Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB38 | |
| SB62 | |
| SB21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 21 | ||
SENATE BILL NO. 38
"An Act extending the termination date of the State
Medical Board; and providing for an effective date."
9:11:12 AM
Senator Olson appreciated the committee hearing the bill
and stated that it was important to the state's medical
profession.
DAVID SCOTT, STAFF, SENATOR DONNY OLSON, stated that the
bill extended the sunset of the Alaska State Medical Board
from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2020. He discussed the
makeup of the Alaska State Medical Board and shared that it
was responsible for the licensing, regulation, and
discipline of physicians, podiatrists, physician's
assistants, and paramedics in Alaska. He related that an
audit, which had recently been conducted through the
Division of Legislative Audit had recommended that the
sunset be extended. He indicated that there was someone
present from the division to answer questions regarding the
change.
9:13:41 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 38, WORK DRAFT 28-LS0391\U (Martin,
3/12/13). There being NO OBJECTION, the CS was ADOPTED as a
working document.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT, stated that during the past year, the division had
conducted a sunset audit (copy on file) of the Alaska State
Medical Board with the purpose of determining whether the
board was serving the public's interest and should be
extended. She indicated to the committee that her manager
would continue reading her talking points.
DIANE BURNHAM, AUDIT MANAGER, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT, stated that the division recommended that the Alaska
State Medical Board's termination date be extended 7 years
until June 30, 2020. The recommendation was 1 year less
than the 8-year maximum in recognition of 1 new finding
related to continuing medical education (CME) reviews. She
shared that during the audit period, the medical board had
gone through 2 bi-annual licensing cycles and that in 1 of
those cycles, the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing (DCBPL) had failed to review CME
requirements in accordance with the regulations;
regulations had required that 208 or 5 percent of licensees
be reviewed, but the staff had only reviewed 172, or 4
percent of licensees. She expounded that the division
recommended that the DCBPL director ensure that the
quantity of licenses selected for review meet the minimum
required by regulations.
Ms. Burnham stated that the report also included two
ongoing recommendations, the first of which was associated
with deficiencies in the DCBPL investigative case
management system; the deficiencies were noted in several
FY11 special audits and sunsets audits; this audit had
found that several investigative cases reviewed for the
medical board were missing key information in the system
such as priority codes, case open dates, and resolutions
codes. She continued that the deficiencies in the case
management system hampered the division's ability to
provide adequate investigative support to the board and
shared that the division had also taken steps to make
improvements by forming a task forum to identify necessary
corrective action.
Ms. Burnham shared that the report's second ongoing
recommendation was for the DCBPL director to implement
procedures to ensure that board disciplinary actions were
reported in accordance with state and federal law; the law
required that disciplinary actions be reported to national
data banks. She expounded that a previous audit had found
that not all disciplinary actions were being reported and
that some were being reported after the 30-day limit. She
explained that the division's review had found some
improvement in that all the disciplinary actions that it
reviewed were report to the data banks; however, none were
reported within the 30-day limit.
Senator Olson surmised that the existence of a CME issue
did not necessarily compromise any licensee or health care
provider and inquired if that was correct. Ms. Curtis
replied that the Division of Legislative Audit's
recommendation had been addressed to the DCBPL staff to
review the applications for renewal and did not indicate
that there was any type of abuse occurring.
Senator Olson commented that the Alaska State Medical Board
and DCBPL had done a superb job in the last 12 years.
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
9:18:54 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noticed that the bill proposed an increase
for the Alaska State Medical Board's executive secretary.
He noted that the increase would be program receipt
supported and that was not too concerned about it if the
sponsor was not; however he requested an explanation of the
increase. Mr. Scott responded that the sponsor had been
approached by the president of the Alaska State Medical
Board's regarding the increase. He related that the scope
and volume of the work being done by the executive director
was not on parody with other similar boards and that the
state medical board had requested the sponsor to offer the
increase. He stated that Ed Hall, who was the president of
the state medical board, should be online to answer
questions.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired what the current salary
scale was for the position, as well as what the proposed
increase was. Mr. Scott replied that the current salary was
a range 17 and that it was being increased to a range 23.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that the difference in pay from
a range 17 to a range 23 was a big jump and inquired what
that increase represented in dollar terms. She noted that
the increase would use program receipts and queried if the
the president was acting on behalf of the state medical
board when he had made the request. She observed that the
position was for a full-time executive secretary and not an
executive director.
Senator Olson clarified that the president of board would
be the best suited to answer the question.
9:21:28 AM
ED HALL, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT AND FORMER PRESIDENT, ALASKA
STATE MEDICAL BOARD, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), stated
that the medical board had collectively discussed the range
increase and recognized that the responsibilities that had
been placed on the board's executive administrator had
continually increased; furthermore, over this time, the
range of the position had not been increased. He understood
that the position was currently at a range 18 and related
that the Board of Public Accountancy (CPA Board) had passed
a bill to bring its executive administrator to a range 23.
He offered that a range 18 was the equivalent of a
legislative front desk receptionist and conveyed that the
board had collectively agreed that its executive
administrator's responsibilities far exceeded that of a
receptionist's; furthermore, the position's
responsibilities and the number of licensees were
increasing and the board had concerns regarding retention
of the medical providers in the state. He expounded that
the medical board needed to continue to keep up pace with
the processing of applications, which the executive
administrator was an integral part of. He related that the
fiscal costs for the increase would be paid by the
licensees, but that he did not think it would represent a
significant hit to the licensing fees. He pointed out that
for the past several years, the board had been rolling over
more than $1 million, which was why it was comfortable
asking for the range increase. He discussed the need for
the medical board to maintain a quality executive
administrator and shared that licensing examiners' salaries
were not on parody either; DCBPL was trying to improve the
examiners' salaries to address retention issues and high
attrition rate.
9:25:56 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed out for the record that it
was her experience that front desk positions in the
legislature were usually around a range 14.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired how many staff members there were
total and observed that the fiscal note showed 2. Mr. Scott
responded that there were two staff members, but that there
was other support that the board received through DCBPL and
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development. He added that Mr. Habegar, who was the
director of DCBPL, could probably answer the question
better.
Senator Olson stated that some of the support staff
included investigators.
9:27:49 AM
AT EASE
9:29:13 AM
RECONVENED
9:29:21 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed to page 8 of the Division of
Legislative Audit's report and inquired if Mr. Hall had the
report on hand. Mr. Hall replied that he did not have the
document in front of him.
Vice-Chair Fairclough read from a paragraph on page 8 of
the report:
..Deficiencies in the division's investigative case
management system have not been addressed.
Vice-Chair Fairclough continued to discuss page 8 of the
Division of Legislative Audit's report. She related that
the report discussed a medical board special audit and
pointed out that while the board was coming into compliance
slowly, it appeared as if there were still a few issues
being raised; she inquired if Mr. Hall could speak to those
issues. Mr. Hall replied that investigative processes had
changed and that the board had a better system of checks
and balances to make sure that reporting to the National
Practitioner Data Bank had improved. He observed that Mr.
Habegar may be better suited to speak to investigative
staff issues.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that it was specifically
recommended on page 8 of the legislative audit report that
the state medical medical board establish regulatory
timeliness for processing complaints and inquired if the
board had discussed this. Mr. Hall responded that the issue
had been addressed and that timely reporting was another
responsibility that had been given to the board's executive
administrator.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the same individual who
had been the executive administrator in the past would be
continuing forward in the position with a pay raise. Mr.
Hall replied that the board hoped that was the case and
added that he did not think that the person was planning on
moving on soon despite what the board saw as a disparity in
the position's pay-range level.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the position's hours were
being expanded. Mr. Hall replied that he was not certain if
the position's hours had been expanded, but that the board
did have that individual attend the Federation of State
Medical Boards' meeting, which was an annual occurrence, as
well as other appropriate trainings that were necessary.
9:32:43 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough stated that she did not have a
problem with the advancement of the medical board's
executive assistant's pay range; however, if the issue was
that the same person who was working the same amount of
hours could not accomplish the task because they were not
being paid enough, then she had problem with that. She
observed that someone should be doing their job regardless
and wondered if, given the limited number of hours in the
day and the large raise, the board might need another staff
member; however, she supported the board's extension and
would leave it up to the board itself and Senator Olson to
make sure the appropriate tools were available to address
the issues that auditors had identified as weaknesses in
the program.
Senator Olson agreed with Vice-Chair Fairclough's line of
questioning and noted that he was also cautious because
from his perspective, the salary raise would represent an
increase to his annual fees and licensure costs. He
understood that there was turnover within the "department"
because the salary was not commensurate with other
executive administrators and inquired if that was one of
the reasons that the increase had been requested. Mr. Hall
responded that during his tenure, the medical board had two
executive administrators and that the recognition of the
position's work for the board was continually increasing.
Mr. Hall addressed Vice-Chair Fairclough's comments
regarding hours spent. He shared that, unofficially, the
person currently in that position did their job within the
8-hour work day, but also worked beyond that. He surmised
that the board's executive administrator had not "seen an
8-hour day" in quite a while. He stated that regarding
turnover, both of the executive administrators during his
tenure had been very dedicated to the medical board and its
business and explained that despite a dissatisfaction with
the range level, the employees had been committed for other
reasons.
9:36:03 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT SB 38 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 38(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1(CED).
9:36:39 AM
AT EASE
9:39:56 AM
RECONVENED