Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/05/2022 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| SB45 | |
| SB173 | |
| SB131 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 173(FIN)
"An Act relating to the practice of dentistry;
relating to dental radiological equipment; and
providing for an effective date."
3:58:38 PM
SENATOR DAVID WILSON, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation.
He reported that SB 173 transferred dental radiological
equipment inspections from the Board of Dental Examiners to
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and
established a specialty dental license in the State of
Alaska. The changes were recommended by the dental
community. He thanked Vice-Chair Ortiz as the sponsor of
the house companion bill [HB 295 - Dentist Spec.
License/Radiologic Equip] for steering his version through
the house. He emphasized that the licensing updates were
necessary for the publics safety as it ensured that if a
dentist advertises as a specialist, they met certain
qualifications. The bill also ensured that dental equipment
was inspected in a timely manner.
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
DR. DAVID LOGAN, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, SITKA (via
teleconference), thanked the sponsor and Representative
Ortiz for bringing the bill forward. He indicated that
there were two aspects to the legislation. The bill changed
how dental x-ray units were inspected in the state and
introduced a specialty license that had previously been
available as recent as 2010. He explained the need to
change how dental e-ray units were inspected. Inspections
of dental x-ray machines were done by DHSS until 20 years
ago when it was transferred to the dental board. He
elaborated that the dentists would contract with private
contractors to do the inspections. However, the few
individuals performing x-ray inspections retired and the
board had not been able to find replacements. He pointed
out that x-ray inspection was a highly specialized service.
Individuals able to perform inspections were either
employed at a state level, by a large corporation, or had
retired from the field and were not interested in working.
He stressed that there were no longer any inspectors
available for private dentists in the state. The dental
community believed transferring the duty back to DHSS was
the best option because they already performed x-ray
inspections for hospitals, doctors, etc. He acknowledged
that the department would have to hire another inspector to
address the increased workload. Dentists would soon be out
of compliance with inspections that were required every six
years. He added that if the legislation did not pass some
dentists would be out of compliance by years end. He
requested passage of the bill.
4:04:36 PM
Representative LeBon asked if providers paid a fee for the
inspection and whether the dental community would pay a
fee. Mr. Logan answered that he could not speak to other
providers but knew that dentists paid a fee based on
complexity and number of machines. He assured the committee
that the fee would cover the costs of inspection.
4:05:50 PM
DAVID NIELSON, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
bill. He spoke to Section 3 of the bill. He explained that
the dental practice act repealed specialty license
categories in 2012. Since that time, the dental board had
retreated from investigating false and misleading
advertising complaints. In order for the board to address
the issue, it needed to reinstate the specialty license
categories to defend legal scrutiny and help reduce public
confusion over deceptive or false advertising brought by
dentists using the term "specialist" or "specializing in"
to an area of dentistry that is professionally recognized
to require significantly more training than they have
received. Typically, a dental specialty residency demands
at least an extra two-years of focused training beyond
dental school. He added that the board had to deny several
license applications to dentists that graduated from
accredited specialty programs merely because it did not
have a way to approve their application, lacking the
license types for dental specialties. The provision would
open the doors wider for more qualified dental specialists.
He thanked the sponsors of the bill.
4:08:24 PM
Representative Carpenter pointed to the sectional analysis
for Section 3 regarding AS 08.36.243 (b):
(b) In creating the qualifications for a specialist
license, the board shall consider the standards of a
nationally recognized certifying entity approved by
the board.
Representative Carpenter asked how many nationally
recognized certifying entities were in existence.
Senator Wilson deferred the question to one of the doctors
available online. He acknowledged that there were
approximately 150 specialists in the state.
Mr. Nielson answered that there was currently only one
entity responsible for certifying specialty certification
boards and specialty recognition, the National Commission
on Recognition of Dental Specialties and Certifying Boards.
He delineated that the commission had six specific criteria
for specialty recognition and 15 criteria for recognizing
specialty certifying boards. He furthered that currently
there were 12 specialty areas and 11 certifying boards. He
noted that there was one other commission and it only
recognized 2 or 3 specialties and was not nationally
utilized.
4:10:43 PM
Representative Carpenter wondered whether the national
commission recognized all the dental specialties in
existence. Mr. Nielson responded that the commission
currently recognized all the dental specialties. He noted
that there were a couple of groups trying to become
specialties. The commission adopted some of its criteria
from the American Dental Association (ADA) but were an
independent commission. He listed some of the specialties:
orthodontics, endodontics, pediatrics, oral surgery, oral
medicine, oral facial pain, and dental anesthesiology. He
qualified that all dentists could provide the same services
in the categories. However, recognizing specialties enabled
the public to determine who had specialty training. He
emphasized that the certification was arduous.
Representative Carpenter asked how many specialties were
currently in the state. Senator Wilson replied that the
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee estimated that that
there were 150 practitioners that advertised as dental
specialist in the state. Representative Carpenter asked if
any of the individuals advertising as a specialist were not
covered under the 12 recognized specialties.
4:13:17 PM
Mr. Nielson did not have an exact number of people that may
be advertising under the word specialist in an area of
dentistry that was not a recognized specialty by the
commission. He guessed that the only one would be something
like an implant specialist, but at present that was not a
category. He stated that it would take significant research
to find the answer. He reiterated that the boards goal was
to quell any confusion caused by a dentist advertising as
though they were a specialist.
Co-Chair Merrick asked whether Dr. Logan wanted to offer
any observations.
Dr. Logan echoed Mr. Nielson's comments. He highlighted
that the goal was to halt the practice of falsely
advertising as a specialist when they did not have the
qualifications or educational background. He estimated that
the number of dentists inventing a specialty category was
more than one but less than 20 and the exact number was
difficult to determine. He concluded that the bill covered
someone who falsely advertised as a specialist and
prevented someone from claiming a specialty that did not
exist. The dentist could advertise that they provided the
service but could not name themself as a specialist.
Representative Carpenter referenced the sectional analysis
and asked if the department was on board with receiving the
responsibility.
Senator Wilson stated that the question had been asked in
the Senate Finance Committee and the department had stated
it was fine with the responsibility as long as it received
funding for an extra position.
CSSB 173(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:17:11 PM
AT EASE
4:18:38 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 131 AKPFFA Letter of Support Miranda.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 CVFRD Letter Benningfield.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Firefighter Final rdh.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Summary of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 45 - Replacement Amendment #4 Rasmussen D.16 050522.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 45 |
| SB 131 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Rec'd by 050622.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 173 Sponsor Statement v. I 1.28.2022.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 173 |
| SB 173 Sectional Analysis v. W 4.25.2022.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 173 |
| SB 173 Testimony as of 1.31.22.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 173 |