Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/14/2016 08:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB130 | |
| HB314 | |
| SB130 | |
| HCR4 | |
| HB77 | |
| SB130 | |
| SB206 | |
| SB130 | |
| SB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 314 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to the practice of optometry."
9:15:15 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Micciche.
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation:
This bill moves the continuing education (CE)
requirements back into regulation, as desired by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development. Continuing education is still required by
current statute, but the hours and subjects will be
determined by the Board of Optometry, as with other
professions. The current regulations require more CE
hours than the statute subsection deleted by this
bill.
SB 55 allows the board to determine prescribed drug
schedules anticipating federal regulations that may
change again in the future as they did in 2014; that
regulation required another statute change, and this
bill would allow the board to move in step with its
industry.
This bill updates the optometry definition to reflect
current education and training, but specifically
prohibits invasive surgery. This allows for future new
and improved diagnostic and therapeutic procedures as
determined by the board, while not having to return to
the legislature for every new technological advance.
It also defines that optometrists must be qualified
for any procedure that they perform.
This bill also further defines and clarifies the
prohibited surgical procedures under an "invasive
surgery" definition. Alaska optometrists already do
superficial surgical procedures such as removal of
corneal foreign bodies under current statute, but
nothing invasive would be allowed.
9:24:31 AM
Senator Bishop thought the bill's purpose was clear. He
referred to the bill allowing "new and improved diagnostic
and therapeutic procedures." He wondered whether that was a
"catch all" or would there be additional efforts to assist
the optometrist.
Senator Giessel deferred to an optometrist.
9:25:53 AM
JANE CONWAY, STAFF, SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, discussed the
sectional analysis (copy on file):
1. Section 1
Amends 08.72.050 Regulations. Adds to this section the
power for the board to adopt regulations allowing the
prescription and pharmaceutical agents for the
treatment of eye disease and also that under agreement
with the State Medical Board, it will describe the
scope of practice for a licensee to perform ophthalmic
surgery and noninvasive procedures.
2. Section 2.
Amends 08.72.181 (d) by requiring specified hours and
period of continuing education requirements for the
renewal of an optometrist's license but retains
delegation of those requirements to the board in
regulation.
3. Section 3.
Repeals and reenacts AS 08.72.272(a) to provide that
pharmaceutical agents, including controlled
substances, may be used by a licensed optometrist if
consistent with standards adopted by the board and any
limitations on practice under section 5 of the bill.
4. Section 4.
08.72.272 amends and adds new subsections prohibiting
an optometrist to make injections into the ocular
globe of the eye and limits the prescribing of a
controlled substance in a quantity exceeding a 7-day
supply and requires a referral to a physician or
ophthalmologist if a longer prescription is needed.
5. Section 5.
08.72 is amended and a new section is added 08.72.278
Limitation on Practice. Provides that a licensee may
perform only services within the licensee's education,
training and experience as provided by board
regulation.
6. Section 6
08.72.300(3) revises the definition of optometry.
9:28:17 AM
JILL MATHESON, ALASKA OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, testified in
support of the bill.
Senator Bishop asked Ms. Matheson to restate her concern.
Ms. Matheson replied at Section 1, line 6.
Senator Olson asked if Ms. Matheson had been on the
Optometry Board.
Ms. Matheson stated she was on the board for eight years,
and in that time there had been no complaints.
Senator Olson asked how the bill changed the scope of
practice for optometrists.
Ms. Matheson thought the bill allowed for optometrists to
provide for patients at the highest level of care.
Senator Olson asked if Ms. Matheson had ever practiced in
rural Alaska.
Ms. Matheson replied in the negative.
9:35:10 AM
JEFF GONNASON, LEGISLATIVE CHAIR, ALASKA OPTOMETRY
ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), testified in support of
the bill.
Senator Olson wondered if there were any other trained
professions that were classified under two boards.
Mr. Gonnason replied in the negative.
9:40:24 AM
Senator Olson wondered if there were any significant
changes in training.
Mr. Gonnason relayed that medicine, dentistry, optometry,
and health care had expanded greatly in ten to twenty
years. There were new drugs and procedures.
9:41:39 AM
DR. PAUL BARNEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He
thought the CS for SB 55 (L&C) was excellently written with
the exception of the aforementioned language specifying the
State Medical Board. He urged the committee to strike the
State Medical Board language from the bill.
9:46:22 AM
DR. CARL ROSEN, OPTHAMOLOGIST, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill. He
discussed primary eye care, which was part of his purview.
He thought the bill was a big pivot point for optometry,
and urged caution. He thought it was important that the
State Medical Board was involved.
Senator Olson thanked Dr. Rosen for practicing in the
state. He asked if Dr. Rosen had ever been on the medical
board. He shared that he had never been an elected member
of the medical board. Dr. Rosen replied in the negative,
but he had worked closely with someone on the medical
board.
Senator Olson asked if Dr. Rosen was familiar with the
training for optometrists. Dr. Rosen recounted that he had
visited an optometry school, and was boycotted. He stressed
that ophthalmology was a select sub-specialty within
medicine.
9:52:47 AM
Senator Olson asked if Dr. Rosen had ever practiced in
rural Alaska. Dr. Rosen replied in the negative.
Senator Olson wondered if the ophthalmologists were behind
the negative media advertisements.
Mr. Rosen stressed that it was an onerous task to testify
about this issue. He remarked that optometrists should
become ophthalmologists, should they want to achieve the
proposals laid out in the legislation.
Senator Olson commented that he was somewhat offended by
the advertisements.
9:55:18 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked for an explanation of what the bill
would allow or not allow optometrists to do in terms of
surgery.
Senator Giessel stated that there were invasive surgeries
that ophthalmologists did on the eye that were prohibited.
Senator Dunleavy asked about the surface of the eye, and
procedures such as Lasik surgery or cataracts. He wondered
what medical professionals currently performed the surgery.
Senator Giessel believed that Lasik and cataracts surgeries
were not performed by optometrists.
10:00:40 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche referred to Section 4 and Section 5,
which discussed the limitations of optometry practice.
Senator Bishop felt that there could be a referral for an
emergency procedure.
Senator Giessel thought that certainly a fish hook
penetrating the globe of the eye in to the vitreous, and
remarked there would probably be a referral. She shared
that telehealth was currently expanding.
10:04:02 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche CLOSED public testimony.
Senator Olson asked about medical professionals that were
governed by two boards.
SARA CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION
OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
stated that the current model was not like any other model.
Senator Olson wondered whether the medical board could take
action against the licensee.
Ms. Chambers looked at page 1, line 12, which posed
logistical concerns. She noted that because AS 08.08.64
were not amended, there was not requirement for the medical
board to enter into an agreement with the Board of
Examiners in Optometry. She felt that there were some
logistical concerns that would stymie the efforts of the
bill.
Senator Olson wondered whether the department was in
support of the current version of the bill.
Ms. Chambers replied that the department did not have a
position on the bill. There was concern with the logistics
and operations. There were conversations with the
Department of Law.
Senator Olson agreed with that concern.
Senator Dunleavy asked why the department had not taken a
position on the bill.
Ms. Chambers stated that when there was a clear desire from
one board to accomplish a goal, the department may take a
position to support the board. She remarked that there were
two entities involved in support and opposition to the
bill, so the department would not take a position.
10:08:02 AM
Senator Dunleavy thought it made sense that the department
should take a position, when the issue was related to a
life or death situation. He wondered if the bill contained
anything dangerous. He assumed that not taking a position
indicated no problem with the bill.
Senator Olson replied that the department was not full of
trained medical professionals.
Senator Dunleavy thought the bills he had sponsored had
garnered opinions from those who were not experts in the
field.
Vice-Chair Micciche thought it was specifically a "Dunleavy
problem."
10:09:58 AM
Senator Olson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "by agreement with the State Medical
Board."
Vice-Chair Micciche OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Olson explained the amendment. He felt that
optometrists should not be overseen by two boards.
Co-Chair Kelly asked the sponsor's opinion on the
amendment.
Senator Giessel expressed her support for the amendment.
Vice-Chair Micciche removed his objection. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that the committee would hold
the bill. He discussed the afternoon schedule.
SB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.