Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/16/2021 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB65 | |
| SB70 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 65-LIABILITY CONSULTING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
1:31:39 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to immunity for consulting physicians,
podiatrists, osteopaths, advanced practice registered nurses,
physician assistants, dentists, optometrists, and pharmacists."
He stated his intent to hear an overview of the bill and take
testimony and hold the bill for further consideration. He
invited sponsor Senator Kiehl and his staff to the table.
1:32:13 PM
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
Sponsor of SB 65, introduced himself.
1:32:29 PM
CJ HARRELL, Intern, Senator Jesse Kiehl, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that in Alaska and other
states, healthcare providers will seek the knowledge and
expertise of fellow medical professionals to help them
understand how to help their patients in an effective and timely
manner. These conversations can be an official consultation, but
more often than not, medical professionals will have what are
called curbside consultations. This is when a patient's
healthcare provider has an uncompensated, informal consultation
with another medical professional. These consulting medical
professionals are often specialists and do not have any
relationship with the patient under discussion. It is a fast and
effective way of sharing knowledge and expertise and is the
backbone of medical care. Two years ago in Minnesota a
healthcare provider who had no relationship to a patient was
forced to defend themselves against a civil liability case. The
fear is that by not protecting those who have no relationship to
a patient and are sharing their expertise through a curbside
consultation providers will no longer feel comfortable aiding
fellow healthcare providers in that way. SB 65 will allow
curbside consultations to continue, but without the potential to
become subject to civil liability for a patient with whom they
have no actual relationship.
1:33:59 PM
SENATOR BEGICH commented that there had been good conversations
last year about a similar bill. He sees that most of the changes
were incorporated in this version of the bill. He noted he spoke
to Senator Kiehl a bit about the telehealth issues. Now that the
emergency order which extended telehealth is gone, he asked
Senator Kiehl if the bill has any relationship to telehealth
that could be explored.
SENATOR KIEHL replied he doesn't see a hook to telehealth, which
is generally direct patient care and if not face-to-face,
camera-to-camera, which does establish a doctor patient
relationship. There is a duty of care. Curbside consults
frequently involve doctors on the phone, but the consulting
doctor is not seeing the patient.
SENATOR BEGICH clarified that in a three-person scenario, there
is a curbside consult, the doctor who is dealing with the
patient, and the patient.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that in that scenario, the treating
healthcare professional may seek a curbside consult with a
colleague. This bill protects that curbside consult as long as
the consulting physician is not laying hands on the patient,
even virtually. Therefore, they would not be liable.
SENATOR BEGICH asked what the estimated cost is to Alaskans if
this bill did not pass, in terms of things like liability
insurance. He asked if that is what is driving the bill.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that cost of liability is one of the key
drivers. The financial cost would be difficult to figure out.
The potential for increased medical malpractice costs is
significant, although he doesn't have a number for that. The
potential cost to the healthcare system as a whole is much
greater. The potential is the effect on a doctor who might
previously have called a specialist about a transport or a
referral for a workup. When the answer can safely be no, a lot
of money is saved compared to the specialist not being available
for a free consult and saying the patient must be sent. That is
a risk the state needs to avoid.
1:38:03 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the bill has any protection in regard
to administering the mRNA vaccines.
SENATOR KIEHL replied not directly, but he could see the
potential implication. If a healthcare provider had a patient
who is medically fragile or has complicating medical conditions
and wanted to call a specialist to see if those contraindicted
giving the shot, the state would want them to be able to make
that call and SB 65 would help make that a safe call.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the bill protects the person
administering the shot.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that that person lays hands on the
patient and would retain whatever liability that person would
otherwise have if there was a bad reaction that might cause
liability.
SENATOR REINBOLD advised that safety with vaccines will be a top
issue with her. She wanted to make sure there were zero
protections regarding vaccinations. The Judiciary Committee has
talked about informed consent required with emergency use
authorization of vaccines. She hopes the long-term effects are
fine, but no one knows what they are. She is happy to know there
is zero protection for those people involved with vaccines in
this bill.
1:41:05 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked about a scenario in which someone in a
coffee line asks a provider who has not treated or done an exam
of that person for advice and that person takes that advice, but
the person has an adverse reaction when following that advice.
She asked if this bill could relieve that provider of liability.
SENATOR KIEHL replied SB 65 would not apply to that scenario. SB
65 covers consultations between healthcare providers.
SENATOR HUGHES asked him to point that out in the bill.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that page 1, line 7, provides immunity
to a consulting healthcare provider. Page 2, line 20, defines
the consulting healthcare provider, someone who provides advice
to another healthcare provider and then there is a list of
licensed healthcare providers.
SENATOR HUGHES referred to page 2, line 14, beginning with
number 9, a written report is not created as a result of the
consultation. She asked again about a coffee line conversation
in which one provider speaks to another provider and a report is
written and patient treated accordingly. If the patient sues,
she asked if that would be considered a written report or should
the bill specify the written report must be prepared by the
consulting provider.
SENATOR KIEHL replied that he doesn't know if that clarification
would be in any way harmful. It matches the intent because the
liability shield is provided to the consulting provider. It is
not strictly necessary. If he understands her scenario
correctly, the treating provider writes the report. Their
liability rests with the treatment they provided, irrespective
of the report, but he sees no harm in that clarification.
SENATOR HUGHES said that she did not want to imply that
healthcare providers are nefarious, but she could see that if
someone took some informal advice in the coffee line and then
there was an adverse result and the patient sued, that provider
may try to create a report saying they received that advice from
another physician in order to spread the burden of liability.
She could see the need for clarification that the written report
would be by the consulting provider to prevent that type of
situation, even though it would be rather unlikely. She asked if
Senator Kiehl would entertain that as a friendly amendment.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that he had no objection to that
clarification.
1:45:51 PM
CHAIR WILSON called on invited testimony.
1:46:11 PM
JACOB KELLY, M.D., Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute,
Anchorage, Alaska, said SB 65 allows physicians to provide
unencumbered clinical expertise to help patients across Alaska.
Alaska's value and mission is to take care of all Alaskans
regardless of location and ability to pay. This allows better
local care and leads to decreased inappropriate transfers. It
allows patients to be cared for where they are safer. It would
ultimately reduce cost. He receives from 2 to 10 calls a night
from various cities from nurse practitioners, emergency room
physicians, family physicians, and other specialists. It is nice
to be able to support them in their decision-making without
concern about litigation when he has no access to the patient,
their records or data. As a heart failure specialist, people
have questions for him about how to titrate medications. It can
be difficult to transfer a patient to Anchorage for an expensive
visit when a slight titration of medications would lead to
improved survival and quality of life.
SENATOR HUGHES commented that it is important to share knowledge
among experts in the field. Now that there is a precedence of a
consulting provider being sued in another state, she is
concerned that it might inhibit good conversations and knowledge
sharing between providers. She asked if it could inhibit
knowledge sharing if SB 65 does not pass.
DR. KELLY agreed that it would make providers more reticent in
answering specific questions. He would be more likely have a
patient transported to Anchorage to one of the larger hospitals
to provide care that could have been delivered locally.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if SB 65 could reduce his malpractice
insurance.
DR. KELLY deferred the question to Robert Craig. He said
physicians see this as allowing better quality of care with
fewer restrictors. It is about feeling comfortable providing
care and allowing people to get the best care they can.
1:50:58 PM
ROBERT CRAIG, CEO, Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute,
Anchorage, Alaska, said he doesn't anticipate any change to
malpractice premiums. That is not part of the motivation for
support of the bill. The institute's cardiologists are on call
and available for the state 24/7. That coverage is not part of a
telehealth obligation; these are not their patients and the
institute is not reimbursed for the call. The institute's
cardiologist in Anchorage can take a call any time day or night
from a treating physician. The cardiologist has no patient
record or relationship, which places a special burden on their
doctors to be open to potential civil liability. They are
primarily interested in giving timely and accurate information
to another treating physician. The option is to advise the
treating physician to send the patient to Anchorage or request a
formal consultation, which delays care and/or increases cost.
The goal of the institute's doctors is to continue to provide a
high level of cardiology service to the state's providers in a
high-quality and low-cost manner.
SENATOR REINBOLD commented on her intentions when the bill is
heard in the next committee of referral, and expressed a desire
to see malpractice premiums to go down.
1:54:39 PM
STEVEN COMPTON, M.D., Secretary/Treasurer Elect, Alaska State
Medical Association, Anchorage, Alaska, said he is another
cardiologist at Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute but he is
there representing the Alaska State Medical Association (ASMA).
The institute estimates it is doing 10-20 curbside consults a
day across the state. Some are urgent and some are not so bad.
Sometimes the referring doctor is overly worried and the
cardiologists can calm them down. Sometimes it is the reverse
and a patient needs to come in right away. Many times the
problem can be managed locally. Alaska has a greater need for
this sort of referral network and informal consultation than any
other state because of its size. Because it is so large, there
are healthcare inequities. Someone who lives in a village in the
Yukon does not have access to the same care as someone who lives
in a big city. Alaska has excellent telecommunications and
expert opinions can be provided to every corner of the state. He
has been practicing in Alaska for 20 years. The consults are
done for free as part of their duty to citizens of the state.
About a year and a half ago their insurer asked to speak at a
partner meeting. The insurer reviewed the Minnesota case that
Senator Kiehl alluded to and a few others pending at the time
and said this will be a problem if it is not nipped in the bud.
The insurer anticipated a potential increase in rates, and said
he needed to talk there needs to be a discussion about curbside
consults.
DR. COMPTON said the insurer said the institute could give very
general ideas about how to manage a case, but if there is
anything specific, the doctors could potentially be liable for
anything that happens with a case. The institute's insurers are
saying they should either not do this or transport everyone to
Anchorage or address this legislatively. That is why they are
here. This is not just a cardiology issue. Every specialty gets
these calls from around the state. All providers do this and
think this is an important service. He had not appreciated that
until the conversation with the insurer. This is the lubrication
for this whole machine and help avoid inappropriate costs and
help provide excellent care in remote places. The ASMA supports
SB 65.
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked Dr. Compton for his work and powerful
testimony.
SENATOR BEGICH agreed that his testimony makes a big difference.
2:00:07 PM
CHAIR WILSON opened public testimony on SB 65; finding none, he
closed public testimony.
He held SB 65 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 65 version B.pdf |
SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sectional Analysis v. B 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Letter of Support ASMA 2.11.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 FN Dept of Law.pdf |
HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB70 v. A.PDF |
SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Sponsor Statement 2.10.21.pdf |
HHSS 3/30/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Sectional Summary v. A 2.10.21.pdf |
SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Naloxone Standing Order Fact Sheet1-21-21.pdf |
HHSS 3/30/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Opioid Leg Report DHSS 9.28.20.pdf |
HHSS 3/30/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 FN DHSS.pdf |
HHSS 3/30/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 SLA 2017 SB 91.PDF |
HHSS 3/30/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Opioid Leg Report DHSS 2017-18.pdf |
HHSS 3/30/2021 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Opioid Leg Report DHSS 2018-19.pdf |
SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 DHSS Invited Testimony - SHSS - 02162021 Clean.pptx |
SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Letters of Support, Redacted, 2.16.21.pdf |
SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |