Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/24/2016 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| Presentation on Telehealth | |
| HB344 | |
| HB315 | |
| HB328 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 328 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 344-DRUG PRESCRIPTION DATABASE
4:04:12 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 344, "An Act relating to the controlled substance
prescription database; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 344, Version 29-LS1378\N, Bruce, 3/14/16, as a working
document.]
4:04:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:04 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.
4:07:40 PM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 29-LS1378\N.3,
which read:
Page 16, line 16, following "patient":
Insert "more than a three-day supply of"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion.
CHAIR SEATON explained that this amendment would add an
exemption to the mandatory review of the database required in
Sec. 19, page 16, lines 14-20. The exemption would mean that a
practitioner or pharmacist would not be required to check the
database if they are dispensing a controlled substance with a
supply of three days or less. Although, they could still check
but there would not be a requirement to check.
4:08:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that it reads more than a three day
and surmised that it includes the third day.
CHAIR SEATON agreed, and said three days or less.
4:09:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR removed her objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
4:10:00 PM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 3, Version 29-LS1378\N.5,
which read:
Page 17, line 17, following "state":
Insert "for an occupation or activity listed
under AS 08.01.010"
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for discussion.
CHAIR SEATON referred to Sec. 20, subsection (q), page 17, lines
15-17, which read:
(q) A pharmacist or practitioner may only
delegate access to the database under (b) or (d) of
this section to an employee or agent who is licensed
or registered in the state.
CHAIR SEATON explained that the amendment would clarify that the
person must be licensed or registered for an occupation or
activity listed in AS 08.01.010. The reason being to make clear
that they must be licensed or registered with the Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing and not some
unintended registration, such as the sex offender registry,
thereby, designating which licenses or registration would be
covered, he advised.
4:11:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
4:11:47 PM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 4, Version 29-LS1378\N.6,
which read:
Page 18, line 15, following "TRANSITION.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 18, following line 18:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) On or before October 1, 2019, the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development shall solicit comments on the level of
burden on providers created by the review requirement
in AS 17.30.200(k)(4), enacted by sec. 19 of this Act.
The department shall summarize, in a report to the
legislature, the comments received by the department
and its findings based on the comments. The department
shall deliver the report to the senate secretary and
the chief clerk of the house of representatives not
later than October 1, 2019, and notify the legislature
that the report is available. The legislature may
assess whether the review requirement under AS
17.30.200(k)(4), enacted by sec. 19 of this Act,
remains necessary or if alternative language should be
considered based on the report."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for discussion.
CHAIR SEATON explained that the amendment would add to the
uncodified law, under Sec. 22 of the HB 334. He paraphrased
that the amendment directs the Department of Commerce, Community
& Economic Development to solicit comments from providers
regarding the level of burden on providers created by the review
requirement of AS 17.30.200(k)(4) and to deliver to the
legislature a report summarizing the comments and the Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development's findings based
on the comments. The report would be due October 1, 2019, and
the legislature may assess whether the review requirement is
still necessary or whether alternative language would be
preferable. Basically, he pointed out, this directs the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development to
collect comments on the burden on providers created by the
requirement to review the database prior to prescribing,
dispensing, or administering, and the department would then
present comments to the legislature with the findings. The
legislature would then have the option to re-examine and review
the requirement. It is not a sunset but it is a review and
report. The date of October 1, 2019 would give the department
two years and three months from the effective date to collect
these comments and generate a report.
4:13:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked who would prepare the report because
the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED) is the stop gap to move the database over to the
department as it does the professional licensing, but is the
department well equipped to receive comments. For example, the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) is regularly
communicating with its Medicaid providers, and suggested that
possibly it should be DCCED and DHSS.
CHAIR SEATON said he presumed that each one of the professional
boards would be handling those, and called on Ms. Janey Hovenden
to respond.
4:14:54 PM
JANEY HOVENDEN, Director, Division of Corporations, Business,
and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, explained that as she reads the amendment,
the program coordinator would coordinate all information with
all of the different boards and members in licensing, which is
how a survey would be generated. The survey would go out to all
registered people with a database and solicit their input,
collect the information and prepare the required report to the
legislature, she said.
4:15:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether she felt equipped to handle
this task and the volume of respondents which could be in the
hundreds or thousands. She further asked that whether with
existing resources the department would be able to pull together
a report, or whether the report would be a self-generated report
with something such as "Survey Monkey and that would be
sufficient.
MS. HOVENDEN replied that even though the department is slowly
gathering email addresses it isn't quite equipped for that and
would notify as it does all regulation projects or anything like
that, send snail mail to everyone. The program coordinator
being requested in this bill would spearhead that entire project
as one of the duties of the position.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that sounds more realistic in terms
of a hefty project and she did not know what to expect and
sometimes given the opportunity people have a lot to say.
CHAIR SEATON commented that he agrees that without a program
coordinator if the legislature was just dumping this on the
department, which would not be something that would be easily
handled.
4:17:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether this project could be
performed in a timely fashion. She described concern that
people cannot receive a response from the Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, currently.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that there is a program coordinator
hired for this specific coordination of the database and it is
not giving the department another job. The description of a
program coordinator is located within the fiscal note and the
report period is for two years and three months only. There
will be a summary of the problems received prepared for the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the coordinator would work
under the Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional
Licensing.
MS. HOVENDEN replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said that was her concern.
4:19:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said she likes the intent of the
amendment in receiving feedback from providers regarding the
burden that will be placed upon them, but she is concerned there
will not be feedback until three and one-half years away because
that is too long of a period of time. At most it should be one
year from now, or something in January, 2017. Although, she
commented, not all of the information will have been received to
assess the type of burden but there would be an initial
indication and annual reports thereafter. She referred to line
11 of Amendment 4, and pointed out that the amendment states a
report shall be submitted on "not later than October 1, 2019,"
and it is now March 24, 2016.
4:20:32 PM
CHAIR SEATON explained that the effective date is July 2017.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked to shorten the time frame in order
to know the type of burden it will impose on the providers.
4:21:08 PM
CHAIR SEATON responded that he was trying to give at least one
year of the program being in effect to coordinate that
information in an effective manner, and this is not an annual
report. He remarked he has tried to eliminate some of the
burden by allowing the chief pharmacist to also authorize
someone who is licensed or registered in the health field, and
there is accountability against their license. The testimony
the committee received was that the department is the busiest at
the end of the legislature or the fiscal year and the best time
to prepare the report is October or November so it would be
ready for the legislature in the following year. He commented
that preparing a report in June or July for the legislature may
not be reviewed until the next session, and receiving a shorter
term report wouldn't cover an entire year's worth of the program
and the intention is to calculate feedback. In the event the
committee does not wish to have a report, he said he could
remove the report.
4:23:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that the effective date is July 1,
2017, and a full year would be 2018, and suggested using January
1, 2019.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the department could change the
report date.
MS. HOVENDEN responded that the report will be presented
whenever it is requested.
4:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 4, to change the date on line 6 to January 1, 2019;
and on line 11 to change the date to January 1, 2019.
CHAIR SEATON objected. He surmised that it would be Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 to change October 1, 2019, to January
1, 2019, on line 6 and line 11.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed.
4:25:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that based on the pharmacist's comments
that expressed possibly foreseeable problems, he opined that it
gives them a year to evaluate, and after that year the
department has five months to complete a report. He related
that it is a good timeline.
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 was adopted.
4:26:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR removed her objection to Amendment 4 as
amended. There being no objection, Amendment 4, as amended, was
adopted.
4:27:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report CSHB 344, Version 29-
LS1378\N, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 344(HSS) was reported from the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee