Legislature(2021 - 2022)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/02/2022 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| HB265 | |
| HB306 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 265-HEALTH CARE SERVICES BY TELEHEALTH
1:40:13 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO announced the consideration of 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 coverage for services provided by telehealth;
and providing for an effective date."
She advised the public that the committee was very familiar with
this issue.
1:41:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 265, stated that in the interest of time
she would bypass the presentation. She presented the legislation
paraphrasing the following sponsor statement for CSHB 265(FIN):
The COVID-19 pandemic relaxed Alaska's telehealth laws
and enabled broader access to behavioral health and
specialty care, created cost-savings from reduced
travel, and increased the convenience of high-quality
health care to patients across the state. However,
Alaskans have faced barriers to telehealth
appointments due to regulatory hurdles across
professions and inconsistent Medicaid coverage for
services delivered via telehealth. Furthermore, COVID-
19 related flexibilities were regulatory suspensions
and not permanent.
HB 265 maintains these pandemic-related telehealth
flexibilities and expands Alaska Medicaid coverage of
telehealth services in statute as follows.
1) Creates a new section on telehealth for all health
care providers licensed with the State of Alaska
that removes the requirement for an in-person visit
and documentation of a barrier to an in-person visit
prior to the delivery of telehealth.
2) Allows telehealth follow-up visits from physicians
licensed in another state who have established a
physician-patient relationship and conducted an in-
person physical examination with an Alaska patient.
3) Ensures telehealth availability for services
related to opioid use disorder and controlled
substances for certain providers.
4) Increases telehealth access for Alaska Medicaid
beneficiaries by ensuring coverage for services for
behavioral health, home and community-based
services, rural health clinics, federally qualified
health centers, and other programs eligible for
Alaska Medicaid reimbursement. Ensures payment
parity and Medicaid coverage for telehealth
modalities (e.g., appointments over the Internet,
phone, etc.).
5) There is no requirement to deliver services through
telehealth, and both the provider and the patient may
choose to limit or decline a telehealth encounter.
Comprehensive telehealth delivery has revolutionized
health care in Alaska by creating another tool for
providers to care for patients when they cannot
physically be together. HB 265 will continue to
modernize the state's health care system to the
benefit of all Alaskans.
1:44:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ stated that HB 265 aligns the
statute regarding controlled substances via telehealth with the
federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) regulations so Alaska
providers have to comply with just one set of regulations. DEA
regulations require an in-person examination prior to
prescribing a controlled substance, and the bill ensures that
people have access via telehealth to controlled substances once
they have established a relationship with a provider. The bill
supports the marketplace for telehealth by ensuring equal pay
for equal work, but allows lower Medicaid payments when services
are not comparable. This supports reduced health care spending.
She noted that between FY 2020 and FY2021, Medicaid increased
telehealth spending and reduced Medicaid travel for a net
savings of 38 percent or $46 million.
1:45:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ highlighted the narrow exception
crafted in HB 265 to allow Alaskans to receive follow-up care
with doctors they have seen from out of state. The Alaska State
Medical Association supports this change to help eliminate
unnecessary travel. The Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing has oversight and the ability to recoup
costs in the event there is a bad actor licensed in another
state. The bill also allows more flexibility in the mode of
delivery of telehealth and it protects the patient/provider
relationship. Nothing in the bill requires the provider to
deliver care via telehealth or the patient to receive care via
telehealth.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ underscored that HB 265 does not allow
non-Alaskan providers to practice in Alaska without state
licensure. This was important to stakeholders, and the
telemedicine business registry for Alaska shows that 84 percent
of registrants are Alaskan providers and the 16 percent of non-
Alaskan providers are licensed in Alaskan. The bill also does
not increase access to controlled substances. Both prescription
drug limits and the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP)
remain in place, and DEA regulations still require in-person
examinations before an opioid is prescribed. She highlighted
that providers throughout the state report being able to provide
high-quality care to Alaskan patients. She said the invited and
public testimony will talk about how telehealth has increased
access to care without a reduction in quality.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ extended her thanks to the diverse
group of stakeholders her office had been working with over the
last 18 months to get HB 265 passed. She added that the robust
expansion the bill proposes could not have been accomplished
without the partnership with both DCCED and DHSS.
1:49:16 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO turned to invited testimony and recognized Dr.
Melinda Rathkopf, the director of the Allergy, Asthma, and
Immunology Center of Alaska.
1:49:37 PM
DR. MELINDA RATHKOPF, Director, Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology
Center of Alaska (AAICA), Anchorage, Alaska, stated that she has
been practicing medicine at AAICA for 16 years and she wanted to
share how telehealth has made it easier for the clinic to serve
the entire state. She explained that the clinic has satellite
clinics and had already started looking into telehealth before
the pandemic. They had purchased some of the software and
hardware, which made the transition easier.
DR. RATHKOPF said she wanted to speak to the bill to stress the
importance of pay parity for telehealth. Her clinic accepts all
payment options and it's challenging to continue to provide care
as the cost of everything continues to rise except
reimbursements. It wouldn't be sustainable if they go down.
She explained that by paying in parity she can block a half day
and see patients in outlying areas via telehealth and still pay
the ongoing costs to maintain the brick and mortar office in
Anchorage. Doing telehealth doesn't eliminate the need to pay
her receptionist and other staff or order supplies. These costs
are ongoing regardless of the mode of delivery of care. She said
allowing parity in pay will continue to be key in continuing to
be able to provide annual and follow up service for instate
physicians.
DR. RATHKOPF stated that allowing out-of-state providers to
provide follow-up care works well for her business. For example,
she sees some rare immune deficiency patients some of whom have
to utilize services through Seattle. It's been very helpful for
these high risk patients to get follow-up care without having to
take time to fly down and risking potential exposures during
that flight. She described HB 265 as a very good compromise that
allows Alaska physicians to provide care for their patients
while also allowing those patients to receive care from an out-
of-state provider when it's appropriate.
1:54:13 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO commented that it seems that her particular
specialty lends itself to in-person visits. She asked her to
talk about what happens differently for her patients when they
have a telehealth appointment versus an in-person appointment.
DR. RATHKOPF responded that she was initially concerned about
not being able to lay her hands on her patients, but quite a bit
of an exam can be done over video and her patients have a
primary physician who has done an in-person exam. She
acknowledged that certain procedures like skin and pulmonary
testing require an in-person visit, but pointed out that
allergists treat a lot of diseases that do not require any
testing. She advised that one reason her clinic started
telehealth pre-pandemic was to screen out those who had to be
seen in person versus via telehealth. Sometimes she determines a
patient really needs an in-person visit but the telehealth
option cuts down up to 75 percent of the people that will
require travel or need to be put on a waitlist so she can travel
to meet them. Telehealth makes her more efficient both at her
satellite clinics and her office.
1:56:22 PM
SENATOR STEVENS referenced a book he'd been reading on longevity
that offers statistical evidence that patients who have a
personal relationship with their doctor live longer than those
who do not have that type of relationship. He asked if she had
any further reflection on the importance of a personal
relationship with a doctor.
DR. RATHKOPF said her experience is that doctor/patient
relationships that were established in person can easily
continue online. What she believes would be very difficult is to
establish a relationship in the telehealth model where the
patient calls a national line and gets a different provider each
call. She assured the committee that most providers in Alaska
that are participating in telehealth are using it to support
established patients.
1:58:53 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that when he worked on an early
telehealth bill he was led to believe that telehealth would be
at a lower cost because there wouldn't be the facility and
materials costs and the visits would be shorter than in-person
visits. He asked for her logic on why pay parity is the correct
path.
2:00:11 PM
DR. RATHKOPF said it would be difficult to justify blocking half
or a whole day clinic to treat telehealth patients if she
weren't paid the equivalent because she could easily fill the
clinic with in-person patients. She said most providers squeeze
telehealth into blocks during the day, but the overhead costs
still exist and the telehealth appointments generally take the
same amount of time as the in-person visits. She explained that
when she sees patients in person she can have three patients in
separate exam rooms at the same time whereas with telehealth
it's a one-on-one appointment. Telehealth is not a cost savings
for the provider and without pay parity it would be too easy for
providers to say they didn't want to do telehealth.
2:02:50 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the argument was very convincing and he'd
like her to send the chair that explanation in writing.
DR. RATHKOPF agreed to do so.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked the sponsor if she had anything to add.
2:03:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said she had two things to add. First,
she clarified that the cost savings between FY2020 and FY2021
was 23 percent, not 38 percent but the $48 million savings was
correct.
Second, she said the testimony and questions about pay parity
target the underlying issue of ensuring that patients continue
to receive treatment from their established providers and that
Alaskan providers continue to be able to provide the care. She
shared her personal experience using telehealth when she had
COVID-19 last month and was able to see both her long-time
physician and a specialist. She agreed with Dr. Rathkopf's
explanation of the need for pay parity and highlighted her
earlier testimony that 84 percent of telehealth care in Alaska
is provided by Alaska-based organizations and providers.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked Genevieve Mina to present the sectional
analysis for HB 265.
2:05:19 PM
GENEVIEVE MINA, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, read the sectional analysis
for CSHB 265(FIN), version E:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1
Adds a new section on telehealth under Title 8 for all
health care providers licensed with the State of
Alaska.
Subsection (a) removes the requirement for an in-
person visit prior to a telehealth appointment.
Subsection (b) narrowly exempts physicians licensed
in another state to deliver health care services via
telehealth if there is an established physician-
patient relationship, an in-person physical exam,
and the services are related to ongoing treatment or
follow-up care related to past treatment. The
language also references new enforcement language in
Section 2.
Subsections (c) and (d) create limits for a
telehealth appointment. If a telehealth appointment
falls outside of a provider's authorized scope of
practice, they may refer a patient to an appropriate
clinician. The cost of a service delivered through
telehealth must be the same as if it were delivered
in person.
? Subsections (e), (f), and (g) ensure that only
authorized providers licensed with the State of
Alaska can prescribe controlled substances (e.g.,
buprenorphine, Adderall, etc.) via telehealth
without conducting an in-person visit. These
providers must comply with the state and federal
laws regarding the prescription of controlled
substances via telehealth.
o Subsection (e) pertains to providers in Title
8, Chapter 64 (Medicine) (i.e., physicians,
podiatrists, osteopaths and physician
assistants).
o Subsection (f) pertains to Advanced Practice
Registered Nurses (APRNs) in Title 8, Chapter
68 (Nursing).
Subsection (h) removes requirements to document all
attempts for an in-person visit and prevents the
department or board from limiting the physical
setting of a health care provider delivering
telehealth.
? Subsection (i) confirms that health care providers
under this section are not required to deliver
telehealth services.
? Subsection (j) provides definitions for all health
care providers applicable to this section, specifies
that the provider must be licensed in good standing,
and defines telehealth.
Section 2 Creates AS 08.64.33 defining the State
Medical Board's authority to enforce against exempted
physicians in Section 1 and ensures these providers
must comply with Alaska laws for licensed physicians.
o Subsection (a) describes the grounds for the board
to sanction a physician licensed in another state
providing telehealth services in Section 1: if
they violate Alaska laws for Alaska-licensed
physicians; exceed the defined scope of
telehealth services in Section 1; or prescribe,
administer, or dispense a controlled substance to
an Alaska patient located in the state.
o Subsection (b) and (c) ensures that the board can
enforce exempted physicians in the same manner as
Alaska-licensed physicians. In addition to this
authority, they can issue a ceaseand-desist
order and notify the licensing authority for each
state the physician is licensed.
o Subsection (d), (e), (g), and (h) details the
board's disciplinary actions for exempted
physicians, mirroring similar language regarding
sanctions for Alaska-licensed physicians.
o Subsection (f) ensures that the board can recover
costs related to the proceedings and
investigation directly from an exempted physician
in Section 1.
2:09:21 PM
Section 3 Amends language related to the prescription
of controlled substances via telehealth under the
State Medical Board. This deletes language requiring
an additional health care provider to assist a patient
during a telehealth appointment with a physician or
physician assistant regarding the prescription,
dispensing, and administration of controlled
substances.
2:09:45 PM
Section 4-5 Adds sections related to the prescription
of controlled substances via telehealth under the
Board of Nursing. This does not change the Board of
Nursing's authority or the scope of practice for APRNs
ensures regulatory equity between the Board of Nursing
and the State Medical Board regarding the prescription
of controlled substances via telehealth for all DEA-
registered practitioners.
? Section 4 amends the Board of Nursing's regulatory
authority to include controlled substances via
telehealth in Section 5, mirroring statutory
language for the State Medical Board.
? Section 5 creates a new section AS 08.68.710
defining the telehealth prescriptive authority of
APRNs in statute. This section removes the
regulatory in-person requirement for APRNs under
12 AAC 44.925(c), mirroring the deletion of
language for the State Medical Board in Section
3.
2:10:50 PM
Section 6 Adds a new section on telehealth under Title
18 for emergency medical services. This section
removes the requirement for an in-person examination
prior to a telehealth encounter. This section
replicates the same provisions on cost, scope of
services, documentation, physical setting, and patient
protections as Section 1.
Section 7 Adds a new section on telehealth payment
under Title 47 for Alaska Medicaid.
? Subsection (a) requires the Department of Health
to pay for telehealth services in the same manner
as an in person service for the following:
behavioral health services, home and community
based services (HCBS), services provided by a
community health aide or community health
practitioner, behavioral health aide or
behavioral health practitioner, dental health
aide therapist, chemical dependency counselor,
non-HCBS services covered under a federal waiver
or demonstration, other services provided by an
individual or entity eligible for department
certification and Medicaid reimbursement, and
services provided at rural clinics and federally
qualified health centers.
2:11:59 PM
This subsection also allows for a telehealth
visit to be conducted through any means which
could be useful in a patient-provider
relationship, including an audio-only (i.e.,
phone call) appointment.
? Subsection (b) requires the department to adopt
regulations regarding payment of telehealth
services. This provision also allows the
department to limit or restrict Medicaid coverage
under this section if a service delivered via
telehealth cannot be safely delivered according
to substantial medical evidence, or if the
federal government will not reimburse the
delivery of the service via telehealth.
? Subsection (c) specifies that the coverage of
services in Alaska Medicaid must be HIPAA
compliant.
Section 8-9 Adds sections on telehealth under Title 47
for grantees that deliver community mental health
services, or facilities approved by the department to
deliver substance use disorder treatment. Both
sections replicate the same telehealth provisions on
cost, scope of services, patient protections,
documentation, and physical setting as Section 1.
? Section 8 creates AS 47.30.585 to include entities
approved to receive grant funding by the
Department of Health to deliver community mental
health services.
? Section 9 creates AS 47.37.145 to include public
or private treatment facilities approved by the
Department of Health to deliver services
addressing substance use disorders.
Section 10 Provides an immediate effective date.
2:13:32 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO referenced Section 1(d) and shared a
constituent's experience of flying to Seattle and having a
telemedicine appointment while in the Board Room at the airport
because the physician was not licensed in Alaska. Following the
appointment, her constituent got back on a plane to return to
Alaska. She said she brought it up because there are Alaskans
who have established relationships with physicians that are not
licensed in Alaska and when COVID-19 happened those Alaskans
weren't able to travel to get care from those physicians. She
asked the sponsor to talk about the balance the bill strikes in
that regard and whether it also allows telemedicine counseling
and mental health appointments to be conducted by an attending
physician who is not licensed in Alaska.
2:15:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ replied that constituent's experience
is the reason for the provision in Section 1 of the bill. She
described the work to get stakeholders to agree to this narrow
exception and shared that her focus was to reduce unnecessary
travel while ensuring that Alaska licensees wouldn't bear the
cost of investigations into potential bad actors from out-of-
state. The bill authorizes the State Medical Board to recoup the
costs of those investigations.
She clarified that the bill does not provide an exception for
counseling and behavioral health care via telemedicine when the
provider is not licensed in Alaska. Licensing for the
professionals that typically provide this type of care is
simpler and less time consuming than for medical doctors.
According to the chair of the Psychology Board, it takes about
six weeks to get an Alaska license as a psychologist, whereas
the barrier is higher and it takes a lot longer to become
licensed as a physician in Alaska.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked Pam Ventgen whether the Alaska State
Medical Association supports the current version of HB 265.
2:18:19 PM
PAM VENTGEN, Executive Director, Alaska State Medical
Association (ASMA), Anchorage, Alaska, answered yes; ASMA fully
supports the current version of HB 265. ASMA worked closely with
the many stakeholders to craft the narrow language to allow out-
of-state specialists to continue to care for their Alaska
patients via telemedicine.
2:19:52 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO asked the sponsor to talk about the urgency and
timeliness of this legislation, and thus the reason for the
immediate effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained that both DCCED and DHSS
indicated they would be able to implement the legislation within
the 90-day window of an immediate effective date. This will
ensure that Alaskans continue to have access to the care they
have been receiving after the federal public health emergency
expires on July 22, 2022.
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that a constituent who is an optometrist
contacted his office to articulate the concern that the [Board
of Examiners in Optometry] did not feel that all examinations
can take place online via video. He asked how the bill proposes
to address those limited situations.
2:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ agreed that not all examinations are
appropriate for online. The decision in HB 265 was to provide a
framework for telehealth and leave the regulations for the many
individual license types to the appropriate board because they
have the expertise and understand the scope of practice better
than legislators.
SENATOR MICCICHE summarized that certain procedures could be
excluded from telehealth through regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ confirmed that was the intention
because it would be too onerous to define every license type by
statute.
CHAIR COSTELLO recognized Christopher Dietrich as the next
person invited to testify.
2:24:40 PM
CHRISTOPHER DIETRICH, Medical Director, Orion Behavioral Health
(OBH), Palmer, Alaska, testified by invitation in support of HB
265. He stated that he is a member of the American Academy of
Physician Assistants and on the board for PAs in Virtual
Medicine and Telemedicine. He opined that from a behavioral
health perspective, HB 265 will break down barriers to patient
care, particularly with controlled substances. OBH has many
patients from rural areas who currently have to travel to the
clinic to meet with a nurse and get medication to maintain their
behavioral health even when they have been taking the medication
for years. The bill will eliminate the need for much of this
travel, make it more likely that patients stay on their
medication, and reduce behavioral health crises. He also spoke
in support of payment parity for care delivered via
telemedicine.
2:27:55 PM
PHILIP LICHT, President and CEO, Set Free Alaska (SFA), Wasilla,
Alaska, testified by invitation in support of HB 265. He stated
that SFA offers substance abuse and mental health services in
both MatSu and Homer. It provides residential and outpatient
care for adults and behavioral health services for children. In
2016, SFA began exploring telehealth as a way to remove
barriers, such as lack of transportation, in an effort to
improve access to care. Individuals who need treatment for
substance abuse often don't have a driver's license, so getting
to an intensive outpatient treatment program several times a
week is extremely challenging. He cited a study from
Massachusetts that found that living more than a mile from their
intensive outpatient treatment center made it significantly less
likely that the client would complete their treatment. Clearly,
not many Alaskans who need treatment live within that critical
radius. When SFA started offering telehealth care they saw a
significant increase in show rates both pre and during the
pandemic. The point is that telehealth increases the likelihood
of successful outcomes for individuals who need substance abuse
and mental health services.
MR. LICHT mentioned payment parity and highlighted that SFA's
experience has been that telehealth is a little more expensive
to provide. Personnel costs and overhead remain the same, but
there has been an increase in costs due to the Zoom subscription
and the technology and hardware that's needed. Internet speed is
critical and it's more practical for each clinician to have dual
monitors so they can have clinical notes on one screen and the
clients on the other. For SFA it is very important that
telehealth appointments are reimbursed at the same rate as in-
person visits.
2:31:55 PM
NANCY MERRIMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Primary Care
Association (APCA), Anchorage, Alaska, provided the following
testimony in support of HB 265:
The Alaska Primary Care Association (APCA) supports
the operations and development of Alaska's 29 Health
Centers (also commonly referred to as Community Health
Centers or Federally Qualified Health Centers). Health
Centers provide comprehensive whole person care, which
includes medical, dental, behavioral, pharmacy and
care coordination services.
APCA and Alaska's Health Centers support HB265 because
it increases access to primary care and behavioral
health services and expands telehealth in Alaska. This
legislation:
? Includes a range of telehealth modalities, including
audio-only, now & into the future
? Allows patients and providers to engage in
telehealth services outside a clinic setting if they
so choose
? Provides adequate reimbursement for telehealth
visits, providing new points of access to whole person
care, including behavioral health and substance use
disorder treatment.
In the most recent year of full reporting, 2020,
Alaska's Health Centers served 105,000 patients
through 450,000 visits delivering medical, dental,
behavioral health, substance use disorder treatment
and other care. Behavioral health and substance use
disorder services are Health Centers' fastest growing
area of service. 40% of these visits were accommodated
via telehealth. In the subspecialty of substance use
disorder services, 45% of visits were via telehealth.
Alaska's Health Centers have weathered many emerging
challenges brought on by the pandemic and APCA
appreciates the actions taken by the Department of
Health Social Services, which have allowed Health
Centers to reach their patients via telehealth.
The temporary telehealth policy changes allowed Health
Centers to be recognized as telehealth treating
providers; to furnish some behavioral health services
via audio-only technology; and to be paid for
telehealth services furnished to Medicaid
beneficiaries under the Health Centers' unique payment
system, called the prospective payment system (PPS).
APCA supports HB265 as this key legislation allows
these temporary telehealth provisions to become
permanent for patients and providers in Alaska.
Health Centers, by definition, serve hard-to-reach
communities. The majority of Health Center patients
experience a range of challenges in accessing health
care that include facing long distances to reach local
providers, cost of care, transportation, language, and
cultural barriers. In Alaska, over half of Health
Center patients are racial/ethnic minorities, a
majority are low-income, and most patients live in
rural communities.
Health Centers can best serve their patient
populations if they have the ability to use technology
to better support their patients. Additionally,
workforce shortages, particularly in the behavioral
health sector, impact Health Centers uniquely as
nonprofit safety-net providers, and telehealth allows
Health Centers to use their clinical workforce most
nimbly.
In 2021, a cohort of health centers reported that [of]
their telehealth interactions, 59 percent occurred by
phone and 41 percent by audio and video. Through the
pandemic, demand for tele-behavioral health now
represents 35 percent of all telehealth usage.
Health Centers have witnessed how telehealth has
provided stronger continuity of care for patients,
reduced travel costs, has resulted in fewer dropped
visits and a reduction in delayed (and more costly)
care. We understand that delivering quality whole
person care ultimately leads to better health
outcomes, saves lives and in the long run, it saves on
cost.
MS. MERRIMAN urged the committee to support HB 265.
2:35:51 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO opened public testimony on HB 265.
2:36:10 PM
JAYNE ANDREEN, President, Alaska Public Health Association
(APHA), Douglas, Alaska, stated that she was testifying from a
personal perspective as well as on behalf of APHA in support of
HB 265. She shared that she and her husband had to make four
trips to Seattle for care in 2021. This was difficult and time
consuming despite having a good relationship with the out-of-
state provider. On the last trip they spent 10 minutes with the
specialist who said they were following the treatment plan and
that it was too bad the appointment couldn't have been done on
the phone. They left Juneau at 5:30 a.m. that morning and got
back to Juneau that evening at 9:30 p.m.
MS. ANDREEN emphasized that it was critical for Alaska to have a
good telehealth system that maintains Alaska's standards. For
this reason, she wholeheartedly supported HB 265.
2:37:57 PM
LARRY JOHANSEN, representing self, Ketchikan, Alaska, stated
that he was testifying in support of HB 265 because it will save
him money and allow him to receive the health care he needs. He
shared that he was diagnosed with Parkinson Disease 14 years ago
and has been able to keep the symptoms under control with expert
specialty care that is not available in Alaska. Early on he was
told he should move to Seattle, but he loves Alaska and doesn't
want to leave. He was living in Haines late last winter when he
got sick and had to go to Seattle to get the specialty treatment
he needed. He advocated for Alaskans to be able to access the
specialty care they need via telehealth using audio and video
and online computer-aided treatment. He restated his strong
support for HB 265.
2:44:19 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO closed public testimony on HB 265.
2:44:35 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to report HB 265, work order 32-LS0754\E,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
CHAIR COSTELLO found no objection and CSHB 265(FIN) was reported
from the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
She thanked the sponsor and her staff for the background work
that was done on the bill and voiced her personal support for
telemedicine for Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ thanked the chair and committee for
supporting the bill and offered to answer any additional
questions.
CHAIR COSTELLO noted that Senator Micciche asked Dr. Rathkopt to
follow up in writing about the cost for her office to provide
telemedicine compared to in-person visits. That information
would be forwarded to the next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said she'd make sure the committee
received the information.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Jody Miller Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| Hannah St. George Application_Redacted.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES |
| HB 265 v. E.PDF |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 Sponsor Statement v. E.pdf |
SFIN 5/12/2022 1:00:00 PM SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 Sectional Analysis v. E.pdf |
SFIN 5/12/2022 1:00:00 PM SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 Explanation of Changes v. W to v. E.pdf |
SFIN 5/12/2022 1:00:00 PM SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 Presentation 04.28.22.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 Testimony Received as of 04.28.22.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 306 v. A.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| HB 306 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| HB 306 Sectional Analysis v. A.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| HB 306 Legislative Audit Division Sunset Review BOP 7.15.21.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| HB 306 Letters of Support received as of 2.25.22.pdf |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| HB 306 Fiscal Note 2360 - DCCED.PDF |
SL&C 5/2/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 306 |