Legislature(2001 - 2002)
01/31/2002 01:35 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR & COMMERCE COMMITTEE
January 31, 2002
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ben Stevens, Chair
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 243
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners; and relating to chiropractors."
MOVED SB 243 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 244
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners
in Optometry; and relating to optometrists."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 243 - No previous action to record.
SB 244 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Heather Brakes, Aide
Senator Therriault
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Staff to sponsor of SB 243 and SB 244..
Ms. Pat Davidson
Legislative Audit
P.O. Box 113300
Juneau AK 99811-3300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 243 and SB 244.
Dr. Conners-Allen
Juneau Off-net
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 243.
Ms. Catherine Reardon, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 243.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-2, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 243-CHIROPRACTORS: SUNSET/LICENSING
CHAIRMAN BEN STEVENS called the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and announced SB 243 to be up for
consideration.
MS. HEATHER BRAKES, Aide to Senator Therriault, sponsor of SB
243, said that the bill extends the termination date of the Board
from June 30, 2002 to June 30, 2006, a standard four-year
extension. Section 2 restores the Board's authority to license by
credentials giving it the necessary statutory authority to do so.
The legislation was drafted based on a report done by the
Division of Legislative Audit on December 5, 2001.
Page 5 of the audit found that the Board is operating in an
efficient an effective manner and should continue to regulate and
license chiropractors.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if she could remember the history behind
"restoring" the Board's authority to license.
MS. PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Audit, explained that last time the
Board was up for sunset, the national exam at the time didn't
have a practical component to it. So, the Board required people
who were applying for licensure by credential to take the state
practical exam again. This is conflicting with the concept of
licensing by credential. Therefore, at that time they recommended
to eliminate licensing by credential if the Board was going to
require an applicant to take an exam again.
What's changed is that the national exam now has a
practical component to it. So when you accept passage
of the national exam, you have really met the
requirements of what the Board is currently requiring
of applicants. Now that those things are both
consistent, our recommendation is to reinstate
licensure by credential.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the practical part of the national exam is
comparable to what the state of Alaska was using.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that it is acceptable to the Board.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the term "licensing by credential" and
"licensing by comity" are comparable.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that they have a very similar theme, but
there are some minor differences, which she couldn't espouse
right now.
DR. CONNERS-ALLEN said she had served on the Board of Examiners
for eight years and this is a good path for them to take.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass SB 243 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 244-OPTOMETRISTS: SUNSET AND MISCELLANEOUS
MS. BRAKES testified that SB 244 extends the termination of the
date of the Board of Optometrists, rescinds an unreasonable
licensing requirement, makes some statutory changes allowing the
Board to license by credentials and updates continuing education
requirements to bring them in line with current practice and
regulations. It also eliminates the state practical exam in lieu
of the National Board of Examiners and Optometry examination and
implements an Alaska jurisprudence section.
She said that the Division of Legislative Audit found the Board
of Examiners and Optometry should be extended to June 30, 2006,
the standard four-year extension. They found the regulation and
licensing of qualified optometrists is necessary to protect the
public's health, safety and welfare. Page 7 of the Audit has the
findings and recommendations of the auditor and page 15 has the
response from the Division of Occupational Licensing.
MS. BRAKES said that SB 244 was drafted based on the Audit's
findings and recommendations.
SENATOR LEMAN was concerned with the provision saying that the
department may not require the applicant to submit a photograph.
"We are needing to have increased security and there are people
taking on other identities," he said and didn't know if this was
consistent with what was happening with security.
MS. BRAKES responded that on page 7 the first recommendation in
the audit is to rescind the photo requirement for the applicant.
MS. DAVIDSON said the idea behind eliminating the requirement of
photo accompanying an application has to do with eliminating an
opportunity for any prejudice in reviewing the application. A
person sitting for a test must bring their i.d. to prove who they
are. On the balance, they thought the opportunity for
discrimination in that setting outweighed particular needs for
proving who you are at the time the application goes in.
SENATORS LEMAN and wanted to hear what the division had to say
about that.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if identification was the only reason the
photo was originally required.
MS. DAVIDSON responded that photo i.d.'s are not uniformly
required across all professions; this is one of the professions
that still has it. "Using it as a vehicle to associate everyone
isn't there."
At one point the thought was if there was a written or oral exam,
they would know who they were looking for, but that can be
achieved by asking for an i.d. at the time they come rather than
prescreening people with a picture.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked her to clarify what she meant by
prescreening.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that many boards have an evaluation process
to determine whether somebody's credentials or education
requirements meet the standards for licensure or meet the
standards to apply for an exam.
To the extent that any of those are subjective in
nature and not wholly objective in nature, then that
allows for an opportunity to establish a prejudice or a
prescreening of some sort that could happen…You're
trying to eliminate a possibility for that to happen…
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he thought having a photo of someone on
file would have some merit to it and thought maybe they could
look at having a photo after the person has qualified or
something like that.
MS. DAVIDSON agreed saying that maybe you would put a photo on
file after you became licensed.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was a place for people to write in
their own handwriting on their applications. Is their name
actually on the application or does it go to the review board by
number. A conclusion could also be formed based on a name or
handwriting as well as a picture.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that her experience is with the Board of
Accountants that has its application online, but they all require
signatures. Most of the information is collected through
electronic means or typed, but there is typically a signature.
SENATOR LEMAN said he was a little concerned about that. He
didn't know if he wanted to make this step today. He thought it
was important to establish positive i.d. on lots of people in
this world.
SENATOR DAVIS asked which boards required an i.d.
MS. DAVIDSON said she didn't have that information at her
fingertips, but that most of the Boards have eliminated it.
SENATOR DAVIS said she didn't know why one would have to have an
identification in order to apply for a license although she
understands they would have to have some proof of who they are.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
explained that there is a real mix as to who requires photos and
who doesn't. Pharmacy and chiropractors, electrical and
mechanical administrators require photos.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if they required photos on the application
or when the license is issued.
MS. REARDON replied that they only require photos at application
and probably for convenience, asking applicants to send them a
list of things and giving them a license when the division has
received everything on the list. Also, when they used to
administer an oral exam, it was nice to have a photo so when a
person walks in they can see they are the same person that is
taking the test. Another potential thing to consider would be to
submit the photo at application time, but the law directs that
the division doesn't forward it to the board.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the reason it was included in the bill
was because it was a suggestion in the audit and the board did
not request it.
MS. REARDON replied that was right.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved amendment #1 to delete the additional
language in section 2, which says, "The department may not
require the applicant to submit a photograph of the applicant."
DR. ERIC CHRISTIANSON, Ketchikan, said there are benefits to
having a picture, but they are not allowed to look at pictures in
an applicant's file prior to allowing them to sit for an
examination. He did not oppose amendment #1.
SENATOR DAVIS objected.
SENATORS TORGERSON, LEMAN AUSTERMAN AND STEVENS voted yea;
SENATOR DAVIS voted nay and the amendment #1 was adopted with a
vote of 4 yeas and 1 nay.
MS. BRAKES continued to explain that section 3 would implement
recommendation #4 of the audit report eliminating the reference
to the state practical exam and specifies that the written exam
must include testing about Alaska law. The division supports this
recommendation. The board announced its desire to eliminate the
practical exam in September.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN noted that the drafter took the practical part
out, but not the oral part.
MS. BRAKES said they supported the board's recommendation to
remove the oral part of the exam.
MS. REARDON apologized for not having her amendments finished and
explained amendment #1 was an alternative way of trying to
achieve the same thing. It removes references to whether it's a
written practical or oral, which clarifies the goal of the Board
- that being a person takes the national written and then a state
jurisprudence exam to make sure you know about Alaska's laws on
optometry. The first amendment would also delete, "the oral
portion of the examination shall be recorded and retained for two
years." because there would be no more oral examination. Oral
exams are both cumbersome to administer and hard to administer
equally.
The reason not to do it the way the bill does it now,
which is deleting "practical" is because the national
written examination includes a section entitled
"practical." That's why I'm suggesting going with just
saying there's two parts to the exam; the state portion
of jurisprudence and the national.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he was trying to understand how it would
read.
SENATOR LEMAN wondered if there was an applicant who was sight
impaired and the test had to be given orally instead of a written
form.
MS. REARDON answered that she didn't know what the origin of
written and oral exam was, but eliminating all those terms allows
flexibility so his concern would be provided for.
2:13
SENATOR LEMAN commented that in this case it may not make sense.
"I can't imagine an optometrist being able to function without
being able to see."
MS. REARDON recommended deleting sections 4 and 5 because they
used to provide guidance to the state when the board, itself, was
writing the comprehensive exam. It was giving guidance as to
retakes on certain sections, but now applicants take the national
exam before interacting with the state in any way. They have to
present an application stating they have passed the national
examination.
DR. CHRISTIANSON said he didn't see any problems with the first
amendment and thought they should say that a person has the right
to take a test over again under "Alaska state law" in section 4.
MS. REARDON commented that a person has that right without
putting it in there.
DR. CHRISTIANSON said he liked to keep statutes as clean as
possible and didn't see a problem with her wording.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said they would move on to Section 6.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that portions of that were affected by the
division's amendment #4.
MS. REARDON said that was right and explained that she tried to
reflect the recommendations about what the Board would like to
have for their qualifications for licensure by credentials, which
are slightly different than what the bill proposed. Basically,
amendment #4 would keep the introductory language and then she
adds alternative qualifications 3 - 7. There would be no oral
exam of the boards and then you would have to be holding a
current license to practice optometry in another U.S.
jurisdiction; second, you have to take a written examination to
get a U.S. license; you had been engaged in continuous active
clinical practice averaging at least 20 hours a week in the last
three consecutive years preceding your application (Board
language); that you haven't committed an act that would be a
violation of the state's optometry laws or the subject of an
unresolved or pending disciplinary action in another
jurisdiction; and finally, that you qualify for the
pharmaceutical agent prescription and use endorsement in Alaska
state law.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Alaska allows an optometry licensure by
credential for someone coming from another country, like Canada,
and if so, are we precluding that possibility using the suggested
language.
MS. REARDON answered yes and this is an important point. In this
bill, you have to have your license in a state or territory of
the U.S. or District of Columbia. "You cannot get in with your
license from Canada or Germany or Bolivia. This is a significant
policy decision…"
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked in section 6 of the changes it says,
"constitutes a violation of this state's…" and asked what was
meant by "this."
MS. REARDON answered that she intended it to mean Alaska.
SENATOR DAVIS asked why she added number 7 and if it was giving
them more authority than they had before and whose idea was it.
MS. REARDON said she offered it because it reflects the Board's
request in what they would like to see in licensure by
credentials.
TAPE 02-2, SIDE B
MS. REARDON explained that it says everyone who comes in by
credential must meet the existing qualifications in state law for
this endorsement. There are some people who hold optometry
licenses that don't allow them to prescribe. In order to get that
endorsement, you have to have additional education. This says you
can't come in from another state at that lower level; you can
only come in from another state if you have what it takes to get
the endorsement. She assumed that it was a policy decision on the
Board's part that they think it would be better to try to get
everyone up to that level. It's referring to the pharmaceutical
endorsement in AS 08.72.175 (a). It also gives adds an
alternative way of earning it.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said they would be setting a different level
for all new optometrists in Alaska.
MS. REARDON asked Mr. Christianson whether they ever license
anyone new coming in through examination who doesn't qualify for
an endorsement. She thought the answer would be yes.
MR. CHRISTIANSON said that this basically verifies that they are
not moving in at a level that they previously did not have. They
must meet the requirements of AS 8.72.175 or verify that the
applicant has been authorized the use of prescribed
pharmaceutical agents at the same level that was described in
Alaska statute.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked why they are requesting this.
MR. CHRISTIANSON answered that currently the statute reads that
persons cannot come into the state without a therapeutic license.
There are optometrists who are licensed to practice under a
couple of other different levels and it's the Board's intention
to do away with that over a period of a few years. Currently, the
people in the lower levels are either semi-retired, retired or
not actively practicing in the state.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said it seems to him that they are trying to
stifle competition when he reads (a) and (b).
MR. CHRISTIANSON said:
It wasn't written in that particular spirit. It's not
our goal to have multiple levels of licensure, because
it's really a very difficult thing to keep track of and
it's also difficult for the public, because they can
become even more confused in an already confusing
issue. So, we would like everyone at one level of
licensure…
SENATOR STEVENS said they would go to #8.
MS. REARDON said this amendment is an alternative to the way the
current bill solves the problem. Her amendment gives the Board
more flexibility in establishing its continuing education
requirements.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if she wanted to delete 40 hours and have
no number at all.
MS. REARDON said that was correct; that would allow the Board to
decide by regulation how many hours of continuing education were
needed. The reason no set amount is needed is that the current
statute says 48 hours, but that's because at the time it was
passed, there were four-year licenses and a long time ago they
were switched to two-year licenses. So, the Division started
using 24 hours.
SENATOR LEMAN said he did not want to make that policy change
without hearing from the Board.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS recapped that they should consider eliminating
page 3, line 10.
2:35
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt amendment #2 with the provision it's
consistent with the statutes.
MS. BRAKES said she would speak to the amendment on page 2, line
26. Current statute provides for Canada, also, making new
language more restrictive than current statute allows. Amendments
offered by the Division and Board would have a narrower scope of
letting someone come in with a current license from somewhere
else.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the national standard allows Canada to
come in.
MS. REARDON replied that she was just reflecting what they board
was requesting.
MS. BRAKES explained that amendment #3 doesn't reference Canada
which current statute allows.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked why that was.
DR. CHRISTIANSON said he wasn't aware of that issue. But, the
vast majority of optometrists who practice in Canada are educated
in the United States.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN suggested listening to what other concerns the
sponsor might have and hold the bill for further work.
MS. BRAKES commented that regarding amendment #5, she was
concerned that a military family moving to Alaska, but licensed
in another state and the woman had taken off a year for
childbirth, she would not be able to come in under licensure by
credential under this wording. She also had concerns with #7.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said that bill needed further work and they
would bring it up again and adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|