Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
02/08/2008 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB297 | |
| HB340 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 340 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 297-PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE 3:05:37 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 297, "An Act relating to the practice of veterinary medicine." REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, testifying as prime sponsor of HB 297, said that the Board of Veterinary Examiners (BVE) statutes were last updated in 1998. This bill, he explained, will would allow fourth year veterinary students to work in Alaska under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. This internship would allow the student, including Alaska residents, to experience the practice of veterinary medicine in Alaska. This bill would also provide exemptions for veterinary medical officers from governmental agencies and veterinarians licensed in another state or country to work as consultants in Alaska, coordinated by the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED) and the Board of Veterinary Examiners (BVE). 3:07:19 PM DR. STEVEN TORRENCE, DVM, Chair, Board of Veterinary Examiners (BVE), said that the board is requesting several changes to its statutes, which have not been updated since 1998. Currently fourth year students cannot work as technicians in the state since they do not have the training or licensure required to do so. Although students can observe, they can do little more than that, he opined. Veterinary students must leave the state to attend a four-year veterinary program. Allowing students the opportunity to work in an established hospital will help them segue to potential jobs in Alaska. At the same time, HB 297 provides licensed veterinarians an opportunity to exchange ideas such as new practices in veterinary medicine with a potential employee in a professional setting. Safeguards, such as limiting a veterinary practice to host a maximum of two interns and limiting a single veterinarian to one intern under his/her supervision helps ensure a quality experience for student interns. In fact, monitoring and supervising of an intern is a significant time commitment for the practicing veterinarian. However, the commitment is worthwhile for veterinary medicine in Alaska due to the opportunities it presents to bring fourth year students to Alaska. 3:11:00 PM DR. TORRENCE said that proposed AS 08.98.250(5) would amend the definition of "practice of veterinary medicine" by deleting "for compensation" to curb unlicensed activity such as veterinary hospitals operating without licensure. Currently, the DCCED's investigator must issue a cease and desist order in order to halt the illegal practice. When someone claims a certain level of expertise in veterinary medicine, it can be harmful or disastrous. Under HB 297, the board could take action against the person claiming expertise who did the harm. Dr. Torrence pointed out that nothing in HB 297 would prevent a person from acting in a "Good Samaritan" situation, such as a neighbor helping a neighbor or a person treating his/her own animals. 3:15:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the difference between a veterinary program and a veterinary school. DR. TORRENCE answered that he was not sure. He pointed out that most veterinary colleges are referred to as schools, whereas programs might be offered outside a college by organizations. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that the University of California would be the school offering the veterinary program at the Davis campus location. 3:18:49 PM DR. TORRENCE, in response to Representative LeDoux, answered that a lay vaccinator program administered by the Section of Epidemiology, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), provides for administration of the rabies vaccine for lay people in rural areas. 3:19:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 for purposes of discussion, labeled 25-LS0357\E.1, Bullard, 3/11/08, which read: Page 3, line 13: Delete "and" Page 3, line 14, following "(9)": Insert "a person approved by the Department of Health and Social Services to administer rabies vaccine to animals; (10)" REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that the rabies vaccine has to be handled properly and so the Section of Epidemiology, DHSS, currently certifies individuals to administer rabies vaccine. He pointed out that nothing in HB 279 prohibits people from administering other vaccines. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled that until this past summer people in rural areas administered vaccines. She asked whether Amendment 1 would reinstate that practice. DR. TORRENCE offered that the Section of Epidemiology, DHSS, developed a course to train and certify lay vaccinators to administer rabies vaccine to dogs and cats throughout Alaska. Last year, due to an incidence of 12 cases of rabies in dogs in Bethel, the DHSS temporarily dismantled the program to investigate what had happened. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the effect of Amendment 1 on the lay vaccinator program, if it is currently "alive and well." DR. TORRENCE answered that rabies vaccine has to be in possession of or be administered by a veterinarian. Since some areas of the state do not have a veterinarian, the state certifies lay vaccinators to administer rabies vaccine to dogs or cats in these regions. Under the program, rabies vaccine is purchased by the state and distributed free of charge along with tags and the standard certificates to all lay vaccinators and to all private veterinarians. 3:24:22 PM JENNIFER STRICKLER, Chief, Professional Licensing, Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, Juneau Office, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), in response Representative LeDoux, said that the statute currently lists the acts of veterinary practice, but requires that veterinary practice must be "for compensation." Removing "for compensation" from HB 297 allows the lay vaccinator program to continue. The effect of HB 297 is to exempt lay vaccinators from the practice of veterinary medicine, she said. MS. STRICKLER clarified that a different statute allows village police officers or public health officers to euthanize animals and is not affected by HB 297. In response to an earlier question, she said that the change in HB 297 from "school" to "program" was made to address how foreign programs are accredited by the American Veterinary Association. The Board of Veterinary Examiners identified some foreign programs that are not equivalent to doctorate programs in the United States. The Board of Veterinary Examiners would like to review programs for equivalency to programs in the United States. She related that the DCCED fully supports HB 297. 3:27:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the reason for removing language on page 4, line 14, proposed AS 08.98.250(1), which reads: "[AND CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR ACCREDITATION BY THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION]". MS. STRICKLER answered that while the American Veterinarian Association sets the standards for the program, the division supports giving the BVE authority to determine which programs should be accepted. 3:28:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to why compensation is being removed on page 5, line 9. MS. STRICKLER answered that "for compensation" is being removed because under current statute a person practices veterinary medicine only if the individual is paid. The Board of Veterinary Examiners maintains that when a person treats an animal that the person is practicing veterinary medicine whether or not it is for compensation. 3:29:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to page 5, lines 10-27, proposed AS 08.98.250(5)(D), which is being deleted in HB 297. She inquired as to why artificial insemination is being removed from the practice of veterinary medicine. MS. STRICKLER answered that the artificial insemination exemption is now addressed on page 3, lines 11-12, in proposed AS 08.98.125(7). 3:30:41 PM CHAIR OLSON asked if there were any further questions on Amendment 1. There being no further questions and no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:31:06 PM DR. TORRENCE noted that most veterinarians in the state do not have expertise on artificial insemination. Since expertise is available in the Lower 48 by those who routinely perform the procedures, some changes were made in HB 297 to allow Alaskans to utilize that expertise. 3:32:08 PM DR. PAM TUOMI, DVM, Alaska Sealife Center, said that about three years ago she began to notice deficiencies in the definition of veterinary medicine, in particular, for agencies involved in wildlife research projects. The current statutes hindered veterinarians from using out-of-state experts. The Board of Veterinary Examiners interpreted that experts would need to obtain temporary licenses. However, the time, cost, and paperwork involved in obtaining a temporary license meant expending research funds to do so. Since qualified veterinarians in the state could not cover all of the project needs, in 2005 the veterinarians petitioned the board for relief. Thus, the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine was broadened to allow the use of consultants by practicing veterinarians. She expressed support for the change to HB 297 that will allow the lay vaccinator program to continue. She said she supports passage of HB 297. 3:34:59 PM DR. ROBERT GERLACH, State Veterinarian, Office of the State Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, noted that the practice of veterinary medicine is growing and expanding into new specialties and avenues of research. He stressed the importance of educational resources to veterinarians in the state. Veterinarians are not just involved with health and protection of animals, but also with the development of health and food safety, he said. Veterinarians who practice in specialized areas of veterinary medicine can benefit from access to other specialists in the Lower 48, he opined. He stressed that updating standards of practice of veterinary medicine helps to ensure the performance of quality veterinary medicine for wild and domestic animal resources for Alaska's public health and food safety. 3:36:35 PM CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else to wished testify, closed public testimony on HB 297. 3:36:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern about removing the language "for compensation". She posed a scenario in which an owner with a sick dog consults his/her neighbor who offers advice and asked if the neighbor would be practicing veterinary medicine without a license under HB 297. DR. TORRENCE replied that it would not be the practice of veterinary medicine because it would fall under the Good Samaritan provisions, which veterinarians encourage. He related that a person can have someone act as an agent so long as their actions do not go against the intent of statute, such as mushers who routinely use other people to perform tasks to care for their sick or injured dogs. DR. TORRENCE, in response to Representative LeDoux, answered that the Board of Veterinary Examiners would not have an interest in neighbor-to-neighbor consultations which are considered expressing opinions. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for a specific cite for the exemption to allow that activity. 3:39:29 PM DR. TORRENCE referred to page 2, line 25-27, proposed AS 08.98.125(2), which read: "a person who provides emergency care without remuneration to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to the person to be in immediate need of emergency aid to avoid serious harm or death;". He further referred to page 3, line 14, under proposed AS 08.98.125(9), which read: "a person or employee of a person who, without compensation, treats only animals belonging to that person ..." REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX specified that the exemptions mentioned would not apply to the scenario posed since the owner is not treating his/her own animal and the neighbor is not an employee of the person. DR. TORRENCE offered that a diagnosis is a medical opinion based on fact, training, and experience rather than a lay opinion. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN reiterated that HB 297 refers to the practice of veterinary medicine and not neighbors helping neighbors. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted her agreement with the intent of HB 297, but maintained her concern. 3:41:48 PM MS. STRICKLER referred to page 5, line 8, proposed AS 08.98.250(5)(C) which read: " ...is qualified or licensed to do any act in (A) of this paragraph ...". She pointed out if the neighbor is offering an opinion, the person is not practicing veterinary medicine unless that person is qualified or licensed to do so. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN drew attention to the title of HB 297: "An Act relating to the practice of veterinary medicine." REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that proposed AS 08.98.250(5)(A)-(C) does not have any "ands" or "ors." She opined that a person would have to do all three - diagnose, represent, and be qualified - in order to be practicing veterinary medicine. MS. STRICKLER noted her agreement. 3:44:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 297, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 3:44:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He referred to page 5, lines 3- 5, in proposed AS 08.98.250(5)(B) which read: "[MEANS] to represent, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately, an ability or willingness to do an act in (A) of this paragraph [FOR COMPENSATION];" He expressed concern that under this provision someone with an ability to suture or administer pills could be construed as practicing veterinary medicine. MS. STRICKLER specified that the language under question in proposed AS 08.98.250(5)(B) is current statute. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed agreement, but pointed out that the current statute also includes, "for compensation." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his concern that removing "for compensation" language has changed the meaning of practicing veterinary medicine. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to whether [proposed AS 08.98.250(5)(B)] should read, "is inclusive." REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered that HB 297 has been reviewed by many professionals including BVE board members. He reiterated that the intent of HB 297 is to update the practice of veterinary medicine. 3:50:06 PM The committee took an at-ease from 3:50 p.m. to 3:51 p.m. 3:51:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referring to page 5, line 5, pointed out that adding an "and" would connect the three subparagraphs. DR. TORRENCE suggested the committee consider an "or" instead of the "and". He recalled that someone could start a veterinary practice without ever furnishing a copy of his/her diploma or license. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted her agreement. She maintained concern that an owner and neighbor could inadvertently practice veterinary medicine. DR. TORRENCE explained that the practice of veterinary medicine extends beyond providing care to animals. He related aspects of the practice of veterinary medicine that go beyond experience. 3:56:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO maintained his concern. Under HB 297, those in rural areas without access to veterinary care might be prohibited from caring for their dog, he said. CHAIR OLSON inquired as to whether Representative Gatto's concern would fall under the Good Samaritan provisions of statute. MS. STRICKLER replied yes. She said that DCCED's intent is not to criminalize the owner of an animal or to prevent someone from helping that person care for a sick or injured animal. She referred to page 2, line 25, proposed AS 08.98.125 (2) which reads: "a person who provides emergency care without remuneration to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to the person to be in immediate need of emergency aid to avoid serious harm or death;". 4:00:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH mentioned that some of the discussion has been in regard to animal husbandry. He asked for clarification between those licensed to provide veterinary practice versus those engaged in animal husbandry and whether the current definitions in statute address their differences. MS. STRICKLER answered that the term animal husbandry was defined in statute, but was replaced with an exemption on page 3, line 14, of proposed AS 08.98.125(9), which read: "a person or employee of a person, who, without compensation, treats only animals belonging to that person, unless ownership is transferred for the purpose of avoiding this chapter ...". REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the example of an emergency situation which she opined would be exempted under HB 297. She posed a scenario of an owner taking a sick animal to a neighbor, but your mother-in-law, who is a village health aide, for advice. She expressed a concern that under the bill that person would be in violation of the statute. She opined that person would not be exempt under the bill. DR. TORRENCE said he frequently receives calls of this nature. One often cannot define what constitutes an emergency. When an animal is sick in a rural area without veterinary care basically constitutes an emergency, he said. He further noted his agreement that people will seek the most qualified help when veterinary care is not available and in doing so, without remuneration, does not present a problem. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained her concern that people living in rural areas would be precluded from consulting neighbors about their sick or injured animals without specific language in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted her agreement. She related that someone might help a neighbor and pull out quills from a dog that had encountered a porcupine. That person would not be exempted from the practice of veterinary medicine since the situation does not constitute an emergency. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, as sponsor of bill, explained that HB 297 adopts recommendations that Dr. Torrence and the Board of Veterinary Examiners requested. He pointed out Dr. Torrence and the board have the expertise and ability to discern what constitutes an emergency situation, or a Good Samaritan situation with respect to veterinary practice. He stressed his full support HB 297. 4:10:04 PM DR. TORRENCE suggested that the committee might consider deleting "emergency" from proposed AS 08.98.125(2). REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, as follows: Page 2, line 25, following, "a person who provides": Delete, "emergency" 4:11:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment 2, as follows: Page 2, line 26: Delete "immediate" Page 2, line 27: Delete "emergency" REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested a second amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, as follows: Page 2, line 27" Delete "to avoid serious harm or death". REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER explained people frequently offer help to treat someone else's animal, and often there is not risk of serious harm or death and the situations are not emergency situations. CHAIR OLSON referred to page 2, line 27, and suggested that the committee consider deleting "serious". REPRESENTATIVE GATTO reminded the committee that [Conceptual] Amendment 2 and an amendment to [Conceptual] Amendment 2 are pending. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 2 would result in proposed AS 08.98.125(2) reading, as follows: "a person who provides care without remuneration to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to the person to be in need of aid" REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted her agreement. CHAIR OLSON reiterated his suggestion to amend Conceptual Amendment 2, such that the term "serious" on page 2, line 27, is deleted. 4:14:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to withdraw Conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was withdrawn. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt a new Conceptual Amendment 2" Page 2, line 25: Delete "emergency" Page 2, line 26: Delete "immediate" Page 2, line 27: Delete "emergency" and "to avoid serious harm or death". 4:15:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER made a motion to amend new Conceptual Amendment 2: Page 2, line 27: Replace the "." with a ";" [The committee treated the amendment to new Conceptual Amendment 2 as adopted]. There being no objection, new Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted. 4:16:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 297, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 297(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|