Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/08/2002 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 270-DISPENSING OPTICIANS:EXTEND BD/REGULATION CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 270(L&C), "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Dispensing Opticians; relating to the regulation of dispensing opticians; and providing for an effective date." Number 0782 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt Version 22-LS1382\R, Lauterbach, 5/8/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version R was before the committee. Number 0813 HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and Audit, Alaska State Legislature, explained that Version R retains the mandatory licensure of dispensing opticians and retains the board with the original extension date of 2005. Version R includes some intent language in Section 1, which addresses the board's deficit by directing the Division of Legislative Audit to review the board's progress at the next sunset review date. This version includes a career progression program, which is a study course that the board wanted included as a licensing requirement. The hours of training under a licensed professional was decreased to 1,800 hours, which is approximately one year. Version R provides for a dispensing optician's assistant, which is someone who wants to be employed under another licensed professional. A dispensing optician's assistant wouldn't be mandated to work toward licensure. The language relating to the dispensing optician's assistant is based on an amendment presented by the department on behalf of the board. MS. BRAKES pointed out that on page 4, line 16, of Version R the language "direct supervision of a" was deleted. She requested that the committee consider reinserting the language "supervision of a". CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to why the word "direct" wouldn't be included. Isn't "direct supervision" important, she asked. MS. BRAKES said the recommendation was made by the Division of Legal and Research Services. CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to how in debt the Board of Dispensing Opticians is and a realistic idea of [when] the board could break even. Number 1079 CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED), noted that other programs and boards have, over time, accumulated insignificant deficit and thus fees are raised such that the group ultimately pays itself back. Last year, before the Board of Dispensing Opticians' renewal, the board had a $28,000 deficit. The renewal will be up in a year and Ms. Reardon expected the board to have fallen further into deficit, perhaps to $32,000. Therefore, paying the deficit all at once would result in about $360 more [per dispensing optician] plus the approximately $12,000-$14,000 biennial under collection. Generally, the division doesn't ask professions to pay back deficits all at once, rather a payment plan is utilized. CHAIR MURKOWSKI directed attention to page 1, line 9, which specifies that during the board's next review there will be an analysis with regard to the board's compliance. However, Version R provides that the board [won't be renewed] for three years. Chair Murkowski inquired as to whether that timeframe should be shortened. Number 1206 MS. REARDON noted that she shares significant responsibility for letting the board be in a situation in which it hasn't paid back its deficit. It won't simply be left to the board to increase fees, she said, but rather it will be the decision of the division. She pointed out that in February or March there will be the opportunity to reset fees. Ms. Reardon said she didn't believe three years was too long [because it] will allow the Legislative Audit Division to review the impact of the fee increase. MS. REARDON turned to the difference between "direct supervision" versus "supervision." She pointed out that current statute includes a definition of "supervision" as follows: "the provision of any needed direction, control, consultation, instruction, evaluation, and personal inspection of the work being performed." The legislation specifies that the unlicensed assistants must be supervised by a licensee and thus the licensee must provide any needed direction, which is a fairly general term that wouldn't necessarily mean on-site supervision. "Direct supervision", which is currently used in the apprentice statute, has been defined in regulation to mean that "the supervisor is physically present at the same site as the supervisee while dispensing optician tasks are being performed." Therefore, she suggested that the reference to "direct supervision for apprentices" probably does mean that the board wants the apprentices to be under direct supervision so that they can be trained. She related her belief that the board would also want the unlicensed assistants to be under direct supervision. Number 1397 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reminded the committee that there have been concerns with regard to the 2005 date. He mentioned that [the legislature] wants to have [the board] come before the legislature again and have another audit. CHAIR MURKOWSKI recalled that during testimony, the issue of the practical exam was brought up repeatedly. [Version R] doesn't include it, although the progression program is included. Some folks expressed concern that the practical exam is important and perhaps with a shorter time period for legislative review, the legislature could review the practical exam at that time. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the board could act on its own through regulation [and include the practical exam]. MS. REARDON said she didn't believe that the board could require the practical exam by regulation because the exams that need to be passed are specified in statute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned attention to Section 6(a)(4) and asked if the board could [by regulation] require an applicant to pass a course in operating the machine with which everyone has difficulty. MS. REARDON related her understanding that [Section 6(a)(4)] refers to an academic or training course of study. However, she supposed that at the end of the course one must pass a test showing [the individual can operate the machine]. Still, she said she believes that there would have to be a regulation that would pass legal muster. She expected the board to adopt in regulation the need for completion of the career progression program, which includes written exams and requirements that demonstrate to the supervisor that the individual can do certain things. It would be very difficult to have a regulation requiring the practical exam since the practical exam has been removed from statute. Number 1589 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, as follows: Page 4, line 16: Following "the" Insert "supervision of a" There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER returned to the 2005 date and asked if there had been a decision on that. CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that although changing the date has been discussed, no decision has been made yet. Number 1631 PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative Audit, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that in 2005 there will be ten occupational-related boards and commissions going through the legislative process. This year there were only five [boards and commissions] that the committee had to address. The proposal to combine the psychologist and social workers will also occur in 2005, she noted. Number 1697 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, as follows: Page 1, line 14: Delete "2005" Insert "2004" There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that the letter of intent needed to be revisited because it refers to the board reporting its findings in 2004. Representative Rokeberg moved that the committee amend the letter of intent such that it refers to June 30, 2003, rather than June 30, 2004. There being no objection, the letter of intent was amended as specified. Number 1751 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to report HCS CSSB 270, Version 22- LS1382\R, Lauterbach 5/8/02, as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note and amended letter of intent. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 270(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|