Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/11/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB239 | |
| HB240 | |
| HB241 | |
| HB242 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 242 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 11, 2014
1:35 p.m.
1:35:52 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes
ALSO PRESENT
Jo Ellen Hanrahan, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Don Habeger,
Director, Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development; Crystal Koeneman, Staff,
Representative Lora Reinbold; Kris Curtis, Auditor,
Division of Legislative Audit.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Leeanne Carrothers, Alaska Physical Therapy Association,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 239 EXTEND BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY
HB 239 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 240 EXTEND BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS
HB 240 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 241 EXTEND BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
HB 241 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 242 EXTEND PT & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY BOARD
HB 242 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
1:36:06 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the agenda for the day.
JO ELLEN HANRAHAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCCED),
provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing" dated February 10,
2014 (copy on file). The department believed there was a
collective responsibility to balance the encouragement of
positive business with the requirements of appropriate
accountability and protection of consumers. She stated that
the discussion sometimes involved a push and pull between
proposed regulations, public input, and policy decisions.
The department looked forward to continuing to work with
the legislature and with the special designated committees
that would be reviewing professional licensing at a broader
level.
Ms. Hanrahan communicated that DCCED was cognizant of the
issues that had arisen, which seemed to have "festered and
grown" over an eight-year period and the department had
been working diligently to correct some of them. The
department was engaged in significant analysis and efforts
to address errors and the issues. She thanked the House
Labor and Commerce Committee and noted that they had
introduced HB 187, which may help address some of the
issues of consistency and fees. She also thanked
Representative Mike Hawker who was instrumental in putting
some funding for third-party receipts in the department's
budget that allowed it to collect the receipts for board
members traveling to national committees.
Ms. Hanrahan stated that DCCED and the division had been
focused on business climate and trying to stabilize the
cost and establish some consistency over time. The
department supported HB 187 as one of the tools that would
help lower and provide more consistent fees. The bill had
four groupings that allowed DCCED to group licensing
professions together to smooth off some fees. The bill
allowed for other fund sources to be appropriated and
included in the fee setting, it allowed for averaging of
revenue and expenditures of current and prior biennial
periods, and it allowed DCCED to extend the recovery period
over future licensing costs. All of items represented tools
that may be used to help smooth the peaks of fees with
professional licensing.
Ms. Hanrahan discussed that DCCED had also been focused on
ensuring an accounting foundation that had integrity for
the licensing program. Specifically, a couple of years
earlier the department located and corrected a specific
accounting error that had occurred for several years where
professional licensing was paying the administrative
indirect cost; DCCED shared the information with the
Division of Legislative Audit, which included the
correction in its report. The department looked at ten
years of records and reconciled to the Alaska state
accounting system; its foundation in the accounting was
currently fairly solid. The department had invested a
significant amount of effort into increasing transparency
in its reporting to boards, which was part of its analysis
related to increasing accounting system integrity. She
shared that DCCED now provided quarterly revenue and
expenditure reports to the boards; the reports were also
posted on the web for licensees, the public, and any
stakeholders. During the current year DCCED started
providing more detailed accounting system reports in
response to boards' inquiries for more detail. She thanked
the committee for its time and relayed that the department
looked forward to working closely with the legislature on
resolving the problems for the business climate in Alaska.
1:42:15 PM
Representative Costello appreciated the department's
attention to the issue, but noted that the issue had not
gone away. She stated that in FY 08 and FY 09, 41 percent
of the boards had a deficit at the end of a two-year
period; the figure rose to 68 percent in FY 10 and FY 11
and the number had since increased to 79 percent. She
referred to drivers of the deficit problem and asked if
investigations were the main culprit.
Ms. Hanrahan replied in the affirmative. The department had
analyzed the number of boards that were hit with
investigation costs; it had determined that over a five-
year period almost every board had been hit with
investigation costs at some point. She shared that the
impact could be substantial, particularly in relation to
smaller professions. For example, a small profession that
included 23 people and had a budget of $100,000 could get
saddled with an investigation that may cost $100,000
depending on the severity of the situation. The event could
double their fees.
DON HABEGER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, communicated that
investigations could be costly. He explained that
investigations were typically in response to the public,
but could also be brought forward by a board member. He
detailed that an investigation usually went through a
process to determine jurisdiction and to conclude whether
it was a violation; investigators billed for the process.
An investigator would bring the issue to a single board
member if it looked like the issue was jurisdictional to a
board or commission. The single board member was appointed
and acted as a consultant to the department with a
responsibility to confirm or deny whether an issue was
jurisdictional and if it should be further investigated.
An investigation would incur additional costs with
investigator expenses. The investigation may require expert
witnesses and may involve other costs such as working with
the Department of Law (DOL) for additional resources. An
investigation could conclude back to the board for a
disciplinary action, which could be costly.
Representative Costello observed that licensees paid
license fee renewals every two years. She wondered how the
department made up for costs incurred by investigations
that occurred during the middle of a licensing fee system.
1:47:04 PM
Mr. Habeger replied that the goal was to collect revenues
ahead of anticipated expenses by centralized licensing
statute. The department typically looked at the prior two
years expenses to establish a licensing fee calculation. He
explained that the fee calculation was not a single point
and most programs had multiple fees based on the
centralized licensing statute. He elaborated that there may
be a renewal fee. He used slide 3 as an example. The slide
showed numerous licensing fees for the Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors.
A calculation or analysis would look at each of the fee
levels; the division typically adjusted based on a
percentage. He explained that if the division anticipated a
30 percent shortfall it may adjust each of the fees by 30
percent. A draft analysis was presented to a board, the
board may not agree, but in all cases the working
relationship was positive. He had adopted all board
recommendations, which went out to public comment (public
comment included all licensees and anyone with public
interest). Subsequently a regulation was adopted based on
the public and board comments.
Representative Costello talked about the process
determining whether an investigation would move forward.
She asked for comment on who determined whether an
investigation would occur. She wondered if there was an
opportunity to discontinue an investigation part way
through if those conducting the investigation determined
there were not sufficient grounds to continue. She pointed
to cost savings that could take place if there was the
ability to discontinue an investigation if it did not
warrant continuation.
1:50:28 PM
Mr. Habeger answered that one of the department's goals was
to protect and be responsive to the public. He discussed
that an investigation would move forward if complaints
(also referred to as intakes) were valid and under the
department's jurisdiction; even cases that were closed
presented some costs to a board. Once a case moved forward
one or two board members were chosen to act as consultants
to the department. He detailed that one or two members were
chosen due to ex parte communication; ultimately the board
would sit in judgment on the license and DCCED had been
told multiple times by DOL that it could not taint the
board. The consultants may tell the division that an item
was something that should not go forward.
Representative Costello wondered whether the division ever
looked back farther than two years to determine licensing
fees. She surmised that some professions may have a
propensity towards investigations over time. She wondered
if the probability an investigation may occur during the
two-year period was factored into the equation. She guessed
that some licensing boards did not need to do
investigations.
Mr. Habeger replied that currently the division had a
policy and procedures on fee review that was adopted in
1997. The fee analysis policy defined how the division
determined fees; a look back over multiple cycles was not
part of the policy. He recognized that the policies needed
updating. The division had spent several years cleaning up
a number of processes; updating policies was next on his
list. He noted that the proposed legislation HB 187 would
allow updating through statute.
1:54:07 PM
Ms. Hanrahan summarized that the department did a
statistical analysis based on revenues and expenditures;
however, board concerns, input from the public, and policy
concerns were all part of the discussion about fee
calculations.
Co-Chair Austerman recalled that three years earlier the
legislature had appropriated $3 million to balance board
deficits. He asked which year the appropriation had been
made.
Ms. Hanrahan believed the appropriation had been made in
the FY 12 supplemental budget. She clarified that the
motivation for the appropriation had been an accounting
error. She explained that the business licensing program
had been paying the professional licensing share of
indirect costs for several years. The $3.4 million
appropriation had resulted in some boards having a better
balance; however, the reasoning behind the appropriation
was to correct the error.
Co-Chair Austerman asked for verification that the
appropriation had not corrected any of the board deficits.
Ms. Hanrahan answered that the $3.4 million had provided a
positive influx of funds for the boards, which had impacted
their balances.
Co-Chair Austerman referred to a recent report showing a
current $3.7 million deficit in the boards. He asked if the
figure was accurate. Ms. Hanrahan replied that in a two-
year revenue and expenditure comparison the overall deficit
was $3.7 million. She added that some boards had entered
the biennium with a positive balance. When existing
balances prior to the biennium period were factored in, the
overall balance at the end of FY 13 was a positive $2.6
million.
1:58:01 PM
Co-Chair Austerman looked at a historical summary showing
that only 8 of the 38 boards had positive balances. He
observed that the report showed the total deficit was $3.7
million.
Ms. Hanrahan referred to the document and directed
attention to the column on the right showing the FY 13
ending carry-forward balance. She clarified that the column
showed the surplus and deficit for the end of FY 13. The
column labeled FY 12 and FY 13 only pertained to what had
occurred in a two-year period without a starting balance.
Co-Chair Austerman asked for verification that 17 of the
boards were in deficit. Ms. Hanrahan responded that 16 or
17 boards were in deficit.
Co-Chair Austerman asked if DCCED was hamstrung by statute
in relation to how it ran the boards. Ms. Hanrahan replied
that the department was supporting HB 187 partly for that
reason; the bill would provide DCCED with increased
flexibility in relation to how fees were collected. The
current statute was fairly narrow and pertained only to the
absolute revenue and expenditures of a biennium period. The
proposed legislation would allow the department to average
expenditures and revenues over time (an average
expenditures and revenues from prior biennium periods). The
bill would provide increased statutory flexibility for the
department to manage the professional licensing program
with the goal of encouraging a productive business climate,
while continuing to protect consumers.
2:00:38 PM
Co-Chair Austerman asked if DCCED had considered moving
investigations over to DOL and setting board fees at a
constant basis across boards. Ms. Hanrahan replied that she
had not been privy to a conversation on the idea. She
relayed that HB 187 would pay for investigator salaries
with approximately $1.7 million in General Funds (GF);
therefore, the professional licensing boards would not
carry the costs. Boards would continue to carry some costs
associated with investigation including costs for expert
witnesses and legal costs from DOL.
Representative Thompson remarked that investigations tended
to be held to protect the public; typically pertaining to
an unqualified or unlicensed person practicing in a
profession. He stressed that trained professionals were
punished when they were forced to pay for an investigation
to protect the public from an unqualified person. He
wondered why the professionals following the rules were
punished and why those not following the law were not dealt
with through DOL or other. He asked if fishing license fees
and Board of Fish fees were increased when a person was
caught commercial fishing illegally or if the cost of an
investigation was charged to other oil companies when a
company was caught drilling illegally. He believed it was
the state's responsibility to protect the public and not
the responsibility of the professional licensed
individuals.
Ms. Hanrahan understood the point. She could not speak to
how investigations were paid for in other agencies.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the questions [related to
fishing and oil] were rhetorical.
Ms. Hanrahan pointed back Co-Chair Austerman's earlier
question related to constraints of the current statute. She
stated that under HB 187 investigations would be a
responsibility and cost of the state.
Representative Thompson stated that most of the board
renewals had fiscal notes attached that showed funding with
receipt authority. He wondered why the costs were shown on
the fiscal notes if the state was not paying for them. He
believed there should be a separate pot of money belonging
to the licensees. He pointed to past situations when people
had been told they could not travel to a national
conference because the board's travel budget had been
exceeded; the licensees had collected more than the needed
amount, but did not get to attend their conference. Another
example involved a national association offering to
reimburse the state for an individual's travel expenses. He
detailed that instead of putting the money back in the
licensees' budget, the funds were deposited into the state
GF.
2:05:43 PM
Ms. Hanrahan replied that the fiscal notes accounted for
separate funds in the state accounting and budgeting
systems. Receipt supported services meant that money was
collected outside of state funds. She explained that the
funds were accounted for in the state accounting system by
restricted revenue codes associated with the specific
entities. The information went through the state budgeting
system in order to track the cost of doing business.
Mr. Habeger spoke to Representative Thompson's comment
related to third-party reimbursement from a national
association. The department followed the procedure in the
state's Administrative Manual. Travel was required to be
expensed through state costs if board members traveled in
an official capacity representing the state. The prior year
the legislature had put into the budget the ability to
withdraw the deposit from the GF and back onto a board's
books. The process began occurring in FY 14.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether a different triage process
would occur related to investigations if they were moved to
DOL. He wondered whether a switch to DOL would be
worthwhile and if DCCED expected DOL or another entity to
make a better decision.
2:08:18 PM
Mr. Habeger was unsure how to answer the question.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked the department to think about the
issue.
Representative Guttenberg provided a hypothetical example
related to a public complaint; an investigation was
conducted and brought to the board. He asked whether the
board was responsible for funding part of the
investigation. Mr. Habeger replied in the affirmative. He
cited the centralized licensing statute AS 08.01.065. The
statute required boards to pay for all of their expenses
including investigations.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the board may have
a financial conflict on the decision to move forward with
an investigation. Mr. Habeger had heard board members
comment on a conflict; however, he had not seen the
evidence.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the prosecution of a
person for not having a license, which had clearly not been
a board responsibility; however, the onus of the
investigation had been put on the board. He wondered if the
situation was ongoing.
Mr. Habeger replied that unlicensed practice was a board
concern. He detailed that MDs had practice protection. He
stated that unlicensed practice was looked at by
investigators (particularly if there was practice
protection). He elaborated that centralized licensing
statute provided the department with the authority to
investigate. Boards may request investigations; DCCED tried
to make an investigation as much of a partnership as
possible. However, occasionally the department would look
into issues on its own accord.
Representative Guttenberg stated that the department's
instigated investigations were charged to the appropriate
board. He asked what percentage of the boards and
commissions were in deficit because of investigation
through prosecution charges.
2:12:07 PM
Mr. Habegar did not have the information on hand.
Ms. Hanrahan replied that currently investigations brought
on by the board or department put the onus on licensees.
She stated that the issue was one reason DCCED was looking
at HB 187.
Representative Guttenberg asked what percentage of the
boards and commissions were in deficit because of
investigation through prosecution charges. Ms. Hanrahan
replied that the department could follow up with the
information. The department had looked at the cost of
investigations over a five-year period for all boards. She
stated that many things had impacted the boards over the
past five to ten years. She communicated that one of the
drivers of all state expense related to personal services,
particularly in the past five or six years. Investigations
and legal costs fell into the personal services category.
Representative Guttenberg was interested to know about the
percentage of deficit due to investigations.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the fiscal notes should
reflect the costs. Ms. Hanrahan agreed.
Representative Munoz asked how many of the fees would apply
to an engineer establishing a Limited Liability Company
(LLC). Mr. Habegar if the question pertained to one or many
engineers needing initial licensure.
2:15:23 PM
Representative Munoz wondered how many of the fees would
apply to a licensed engineer establishing an LLC. Mr.
Habegar pointed to slide 3, line 5. He believed the one
$500 fee would apply.
Representative Munoz asked for verification that the
engineer in her example would not need to pay for an
application or review fee. Mr. Habeger replied that the
other fees would not be applicable.
Representative Munoz asked for confirmation that the
applicable cost was a biennial fee of $500. Mr. Habeger
replied in the affirmative. Representative Munoz asked
about the cost of a business license. Mr. Habeger replied
that the cost was a statutory annual $50 fee.
Representative Munoz asked if the department had considered
combining the general business license fee with the
biennial certification cost. She believed it should be
possible to pay for a business license when paying for the
other costs. Mr. Habeger answered that the issue had not
been tackled yet. He believed the issue was worthy of
examination in the future.
Co-Chair Stoltze provided an example related to an engineer
fraudulently approving septic system projects. He wondered
if the department would assess a criminal investigation
related to the fraud. Mr. Habeger replied that criminal
matters did not fall under the DCCED purview. The
department was only concerned with the professional
licensing aspect.
Representative Wilson pointed to a valid investigation
pertaining to an unlicensed individual. She assumed there
would be a fine and wondered if the individual was required
to pay fees back to the organizations. Mr. Habeger replied
in the affirmative. He elaborated that the division would
levy fines for certain activity. The division's
disciplinary document sent to a board was often adopted
with the fines. The fines were deposited into GF.
2:18:50 PM
Representative Wilson asked why the fines would not be paid
back to a board to offset all costs charged to the board
for an investigation. Ms. Hanrahan answered that in Alaska
fines went into the GF and were collected for the general
use of the population, which was in line with the state's
constitutional prohibition against dedicated funds.
Representative Wilson agreed with earlier testimony that
people doing the "right thing are paying for people doing
the wrong thing." She asked for verification that statute
change was needed to ensure the boards received the money
back for costs spent on investigations.
Ms. Hanrahan answered that a change in statute would be
necessary to allow fines to be returned to a board.
Representative Wilson wondered if cost associated with an
investigation (not including fines) could be refunded to a
board without a change in statute. Ms. Hanrahan did not
believe so.
Representative Wilson asked if the professionals could
chose to not have a board because it was not worth the
money. Ms. Hanrahan replied that the division regulated 39
professions and 20 of the total had a board. The boards
were established in statute. She added that 19 of the
professional licensing programs were managed by the
division.
Representative Wilson surmised that a statute change was
needed to ensure that boards did not have to pay and for
boards to have their money recouped.
Ms. Hanrahan replied that the programs were treated
similarly whether they were a board or other program. She
relayed that all of the programs shared the cost.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked the department for its time.
HOUSE BILL NO. 239
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Examiners in Optometry; and providing for an effective
date."
2:24:03 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD,
addressed the legislation, which would extend the Board of
Examiners in Optometry. The Division of Legislative Audit
recommended a full eight-year extension, which reflected
the division's belief that the board was serving the
public's interest by effectively licensing and regulating
the profession. The division recommended that the Division
of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (CBPL)
continue its efforts to improve the investigative case
management system's integrity and confidentiality. She
understood that the department and division had taken great
strides on the issue and would continue the efforts in the
future.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for comments on the board's current
significant deficit. Ms. Koeneman believed there were steps
the department and the division could take to reevaluate
how licensing fees were set. She knew improvements had been
made in the past couple of years, but the issue continued
to need addressing to ensure that programs brought in money
that would enable them to operate.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the shortfall was $44,755.
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT,
relayed that the agency had conducted a sunset review of
the board dated June 30, 2013. The audit's purpose had been
to determine whether the board was serving the public's
interest and whether it should be extended. The audit had
concluded that the board was serving the public's interest
by effectively licensing and regulating optometrists. The
board was scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2014; the
division recommended extending the termination date to June
30, 2022. The one recommendation had been directed to CBPL
and addressed improvements needed in the division's case
management system.
Representative Costello wondered if the Division of
Legislative Audit had considered recommending that boards
share staff or locate other efficiencies.
Ms. Curtis replied that the division would recommend
efficiencies if it believed there was a need. She pointed
to page 13 of the audit report that addressed board fees.
She explained that the board had been operating in a
surplus; however, a sharp decrease in revenues had
eliminated the surplus in FY 10. Fees had not been
increased at the time, but she believed they should have
been increased. The fees had been increased in the
following licensing cycle. She expounded that when an
increase in fees was implemented and a licensing cycle was
not complete the division did not typically make a
recommendation to change fees until it observed what the
true amount was.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed the opticians' board had voted to
disband and to be managed by the department. He told an
optician joke.
2:29:21 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Ms. Koeneman relayed that the opticians' board had been
repealed in 2008.
Co-Chair Stoltze intended to discuss the fiscal note at a
later time.
HB 239 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 240
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners; and providing for an effective
date."
2:30:31 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD,
communicated that HB 240 would extend the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners. The Division of Legislative Audit
had recommended a full eight-year extension to June 30,
2022. The division had determined that the board was
operating in the best public interest in licensing and
regulating the community.
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT noted
that the division had conducted an audit of the board to
determine whether the board was serving the public's
interest and whether the termination date should be
extended. The division had determined that the board was
serving the public's interest by effectively licensing and
regulating chiropractors. The audit had concluded that the
board monitored licensees and ensured that only qualified
individuals practice. The number of applicants had
increased by 28 percent from FY 06 through FY 12. The
division recommended the maximum eight-year extension from
June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2022.
Ms. Curtis spoke to the division's two recommendations
pertaining to the board. The first recommendation was
directed to the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing and addressed improvements needed in
the division's case management system. The second was a
recommendation to the Office of the Governor to ensure
statutory requirements for board members were met prior to
appointment. The division had found that the public member
on the board was a licensed pharmacist who therefore had a
direct financial interest in the healthcare industry, which
was prohibited by statute. She relayed that the department
[DCCED] and the board concurred with the recommendations.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the department had any
comments. He observed that the board had a surplus.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
HB 240 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Marital and Family Therapy; and providing for an
effective date."
2:33:17 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD
detailed that HB 241 would extend the Board of Marital and
Family Therapy for four years to June 30, 2018. There had
been three recommendations from the Division of Legislative
Audit regarding the board. The division believed the board
was licensing and regulating the community of marital and
family therapists.
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT relayed
that the division had conducted an audit of the board to
determine whether the board was serving the public's
interest and whether the termination date should be
extended. The division had determined that the board was
serving the public's interest by effectively licensing and
regulating marital and family therapists. The division
recommended a four-year extension from June 30, 2014 to
June 30, 2018. The reduced extension was primarily due to
the board not fully addressing a prior audit recommendation
regarding adopting regulations that benefit the public
interest specifically related to distance therapy and
supervision.
Ms. Curtis discussed that marital and family services were
not widely available to many areas of the state; therefore,
distance therapy and supervision was regarded as a way to
help address the need. During the audit period the board
had extensively researched and discussed the topic;
however, it had made little progress in moving forward out
of the discussion phase. The audit recommended that the
board develop a strategy to address the need for distance
services.
Ms. Curtis communicated that the audit also included two
additional recommendations. The first recommendation was
directed to the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing and addressed improvements needed in
the division's case management system. Secondly, the
division recommended that the Office of the Governor and
the board work together to fill vacant board seats in a
timely manner.
2:35:16 PM
Representative Wilson asked why the board was responsible
for providing the distance counseling.
Ms. Curtis replied that the finding pertained to criteria
used to evaluate whether the board was serving the public's
interest. She explained that marital and family services
were not widely available in many of the non-urban areas;
however, the need existed. The issue came to light when in
a review of board minutes the division had observed the
significant amount of time the board had spent on the
issue. The division had made the observation during the
prior sunset review; however, the board had been unable to
move beyond the discussion phase.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the role of a marital
therapist.
2:36:35 PM
Ms. Koeneman referred to AS 08.63.900, which defined the
practice of marital and family therapy as "the diagnosis
and treatment of mental and emotional disorders that are
referenced in the standard diagnostic nomenclature for
marital and family therapy whether cognitive, effective,
behavioral, or within the context of human relationships
particularly marital and family systems." She remarked that
marital and family therapy was for treating, coping, and
helping couples. She relayed that the board was working
with DOL and the Division of Legislative Audit on drafting
regulations to address the need for distance therapy;
however, it was determined that a statutory change was
necessary in order to make the changes. The board was
working on language, which would continue over the upcoming
interim.
Representative Wilson remarked that people choose where
they live and know what services are available in their
communities. She believed saying that a certain service was
not provided throughout the state was overstepping what was
known about an area. She remarked that the areas may be
serviced by another option. She opined that if a community
could afford to support the business it would be available.
She believed the public need could be there even if every
area of the state did not have access. She would follow up
to increase her understanding of the issue.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether four years was
too long to wait before a recommendation was made on
distance services. Ms. Curtis answered that the four-year
time frame had been settled upon because it put the board
on the same sunset schedule as professional counselors,
psychologists, and social work examiners; therefore, the
division would have the ability to review the issue across
similar boards.
Representative Gara wondered why boards were being punished
for not having a statute that the legislature would need to
pass. He believed it was odd. He stated the fact that the
legislature had not passed a statute was beyond the control
of the therapists. He believed a full [eight-year]
extension was in order.
2:40:24 PM
Ms. Curtis paused at the term punished. She communicated
that the recommendation was directed at improving the
board's operations. She detailed that individuals working
to become therapists were required a certain amount of
supervision; they were currently unable to work towards the
supervised time requirement through teletherapy or long
distance. Making changes to distance services would
increase the number of licensees, which would in turn
address the distance therapy needs. In general the
recommendation would enable the division to review the
board's progress. She referred to members' comments
questioning whether or not distance therapy or supervision
qualified as a public need.
Representative Gara agreed that the services were a good
idea. He asked whether a statute change would be required
to make changes related to the distance services. He
contended that if a statutory change was required, the
board's extension was being cut in half because of statute
the legislature had not passed. He believed the issue was
incongruous.
Ms. Curtis answered that the recommendation was for a four-
year period because the board did not move out of the
discussion phase related to distance services. The movement
to adopt regulation was new in response to the division's
audit.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
HB 241 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 242
"An Act extending the termination date of the State
Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; and
providing for an effective date."
2:43:03 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD
explained that HB 242 would extend the termination date of
the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board
for a full eight-year extension until June 30, 2022. The
Division of Legislative Audit had determined that the board
was operating in the best public interest.
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
informed the committee that the division had conducted an
audit dated June 17, 2013. The division had concluded that
the board was operating in the public's interest and had
recommended the maximum eight-year extension. The one
recommendation was directed to the Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing and
addressed improvements needed in the division's case
management system.
LEEANNE CARROTHERS, ALASKA PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), told a physical therapy
joke.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
HB 242 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that the bills would be heard
again at a later date.
ADJOURNMENT
2:46:04 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:46 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB239 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 |
| HB239 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 |
| HB240 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB241 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 241 |
| HB241 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 241 |
| HB242 Supporting Documents-Legislative Audit Recommendations.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 242 |
| HB242 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 242 |
| DCCED CBPL Board Expenditures 2-11-14.pdf |
HFIN 2/11/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 239 HB 239 HB 240 HB 241 HB 242 HB 240 HB 241 HB 242 |