Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/27/2001 03:03 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 21-FINES BY THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD CHAIR DYSON announced the committee would hear testimony on SENATE BILL NO. 21, "An Act increasing the maximum civil fine that may be imposed by the State Medical Board as a disciplinary sanction." Number 1948 SENATOR DONALD OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, came forth as sponsor of SB 21. He stated that he had introduced SB 21 in order to increase the monetary sanctions that the State Medical Board may impose on a licensee for professional or ethical misconduct. This bill increases the maximum penalty from the $10,000 limit that is currently in statute to $25,000. SENATOR OLSON remarked that he feels the need for SB 21 is twofold. First, he said, he believes the maximum sanction of $10,000 does not provide a sufficient monetary deterrent, given the economic status of many licensees. Often the severity of the penalty is not equivalent to the damage caused in extreme cases of misconduct. Furthermore, the $10,0000 limit has not changed since it was first enacted 14 years ago. Senator Olson stated that a second reason for SB 21 is the increasing costs that the board is experiencing in its caseload management of misconduct allegations. It is not unusual for the cost of a misconduct determination to exceed the $10,000 penalty limit. Since the activities of the board are wholly supported by licensure, fees, and fines, the increased cost of operations usually translates into license fee increases. Therefore, SB 21 offers a second way to meet the increasing caseload costs by expanding the board's cost recoverability through increased fees. In practice, the financial burden for this regulatory activity may be shifted more from the general membership to the wrongdoers themselves. Number 1853 SENATOR OLSON concluded, stating that currently the board has 188 cases that are open for potential investigation and adjudication by the Division of Occupational Licensing. During the calendar year 2000, 130 new cases were opened and 133 closed. This effort resulted in 35 disciplinary actions against State Medical Board licensees. In fiscal year 2000, the cost of pursuing misconduct charges exceeded $160,000. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked why there is no effective date on the bill. Number 1811 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community & Economic Development, replied that the bill does not need to have [an effective date]. Without [a specified] effective date, the bill takes effect 90 days after the governor signs it. CHAIR DYSON asked if the fines being applied to the department are mentioned in the code. MS. REARDON replied that the Occupational Licensing Board, such as the State Medical Board, are governed by AS 08.01.065 (c), which states that the revenue generated from each profession has to cover the costs of licensing and regulating that profession. She explained that when the [Division of Occupational Licensing] does the calculations to see if [the medical professionals] are financially self-sufficient, [the Division of Occupational Licensing] does credit that board or professional with the fine money and license fee money that comes in. CHAIR DYSON questioned that. He noted that it has been important not to allow law enforcement to reap the rewards of more fines. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that on page 2, line 5, of the bill, language [allows] a fine to be imposed. However, the body of the bill includes intent language [that allows a sliding scale]. Therefore, he asked if there are other discretionary measures that allow for a sliding scale, other than that intent language. SENATOR OLSON replied that the intent of the bill wasn't so much to do away with a sliding scale, but to make sure [that the amount of the fee] is more in alignment with the egregious acts that [the medical practitioners] have committed. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that he is wondering if the "of not more than" language gives the latitude that is being sought. He asked if it would be more appropriate to say, "up to but no more than". He remarked that this certainly would be challenged in court, and, therefore, he wondered whether the intent language should be clearly stated in the statutory language. SENATOR OLSON replied that he hadn't looked at it that way. He explained that in creating the bill, it was necessary that the fines stay in place; however, the maximum penalty was able to reach a degree more indicative of the finding of misconduct. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated his aforementioned concerns. Number 1597 CHAIR DYSON related his belief that SB 21 is simple, and that all that is being done is changing the upper limit such that the fine [more accurately] reflects the [violation]. He announced his position that the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee would want all medical practitioners to be as ethical as possible, and would want the occupational licensing process to work at weeding out the "bad guys." Number 1540 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move SB 21 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, SB 21 moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|