Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/15/2023 10:30 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB112 | |
| SB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 112
"An Act relating to the Board of Pharmacy; relating to
the practice of pharmacy; relating to pharmacies;
relating to prescription drug manufacturers; relating
to prescriptions for epinephrine; relating to the
administration of epinephrine; and providing for an
effective date."
10:49:21 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a brief recap of the bill. He
noted no amendments had been received.
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, SPONSOR, briefly reviewed
the bill that would update statutes for the practice of
pharmacy. He relayed it was a multiyear process involving
numerous (past and current) chairs of the Board of
Pharmacy. The intent was to update statutes to help
modernize the profession and add important updates
reflecting changes to the profession in the past decade.
The bill had been brought forward by the Board of Pharmacy
and the Alaska Pharmacists Association. He stated that the
changes were necessary and important.
10:50:38 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development to review its fiscal note.
SYLVAN ROBB, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, noted that the board
chair was available for questions as well. She reviewed the
fiscal note that included $705,600 in FY 24. The amount
increased to $751,200 in FY 25 and remained consistent for
the remainder of the outyears reflected in the fiscal note.
She explained there was a decrease in startup costs of
$50,000 and in the regulations project of $4,400 from FY 24
to FY 25, but there was an increase in legal fees for the
outyears. She highlighted that $269,400 of the request was
general fund with the remainder to be paid with receipt
supported services by the licensees. The fiscal note
primarily supported five additional staff to handle the
additional workload created by the bill.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the Board of Pharmacy chair was
online for questions.
Representative Hannan asked how much general fund the board
currently required for operation.
Ms. Robb answered that the board currently received no
general funds. The division was funded with receipt
supported services.
Representative Hannan noted that the bill set a change in
motion for the Board of Pharmacy. She wondered if the
department intended to make the change for all other boards
that were currently self-funded. Alternatively, she asked
if all of the boards would "reshuffle and change rates" so
that general funds were not used.
Ms. Robb replied that the governor's FY 24 budget included
general funds to pay for investigations within the
division. The fiscal note reflected the anticipation of the
increment being approved. She detailed that if the final
budget included the increment, the investigations for all
boards would be funded with general funds. Otherwise, the
full amount would be funded with receipt supported
services.
10:54:08 AM
Representative Hannan asked for verification that the
fiscal note reflected the cost of investigators that may be
captured through separate legislation, which would zero out
the general fund element [of the fiscal note] in outyears.
Ms. Robb answered that it depended on whether the general
fund increment remained in the budget. Otherwise, the full
amount would be paid with receipt supported services.
Representative Hannan asked for verification that the
budget increment was general funds to pay for investigators
for all of the boards with investigative responsibilities
for professional licensures.
Ms. Robb agreed. She added that in addition to the programs
with boards, there were investigators for the 22 programs
without boards, and for corporations and business licensing
as needed.
Representative Galvin had a question unrelated to the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Foster asked to have the sponsor come to the
table.
Representative Galvin referenced a presentation the
committee had received that specified one of the goals was
to allow the board to adopt language for retired pharmacist
status. She had been unable to find the particular
reference in the bill's sectional analysis. She asked where
it was located in the bill.
Representative Ruffridge replied that it was a very simple
section that added the term "retired pharmacist" to the
already allowable license types. He offered to follow up
with the specific section offline.
Representative Galvin stated her understanding that the
intent was to enable retired pharmacists to work again. She
noted new language around requiring [pharmacists to have]
background checks. She asked if the requirement would apply
to retired pharmacists who opted to work again.
10:57:00 AM
Representative Ruffridge answered, "No." He clarified that
retired status was a common status in other medical
professions and was almost a sign of respect. He explained
that currently there were only two types of license status:
active and lapsed/expired. The change would allow for a
license type that would enable a [retired] pharmacist's
license to not lapse, but the individual would not be
actively working. He noted it would be listed on the
individual's online platform showing that they had retired
their license.
Representative Ruffridge thanked the committee for
considering the bill. He answered an earlier question by
Representative Galvin and relayed that the retired
pharmacist status was included in Section 2 of the bill. He
appreciated the committee's support.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 112(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 112(L&C) was REPORTED out of committee with nine "do
pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
10:59:19 AM
AT EASE
11:00:36 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|