Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/03/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB172 | |
| HB43 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 43-NEW DRUGS FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL
2:36:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 43, "An Act relating to prescribing, dispensing,
and administering an investigational drug, biological product,
or device by physicians for patients who are terminally ill;
providing immunity related to manufacturing, distributing, or
providing investigational drugs, biological products, or
devices; and relating to licensed health care facility
requirements."
2:37:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-
LS0207\D.2, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 2, following "ill":
Insert "for the purpose of sustaining the
patient's life"
Page 1, line 10, following the first occurrence of
"patient":
Insert "for the purpose of sustaining the
patient's life"
Page 2, line 19, following "device":
Insert "for the purpose of sustaining the
patient's life"
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER objected for purposes of discussion.
2:37:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered that the bill sponsor was
supportive of Amendment 1, as it was introduced for the sake of
clarity, to be certain there was no confusion about how this
bill would be used in the future.
2:38:22 PM
BROOKE IVY, Staff, Representative Jason Grenn, Alaska State
Legislature, advised that the bill sponsor is supportive of
Amendment 1, and thanked the sponsor of the amendment for
bringing it forward.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she supports Amendment 1.
2:39:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER removed his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-
LS0207\D.3, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 10, following "Phase 3":
Insert "or is in the new drug application process
following Phase 3 of clinical trials"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
2:39:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER offered that the bill sponsor supports
Amendment 2, as it allows folks to use experimental drugs that
have followed Phase 3, but have not yet been approved, and it
extends the ability to use these drugs.
2:39:57 PM
MS. IVY said that the bill sponsor supports Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented to the maker of the amendment,
"good job."
2:40:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN removed his objection. There being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:40:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he supports this bill as
it can only do good things for Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the sponsor of the bill to respond
to Premera Blue Cross's request to add Section 5 due to the fear
that a new product may cost $100,000, and Blue Cross had to pay
the bill.
2:41:47 PM
MS. IVY responded that Section 5, as suggested by Premera Blue
Cross would essentially codify that an insurer or a patient's
health care insurance plan would not be responsible for covering
the costs of an investigational drugs or the effects that may
occur from these drugs. Currently, she said, that is not a
requirement under state or federal statute, and at this time it
is not something the sponsor necessarily opposes but it may be
somewhat redundant.
2:42:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether she believes this could
create conflict between the patient and the insurance company if
the insurance company denied [coverage], whether it was setting
unrealistic expectations or whether she believes this is not
part of state law so the company can, but is not required to,
provide this product for insurance coverage.
MS. IVY related that the sponsor spoke with Premera and its
intention was to create clarifying language in the statute. She
opined that, per FDA guidelines, regarding the written informed
consent form, that conversation would take place between the
doctor and the patient regarding coverage, or lack of coverage,
as part of the process.
2:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised she was speaking to the
insurance company and the patient [relationship], and asked
whether it was the intention of the bill sponsor to mandate that
insurance companies pick up the costs for these experimental
drugs, or to leave it as an option.
MS. IVY explained that she couldn't speak to conversations
between an individual and their insurance company, but the
sponsor's intent and understanding was to not require an
insurance company to cover the investigational drugs at this
time. Thus, it was not referenced in the bill and the sponsor
did not broaden that scope into the insurance section of statute
for that reason. The sponsor realizes, she said, this doesn't
solve everyone's problem in attempting to access this
medication, but the sponsor was not ready to ask an insurance
company to cover an unapproved drug, and it is not currently
required under statute.
2:45:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that the intention of the bill
was to allow [patients] the opportunity and [insurance
companies] the option.
MS. IVY answered in the affirmative, and pointed out that it
would be under the purview of the insurance company and that
individual's health care plan as to what was covered.
2:45:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report HB 40, Version 30-
LS0207\D, as amended, from the committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There
being no objection, HB 43(JUD) was moved from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.