Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB93 | |
| HB485 | |
| HB447 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 308 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 447 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 470 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 475 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 485 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to dentists and dental hygienists and
the Board of Dental Examiners; establishing certain
committees for the discipline and peer review of
dentists; excluding the adjudicatory proceedings of the
Board of Dental Examiners and its committees from the
Administrative Procedure Act and from the jurisdiction
of the office of administrative hearings; and providing
for an effective date."
HEATH HILYARD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM ANDERSON, noted that
he went over the adopted work draft, Version C, at the
previous meeting.
Co-Chair Meyer opened public testimony.
1:44:41 PM
DR. ROBERT ROBERTSON, DMD, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, offered to
answer questions.
DR. GEORGE SHAFFER, DMD, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, KETCHIKAN,
spoke to the purpose of the bill. The bill strengthens the
action of the Board of Dental Examiners allowing them to
deal with discipline in a more-timely manner, ensuring that
all of the testimony and records that are included in a
complaint are viewed. The bill would also allow the board
to enter the process at an earlier stage when complaints
from patients are more benign. He offered to answer
questions.
1:47:16 PM
JIM TOWLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY,
ANCHORAGE, offered to answer questions.
1:48:53 PM
DAVID LOGAN, DMD, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, echoed Dr.
Shaffer's comments. He related that the bill would
establish peer review, a feature currently not available.
It will allow the board to collectively use its expertise on
dental matters. Currently, the board is limited in that
only one board member is allowed to review a case. HB 93
would allow the public to bring more cases to the board. It
would allow for earlier intervention for impaired
practitioners.
1:50:31 PM
RICK URION, DIRECTOR, OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, testified that the Board
of Dental Examiners met last month and 7 out of 8 opposed
the bill. He read an email from a board member, which
implied that attorneys want dentists to think that the bill
will rid them of occupational licensing. He related that in
the past ten years there have been 195 cases, 40 of which
were brought against two dentists, and 95 that were
dismissed without action. He discussed how the current peer
review operates, referring to a Dental Complaint Flow Chart
(copy on file.) He stated that the purpose of licensure is
for public safety. He strongly opposed the bill.
Representative Kelly asked Mr. Urion if he wrote the fiscal
note. Mr. Urion replied that he did not. Co-Chair Meyer
noted that it has changed considerably. Mr. Urion pointed
out that the bill has changed considerably.
Representative Kelly asked how the bill differs from how
physicians self regulate. Mr. Urion said that doctors do
exactly what the dentists are doing now.
1:56:58 PM
Co-Chair Chenault referred to the new fiscal note and the
expense for travel, which is the same as in the old fiscal
note. He wondered where the funds would come from to pay
for those costs. Mr. Urion said that the law requires those
costs to be paid by dentists.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if they are receipt paid. Mr. Urion
said yes. All costs are paid by the dentists.
1:58:24 PM
Mr. Hilyard addressed Mr. Urion's concerns. He mentioned
the sponsor's work with the Division throughout the process
of re-writing the bill. He noted that it is a difference of
philosophy.
Co-Chair Meyer asked why the bill's approach is better than
the status quo. Mr. Hilyard stated that the bill provides
for a better public process.
2:00:39 PM
Representative Kelly asked for more information about the
various models. Mr. Hilyard said he is not familiar enough
to speak about them. Representative Kelly asked why the
board is so opposed to this bill. Mr. Hilyard referred to
an email from a dental board member from North Pole, which
says the board takes no official position on the bill.
Representative Kelly asked if there is a split in the dental
society. Mr. Hilyard deferred to Mr. Towle to address that
issue.
2:03:08 PM
Mr. Towle reported that there is no division within the
Alaska Dental Society regarding this bill. He referred to
an email, which states that the board takes no position on
the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer asked Dr. Logan to comment. Dr. Logan opined
that all board members he talked to spoke in support of the
legislature. He noted that dentists do not feel that the
board is out to get them. Speaking as a board member, he
stated that the board takes a balanced view. He cited
problems with the board not getting information regarding
investigations. He addressed the peer review for organized
dentistry, a panel of board members that hears a case
itself, usually regarding minor matters.
2:07:39 PM
Representative Kelly asked for comments on why dentists are
moving in a different direction than doctors. Dr. Logan
could only speak from the dentists' perspective. The
largest change is that peer review would be opened up. The
board would now hear cases earlier in the process and direct
them to a peer review or disciplinary committee or full
investigative process. The investigators now are well
trained, but not qualified to assess dental matters.
2:09:47 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if the current ruling is that the
finding has to come back to the board after 120 days. Dr.
Logan said that is correct. Co-Chair Chenault asked if the
concern is that board members don't know what has been going
on. Dr. Logan explained the current system. Investigators
present the findings and recommendations and the board
votes, having never heard about the case previously. The
new program is that the board would be aware of the case
from the beginning and direct it to the best place to be
dealt with, then the case would come back to the board for
approval of the decision. Co-Chair Chenault summarized that
currently the board is not given much information and the
bill would allow for access to more information.
2:12:48 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if a due process problem is
created because some on the board may investigate and then
vote. Dr. Logan deferred to Dr. Shaffer.
Dr. Shaffer related that under the present system the board
operates under the Administrator Procedures Act (APA). This
gives the board the ability to look at evidence early on in
the process or to refer it to an investigator. In the
present system, there is a problem with reserving the
board's independence. Currently, the board cannot see any
evidence. The board does not sit as an appeals body. The
appeals body goes to the Superior Court. That was the
driving force behind the bill. The present system does not
allow the board to participate earlier in order to protect
the public. The bill would allow for the process to be
defined outside of the Administrative Procedures Act.
2:17:30 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if currently the board makes
decisions that can be appealed. Dr. Shaffer said according
to the APA, the appeal is to the Superior Court. The
Department says the appeal is back to the Department. This
is a difference of opinion.
Representative Kerttula asked if the board is the original
decision maker regarding suspended licenses. Dr. Shaffer
said that is correct, but for many years the board has not
been allowed to see evidence. Representative Kerttula
recalled that the AG's office would bring the evidence to
the board after an investigation was complete, and a
decision would be made. She asked if the new system would
create due process problems. Dr. Shaffer replied that under
the bill, there would be a single person, the board
president, who would do a triage, and who could be recused
from the process. The rest of the board members would have
the evidence and then make the decision. The Department
maintains that the board cannot see the evidence.
Dr. Shaffer explained that in the bill there are two
committees, the peer review committee and a disciplinary
committee, both of which can be made up of members of the
board. The board can also call on other dentists to help
them with the process. Then the board would make the final
decision.
Representative Kerttula summarized Dr. Shaffer's concern
about lack of information to the board. Dr. Shaffer
concurred.
Representative Kelly asked how other states deal with this
issue. Dr. Logan reported that there is a huge variation.
Most states have a peer review process.
2:22:49 PM
Co-Chair Chenault thought that the board might have a
variety of opinions on the bill. Mr. Logan said the board
is not allowed to take a position on legislation.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if the committee could
request the board to take an opinion. Co-Chair Chenault
thought it would be a personal opinion.
2:24:33 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 93 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Hawker OBJECTED. He spoke to reservations
related to the Division of Occupational Licensing. He
opined that something in Alaska about licensing is not
working. He wondered what the root of the problem is.
Representative Stoltze also spoke of a concern about
licensing and the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer said there is no reason to hold the bill
over.
Representative Weyhrauch said he does not know what the bill
does, either. Representative Kerttula related that her
experience with occupation licensing is that they do have
all of the information at their hearings. She also voiced
concerned about the bill.
2:28:02 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his objection to moving CSHB
93 from committee.
CSHB 93 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #1 by the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
2:28:42 PM
At-ease.
2:30:35 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|