Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/12/2002 09:57 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 243
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners; and relating to chiropractors."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Therriault, spoke to the details
of the bill. She informed there is an accompanying committee
substitute in the packet.
Senator Leman offered a motion to adopt CS SB 243, 22-LS1266\F
Lauterbach, as a working draft.
There being no objection, the document was ADOPTED as a working
draft.
Ms. Brakes spoke of the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit
report [copy on file] which supports restoring the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners to implement full licensure by credentials
as outlined in Section 2 of the bill. Ms. Brakes referenced page 5
of the Audit Report which stated the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners is "operating in an efficient and effective manner and
should continue to regulate and license chiropractors." She noted
the Report also states the Board Chiropractic Examiners "serves a
public purpose by promoting the competent and safe practice of
chiropractic therapy." She summarized this bill as being based on
the audit recommendations.
KATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development stated the
Division provides the administrative support for the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Ms. Reardon to explain the differences in
licensure requirements as presented in the committee substitute.
Ms. Reardon explained both the committee substitute and the
original bill include licensure by credentials which applies to
people applying for a license in the state of Alaska who have had a
previous license in another state. The committee substitute
establishes identical criteria; however the Board has the option of
permitting an applicant to pass two of the four sections of the
national exam or pass another special national exam that is
designed for people who have been in practice. She stated some
sections of the current test are geared for people who are coming
right out of medical school, and this committee substitute allows
for a different sort of test for those who have been out of school
for a while and have been in practice.
Ms. Reardon continued that the original bill specifically mentions
paying a licensing fee; however, licensing fees are not mentioned
in this committee substitute as fees are addressed in other
statutes.
Ms. Reardon stated the committee substitute specifies the applicant
must have graduated from a licensed chiropractic school; the
original bill does not. She continued that the committee substitute
states the applicant must have passed the national exam and must
have held a license in another state for five years; whereas the
"original bill gave you an option of one or the other." She
continued that the committee substitute states the applicant must
have been in active practice three of the past five years; recent
practice guidelines are not specified in the original bill. She
outlined other differences in the bills including the new provision
for a different test if the applicant has been practicing in
another state.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative Budget
and Audit, Legislative Affairs Agency, spoke to the audit review on
the sunset of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners and verified the
audit recommends the standard four-year extension with the
additional recommendation of licensure by credentials.
Senator Green, referring to page 2, line 26, Section 2(C)(3), of
the committee substitute, asked for clarification of what qualifies
as length of practice.
Ms. Reardon responded the section regarding prior length of
practice is "pretty common" and "within the typical range of other
programs." She noted the intent of this requirement is to address
that an applicant has practiced recently and "not twenty years
ago." She informed that the dental board has "even more strident
time requirements with no break in time" of active practice.
Senator Green asked what the requirement is for medical doctors.
At ease 10:08 AM /10:12 AM
Ms. Reardon responded there is no recent active practice
requirement for medical doctors, but reiterated there are such
requirements for dentists.
Senator Olson asked what constitutes active practice and how is the
time accounted for if a practitioner works, for example, only three
days a week.
Ms. Reardon replied that the Board would have to interpret what
constitutes active clinical practice. She surmised if a
practitioner were actively seeing patients for only nine months of
the year, the time would have to accumulate to 36 months within a
five-year span to qualify for the three-year active practice
requirement. She reiterated this would be a decision of the Board.
Senator Green voiced she is not comfortable supporting this
committee substitute without this active practice requirement being
further clarified.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Green to work with Ms. Davidson and
the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit to work on appropriate
language.
Senator Olson stated there are many circumstances to consider, and
he supports holding the bill pending further clarification.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Green to form a subcommittee to
address this concern and to report back to the Committee by
February 18.
The bill was held in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|