Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
02/09/2022 04:30 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB289 | |
| HB295 | |
| HB276 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2022
4:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Liz Snyder
Representative David Nelson
Representative James Kaufman
Representative Ken McCarty
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 289
"An Act establishing the Alaska marijuana industry task force;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 295
"An Act relating to the practice of dentistry; relating to
dental radiological equipment; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 276
"An Act relating to licensing of psychologists and psychological
associates; and relating to the practice of psychology."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HOUSE BILL NO. 289
1/26/2022 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME REFERRALS
1/26/2022 (H) L&C, FIN
2/9/2022 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE at 04:30 PM BARNES 124
HOUSE BILL NO. 295
1/31/2022 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME REFERRALS
1/31/2022 (H) L&C, HSS, FIN
2/9/2022 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE at 04:30 PM BARNES 124
HOUSE BILL NO. 276
1/18/2022 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME REFERRALS
1/18/2022 (H) L&C, FIN
2/7/2022 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE at 04:30 PM BARNES 124
2/7/2022 (H) -- Testimony <Invitation Only> -- --MEETING
CANCELED
2/9/2022 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE at 04:30 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GRIER HOPKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 289, introduced the
bill.
JOE HARDENBROOK, Staff
Representative Grier Hopkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Hopkins, prime
sponsor of HB 289, addressed why the bill is necessary and
provided a sectional analysis.
GLEN KLINKHART, Director
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO)
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 289, answered
questions.
JANA WELGZIN, Owner
JDW Counsel
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
289.
NICHOLAS MILLER, Chair
Marijuana Control Board
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
289.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 295, introduced the
bill.
ABIGAIL SWEETMAN, Staff
Representative Dan Ortiz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 295
on behalf of Representative Ortiz, prime sponsor.
DAVID LOGAN, DDS, Executive Director
Alaska Dental Society
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
295.
DAVID NIELSON, DDS, Chair
Board of Dental Examiners
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
295.
SARA CHAMBERS, Director
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 295, answered
questions.
JAYME PARKER, MD, Chief
Alaska State Public Health Laboratory Fairbanks
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 295, answered
questions.
IRENE CASARES, Radiological Health Physicist
Alaska State Public Health Laboratory Fairbanks
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 295, answered
questions.
MARVO REGUINDIN, Executive Director
Alaska Psychological Association
Spokane, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
"HB 276 Model Licensing Act for Psychologists and Psychological
Associates."
ROBERT LANE, PhD, Director
Counseling Psychology
Alaska Pacific University
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 276, answered
questions.
SARA CHAMBERS, Director
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 276, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
4:31:44 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACK FIELDS called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 4:31 p.m.
Representatives Schrage and Fields were present at the call to
order. Representatives McCarty, Kaufman, Snyder, and Nelson
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 289-AK MARIJUANA INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
4:32:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 289, "An Act establishing the Alaska marijuana
industry task force; and providing for an effective date."
4:32:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRIER HOPKINS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 289, introduced the bill. He spoke as follows:
This bill would establish the Alaska Marijuana
Industry Task Force to take a holistic look at our
state's growing marijuana industry, analyze its
strengths and weaknesses, and propose a package of
reforms. These nonbinding reforms would be submitted
to the Marijuana Control Board, the governor, and the
legislature for consideration and possible action.
This legislation does not create a permanent task
force, nor does it create a permanent state funded
position. Rather, this task force would complete its
work between the time this bill is passed, probably
this legislature, and over the 2022 legislative
interim, and deliver its final report at the beginning
of next session, disbanding itself at the end of the
year and giving us that report.
This bill does not require the expenditure of any
unrestricted general funds. Instead, the cost of this
task force would be borne by the program receipts
generated by Alaskan marijuana industry. While I am a
firm believer in free markets and the inevitable
sorting out of winners and losers, Alaska's marijuana
industry is ours and ? we as elected officials can and
should set the rules for the thousands of Alaskans who
have seen fit to invest their hard-earned dollars into
this market, as well as their time and energy. We can
and should ensure that the rules that we put forward
to govern our various industries are fair and
reasonable and offer those Alaskans who pursue a
career or business investment in Alaska can work hard
and achieve that success while playing by the rules.
We can and should ensure that the local governments
continue to play a vital role in authorizing,
monitoring, and gaining revenue from this industry as
well. As our uniquely Alaskan owned, operated, and
supported marijuana industry continues to evolve, the
work of this task force can help place the industry on
firmer economic footing and ensure that those Alaskans
who have entered into this industry can compete on a
level playing field. Additionally, this task force
carves out a role for Alaska's local governments to
assure that the local control of this industry
endorsed by Alaska's voters as they passed the
initiative in 2014 is strengthened and continued. We
would have the opportunity after the initiative's
passage in 2014, almost a decade later, to be able to
reform this growing and vital industry.
4:35:27 PM
JOE HARDENBROOK, Staff, Representative Grier Hopkins, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hopkins, prime
sponsor of HB 289, addressed why the bill is necessary. He
spoke as follows:
Why is this legislation necessary?
In 2014, Alaska voters legalized recreational
marijuana. Since that time, thousands of Alaskans
have sought to participate in this new industry as
business owners, workers, investors, consumers and
more. This industry is a uniquely Alaskan one. State
law requires that license holders be Alaska residents,
resulting in an Alaska marijuana market owned and
operated by Alaskans selling their products grown,
tested, processed, and purchased here in the Last
Frontier.
The industry which has emerged from the passage of the
voter initiative in 2014 is supported by Alaskans
across the state, but it is facing some challenges.
Many business owners are struggling to comply with the
letter and the spirit of the law, and several factors
including taxation, licensing, and enforcement
continue to challenge the industry. Recent reporting
by the Anchorage Daily News which is included in
your bill packet - shows ongoing frustration amongst
the Alaskan entrepreneurs who've invested time,
resources, and energy in this new market. Our flat
wholesale tax model makes each cultivator's crop an
expensive roll of the dice and can result in entire
harvests being discarded for fear of not generating
sufficient revenue to pay state taxes or insufficient
overhead to cover the cost of facilities, salaries,
and utilities. Unlimited licenses have resulted in a
high number of retail outlets and tying licenses to
specific properties and locations have resulted in
business owners being forced to close shop when rents
increase, or when their buildings are sold.
Make no mistake, there are solutions to these
problems, but finding and defining these solutions
will involve give and take amongst the members of the
industry, state regulators, and local governments. In
order to pursue a strategy that strengthens our Alaska
businesses, protects local control and places our
industry on a firmer economic footing, HB 289 proposes
that this task force reviews the issue, develops ideas
for industry reform, utilizes state resources to model
how those changes would affect businesses, local
governments, and state tax revenue. A simplistic one-
size-fits-all solution to this complex issue will most
likely result in additional challenges to the industry
and may cause unforeseen circumstances which compound
problems instead of rectifying them. As we've
repeatedly heard from representatives of all the
different businesses and resource development
activities in Alaska, fiscal certainty and good data
are essential components of any successful business
enterprise.
So, how will this task force operate?
The selection process for the twelve members of the
task force has been crafted to ensure representation,
expertise, and geographic diversity. The task force
will be chaired by the chair of the Marijuana Control
Board. The two state agencies most closely involved
in Alaska's marijuana industry the departments of
Commerce and Revenue - will be represented by their
commissioners or those commissioners' designees.
Because so many of these questions are economic in
nature, we've reserved a seat for an economist from
the University of Alaska. Because the voter
initiative carved out specific roles and rights for
local governments, we've included three municipal
government representatives, with a requirement that
those officials come from different judicial districts
and represent the breadth of Alaska's local
governments cities and boroughs. Because those most
affected by a decision should have a role in making
that decision, we've reserved three seats 25 percent
of the task force's membership for representatives
of the Alaska marijuana industry. Like the local
government seats, these task force members must hail
from different judicial districts and represent the
breadth of the industry cultivators, processors, and
retailers. Finally, there are two legislative seats,
in the hopes that the input and advice of legislators
can help craft a final product with a greater chance
of enactment.
As [Representative] Hopkins mentioned, this task force
is not a permanent creation. Rather, it must meet
four times over this legislative interim, conduct
their work, craft their proposals, model their data,
and submit their findings to the executive and
legislative branches for consideration and potential
action. This legislation does not create a new,
permanent position but rather relies on a temporary
position to assist the task force in crafting its
final product. The findings of this task force are
first and foremost nonbinding and are not limited [to]
suggestions for legislative fixes suggestions may
include statutory, regulatory, and administrative
changes.
Additionally, I think it is fitting and worth noting
that the cost of these efforts will be borne by
program receipts from Alaska's marijuana industry.
That's correct the cost of this task force will be
paid for by the hundreds of thousands of Alaskans
who've invested in and patronized Alaska's marijuana
industry.
4:40:37 PM
MR. HARDENBROOK provided the sectional analysis for HB 289. He
spoke from a written analysis provided in the committee packet,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1:
Subsection (a): Creates the Alaska Marijuana Industry
Task Force and describes its purpose.
Subsection (b): Details membership of the task force
and those responsible for nominating members to serve.
Subsections (c) & (d): Details how vacancies on the
task force will be filled and that members are unpaid
but are eligible for travel expense reimbursement and
per diem.
Subsection (e): Details duties of the task force,
deadlines, and instructions for submitting
recommendations.
Subsection (f): Terminates the task force upon the
convening of the Thirty-Third Legislature.
Section 2:
Contains an immediate effective date.
4:41:48 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened invited testimony on HB 289.
4:42:17 PM
)LACY WILCOX, President* Alaska Marijuana Industry Association
(AMIA)* Anchorage, Alaska* Provided invited testimony in support
of HB 289.{ provided invited testimony in support of HB 289.
She noted AMIA is currently the only statewide industry
association. She spoke from a letter of support, dated 2/1/22,
which she said was approved by her board of directors, and which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Marijuana Industry Association (AMIA) would
like to offer our support for HB 289.
The excise tax on Alaskan marijuana cultivation has
set a static price floor for marijuana and marijuana
products. This static price floor is creating
instability in our industry and resulting in an
inequitable taxation burden imposed on the cannabis
industry. For example, the excise tax of $800/lb of
cannabis flower in Alaska is similar to the total
wholesale price in states like Oregon. The problem is
evident, the impacts are negative, and a solution is
needed. The solution will only be found if we have a
comprehensive task force with the right tools and the
right folks to dig in and find a solution to better
[protect] the industry and protect consumers. The AMIA
has been analyzing the current scheme against
potential new tax structures, however, without access
to state experts and data we are just shooting darts
at the wall with blindfolds on. We are hopeful that
with the passage of this legislation we will be able
to see robust, smart, and data driven conversation
occur between industry, regulators, and tax experts,
as well as municipal stakeholders and the legislature.
We are grateful to be named in the bill regarding the
selection of qualified industry representatives. We
understand that while we do not represent the entire
industry, the AMIA is the only statewide industry
trade group that exists, so we therefore feel it is
appropriate language. We promise to send forward our
best and brightest and take this responsibility very
seriously.
The bright goal for the AMIA is to help identify a
sustainable, enforceable, and above all else, fair tax
structure. This tax structure should allow for growth,
not hardship and should provide a path to compliance
without subjective review or punitive action wherever
possible.
We are grateful to be considered a valuable industry,
job provider, taxpayer, and general business community
asset to Alaska. We see a bright future and are
hopeful that this task force will come to fruition,
and we can move forward together.
MS. WILCOX added that it is no secret that [the industry] is
struggling. She urged the committee's support for the bill.
4:44:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked how many of the businesses in Alaska
are covered by AMIA.
MS. WILCOX replied that AMIA is currently in a membership drive,
so she doesn't have a percentage. She said there are about 500
licensees and AMIA probably represents close to 100 of them on
its normal post-membership drive season. She added that the
pandemic has slowed down the outreach to get members.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON noted the bill provides that AMIA will
appoint three members to the [task force], two of which would be
AMIA members and the third which would not be an AMIA member.
He asked whether AMIA has anything it will be holding itself to
that will alleviate his concern that the other 400 licensees
would not be involved.
MS. WILCOX responded that with the passage of HB 289 she would
like to build a process to open applications to any licensee.
She said being able to advertise this as something AMIA can do
for people will encourage membership among those who have not
considered joining. Many Alaskans and Alaska businesses are not
joiners, but she still talks to those people as they are an
important and valuable part of the industry. She will work to
honor the spirit of the task force. It isn't AMIA's members who
have the most to say, some of the smartest people are the
quietest people and she would like to find them.
4:46:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE inquired about the makeup within AMIA's
membership between cultivation, manufacturing, and retail. He
further inquired about the unification of views regarding where
taxes should go with respect to the industry and whether the
balance is right.
MS. WILCOX answered that roughly 240 small and large licensed
growers and 145 retail licenses are operating, and there are
about 50 manufacturing licenses. Much is going to be heard
about market saturation, potential license caps, and other
solutions for helping to find market equilibrium, she continued.
She herself is a proponent of fixing the things that are broken
before going to the extreme measure of instituting a license
cap. If asked about taxes, cultivators are going to say the tax
should be shifted away from them, retailers are going to suggest
the tax stay where it is or perhaps reduced, and manufacturers,
who are kind of in the middle or vertically integrated, are
going to be kind of indifferent because they are protected by
their own business model. So, she advised, there is not
consensus and consensus can only be found if modeling is done.
4:48:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY referred to page 2 of the bill, lines 29-
30, regarding task force members serving without compensation.
He asked if it is anticipated that the meetings will be virtual,
rather than live, to reduce per diem and travel expenses.
MS. WILCOX responded that AMIA would be happy to meet virtually.
She deferred to the sponsor to answer the question.
MR. HARDENBROOK replied that in discussions with Glen Klinkhart,
director of the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, Mr.
Klinkhart said that throughout the [COVID-19] pandemic the board
has been meeting mostly virtually, which the board would
continue doing with this task force. The fiscal note currently
includes money to cover the cost of travel and lodging but if
the legislature chose to make the task force meet virtually or
put that intent in, it would be a substantial cost savings on
the total fiscal note of the task force.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that virtual meetings would be his
recommendation.
4:50:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked why a bill is needed given other
industries meet and discuss how to improve their industries.
MR. HARDENBROOK answered that a key reason for government
involvement in this task force is specifically the data that is
collected by the state as the enforcer of the laws through the
commerce department as well as the collection of revenues
through the revenue department. By having those two aspects of
state government involved and mandated to participate, modeling
can be done by the industry and local and state governments on
how changes to taxation would impact revenue flows to the state,
to the industry, and to the local governments. As a participant
in that, the state can access the data and do that modeling and
can make sound fiscal decisions that protect the bottom lines of
the state and municipalities, and that put the industry on
firmer economic footing.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said it seems that those are simply
deliverables that could just be pulled down and he isn't sure a
government partnership is needed when just the deliverables, the
data, are needed and that data should be available.
MR. HARDENBROOK replied that any industry would prefer fiscal
certainty and good data when it comes to making business
decisions. When talking about adjusting the levers of taxation
and an industry that is entirely located within Alaska and
producing revenue for local governments, changing those levers
without good data to inform how those decisions will impact the
industry, state government, and local government, perhaps could
make the situation worse as opposed to solving the problems.
Modeling changes to the taxation scheme has been difficult to
develop and data has been difficult to procure. Perhaps setting
up a task force to ensure that people who have the data, folks
who have the expertise on the industry, and those who have the
expertise on how the industry works at the local level can get
together and formulate a solution is the most responsible way
forward.
4:53:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE offered his understanding that revenue
from marijuana taxes could go to several places. He asked which
designated general fund (DGF) would be used in this fiscal note.
MR. HARDENBROOK deferred to Mr. Klinkhart to provide an answer
to the question because he developed the fiscal note.
4:53:46 PM
GLEN KLINKHART, Director, Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office
(AMCO), Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development (DCCED), responded that the sources are going to be
the DGF from the program funds specifically, so it would be
coming out of the receipts that are received.
4:54:43 PM
JANA WELGZIN, Owner, JDW Counsel, provided invited testimony in
support of HB 289. She stated that her firm represents hundreds
of marijuana licenses in the state of Alaska. She said the
questions being asked show that members are thinking about this
industry and how to move it forward and make it sustainable for
Alaska. These issues need to be discussed in a meaningful way,
not just a few industry folks getting together, she continued,
because federal legalization is on the horizon. Without
preparation, Alaska's marijuana industry will be demolished when
federal legislation arrives. To be prepared the industry needs
to be strong enough to stand on its own or relevant enough to be
bought out. The industry cannot do that with a product price
war that for some cultivators results in a 50 percent taxation
while another cultivator growing the same pounds and same
strain, but selling it for more, is taxed at around 27 percent.
This regressive tax structure isn't fair or sustainable. [The
proposed task force] would allow Alaska's marijuana industry to
work with local governments and experts in the Department of
Revenue to develop a system that is going to make the state more
money in the long run because the industry will survive if this
is done right. This bill will be of benefit to Alaska for many
years; detrimental consequences will be faced if nothing is
done.
4:56:42 PM
NICHOLAS MILLER, Chair, Marijuana Control Board, Alcohol and
Marijuana Control Office (AMCO), Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), provided invited
testimony in support of HB 289. He said he is a licensee and
that there has been lots of discussion about the taxes and ways
to improve commerce in Alaska through statutory and regulatory
changes. Partnership is needed from an economist and holders of
the data so that good decisions can be made. Making decisions
based on the information that is had now is not in the interest
of anybody in the state.
[HB 289 was held over.]
HB 295-DENTIST SPEC. LICENSE/RADIOLOGIC EQUIP
4:58:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the second order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 295, "An Act relating to the practice of
dentistry; relating to dental radiological equipment; and
providing for an effective date."
4:58:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 295, introduced the bill. He spoke as follows:
House Bill 295 works to solve two problems facing
Alaskan dentists and helps them do their jobs safely,
efficiently, and honestly. Firstly, this bill
transfers the oversight of dental radiological
equipment from the Alaska Board of Dental Examiners to
the Department of Health and [Social] Services (DHHS).
Alaskan dentists have had great difficulty finding
private radiological inspectors for their x-ray
equipment and as DHSS already oversees medical
radiological equipment and employs inspectors, this is
a way to ensure that dental equipment is being
inspected at the right intervals by the people
qualified to do the job.
Secondly, ? this bill establishes truth in advertising
for dental specialists. Alaska currently doesn't have
a legal definition of dental specialist, which means
that a dentist can advertise as an ? endodontist
specialist without having an endodontist training. I
? certainly would want the dentist performing my root
canals to know what they're doing, and I think
everyone in this room would want that as well.
Alaskans seeking dental specialists should be
confident that their dentist has the specialized
training to give them the best care possible, and HB
295 does just that.
These concerns were brought to us by dentists who
recognized obstacles in doing the best job they can
for their patients, and these concerns are worth
considering by passing HB 295.
5:00:42 PM
ABIGAIL SWEETMAN, Staff, Representative Dan Ortiz, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the sectional analysis for HB 295 on
behalf of Representative Ortiz, prime sponsor. She paraphrased
from a written sectional analysis, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided with some formatting changes]:
Section 1: Conforming language in AS 08.01.065(c).
Section 2: Adds a new section (k) to AS 08.01.065
(Title 8. Business and Professions, Chapter 1.
Centralized Licensing, Section 065. Establishment of
fees)
Requires the Board of Dental Examiners to
establish and collect fees on behalf of the
Department of Health and Social Services for the
inspection of dental radiological equipment.
Section 3: Adds new sections to AS 08.36 (Title 8.
Business and Professions, Chapter 36. Dentistry)
AS 08.36.242. License to practice as a specialist
required.
Establishes that a dentist may not advertise
using the term "specialist," the name of a
specialty, or other phrases that suggest they are
a specialist unless they have a specialist
license as established.
AS 08.36.243. Qualification for specialist; scope
of practice.
(a)Establishes that in order to qualify for a
specialist licenses a person must
(1)Hold a dental license issued by the board
and
(2)Meet the qualifications of a specialist
as established by the board in regulation.
(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.
(c) Establishes that a dental specialist can only
claim to be a specialist in the specialty they
hold a license in.
Sec. 08.36.245. Suspension or revocation of
specialist license.
Establishes that a board may suspend or revoke a
specialist license as set by AS 08.36.315.
Section 4: Adds a new section (d) to AS 44.29.020
(Title 44. State Government, Chapter 29. Department of
Health and Human Services, Section 020. Duties of the
Department)
Requires DHSS to establish standards of
registration, use, record keeping, and inspection
of dental radiological equipment in compliance
with federal law.
Section 5: Conforming language in AS 44.46.029
Section 6: Conforming language in AS 46.03.022
Section 7: Repeals:
AS 08.36.075: Section of law requiring the Board
of Dental Examiners to set standards for inspection of
dental radiological equipment. Placed under DHSS by
section 4.
AS 18.05.065, AS 18.60.525(e), and AS 44.29.027:
Sections of law prohibiting DHSS from regulating
dental radiological equipment.
Section 8: Allows the Board of Dental Examiners, the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development, and the Department of Health and Social
Services to adopt regulations in line with this act.
Section 9: Allows the departments and board to
immediately begin setting regulations.
Section 10: Set a delayed effective date for the rest
of the act to July 1, 2023.
5:03:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened invited testimony on HB 295.
5:03:11 PM
DAVID LOGAN, DDS, Executive Director, Alaska Dental Society,
provided invited testimony in support of HB 295. He explained
that currently there isn't an avenue for dentists to get the
necessary inspections of their x-ray equipment. Dentists must
use state certified inspectors, but for several years there have
been no certified inspectors that dentists can use.
DR. LOGAN said there have been a couple false starts at
legislation, but this year is coming to a deadline as dentists
are going to start falling out of compliance at year's end.
Without action of some sort, dentists will be in the situation
at year's end of their x-ray machines becoming out of compliance
with the necessary inspections. Consequently, dentists will
have to use machines that are no longer compliant or not be able
to use their machines at all neither of which is a great
option. These machines need to be inspected periodically, not
doing so doesn't help things from a public health standpoint.
Dentists would like to get those machines inspected.
5:05:03 PM
DAVID NIELSON, DDS, Chair, Board of Dental Examiners, Division
of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED), provided invited testimony in support of HB 295. He
said he agrees with Dr. Logan's testimony. Regarding Section 3
of the bill, he explained that the Dental Practice Act repealed
specialty license categories in 2012 for reasons he is not aware
of because he was not on the Board of Dental Examiners at that
time. Since then, the board has shied away from investigating
false and misleading advertising complaints that tend to crop
up. For the board to address this, specialty license categories
are needed that can hold up under legal scrutiny. The board
needs the ability to reduce public confusion over deceptive or
false advertising brought by dentists using the term specialist
for specializing in an area of dentistry that is professionally
recognized to require significantly more training than they have
received. Typically, an accredited post-graduate specialty
program demands two years minimum of training beyond dental
school.
DR. NIELSON related that the board has had to deny a few license
applications to specialists trying to come work in Alaska
because the board didn't have a way to approve their
applications. That is because, without having a license type
that's limited to the specialty area of dentistry that they've
been practicing in for years or that they have a specific
training in, the board had to deny licenses to dentists who have
graduated from an accredited specialty program. If [the board]
can limit the scope of practice of the specific branch of
dentistry covered by the specialty license, it will open the
doors a little wider to more qualified specialists to come to
Alaska.
5:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered his understanding that currently
there is not someone to inspect the machines used in dentistry.
He asked whether there are dentists under investigation because
they cannot comply with this. He further asked whether this
means every dentist is going to have to shut down if this is not
implemented fast enough.
5:09:02 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development (DCCED), replied that the division is not
currently investigating these potentially out of compliance
dentists because there is no program with which to comply. The
division does not want to put them in a "catch 22." If this
bill passes, the plan would be to assist the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) in getting this up and running
quickly and then move toward compliance rather than an
enforcement right out of the gate. The division would want to
make sure dentists were aware of how to comply and that there
was a program that allowed compliance.
DR. NIELSON agreed with Ms. Chambers. He pointed out that
realistically there isn't a process in place for one dental
examiner to figure out which of the approximately 2,400 devices
being used are out of compliance. Dentists have had nobody
qualified to do their inspections for years. Everyone wants to
get caught up and get this program going again and DHSS has the
people to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked how viable it is that DHSS will be
able to find people to do the inspections given dentistry hasn't
been able to find inspectors.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that it would be a different model. The
board, she explained, has typically utilized a private sector
model that would rely on a supply of people who are performing
this type of service for other healthcare devices, but the board
hasn't been able to identify anyone in the last several years
who is qualified or willing to do that. The DHSS model, which
is reflected in the fiscal notes of both departments, would be
to employ someone who would be able to do this. A fee would be
collected by DCCED from the dentist to pay for this service,
which would then be sent over to DHSS through a reimbursable
service agreement (RSA) to pay for the person on staff, thereby
ensuring that someone is available to perform these inspections.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether this is kicking the can
from one department to another - previously dentists were paying
for the inspections until they couldn't find any inspectors in
the state. He further asked whether a grace period for dentists
is planned since it will take a while into the future to find an
inspector given the current labor shortage.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that everyone is in support of moving this
program. Radiological physicists are required to perform these
inspections, but since DCCED doesn't specialize in that, it is
looking to its partner sister agency for an assist to do
something that is currently under dental board statute. To not
reinvent the wheel, DCCED often works that way with other
departments for efficiency measures as well as expertise. The
grace period would extend to a length of time that it would take
for this program to be up and running, DCCED is not in the
business of enforcing impossible-to-comply-with laws. So, DCCED
would be working closely with DHSS to make sure that the program
is functional, fully staffed, and available, and to clearly
communicate a rollout of that inspection series to the dentists
involved so, compliance rather than enforcement.
5:13:50 PM
JAYME PARKER, MD, Chief, Alaska State Public Health Laboratory
Fairbanks, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), responded to Representative McCarty's
questions. She explained that her laboratory houses the
radiological health program, which currently has a single
radiological health physicist who inspects and registers over
1,000 non-dental devices every year. For this to be successful
[the laboratory] would need to hire another radiological health
care physicist to take on this additional capacity. While this
isn't easy to come by, it isn't impossible.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether the effective date of
7/1/23 is a doable timeframe.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that [DCCED] has been in communication with
DHSS and this effective date seems to work best for most people
and is a realistic start date. The original start date was
3/1/23 and July is a more reasonable date.
DR. PARKER added that [DHSS] would not investigate if the
program was not able to be complied with. Investigations would
not be initiated for people who could not comply with a program
that was not fully up and running.
5:15:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON recalled Ms. Chambers' statement that
impossible laws would not be enforced. He asked what the future
looks like if this doesn't get through in time.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that DCCED will have to work closely with
the industry to determine. The first step would be for dentists
to not utilize equipment that wasn't properly inspected or where
they were not complying with the laws that are attainable. This
means that if a dentist has a piece of radiological equipment
that hasn't been inspected within that six years the dentist
would need to make a professional call as to whether he or she
wants to run the risk of damage happening to staff or patients.
[The departments] aren't going to seek investigations because
dentists didn't comply with a date that is on the books. That
is different than professionals making a call as to whether they
feel comfortable using equipment that is out of compliance but
that they believe is safe. The departments will link arms and
plow forward if the bill passes and gives DHSS the tools to do
that, along with communicating with dentists because neither one
is an outcome that anybody wants.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked if the fees would be enough to cover
the bill's attached fiscal notes [totaling about $500,000].
MS. CHAMBERS answered that this would be completely receipt
supported, as indicated in the fiscal notes. One way to look at
it is that this program is currently theoretically on the books
and [DCCED] should have been collecting these fees or dentists
should have been paying a private contractor these fees these
last several years. Dentists are aware of going to a model of a
state employee at DHSS because this has been discussed with the
board on the record, and that the fees for all licensing
programs and each sector's group payment will be set through an
annual fee analysis. If the final model is [an inspection]
every sixth year, then that amount would be paid every six
years, so it would not be an annual amount to every dentist.
[The departments] will have to work through the cost, which was
previously paid through the private sector and now will be paid
through the public sector.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said he has heard about struggles with
recruiting people for public jobs compared to private jobs that
pay much better. He asked what the relationship would be of
having this on the books, but no one could be hired before the
deadline for this position had passed.
MS. CHAMBERS deferred to the writer of the DHSS fiscal note to
answer the question.
5:20:17 PM
IRENE CASARES, Radiological Health Physicist, Alaska State
Public Health Laboratory Fairbanks, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), responded that
the situation of the inspections would be once the program is
attainable and a person is hired. She related that people
currently in Alaska have asked her about the salary and duties
of this position, and said they are willing to take this
position of getting the program in alignment, inspecting the
equipment, and getting the dentists in compliance. It is just a
fact of who, when, where, and how does this get started.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether Ms. Casares is confident
that within a few months of passing HB 295, someone could be
hired and already out inspecting equipment.
MS. CASARES replied yes.
5:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about how the risk is managed to
prevent specialists from being locked out of what they are
qualified to do because of categorization. He further asked
whether the state has good definitions with enough latitude for
specializing along with doing general dentistry.
DR. NIELSON answered that certain specialties have more cross
training in general dentistry procedures than others, and each
specialty must be looked at individually to see what they
routinely do. It's a bit of a gray area, he said, but he
wouldn't suspect it would be a problem if an endodontist put in
a small filling. It would be on a case-by-case basis, so he
can't give the scope of practice for each specialty down to the
letter. It's just more appropriate, he advised, to allow a
specialist to work in their specialty area and keep it at that.
DR. LOGAN pointed out that, in general, most specialists are not
interested in performing general dentistry. Some specialists,
like a root canal specialist (endodontist), may routinely throw
in a filling. A periodontist (gum specialist) would have no
interest in putting in a filling because that is not what they
deal with, it is a completely different piece of the anatomy.
Therefore, this would not take away something.
MS. CHAMBERS added that these will be some of the things that
the board will need to work through in regulation. It would
typically fall to the education and training that the person is
presenting, so [DCCED] would not intentionally prevent someone
from practicing something they were qualified to do and want to
do. If they wished to pursue both pathways there is a method in
the law to do that, and the board will just need to narrow that
down through the regulatory process.
DR. NIELSON agreed with Ms. Chambers. He explained that the
intent of this is really the other way around which is to
allow someone who has had training in a specialty area to come
to Alaska even though they haven't done "general dentistry" for
a long time. The intent is to open this up for specialists who
are highly trained in their area, [the board] is not going to
focus a lot of time on not allowing a specialist to put in a
little filling once in a while if they feel qualified to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN cautioned against creating a catch-22
situation where there is a little piece of work, and someone is
afraid to do it even though they are competent to do so but it
isn't per the regulations. In general, he continued, he is
seeing that everything is going in a good direction.
5:27:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY concurred with Representative Kaufman
about micro-managing, but said he isn't hearing that from the
invited testimony. He stated he is confused about where the
problem is in recognizing specialists trying to get into the
state given specialists are already in Alaska.
DR. LOGAN confirmed there are about 150 specialists in Alaska.
He explained that by not having a specialty license they cannot
differentiate themselves from somebody else as a specialist; or
they can but the reverse is also unfortunately true in that a
general dentist can list himself or herself as a specialist even
without the requisite training, and the board is powerless to
prevent them from doing that because the board doesn't have the
statutory authority with the specialty license.
[HB 295 was held over.]
HB 276-PSYCHOLOGISTS: LICENSING AND PRACTICE
5:29:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 276, "An Act relating to licensing of
psychologists and psychological associates; and relating to the
practice of psychology."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS reminded members that HB 276 is the committee's
bill.
5:29:38 PM
MARVO REGUINDIN, Executive Director, Alaska Psychological
Association (APA), provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "HB
276 Model Licensing Act for Psychologists and Psychological
Associates." He spoke to the second slide, "Alaska
Psychological Association," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided with some formatting changes]:
â?¢ Represent the scientific and professional interests
of AK-PA membership to the American Psychological
Association (APA).
â?¢ [135] members in 2021, the membership consists of
o Licensed Psychologists and Psychological
Associates
o LMFT, LPC, LSW, LCSW, ANP, PMHNP
o University or college faculty or other non-
clinical professionals with a masters or
doctorate in psychology
o Grad Students
MR. REGUINDIN noted that psychologists have a doctoral degree
and psychological associates have a master's degree, and that
for both of those to hold their titles they must be licensed.
MR. REGUINDIN reviewed the third slide, "Alaska Psychological
Association," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Mission:
The purpose of Alaska Psychological Association is to
promote the advancement, communication, and
application of psychological science and knowledge to
improve the lives of all Alaskans.
MR. REGUINDIN discussed the fourth slide, "Model Licensing Act
History," which read as follows [original punctuation provided
with some formatting changes]:
â?¢ AK-PA learned of APA's Model Licensing Act (MLA) at
the 2017 American Psychological Association annual
Practice Leadership Conference
â?¢ The AK-PA conference delegation created a committee
to hold a series of work-sessions open to members
and the public to gauge interest and accept input
from a wide constituency.
â?¢ In 2018, work sessions examined and discussed the
current licensing classifications and licensing
requirements, then gained interest and support for
introducing an MLA for Alaska.
MR. REGUINDIN presented the fifth slide 5, "Current Licensing
for Psychologists and Psychological Associates," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided with some formatting
changes]:
â?¢ Currently, Alaska's Statutes and Regulations for
Psychologists and Psychological Associates provide
for obtaining a license or obtaining a temporary
license.
â?¢ 324 licensed Psychologists
â?¢ 36 Psychological Associates in the state
MR. REGUINDIN explained that HB 276 would introduce a middle
ground. He turned to the sixth slide, "HB 276 MLA Introduces a
Middle Ground," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
1. Amend how student supervised hours are acquired
this is the core for developing the MLA
2. Introduction of a Part Time License for both
psychologists and psychological associates
3. Introduction of an Inactive License for both
psychologists and psychological associates
4. Better defines who the Practice of Psychology does
not apply to by including Contractors for a Tribal
Health Organization licensed in another state.
MR. REGUINDIN noted that Alaska has two universities with
doctoral degrees in psychology, so this became a very important
point of creating this Model Licensing Act.
MR. REGUINDIN displayed the seventh slide, "Amend how Graduate
Student Supervised Hours are Acquired," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided with some formatting changes]:
â?¢ Follows the national trend to allow 3000 hours to be
completed before graduation through practicum,
internship, or postdoctoral experience
â?¢ Does not alter the quality or quantity of training
â?¢ 17 states allow the re-sequencing of training hours
â?¢ Follows the model used by medical schools
â?¢ Allows students to get licensed and enter the
workforce sooner to benefit Alaskans
MR. REGUINDIN addressed the eighth slide, "Introduce a Part Time
License," which read as follows [original punctuation provided
with some formatting changes]:
â?¢ This new classification would allow senior career
licensed psychologists and senior career licensed
psychological associates approaching retirement to
continue their practice with limited hours and
continue to use their respective titles as licensed
providers in writing papers, research, presenting
continuing education
â?¢ Must be licensed for at least 20 years
â?¢ Engaged in the practice for not more than 20 hours a
week.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS inquired about the logic and benefit in having a
part-time license in addition to a regular license.
MR. REGUINDIN deferred to Dr. Lane to answer the question.
5:35:51 PM
ROBERT LANE, PhD, Director, Counseling Psychology, Alaska
Pacific University, explained that the intent with this is that
the psychology license statutes in Alaska are both title and
practice. During work group meeting, members talked about what
they would like to see happening with [Alaska] statutes and
licensing laws. A group of senior psychologists were interested
in trying to hang on to their ability to use the title without
having to pay the full fee of the license for exiting out of
work. For example, a colleague of his was no longer in private
practice, but had treated sex offenders for years in Alaska's
criminal justice system. This colleague wrote a book and would
like to be able to share research findings with psychologists in
Alaska, but he cannot do that unless he is licensed because he
would be holding himself out as a psychologist. So, it is a way
of allowing people who are no longer trying to be in private
practice to still be able to be psychologists in the community
and share their work with others. Another example is himself,
Dr. Lane continued. When he retires in about another year, he
will have put in a career of being a psychologist, but if he
doesn't maintain a license, he cannot refer to himself as a
psychologist. So, there is some discipline and professional-
like identity that goes with it. The license fee in Alaska has
been as high as $1,400-$1,500 but has come back down somewhat.
The idea with this is to give some sort of reduced licensing fee
and allow people to hang on to their title and have a very
limited scope of practice.
5:38:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS observed that [page 3 of the bill, lines 13-14]
state that the "board may issue a part-time psychologist
license". He surmised that the board could therefore choose not
to issue a part-time license, but no parameters are provided
about the extent to which the fees might be reduced. He asked
whether the fees would be left to the board and the department.
DR. LANE replied as follows:
We were aware that much of what happens in the actual
practice of things happens in the development of
regulation and we didn't want to get down into the
weeds in an area where we didn't really know without
the licensing board being involved, and the division
being more involved in the development of regulations.
So our thinking was if we could propose the statutes
then regulations would be developed and then
appropriate license holders would have a chance to
opine on the regulations."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS requested the opinion of Ms. Chambers about this
[proposed] new part-time license.
5:39:25 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development (DCCED), responded that she understands the
intent behind the license, but she has not had much opportunity
to speak with the board or the association about this. She
stated that there is no guarantee there will be a lower license
fee - it is the same amount of regulatory work to approve the
credentials and background for someone. The current license fee
for a renewing psychologist would be $500, she continued.
Asking for a reduced fee for essentially the same amount of
regulatory work would really be asking the board to endorse on
the record a scheme in which the full-time licensees are
subsidizing the regulatory cost of the part-time or inactive
licensees, assuming that that workload is the same. It takes
the same overhead, lights, heat, and staff time to evaluate
credentials, work through paperwork, and there is also
investigation cost.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Chambers whether she objects to being
given the authority as long as it is "may" or whether it is
better to just not be given that authority.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that this is not a novel or unusual
concept as many of the division's licensing programs give the
board the authority to evaluate credentials and determine if
someone is qualified and then to have the intent to meet this
niche market. The division would not want to stand in the way,
but those conversations haven't happened regarding the cost or
the application workload and what the credentials might look
like. The division doesn't have any objection to it, she
continued, but there are details that need to be worked out and
she cannot guarantee that there would be a lower fee for this
type of license.
5:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said he would like to define similar in
relation to Ms. Chambers' statement that there are other boards
which have something similar. He asked whether other boards
have a part-time license position.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that many boards have inactive licenses or
"sort of a license light," so to speak. She said she would get
back to the committee on whether a true part-time license exists
with other programs.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that a part-time license position
would suggest that a licensee is working part time, say 20
hours. He surmised that a lot more would be put on the division
in having to verify that a person is not working more than 20
hours given that a lower cost could result in someone saying
they are part-time and then working under the table. The
division, he continued, would put more energy on a part-time
person for the privilege of the title, a privilege that exists
for full time for $500 every two years.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that this is an important nuance. She
suggested that the inactive license might be the same thing to
allow someone to continue to use their title without seeing
patients. There is a potential for risk, she continued, so the
division would likely have someone attest under penalty of law
that they have only worked those 20 hours a week and that they
have met the legal requirements. The division would then be
beholden to investigate if a complaint were turned in that
someone was trying to defraud the state by working more than 20
hours a week on a part-time license. There would be no real way
that the division would ask for that verification, such as
records, but the division would request attestation under
penalty of perjury and investigate if a complaint was received.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY reiterated that it seems the division
would put in a lot more energy to investigate this rather than
just making it a clean piece. He inquired whether someone
filing for an inactive license could carry the title of
psychologist given that they would not be a practicing licensee.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that usually an inactive license is
adopted by the legislature or the board to allow someone to be
able to continue to call themselves a doctor or to hold that
credential but without being able to practice that profession.
For example, someone writing a book could call themselves "Dr.
Kenneth McCarty" but could not see patients under that inactive
license. Nurses, architects, engineers, and land surveyors have
this - people who want to maintain the prestige and recognition
of their hard work without actually practicing in the field.
5:46:34 PM
MR. REGUINDIN, at the request of Co-Chair Fields, reviewed the
nineth slide, "Introduce an Inactive License," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided with some formatting
changes]:
â?¢ The APA Model Licensing Act notes an Inactive
License for "psychologists who suffering from health
problems, are on military assignment outside the
state, on sabbatical, retired, or who move to
another state may wish to be on inactive status."
â?¢ Relieving the psychologist from paying full
licensing fees while in 'inactive' status allows
them to remain in good standing without being an
active practitioner.
5:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY surmised that this language defines that
inactive is not just checking a box of inactive but that the
person must have a reason which fits under the criteria outlined
in the language. Therefore, someone cannot just check the box
of inactive just to retain the title of psychologist.
DR. LANE offered his assumption that this would be worked out in
regulation, and he can envision having a comprehensive list.
However, he would be concerned about a comprehensive list that
wasn't actually comprehensive, but he is assuming from the point
of view of HB 276 that those details would be worked out in
regulation.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether this is all about paying $500,
which he said seems like a low cost for someone with a doctoral
level of education.
DR. LANE responded that the inactive license is something lots
of states have and the idea is to give Alaskan psychologists the
same kinds of things that other states have. He said he hadn't
put as much thought into the actual fees because that is
something in which the board would need to have an active part.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Chambers whether an inactive license
would be a workable model.
MS. CHAMBERS replied yes, several programs have an inactive
license where people want to say they are a nurse or an
engineer, but not practice. She advised that when getting to
regulations with the board a reason would not be required
because there is not really a purpose behind requiring a reason.
If someone was not going to practice, they would file the
paperwork, the online verification with the state. With an
inactive license they are not allowed to practice. The bill
allows for a method to reverse that if they want to change back.
The bottom line is that they would not be allowed to practice.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY agreed that that is a good point. He
asked whether he is correct in understanding that if someone is
inactive, they can state that they have been involved in, say,
engineering, but cannot say that they are a licensed engineer.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that that is not her understanding. She
said her understanding is that they can still say they are an
engineer, or still say that they are a psychologist; they just
can't say that they are licensed to practice engineering or
psychology. So, they get the benefit of the title, but they
can't hold themselves out as taking engineering jobs or seeing
patients and it really is for folks who are at the endpoint of
their career.
5:51:40 PM
MR. REGUINDIN concluded his presentation with the tenth slide,
"Practice of Psychology does not apply to," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
An officer, employee, or contractorof the United
States Government or a tribal organization who is
licensed to practice psychology in another state and
is practicing psychology while in the discharge of the
officer's, employee's, or contractor's official
duties.
MR. REGUINDIN noted that this provision adds the term contractor
and defines a tribal organization in relation to what the
practice of psychology does not apply to.
5:52:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS surmised that these people would not be paying
fees. He asked how many psychologists work for a tribal
organization and would now not be paying fees.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that she thinks this legislation just
clarifies what is already in federal law that not all, but most
types, of contractors who hold a license in another state for
working through the Indian Health Service through a personal
service contract are considered exempt. This just adds some
beneficial clarity.
DR. LANE, in response to Co-Chair Fields, concurred with Ms.
Chambers.
[HB 276 was held over.]
5:54:19 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 295 ver. A 2.9.22.PDF |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Sponsor Statement 2.9.22.pdf |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Sectional Analysis 2.9.22.pdf |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Letter of Support - DEN 2.1.22.pdf |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Letter of Support - ADS 2.9.22.pdf |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 2.4.22.pdf |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Fiscal Note DOH-LABS 2.4.22.pdf |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Fiscal Note DOH-MAA 2.4.22.pdf |
HHSS 3/31/2022 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 289 ver. B 2.9.22.PDF |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Sectional Analysis 1.31.2022.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Sponsor Statement 1.31.2022.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Letter of Support - AMIA 1.31.2022.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Letter of Support - AMIA 1.31.22.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Research - ADN Article on Alaska Marijuana Industry 11.07.2021.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Research - ADN Article on Alaska Marijuana Industry 11.30.2021.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Fiscal Note DCCED-AMCO 2.4.22.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 276 ver. A 2.7.22.PDF |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Sponsor Statement 2.7.22.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Sectional Analysis 2.7.22.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 2.4.22.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 MLA Overview Presentation 2.7.22.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| HB 289 Letter of Support - AMIA 1.31.22.pdf |
HL&C 2/9/2022 4:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |