispensing of drugs, and attempting to practice
after becoming unfit due to an infectious or contagious disease.
Ms. Mary Vaele, American Physical Therapy Association, said the
bill is fine. They don't have any complaints with registering
local chiropractors, but have one question on the first page on
lines 21 - 22 and the use of the term "physiotherapy." She
explained that many other English speaking countries a
physiotherapist is a physical therapist. So they would like to
keep that terminology out of the chiropractic legislation.
She said that she understands that this is an optional exam for the
chiropractors. She doesn't think it is required for the rest of
the chiropractors in the State.
MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, explained the exams are set in regulation (under
statute) for the regular full licenses. Therefore, the Board has
the authority to chose the exam. There are five parts to the
chiropractic exam; the physical therapy exam is one of those parts.
The current regulations on exams do require for people who passed
after a certain date..."12 AC16.037: An applicant must pass each
subject of the following parts of the examination: the National
Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the elected physiotherapy
examination." Her understanding is that it is not regulation that
they are requiring that physiotherapy examination section now. It
doesn't appear in the statute because that just says, "The Board
can adopt by regulation...."
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if that should be in the proposed statute or
not.
MS. REARDON said her personal opinion was that it should appear as
it appears in the bill.
SENATOR KELLY asked what physiotherapy was. He asked if it was
addressed in statute.
MS. REARDON responded that it is addressed in statute in that the
definition of the practice of chiropractic in AS 08.20.900 includes
the employment of physiological therapeutic procedures preparatory
to and complimentary with the correction of the subluction. A
further definition defines physiological therapeutic goes on for
several paragraphs. She said it looks like it is the pushing,
massaging, and maneuvering of someone to result in the subluction,
which is out of alignment, being corrected.
SENATOR KELLY asked Ms. Veale if she has training in this area.
MS. VEALE said yes and added that her definition of physical
therapy is different from a chiropractic definition of physical
therapy. It's semantics, but the terminology concerns her.
Number 2306
DR. LORAN MORGAN, President, Chiropractic Society, said there is
concern with the use of the word "physiotherapy." In AS 08.20.120
the term "physiotherapy" is used by the National Board of
Chiropractic Examiners as the name of the test. To be synonymous
across the board, they use the same terminology so when someone
from Washington D.C., for instance, comes to Alaska and takes the
test, they know what exact test they need to take. It's being
consistent with the Board of Chiropractic Examiners terminology.
He said it is now in Alaska statutes as a National Board of
Examiners requirement - 12AAC16.037.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked him if he supports the bill.
DR. MORGAN said yes.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Ms. Clark if the proposed CS in their packet
was the one that Senator Miller was offering.
MS. CLARK responded that it is the CS that came about this morning
on behalf of the Department. She said that Senator Miller has no
problem with it.
TAPE 00-13, SIDE B
Number 2300
MR. DAVE GRAY, Aide to Senate Labor and Commerce, informed the
Committee that a letter from Catherine Reardon suggested "clean-up"
language. There was also a letter from the Attorney General
suggesting taking out one phrase. The CS deals with those concerns
which seemed legitimate.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt the CS version G/Lauterbach4/4. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
MS. KAREN GRAFTON, President, Alaska Physical Therapy Association,
said one of their main concerns is line 21 which says
"physiotherapy examination." In April 1999, the State of Alaska
Physical Therapy Board and Occupational Therapy Board resolved that
the Board declared its unanimous opinion that physical therapy and
physiotherapy were identical in meaning and that physical therapist
and physiotherapist are identical in meaning.
To name an exam "physiotherapy examination" within the chiropractic
statutes opens up the door to confusion for the public. Worldwide,
physiotherapy is physical therapy. The United State is the only
country where they are titled physical therapists. Austria,
Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Italy are all
physiotherapists. She asked that the word "physiotherapy" be
removed.
In addition, AS 18.20.120, qualifications for a license, says "to
have completed the exam by the National Board of Chiropractors".
Her concern is that the locumpentum section is different than the
permanent licensure section. She asked that the word
"physiotherapy" be removed from line 21.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that it was line 23 on the current version.
SENATOR KELLY commented that they were getting caught up in
semantics and asked if this door hadn't been open for years
already. Haven't we been referring the physiotherapy examinations
for several years in statute.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE responded that was what the Department tells them.
SENATOR KELLY asked Ms. Reardon if this wasn't just a status quo.
MS. REARDON said it wasn't.
MS. GRAFTON responded that she didn't see the word "physiotherapy
examination" in the Chiropractic Practice Act. Currently, in her
book page 3, says "the exam from the National Board of
Chiropractors" which she has no problem with. She asked if the
National Association changes the name of their exam, are they going
to have to reopen the Practice Act to retitle the exam.
MS. REARDON responded that was what the previous witness said about
the standard license - "the exam of the National Association in
regulation". So the word does not appear in statute, but it
appears in regulations. But sprinkled through the actual statute,
there are references to physiologic therapy. All that they achieve
by removing this reference, is leaving the other four references to
physiological therapy that are in the core definition of what is
chiropractic. It doesn't fully resolve the issue.
Also, if the committee chose to eliminate the term in this bill,
she asked that they not take out the exam, because she thought the
committee would want them to pass the exam. She supported saying,
"the exams identified by the Board in regulations."
SENATOR KELLY asked how long regulations have required passing a
physiotherapy exam.
MS. REARDON replied she thought that was relatively new, but the
other references in statute have been there for years.
MS. GRAFTON inserted that they have no problem with physiologic
therapeutics as written in the current Act. They have a problem
with the term "physiotherapy" which our State Board has stated and
resolved is the same thing as physical therapy.
SENATOR LEMAN said the examination of the National Board of
Chiropractic Examiners probably has within it as physiologic
therapeutics. The next section says, "...has passed to the
satisfaction of the Board parts 1 and 2 of the examination." He
asked whether a part of that examination deals with physiological
therapeutics and, if so, could that part of the examination be
referenced.
MS. REARDON explained the problem is that part is called the
physiotherapy examination. That is why it is capitalized on line
23. There are five parts of the National Board. Part 1 covers
basic science subjects, part 2 covers clinical subjects, part 3 is
the written competency exam, part 4 is the practical exam, and the
physiotherapy exam.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if part 5 is the physiotherapy exam.
MS. REARDON replied the information she has does not refer to the
physiotherapy exam as a part. Again, that is why it is capitalized
because they do not have a good name for it.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what she thought of suggesting to them that
they call it part 5.
SENATOR TIM KELLY asked who had the name first, the chiropractors
or the physical therapists. He said he thought the chiropractors
did, and that seems to be the problem.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if it changes the scope of the work anyone
does.
MS. REARDON said it does not but the very important concept that
anyone else can call him/herself a physical therapist or
physiotherapist still holds. This bill does not allow
chiropractors to call themselves physiotherapists.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if that issue was addressed a few years ago.
MS. REARDON said she thinks that was the origin of the Alaska
Boards of Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy's positions but
those terms are synonymous to make sure nobody could call
themselves a physiotherapist who was not a licensed physical
therapist. She pointed out that is important to the Board.
MS. BERNADETTE GILLET, representing the Providence Medical Center,
made the following comment. "Just speaking in terms of differences
between physiotherapy - physical therapy, that we have resolved
that two are synonymous and, in speaking directly about that
statement, it says the physiotherapy examination, as Karen just
discussed, can be congruent with our language that describes about
our profession of physical therapy. You ask who came first - the
chiropractor or the physical therapist - but PT's came up in 1926
with the term 'physical therapist'. Chiropractic medicine started
in 1895 with the 'chiropractor.' Those two differences split us
and it maintains that with the way that this is stated. That's why
we prefer to have this wording struck from that line."
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked the two groups if they could get together to
resolve the differences.
MS. GILLET replied yes.
SENATOR TIM KELLY asked if he was referring to the physical
therapists and the chiropractors.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said yes. He didn't think anyone wanted to change
the scope of what they do, but they need to have consistency in our
statutes.
Number 2006
MR. GEORGE SALMON, Fairbanks Physical Therapist, agreed with Ms.
Grafton's testimony that "physiotherapy" wording be deleted. He
said there is a lot of confusion in the public about what physical
therapists and chiropractors do. It opens the door for the public
to start thinking of chiropractors and physical therapists. He
thought they should call that part of the test "part 5."
MS. CHERYL SACKETT, Fairbanks, agreed with Mr. Salmon and the need
to remove "physiotherapy" and label the exam "part 5."
SENATOR LEMAN said he had additional concerns. One on page 2,
lines 4 - 13, the disqualification section, that they should
consider being consistent throughout with health care providers as
they update statutes. They have similar standards for dentistry,
but he likes the wording in this bill better. It's a little
shorter and has less repetition.
His other concern was on page 3, line 21 where it appears to him
that by deleting "after a hearing" the Board may impose a
disciplinary sanction on a person without having a hearing. But in
AS 18.08.075 it says they can't do it without a hearing. He
thought it should be written so that the Board could refuse to
issue a license without having to have a hearing. He suggested,
"The Board may refuse to issue a license under this chapter, and
after a hearing, impose a disciplinary sanction..."
MS. REARDON responded that what Senator Leman said was fine. It's
correct that the reason they are taking out "after a hearing" is
because they want the Board to be able to deny without having a
hearing first. It was their intention to comply with the
Administrative Procedures Act which does apply to this Board's
activities. It requires a hearing before taking disciplinary
action. Senator Leman's suggestion is fine with her.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if that was a suggestion of the Attorney
General.
MS. REARDON answered yes. She added that this part of the bill is
actually what the Division finds is the most important part. This
increases public protection because it says the Board can deny
licenses if you have done something wrong. As it is now, although
the title of the section includes refuse to issue a license, they
found the substance of this section would not allow them to deny
licenses for very legitimate reasons.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said without the drafter there, they couldn't
explain the language.
MS. REARDON said probably what Senator Leman is referring to is the
summary suspension option for discipline if there is a clear and
immediate threat to public health.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked her to have her legal people look at Senator
Leman's wording. Ms. Reardon indicated her agreement. He said the
only issue remaining is the physical therapist's concern with the
language. Senator Leman suggested using the wording "part 5" and
eliminating "physiotherapy examination." He asked for comments
from the Department.
MS. REARDON replied that would be a wonderful solution except that
it's not called "part 5" by the National Board, so that wording
would not actually have a meaning.
SENATOR LEMAN corrected her saying that he suggested part 5 in a
note to the chairman and then put (physiotherapy examination).
That really doesn't do much more than give a nod to the
physiotherapist that their's is a separate entity different from
chiropractors and not confuse the public.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked what Senator Miller's thoughts were on this.
MS. CLARK replied he agreed with what the chiropractors want and
whatever Occupational Licensing thinks should be in statute. He is
in agreement with the CS.
SENATOR MACKIE asked them to work together and resolve the issue
when it goes to the floor.
DR. MORGAN inserted that the Chiropractic Board has already said
that physical therapy, physiotherapy, and physiological therapeutic
are all synonymous terms. He thought the physical therapists had
said that as well. It is a name given by the National Board of
Chiropractors, not of physical therapists, to fulfill that basic
requirement in the State. If the term changes, he didn't know how
to change it on a national level.
SENATOR MACKIE said there is obviously a conflict and that's why he
has asked people to get together and work it out. Otherwise it
will most likely remain like the sponsor has it.
SENATOR KELLY said he was sympathetic to the arguments of the
physical therapists, but he thought that was irrelevant to the bill
in front of them. They will continue to struggle through that
until they can reach an agreement.
SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSSB 297 (L&C) with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|