Legislature(2021 - 2022)
2022-04-26 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2022-04-26 House Journal Page 2665 HB 265 The following, which was moved to the bottom of the calendar (page 2663), was before the House: HOUSE BILL NO. 265 "An Act relating to telehealth; relating to the practice of medicine; relating to medical assistance coverage for services provided by telehealth; and providing for an effective date." Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 265(FIN) "An Act relating to telehealth; relating to the practice of medicine and the practice of nursing; relating to medical assistance 2022-04-26 House Journal Page 2666 coverage for services provided by telehealth; and providing for an effective date." Representative Eastman objected and withdrew the objection. There being no further objection, CSHB 265(FIN) was adopted. Amendment No. 1 was not offered. Amendment No. 2 was offered by Representative Eastman: Page 1, line 14, following "AS 08.64.333.", through page 2, line 6: Delete all material. Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 2 be adopted. Representative Tuck objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 265(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 4 NAYS: 33 EXCUSED: 2 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Carpenter, Eastman, Kurka, Prax Nays: Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Gillham, Hannan, Hopkins, Johnson, Josephson, Kaufman, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Merrick, Nelson, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Rauscher, Schrage, Shaw, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Thompson, Tilton, Tuck, Vance, Wool, Zulkosky Excused: Cronk, Patkotak Absent: Tarr And so, Amendment No. 2 was not adopted. 2022-04-26 House Journal Page 2667 Amendment No. 3 was offered by Representative Eastman: Page 2, line 3: Delete "(1)" Page 2, line 4 following "relationship" through line 6: Delete all material. Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 3 be adopted. Representative Tuck objected and moved the previous question. There being no objection, it was so ordered. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 3 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 265(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 3 YEAS: 5 NAYS: 32 EXCUSED: 2 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Carpenter, Eastman, Kurka, McKay, Prax Nays: Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Gillham, Hannan, Hopkins, Johnson, Josephson, Kaufman, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, Merrick, Nelson, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Rauscher, Schrage, Shaw, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Thompson, Tilton, Tuck, Vance, Wool, Zulkosky Excused: Cronk, Patkotak Absent: Tarr And so, Amendment No. 3 was not adopted. Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that CSHB 265(FIN) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There was objection. CSHB 265(FIN) will advance to third reading on tomorrow's calendar.