Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/08/2021 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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) | |
| SB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 65-LIABILITY CONSULTING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
2:29:35 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD reconvened the meeting and announced that the
business before the committee would be SENATE BILL NO. 65, "An
Act relating to immunity for consulting physicians, podiatrists,
osteopaths, advanced practice registered nurses, physician
assistants, dentists, optometrists, and pharmacists." [Before
the committee was CSSB 65(HSS)].
2:29:52 PM
SENATOR KIEHL, speaking as sponsor, introduced his staff, CJ
Harrell, as an intern through the University of Alaska Southeast
and Ted Stevens Institute.
2:30:18 PM
CJ HARRELL, Intern, Senator Jesse Kiehl, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that she works as an intern
for Senator Kiehl, sponsor of SB 65. She read the sponsor
statement on behalf of Senator Kiehl:
Within Alaska and other states, health care providers
will seek the knowledge and expertise of fellow
medical professionals to help them understand how to
help their patient in an effective and timely matter.
These conversations may be an official consultation,
but often medical professionals have what are called
"curbside consultations".
This is when a patient's health care 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 being discussed. It
is a fast and effective way of sharing knowledge and
expertise and in many ways is the backbone of medical
care.
It was not until 2 years ago in Minnesota that a
health care provider who had no relationship to a
patient was forced to defend themselves against a
civil liability case. We fear that by not protecting
those who have no relationship to a patient and are
sharing their expertise through a curbside
consultation, they will no longer feel comfortable
aiding fellow health care providers in this way.
This bill will allow curbside consultations to
continue, but now without the fear of becoming subject
to civil liability for a patient who they have no
relationship to.
2:31:44 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that the Senate Health and Education
Committee made two changes to the bill. One change clarified a
vague statement about preparing a report. The other change added
chiropractors to the list of professionals who may give and
receive curbside consultations without the risk of liability
under the bill.
SENATOR KIEHL reviewed the legal principles. He said the
Minnesota Supreme Court case set out a new standard for medical
liability. It did not require a doctor/and patient relationship.
Therefore, it did not require the duty of care, one of the
keystones of liability and torts. The goal of SB 65 is to
preserve how medical malpractice liability has worked in Alaska,
which is not to hold liable health care professionals who have
never given care to patients. He offered his willingness to
discuss the details. He emphasized that is the key to the legal
issues in SB 65
CHAIR REINBOLD related her understanding that care includes
vaccinations.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that any health care professional who has
given shots has a duty of care but would not be covered under
the bill.
2:34:02 PM
the patient is not a current or former patient of the consulting
health care provider or of the consulting health care provider's
practice." He asked why the sponsor did not allow liability to
be removed from a former patient.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that if a doctor treated a patient last
week, they have established a doctor/patient relationship.
SENATOR MYERS said that the timeliness of the visit seemed
relevant. For example, if a doctor has not seen a patient and
three years, he asked if a doctor/patient relationship would
still exist.
2:35:17 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to page 2, line 23 of SB 65 to the
definition of a health care facility. He said it does not
mention federal hospitals. He noted that hospitals for veterans
in Alaska would not be covered.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that it was not the intent to exclude
federal hospitals. He offered to research it and report back to
the committee.
2:36:08 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to page 3, line 3 of SB 65. He said was
surprised to see pharmacists listed. He related his
understanding that pharmacists do not enter into the same
relationship as other health care professionals such as doctors
and nurses. He asked for clarification.
SENATOR KIEHL agreed that the relationship is different.
Pharmacists were added to the bill because of the frequency in
which other medical providers consult pharmacists on the best
medication to prescribe for their patients that a practice
within their scope of practice. He pointed out that SB 65 is
written such that the treating physician must treatment within
their scope of practice. While a pharmacist can only work within
their scope of practice, when a pharmacist provides advice to a
doctor, the doctor is the treating physician who maintains the
liability if something goes wrong. Last year, the legislature
added pharmacists to the bill. He emphasized the importance of
health care professionals obtaining expertise from pharmacists
is valuable, such as when a drug is contraindicated.
2:38:52 PM
SENATOR MYERS referred to the fiscal note analysis. He pointed
out that the analysis states that immunity "may" apply instead
of requiring that immunity "shall" apply. He was unsure if the
Department of Law made an error or if it reflects the immunity
in the bill.
2:39:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL responded that the fiscal note analysis clarifies
the instances in which immunity applies. He agreed that the bill
is not designed to "possibly" set out civil immunity but to
create civil immunity.
[SB 65 was held in committee].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|