Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
01/22/2018 03:15 PM House 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 | |
| HB273 | |
| HB274 | |
| HB275 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 274 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 275-EXTEND: BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
4:21:01 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 275, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Massage Therapists; and providing for an effective
date."
4:21:20 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement [Included in
members' packets], which read:
House Bill 275 extends the termination date for the
Board of Massage Therapists until June 30, 2022.
Per statute, this board is scheduled to sunset on June
30, 2018 with a one-year wind down if the legislature
does not pass legislation extending it. The licensing
function will remain after this date; however, the
administrative functions of the board would transfer
to the department.
Legislative Audit reviewed the board's operations and
determined that it is in the best interest of the
state to extend this board. The audit makes three
recommendations and recommends a four-year extension
with a new termination date of June 30, 2022. This is
half of the full eight-year extension that Legislative
Audit is authorized to provide.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. The Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing's (DCBPL) director, in
consultation with the board, should take action to
improve procedures to ensure licensure requirements
are met.
2. DCBPL's director should address the Federal Bureau
of Investigations audit findings and concerns.
3. The director of the Office of the Governor, Boards
and Commissions should work to fill the public member
position.
The board currently oversees over 1,400 active
licensees and is made up of five members. State law
requires four board positions be filled by licensed
massage therapists actively engaged in the practice of
massage therapy for a period of three years
immediately preceding the appointment. The remaining
position is to be filled by an individual from the
general public. Statute prohibits the public member
from being a licensed health care provider, an
employee of the State, or a current or former member
of another occupational licensing board.
The continuation of the Board of Massage Therapists is
important to the health and safety of Alaskans.
4:23:15 PM
KRISTIN CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, directed attention to the sunset
review audit, also dated October 2017, [Included in member's
packets], and paraphrased from the report conclusions, which
read:
In all areas except licensing, the audit found the
board was operating in the public's interest. In
general, meetings were conducted effectively,
investigations were appropriately processed, and the
board actively issued or changed regulations to
improve the industry and better protect the public.
The audit concluded the board and DCBPL staff should
improve its licensing procedures. Testing found that
applicants were not consistently issued licenses in
accordance with statutes, regulations, and/or
procedures. Additionally, improvements are needed to
comply with the federal standards over criminal
history record information obtained as part of the
licensing process.
In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(12), the board is
scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend
that the legislature extend the board's termination
date to June 30, 2022.
MS. CURTIS directed attention to page 11 of the sunset review,
which listed the schedule of licensing activity, and reported
that from FY16 through August 2017, the board had issued 1,186
licenses, which was double the expected number. She moved on to
page 14, the Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures, noting that,
as the board had a surplus of $265,000 at the end of FY17, the
license fees were lowered in FY18 to address the surplus. She
pointed out that the license fees were listed on page 15.
MS. CURTIS reported that there were three recommendations, and
she paraphrased from the first recommendation, "Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing's (DCBPL)
director, in consultation with the Board of Massage Therapists
(board), should take action to improve procedures to ensure
licensure requirements are met," which read:
Three of 31 license applications tested as part of the
audit were licensed without adequate supporting
documentation and/or review. Deficiencies included:
A background check report for one initial applicant
was not completed. The licensee operated without a
background check report from licensure date of
September 2015 through receipt of the background check
report July 2017 during the license renewal process.
Regulation6 requires applicants submit their
fingerprints for a background check report in order to
obtain a license to practice massage therapy. Per
regulation, licenses can be issued to applicants even
though a background check report has not been
received. However, DCBPL staff must ensure the
background check is completed timely. The applicant's
fingerprint card was sent back multiple times due to
incomplete information. DCBPL staff did not perform
additional follow-up to obtain a completed fingerprint
card because staff failed to list the applicant on the
DCBPL spreadsheet used for tracking background
reports.
One applicant answered "yes" to a professional
fitness question, however no evidence could be located
to demonstrate that the applicant provided an
explanation. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the
board considered an explanation prior to licensing.
One applicant answered "yes" to a professional fi
question and provided an explanation which included
evidence of a permanent revocation of a national board
certification for violating the respective code of
ethics and standards of practice. DCBPL staff and the
board did not forward the application to the
investigative section for review. A license was
granted with the requirement that the individual take
a two credit ethics course. The background check did
not show any convictions, and according to the board
chair, the board believed that a license could not be
denied based on the revocation of a national
certificate. However, DCBPL procedures called for the
application to be forwarded to investigations for
further review. It is unclear why DCBPL staff did not
forward the application.
Alaska Statute 08.61.030(9) states that:
The board may issue a license to a person who has not
been convicted of, or pled guilty or no contest to, a
crime involving moral turpitude, or who has been
convicted of, or pled guilty or no contest to, a crime
involving moral turpitude if the board finds that the
conviction does not affect the person's ability to
practice competently and safely.
The lack of a thorough and timely evaluation of the
above applicants' professional fitness increased the
risk to public safety.
We recommend DCBPL's director, in consultation with
the board, take action to improve procedures to ensure
licensure requirements are met.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased from the second recommendation, "DCBPL's
director should address the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI) audit findings and concerns," which read:
DCBPL did not comply with federal standards over
criminal history record information. The FBI audit
conducted in April 2017 found DCBPL did not have
secure channels of communication. Additionally,
applicants were not notified in writing that their
fingerprints were to be used for an FBI background
check and were not advised of the procedures for
obtaining, changing, correcting, or updating an FBI
identification record. Additionally, the federal audit
found inadequate chain of custody for fingerprint
cards. A chain of custody ensures the integrity of the
applicant/fingerprint process.
DCBPL addressed one of the findings by including
verbiage in the application that submitted
fingerprints will be sent to the FBI for a federal
background check. However, as of October 2017, the
other issues remain outstanding.
According to 28 CFR 20.21(f)(1), (2), and (3),
whichever State agency collects, stores, and
disseminates criminal history record information must
prevent unauthorized access to information; ensure
that the information is restricted to authorized
users; and that the information cannot be modified,
destroyed, accessed, changed, purged, or overlaid by
other entities. Additionally, per 28 CFR 50.12(b),
applicants must be advised of procedures for obtaining
a change, correction, or updating FBI identification
records.
Per DCBPL management, staff was unaware the
communications and fingerprint cards did not meet
federal standards. Ensuring data is secure protects
individual privacy and promotes public safety.
We recommend DCBPL's director address the FBI audit
findings and concerns.
Auditor's Note: Details regarding the unsecure
channels of communication are being withheld from this
report to prevent the weakness from being exploited.
Pertinent details have been communicated to agency
management in a separate confidential document.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased from recommendation 3, "The director of
the Office of the Governor, Boards and Commissions should work
to fill the public member position," which read:
The public member position on the board became vacant
March 2017 and remained vacant as of October 2017.
Per AS 08.61.010, the board is statutorily required to
consist of five members appointed by the governor, one
of which is a public member who is not a licensed
health care provider, employee of the State, or a
current or former member of another occupation
licensing board. According to Boards and Commissions
staff, stringent requirements make it difficult to
find interested applicants. The Office of the
Governor, Boards and Commissions section is
responsible for actively recruiting, interviewing, and
vetting board applicants.
The lack of a public board member prevents the board
from conducting business with appropriate public input
and perspective.
We recommend the director of the Office of the
Governor, Boards and Commissions work to fill the
public member position.
MS. CURTIS added that the public member to the board may not be
a licensed health care provider, an employee of the state, and
may not be a current or former member of another occupational
licensing board. She pointed out that these restrictive
requirements could make it difficult to find interested
applicants.
4:28:59 PM
MS. CURTIS directed attention to the response from the Office of
the Governor on page 29, which agreed to work to help fill the
public member position, with a recommendation for the board to
pursue a legislative fix to those restrictive requirements. She
noted that the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development response was on page 31, and that the department
agreed that additional checks were necessary to ensure the
administrative record was complete. The department added that
additional supervisory resources were necessary to help meet the
standards. She addressed the response from the Board of Massage
Therapists on page 33, recounting an agreement with the
conclusions and recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON questioned where the documentation and
applications were housed as the board did not have an office.
MS. CURTIS explained that, for this audit, the applicant was
going to a certified person for fingerprinting, and then the
fingerprint card was given back to the applicant for mailing.
She declared that this problematic, as it allowed for tampering.
She added that she was not aware of the final destination for
these cards. She said that Representative Josephson would need
to direct his question to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for verification that prior to the
formation of the Board, a massage therapist was not able to bill
an insurance company, but that the Board now enabled that
billing.
MS. CURTIS offered her understanding that previously the massage
therapists had to work through another health care professional
to bill insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked why there was a recurring requirement
for the submission of fingerprints.
MS. CURTIS reported that this requirement was helpful for
combatting human trafficking and the problems from the sex trade
industry and she offered her belief that this was not unusual.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mused that anyone operating illegally would
not register or submit their fingerprints and pointed out that
there was not a requirement for fingerprints when purchasing a
gun.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if massage establishments were
licensed and if it was necessary to be a licensed massage
therapist to own a massage establishment.
MS. CURTIS replied that there was interest in the law
enforcement community for licensing massage establishments to
help combat human trafficking, although, she opined, it was not
a current requirement. She pointed out that this would require
a statutory change.
4:35:54 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Deputy Director, Juneau Office, Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, in response to
the question regarding licensing of massage establishments, said
that these establishments were not licensed, although it was of
keen interest to law enforcement. She offered her belief that a
bill was to be introduced to address this.
CHAIR KITO noted that she was referencing proposed HB 110.
MS. CHAMBERS reported that all the documents were kept in the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
offices, and on a secure data base. She said that any necessary
files were transferred electronically to the board. She noted
that, as a review by the FBI suggested that the system was not
secure, a new system had been put in place which met all the
standards. She acknowledged that a primary reason for the board
had been to allow for billing to insurance when working
independently. She stated that this was the only licensing
program which required fingerprinting upon every renewal, a
higher standard than any of the other licensing boards.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL questioned having the burden on the board
members for illicit activity associated with the profession.
MS. CHAMBERS relayed that this was the determination by the
legislature when authorizing the board.
4:40:27 PM
DAVID EDWARDS-SMITH, Chair, Board of Massage Therapists, said
that a lot had been accomplished with the partnership of the
division since the first board meeting in January 2015. He
noted that this was the first sunset audit, that it was very
positive, and the board was in support of it. He added that the
board was moving from its "start-up version of the board" toward
board operations. He posed whether it was necessary or
important to have a board and then stated that the real question
was: "How can we not have a Board of Massage Therapists?" He
pointed to the diversity of techniques in the profession and
stated that it took a board of professionals with experience in
the field to "be able to navigate this diversity because we need
to be able to put those techniques into context of the standards
and practice and code of ethics that massage therapists are held
to." He said that these standards assured the public that there
was a process in place. He stated the board also put into
context these standards in a variety of settings, including spa
settings, chiropractic clinics, physical therapy clinics, and
airports. He reported that a look at the science of radiology,
cardiology, and others revealed a lot of funding for the
practice of these sciences, whereas, massage therapy was still
an emerging science with different education and career
opportunities as the profession changed. He reported that the
board had reviewed 1,400 licenses, and that about 30 percent of
those licenses had yes answers to professional fitness
questions. He pointed out that, during the tenure of the board,
there had been four different licensing examiners.
4:44:58 PM
VOLKER HRUBY, President, American Massage Therapy Association
(AMTA) - Alaska Chapter, said that he had been a massage
therapist for 13 years, working in the spa industry, medical
massage, and private practice. He noted that the recent audit
pointed out that having a regulatory board allowed massage
therapists to establish themselves as health care professionals,
bill health insurance, create a legal way for the public to file
a complaint, give voice to the public over the practice of
massage therapy, and hold massage therapists accountable through
licensure. He offered his belief that the board should be
extended for these same reasons. He pointed out that Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED) provided
administrative support for the board. He offered his
understanding that failure to pass HB 275 would necessitate the
duties of the board revert to the Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing in DCCED. He opined that
the division did not possess the capacity or specific expertise
that the the massage therapists serving on the board brought for
oversight in the industry. He offered his belief that the board
had done "an excellent job of enacting regulations to implement
statutes in a short time period." He reported that the board
had issued 1,186 new licenses, almost double the number
projected. He lauded the board members, pointing out that each
of them was committed to improvement for any shortcomings
outlined in the [sunset] audit. He stated support for the
proposed bill and declared his firm belief that to fulfill the
mission of the board to provide public safety for massage
consumers and to regulate the profession by setting and
maintaining industry standards, the Board of Massage Therapists
must be extended.
CHAIR KITO stated that HB 180 would be postponed.
4:48:27 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 275.
4:48:52 PM
KIM VERREYDT shared her experience as a health care provider for
almost 30 years, as a massage therapist and a flight paramedic.
She declared her support of HB 275. She stated her belief that
all health care professionals should be regulated.
4:49:58 PM
JANE GNASS stated that she had been licensed massage therapist
for 20 years and that she was both state and nationally board
certified. She declared her support for the extension of the
termination date of the Board of Massage Therapists. She
emphasized that the Board ensured "consistent and professional
standards," and that it helped to "elevate our profession."
4:51:13 PM
JILL MOTZ reported that she currently held positions on both the
state Board of Massage Therapists and the Alaska American
Massage Therapy Association boards and that she had been
practicing massage therapy since 2003. She shared her
background working as a massage therapist. She declared her
support for HB 275, stating that it was "excellent for small
businesses, communities, therapists, and most importantly,
consumers."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the fingerprint requirement was
burdensome.
MS. MOTZ replied that this requirement was often discussed at
board meetings and that there had been attempts to change this
requirement to once every three cycles.
4:53:59 PM
YAEL HICKOK stated that she had been a massage therapist since
1999. She declared that she was against HB 275. Although she
supported the licensing for massage therapists, she opposed
extending the board. She added that the licensing was helpful,
especially for the ability to bill insurance and allow massage
therapists to be independent. She noted that, although the
licensing was supposed to reduce crime and sex trafficking, that
had not been proven to happen. She declared that the licensing
fees were ridiculous, and she listed the various fees. She
stated that it did not make sense to have to repeatedly be
fingerprinted. She expressed her support for the licensing,
even as there was not a need for the board. She shared the
results of a Facebook survey of massage therapists, in which 44
percent of the 121 respondents said they wanted to eliminate the
board and continue licensing, while 24 percent said they wanted
to continue licensing as it was, 14 percent said they wanted to
eliminate licensing, and 18 percent said they did not know. She
added that she had not shared her own opinion during the survey.
She declared that the survey and responses on Facebook indicated
that many of the massage therapists were unhappy with the board,
with many complaints for the amount of time necessary to receive
a license. She shared that communication with the board had
been problematic, reporting that she had never been notified for
the scheduling of a meeting. She emphasized that the board had
a responsibility to represent the licensees. She offered that
it was a possibility to have a board at some future date if the
massage therapists were more involved in the creation of the
board, noting that the idea for licensing without a board had
not been discussed. She reported that her fees cost her more
than a month's wages, which she deemed to be inexcusable.
5:00:45 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 275 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB274 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB274A.PDF |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB274 Legislative Audit 10.5.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB273 Sponsor Statement 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB273 Ver D 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB273 Legislative Audit 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB275 Version D 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Sponsor Statement 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Legislative Audit 10.11.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB180 Fiscal note DCCED-DBS 5.8.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 HLC Follow Up 5.15.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Support Document Money Services Act Powerpoint 5.8.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Sectional Analysis 5.2.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 ver. A 5.2.17.PDF |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Sponsor Statement 5.2.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB275 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB274 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB273 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB180 Fiscal note DCCED-DBS 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| PrepaidAccountsFinalRule CFPB 2016-24503.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Money Services Business 1.22.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB275 Opposition Letters 01.22.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Support Letters 1.24.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |