Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/11/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB239 | |
| HB240 | |
| HB241 | |
| HB242 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 242 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Marital and Family Therapy; and providing for an
effective date."
2:33:17 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD
detailed that HB 241 would extend the Board of Marital and
Family Therapy for four years to June 30, 2018. There had
been three recommendations from the Division of Legislative
Audit regarding the board. The division believed the board
was licensing and regulating the community of marital and
family therapists.
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT relayed
that the division had conducted an audit of the board to
determine whether the board was serving the public's
interest and whether the termination date should be
extended. The division had determined that the board was
serving the public's interest by effectively licensing and
regulating marital and family therapists. The division
recommended a four-year extension from June 30, 2014 to
June 30, 2018. The reduced extension was primarily due to
the board not fully addressing a prior audit recommendation
regarding adopting regulations that benefit the public
interest specifically related to distance therapy and
supervision.
Ms. Curtis discussed that marital and family services were
not widely available to many areas of the state; therefore,
distance therapy and supervision was regarded as a way to
help address the need. During the audit period the board
had extensively researched and discussed the topic;
however, it had made little progress in moving forward out
of the discussion phase. The audit recommended that the
board develop a strategy to address the need for distance
services.
Ms. Curtis communicated that the audit also included two
additional recommendations. The first recommendation was
directed to the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing and addressed improvements needed in
the division's case management system. Secondly, the
division recommended that the Office of the Governor and
the board work together to fill vacant board seats in a
timely manner.
2:35:16 PM
Representative Wilson asked why the board was responsible
for providing the distance counseling.
Ms. Curtis replied that the finding pertained to criteria
used to evaluate whether the board was serving the public's
interest. She explained that marital and family services
were not widely available in many of the non-urban areas;
however, the need existed. The issue came to light when in
a review of board minutes the division had observed the
significant amount of time the board had spent on the
issue. The division had made the observation during the
prior sunset review; however, the board had been unable to
move beyond the discussion phase.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the role of a marital
therapist.
2:36:35 PM
Ms. Koeneman referred to AS 08.63.900, which defined the
practice of marital and family therapy as "the diagnosis
and treatment of mental and emotional disorders that are
referenced in the standard diagnostic nomenclature for
marital and family therapy whether cognitive, effective,
behavioral, or within the context of human relationships
particularly marital and family systems." She remarked that
marital and family therapy was for treating, coping, and
helping couples. She relayed that the board was working
with DOL and the Division of Legislative Audit on drafting
regulations to address the need for distance therapy;
however, it was determined that a statutory change was
necessary in order to make the changes. The board was
working on language, which would continue over the upcoming
interim.
Representative Wilson remarked that people choose where
they live and know what services are available in their
communities. She believed saying that a certain service was
not provided throughout the state was overstepping what was
known about an area. She remarked that the areas may be
serviced by another option. She opined that if a community
could afford to support the business it would be available.
She believed the public need could be there even if every
area of the state did not have access. She would follow up
to increase her understanding of the issue.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether four years was
too long to wait before a recommendation was made on
distance services. Ms. Curtis answered that the four-year
time frame had been settled upon because it put the board
on the same sunset schedule as professional counselors,
psychologists, and social work examiners; therefore, the
division would have the ability to review the issue across
similar boards.
Representative Gara wondered why boards were being punished
for not having a statute that the legislature would need to
pass. He believed it was odd. He stated the fact that the
legislature had not passed a statute was beyond the control
of the therapists. He believed a full [eight-year]
extension was in order.
2:40:24 PM
Ms. Curtis paused at the term punished. She communicated
that the recommendation was directed at improving the
board's operations. She detailed that individuals working
to become therapists were required a certain amount of
supervision; they were currently unable to work towards the
supervised time requirement through teletherapy or long
distance. Making changes to distance services would
increase the number of licensees, which would in turn
address the distance therapy needs. In general the
recommendation would enable the division to review the
board's progress. She referred to members' comments
questioning whether or not distance therapy or supervision
qualified as a public need.
Representative Gara agreed that the services were a good
idea. He asked whether a statute change would be required
to make changes related to the distance services. He
contended that if a statutory change was required, the
board's extension was being cut in half because of statute
the legislature had not passed. He believed the issue was
incongruous.
Ms. Curtis answered that the recommendation was for a four-
year period because the board did not move out of the
discussion phase related to distance services. The movement
to adopt regulation was new in response to the division's
audit.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
HB 241 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB239 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 |
| HB239 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 |
| HB240 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB241 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 241 |
| HB241 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 241 |
| HB242 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 242 |
| HB242 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 242 |
| DCCED CBPL Board Expenditures 2-11-14.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 HB 239 HB 240 HB 241 HB 242 HB 240 HB 241 HB 242 |