Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/05/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB45 | |
| SB173 | |
| SB131 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 5, 2022
1:47 p.m.
1:47:50 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:47 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson
ALSO PRESENT
Crystal Koeneman, Staff, Representative Sarah Rasmussen;
Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens; Senator David
Wilson, Sponsor; Senator Roger Holland, Sponsor; Craig
Valdez, Staff, Senator Roger Holland; Lori Wing-Heier,
Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
David Schade, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department
of Natural Resources; Katie Steffens, Deputy Program
Manager, Tobacco Prevention and Control Program, Department
of Health and Social Services; Dr. David Logan, Alaska
Dental Society, Sitka; David Nielson, Chair, Alaska Board
of Dental Examiners, Anchorage; Scott Raygor, Fire Chief,
Fairbanks Fire Department, Fairbanks.
SUMMARY
SB 45 AGE FOR NICOTINE/E-CIG; TAX E-CIG.
HCS CSSB 45(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with one "do pass" recommendation, five "no
recommendation" recommendations and four "amend"
recommendations and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Revenue and two
previously published zero fiscal notes: FN4
(DHS/DOH) and FN6 (GOV/Combined).
SB 131(title am)
WORKERS' COMP DISABILITY FOR FIREFIGHTERS
SB 131(title am) was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CSSB 173(FIN)
DENTIST SPEC. LICENSE/RADIOLOGIC EQUIP
CSSB 173(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 45(FIN)
"An Act raising the minimum age to purchase, sell,
exchange, or possess tobacco, a product containing
nicotine, or an electronic smoking product; relating
to selling a tobacco product; relating to possession
of tobacco, electronic smoking products, or products
containing nicotine by a person under 21 years of age;
relating to the definition of 'nicotine'; relating to
transporting tobacco, a product containing nicotine,
or an electronic smoking product; relating to the
taxation of electronic smoking products; relating to
electronic smoking products; relating to the marketing
of electronic smoking products; relating to tobacco
products; and providing for an effective date."
1:48:02 PM
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the meeting would continue
consideration of amendments to SB 45. [Secretary Note: The
amendments were also considered during the morning meeting,
05/05/22 9:00 A.M.]
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4
Replacement, 32-LS0311\D.16 (Nauman, 5/5/22)(copy on file):
Page 7, line 30:
Delete "or"
Page 8, lines 1 - 2:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
Page 8, lines 10 - 13:
Delete "or marijuana products and intended for sale
only in a retail marijuana store; in this
subparagraph, "marijuana," "marijuana products," and
"retail marijuana store" have the meanings given in AS
17.38.900"
Insert ", marijuana products, hemp, or hemp products;
for purposes of meeting the requirements of this
subparagraph, the department shall accept a notarized
affidavit from the seller attesting to the intended
use of the product; or (3) marijuana, marijuana
products, hemp, or hemp products if the marijuana,
marijuana product, hemp, or hemp product does not
contain nicotine"
Page 8, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 17. AS 43.50.310 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) In this section,
(1) "1 hemp" and "hemp products" means hemp or a hemp
product produced by an individual registered under AS
03.05.076;
(2) "marijuana" and "marijuana products" have the
meanings given in AS 17.38.900."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. AS 43.50.330 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) A licensee is not required to file a return under
this section if the licensee
(1) either (A) sells only products exempt under AS
43.50.310(b)(2)(C) or (b)(3) from the tax under this
chapter; or (B) is an individual registered under AS
03.05.076; and (2) provides a notarized affidavit
attesting to the licensee's qualification under (1) of
this subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 17, line 28:
Delete "sec. 19"
Insert "sec. 20"
Page 17, line 29:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 35"
Representative Wool OBJECTED.
Representative Rasmussen asked her staff and the bill
sponsor's staff to explain the changes in the new
amendment.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SARAH RASMUSSEN,
explained the amendment. She explained that the amendment
exempted marijuana, marijuana products, hemp, and hemp
products from the tax. The original language in Amendment 4
created an unintended loophole for industrial hemp license
holders operating another business and they would not be
subject to the tax. She clarified that was not the
sponsors intention and assured the committee that any
nicotine and other taxable products outside of marijuana
and hemp were subject to the tax. She shared that the
sponsor worked with Mr. Lamkin to correct the issue.
Representative Rasmussen asked to hear comments from the
bill sponsor's staff.
1:49:59 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, answered that the
amendment had been negotiated for a specific carve out for
the hemp industry. He communicated that the hemp industry
was in its inception and the sponsor wanted to let the
program grow before considering taxing its products. He
pointed to page 2, line 15 of the amendment that reads:
(B) is an individual registered under AS 03.05.076;
Mr. Lamkin cautioned that someone that had a tobacco
endorsement and was registered as a hemp grower could still
be exempted from the tax. He recommended conceptually
striking line 15.
Representative Rasmussen moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 4 Replacement to delete line 15 on page 2.
Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool stated his understanding of the
conceptual amendment. He thought it seemed strange that
someone with an industrial hemp license would also operate
a retail store selling tobacco products.
1:52:54 PM
Mr. Lamkin answered that he could not imagine that a hemp
farmer would open a shop on their farm. He exemplified a
retailer of tobacco, vape, and hemp products in an urban
center who could also own a hemp farm in Delta Junction. He
clarified that line 15 indicates that a registered hemp
grower was exempted from paying taxes on products at their
vape shop.
Representative Wool WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4
Replacement was ADOPTED.
Representative Josephson asked what was lost by the removal
of the language retail marijuana store from subsection
(d) on page 2, line 18 to 19 from the original Amendment 4:
(d) In this section, retail marijuana store has the
meaning given in AS17.38.900.
Mr. Lamkin replied that elimination of the subsection
removed the potential loopholes where if someone only sold
to marijuana stores, they would be exempt and removed the
incentive for retailers to sell both nicotine products and
cannabis.
Representative Wool recalled that when marijuana was first
legalized in the state, a marijuana shop could not sell
Cannabidiol (CBD) oil because they lacked the proper
license, but a grocery store could. He was uncertain what
marijuana stores could sell and if that included selling
tobacco with a proper license.
1:55:14 PM
Mr. Lamkin answered that he was not a student of the
marijuana statutes. He indicated that the amendment
clarified that if something like Representative Wools
example happened the products would not automatically be
exempt from the tax. Representative Wool referenced CBD
oil. He was previously unaware that there was a vape
product without THC. He asked if the amendment meant the
item was exempt from the tobacco tax and the marijuana tax.
Mr. Lamkin answered it was correct provided it did not also
contain nicotine. He stated that once a product contained
nicotine it triggered the tax. Representative Wool recalled
that in an earlier discussion vape liquid that did not
contain nicotine was taxed as a tobacco product because the
action of vaping mimics how tobacco products were consumed
and could lead to consuming tobacco. He voiced that he did
not object to taxing all vape liquid. He thought the
amendment seemed contradictory to an earlier statement.
1:58:05 PM
Mr. Lamkin clarified that if products were approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a therapeutic
purpose such as cessation they would be exempt from the
bill. He deduced that certain CBD products might fall
under the FDA exemption. He added that the research
strongly suggested that when products claimed not to
contain nicotine, when tested they found nicotine in
varying amounts. He qualified that the hemp and CBD carve
out did not imply that consuming the products was safe. He
relayed that a consumer alert and some growing research
questioned their safety and whether it was safe or not was
not known. The carve out was merely a negotiated
concession.
Ms. Koeneman pointed to a definition for hemp and hemp
products at the top of page 2 of the amendment. She
explained that it applied to products that were registered
under the current hemp statute AS 03.05.076 and would
remove products containing nicotine or other substances.
She elaborated that one of the main reasons people used CBD
was for medical ailments including seizures, anxiety, and
other issues. She understood unknown health or safety
reasons regarding CBD but there were medical reasons for
its use. She thought that many times the risk of CBD was
offset by the benefit provided to patients.
2:00:39 PM
Co-Chair Merrick interjected that there was a request for
the department to comment.
DAVID SCHADE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), clarified that
three types of industrial hemp registrations existed under
the program: producer, manufacturer, and retail sale
registrations. He elaborated that the definition in the
amendment referred to hemp or hemp products produced under
AS 03.05.076. He delineated that the problem with the
language was that it did not contemplate the fact that what
was done to ensure product safety was via an endorsement.
The products were endorsed and proven to be safe and free
of unintended products. He emphasized that currently there
were no endorsed products that contained nicotine and the
division did not intend to allow nicotine in industrial
hemp products sold in the state. He ascertained that the
definition needed to be expanded to ensure it did not
contain nicotine.
Representative Wool understood the carveout and
negotiation. He was not taking a jab at the marijuana and
hemp industry. He spoke to the intent of the bill to tax
vaped nicotine products. He thought vaping as a mode of
ingestion should be taxed because it mimicked ingesting
tobacco products, which the bill was attempting to
discourage. He felt carving out CBD oil was antithetical to
the bills motives.
2:04:24 PM
Representative Rasmussen thought the bill specifically
pertained to nicotine and marijuana products already fell
under a certain tax. She believed that not adopting the
amendment would inadvertently double tax the products which
was not the purpose of the bill.
Mr. Lamkin was not personally convinced that CBD was
completely safe to inhale. He remarked that the studies
were still in progress. He noted that some common vape base
ingredients were polyethylene glycol, vegetable glycerin,
and vitamin E acetate, etc. He maintained that the hemp
carve out had been a negotiation to not injure a new
industry; however, the heartbeat of the bill was to
prevent nicotine products use before the age of 21. He
delineated that if initiation to nicotine could be avoided
up to the age of 21 the likelihood of a lifetime of
addiction was substantially lower. He shared that he began
smoking in his youth and quit 20 years ago.
2:07:30 PM
Representative Rasmussen appreciated the sponsor's office
stating that the underlying intention of the bill was to
prevent addiction to nicotine. She believed that many
ingested substances had harmful consequences like ibuprofen
and fast food that were not taxed to prevent use. She
understood that the intention of the bill was to prevent
nicotine addiction therefore, she offered Amendment 4
Replacement to offer clarity and focus on the underlying
intention of the bill.
Representative Wool referenced the phrase double tax used
by Representative Rasmussen. He understood that CBD oil
sold in a marijuana store, was taxed under marijuana laws,
and if sold in a convenience store it would currently have
no tax but if the bill was passed it would be taxed under
SB 45. He ascertained that it would not be double taxed. He
wondered whether he was correct. Mr. Lamkin knew that the
hemp and marijuana statutes were separate and distinct and
did not overlap. Hemp was tested to confirm that it did not
contain THC and was not taxed under marijuana laws. He
noted that only products containing THC were taxed under
marijuana laws. He confirmed that a CBD product sold in a
marijuana store was not taxed. Representative Wool
referenced the point about preventing nicotine use. He
agreed that the act of smoking tobacco should be
discouraged. He understood that the point was to not have
youth mimicking smoking. He supported taxing all vape
products under the bill.
2:11:07 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the amendment was
acceptable to the sponsor. Mr. Lamkin stated that Senator
Stevens currently found the amendment agreeable. He guessed
that sometime in the future the sponsor might introduce a
bill taxing hemp under the program.
Representative Wool MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment 4
Replacement as amended.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Rasmussen, Carpenter, Josephson, Foster,
Merrick
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 4 Replacement was ADOPTED as amended.
2:12:56 PM
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 32-
LS0311\D.12 (Nauman, 5/3/22)(copy on file):
Page 7, line 6:
Delete "45"
Insert "15"
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Rasmussen explained that the amendment would
reduce the tax from 45 percent to 15 percent as a
compromise to create revenue for health education. She
believed that taxing vape products was the wrong approach
by creating barriers to less harmful alternatives to
combustible cigarettes.
2:14:06 PM
Representative Josephson asked the sponsors staff if the
bill contained a 75 percent tax before its referral to the
House Labor and Commerce Committee (HL&C). Mr. Lamkin
answered in the affirmative. He pointed to a document in
the members files titled Local Level Tobacco Products
Taxation Rates in Alaska (copy on file). He explained that
there were three types of nicotine taxes: Cigarette tax,
Other Tobacco Products, and an E-cigarette tax. He noted
that in the other tobacco column the same percent of
wholesale was applied to the e-cigarette tax in any
community. He corrected and error and reported that the
City of Fairbanks had an 8 percent e-cigarette tax. He
informed the committee that the national average tax was
currently 45 percent. He reiterated that the bill
originally had a 75 percent tax, and that 45 percent was
the average between 15 percent and 75 percent. He was not
speaking on behalf of what percentage he thought the
sponsor would support.
2:16:30 PM
Representative Josephson asked what the tax resources would
be used for. Mr. Lamkin answered that the funds would be
used for education programs and rehabilitation. He noted
that the Division of Behavioral Health was available for
additional information.
2:17:17 PM
Representative Josephson repeated the question.
KATIE STEFFENS, DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER, TOBACCO PREVENTION
AND CONTROL PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), answered that the tax
revenue would be deposited into the general fund and was
available for educational programs, healthcare, etc. and
was not directly dedicated to the program. She deferred to
the tax division as well for further clarification
2:18:53 PM
AT EASE
2:31:03 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT conceptual amendment 1 to
Amendment 5 that would insert 25 percent instead of 15
percent.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Carpenter asked for clarification.
Co-Chair Merrick clarified that the language was on page 7,
line 6 of the bill and on the amendment, it was found on
line 3.
2:32:13 PM
Representative Josephson shared that according to a prior
United States (US) surgeon general, taxation was one way to
deter use of tobacco products. He noted that research by
the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids concluded that if the
price of vape products were increased usage decreased. He
voiced that the HL&C committee already reduced the tax to
45 percent. He noted the prevalence of a 45 percent tax
used by municipalities according to the document. He
related that e-cigarettes were not considered a harm
reduction device per the FDA and believed that they were
hazardous and unhealthy. He opposed the amendment.
Representative Carpenter stated that his community was not
on the list. His municipality had not chosen to tax the
product. He supported the conceptual amendment only because
less tax meant less government.
2:34:48 PM
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to call the question.
2:35:01 PM
AT EASE
2:35:30 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW her motion to call the
question.
Representative Wool opposed the conceptual amendment.
Representative Edgmon opposed the conceptual amendment
because the rational in favor of the high taxation was
based on cause and effect. He wanted to hear an
explanation and justification why 25 percent would provide
the prevention the bill was meant to achieve. He thought 25
percent was insufficient and arbitrary.
2:36:41 PM
Representative Rasmussen felt it was a fair compromise as
Representative Carpenter noted his community had not taxed
the products. She appreciated the amendment as a fair
compromise and thought it struck a balance between the
municipalities tax levels.
Representative Edgmon noted that the previous comments did
not answer his question about the regulatory aspect of a 25
percent tax.
2:37:27 PM
Co-Chair Merrick deduced that some people prefer no tax,
and some prefer lower taxes, so that any tax was a
compromise.
Representative Rasmussen noted that in communities with 75
and 90 percent taxes some people were still using the
product, but its use was limited to those that could afford
it. She believed that it did not halt use and the amendment
was a compromise.
Senator Stevens commented that studies had found less
consumption every time tobacco tax was increased. He heard
that the governor would veto anything over 25 percent. He
stated that something was better than nothing and hoped the
bill would not be vetoed by the governor. He declared that
he would introduce a bill with a higher tax next year.
2:39:13 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz related that his amendment was offered in
the spirit of compromise. He fully agreed with the
concerns raised by those that oppose the amendment.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Rasmussen, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon,
Merrick, Foster
OPPOSED: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (7/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
2:40:38 PM
Co-Chair Merrick addressed Amendment 5 as amended.
Co-Chair Foster voiced his support of the 75 percent tax
and believed that it was a deterrent but based on Senator
Stevens statement he supported the amendment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that no one liked paying taxes;
however, he believed sometimes taxes were necessary.
2:41:48 PM
Representative Josephson appreciated the senators
position. He warned of a Masons Manual provision that
prohibited talking about the administration's position
during deliberations. He opposed the amendment but would
support moving the bill out of committee.
Representative Wool opposed the amendment. He agreed that
if taxes were raised, consumption would decrease. He noted
that the states alcohol taxes were the highest in the
nation, but no one supported lowering them. He thought that
vaping products were not taxed because they were relatively
new compared to standard tobacco products.
2:43:44 PM
Representative Rasmussen provided wrap up on Amendment 5 as
amended and asked for support.
Representative Edgmon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment
5 as amended.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Ortiz,
Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (7/3). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 5 was ADOPTED as amended.
2:44:39 PM
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Amendment 7 had been withdrawn.
Representative Edgmon supported Representative Josephsons
comments. He strongly objected to the executive branch
influencing what was happening in committee during the
meeting. He believed it was unfair and pierced the veil of
the separation of powers doctrine.
2:45:33 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 45(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
HCS CSSB 45(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with one "do
pass" recommendation, five "no recommendation"
recommendations and four "amend" recommendations and with
one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Revenue
and two previously published zero fiscal notes: FN4
(DHS/DOH) and FN6 (GOV/Combined).
2:46:07 PM
RECESSED
3:58:24 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 173(FIN)
"An Act relating to the practice of dentistry;
relating to dental radiological equipment; and
providing for an effective date."
3:58:38 PM
SENATOR DAVID WILSON, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation.
He reported that SB 173 transferred dental radiological
equipment inspections from the Board of Dental Examiners to
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and
established a specialty dental license in the State of
Alaska. The changes were recommended by the dental
community. He thanked Vice-Chair Ortiz as the sponsor of
the house companion bill [HB 295 - Dentist Spec.
License/Radiologic Equip] for steering his version through
the house. He emphasized that the licensing updates were
necessary for the publics safety as it ensured that if a
dentist advertises as a specialist, they met certain
qualifications. The bill also ensured that dental equipment
was inspected in a timely manner.
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
DR. DAVID LOGAN, ALASKA DENTAL SOCIETY, SITKA (via
teleconference), thanked the sponsor and Representative
Ortiz for bringing the bill forward. He indicated that
there were two aspects to the legislation. The bill changed
how dental x-ray units were inspected in the state and
introduced a specialty license that had previously been
available as recent as 2010. He explained the need to
change how dental e-ray units were inspected. Inspections
of dental x-ray machines were done by DHSS until 20 years
ago when it was transferred to the dental board. He
elaborated that the dentists would contract with private
contractors to do the inspections. However, the few
individuals performing x-ray inspections retired and the
board had not been able to find replacements. He pointed
out that x-ray inspection was a highly specialized service.
Individuals able to perform inspections were either
employed at a state level, by a large corporation, or had
retired from the field and were not interested in working.
He stressed that there were no longer any inspectors
available for private dentists in the state. The dental
community believed transferring the duty back to DHSS was
the best option because they already performed x-ray
inspections for hospitals, doctors, etc. He acknowledged
that the department would have to hire another inspector to
address the increased workload. Dentists would soon be out
of compliance with inspections that were required every six
years. He added that if the legislation did not pass some
dentists would be out of compliance by years end. He
requested passage of the bill.
4:04:36 PM
Representative LeBon asked if providers paid a fee for the
inspection and whether the dental community would pay a
fee. Mr. Logan answered that he could not speak to other
providers but knew that dentists paid a fee based on
complexity and number of machines. He assured the committee
that the fee would cover the costs of inspection.
4:05:50 PM
DAVID NIELSON, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
bill. He spoke to Section 3 of the bill. He explained that
the dental practice act repealed specialty license
categories in 2012. Since that time, the dental board had
retreated from investigating false and misleading
advertising complaints. In order for the board to address
the issue, it needed to reinstate the specialty license
categories to defend legal scrutiny and help reduce public
confusion over deceptive or false advertising brought by
dentists using the term "specialist" or "specializing in"
to an area of dentistry that is professionally recognized
to require significantly more training than they have
received. Typically, a dental specialty residency demands
at least an extra two-years of focused training beyond
dental school. He added that the board had to deny several
license applications to dentists that graduated from
accredited specialty programs merely because it did not
have a way to approve their application, lacking the
license types for dental specialties. The provision would
open the doors wider for more qualified dental specialists.
He thanked the sponsors of the bill.
4:08:24 PM
Representative Carpenter pointed to the sectional analysis
for Section 3 regarding AS 08.36.243 (b):
(b) In creating the qualifications for a specialist
license, the board shall consider the standards of a
nationally recognized certifying entity approved by
the board.
Representative Carpenter asked how many nationally
recognized certifying entities were in existence.
Senator Wilson deferred the question to one of the doctors
available online. He acknowledged that there were
approximately 150 specialists in the state.
Mr. Nielson answered that there was currently only one
entity responsible for certifying specialty certification
boards and specialty recognition, the National Commission
on Recognition of Dental Specialties and Certifying Boards.
He delineated that the commission had six specific criteria
for specialty recognition and 15 criteria for recognizing
specialty certifying boards. He furthered that currently
there were 12 specialty areas and 11 certifying boards. He
noted that there was one other commission and it only
recognized 2 or 3 specialties and was not nationally
utilized.
4:10:43 PM
Representative Carpenter wondered whether the national
commission recognized all the dental specialties in
existence. Mr. Nielson responded that the commission
currently recognized all the dental specialties. He noted
that there were a couple of groups trying to become
specialties. The commission adopted some of its criteria
from the American Dental Association (ADA) but were an
independent commission. He listed some of the specialties:
orthodontics, endodontics, pediatrics, oral surgery, oral
medicine, oral facial pain, and dental anesthesiology. He
qualified that all dentists could provide the same services
in the categories. However, recognizing specialties enabled
the public to determine who had specialty training. He
emphasized that the certification was arduous.
Representative Carpenter asked how many specialties were
currently in the state. Senator Wilson replied that the
Senate Labor and Commerce Committee estimated that that
there were 150 practitioners that advertised as dental
specialist in the state. Representative Carpenter asked if
any of the individuals advertising as a specialist were not
covered under the 12 recognized specialties.
4:13:17 PM
Mr. Nielson did not have an exact number of people that may
be advertising under the word specialist in an area of
dentistry that was not a recognized specialty by the
commission. He guessed that the only one would be something
like an implant specialist, but at present that was not a
category. He stated that it would take significant research
to find the answer. He reiterated that the boards goal was
to quell any confusion caused by a dentist advertising as
though they were a specialist.
Co-Chair Merrick asked whether Dr. Logan wanted to offer
any observations.
Dr. Logan echoed Mr. Nielson's comments. He highlighted
that the goal was to halt the practice of falsely
advertising as a specialist when they did not have the
qualifications or educational background. He estimated that
the number of dentists inventing a specialty category was
more than one but less than 20 and the exact number was
difficult to determine. He concluded that the bill covered
someone who falsely advertised as a specialist and
prevented someone from claiming a specialty that did not
exist. The dentist could advertise that they provided the
service but could not name themself as a specialist.
Representative Carpenter referenced the sectional analysis
and asked if the department was on board with receiving the
responsibility.
Senator Wilson stated that the question had been asked in
the Senate Finance Committee and the department had stated
it was fine with the responsibility as long as it received
funding for an extra position.
CSSB 173(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:17:11 PM
AT EASE
4:18:38 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 131(title am)
"An Act relating to the presumption of compensability
for a disability resulting from certain cancers in
firefighters."
4:18:44 PM
SENATOR ROGER HOLLAND, SPONSOR, read the sponsor statement
(copy on file):
Firefighting is an inherently dangerous job, resulting
in instances of cancer in firefighters is shown to be
higher than the general population. Studies that have
evaluated cancer risk among women firefighters suggest
women firefighters, like their male coworkers, may be
at an elevated risk for overall cancer incidence
(Daniels et al., 2014). These studies also suggest
women firefighters may be at an elevated incidence
risk for breast cancer (Daniels et al., 2014).
In addition to studies on cancer risk among
firefighters, a small but growing body of research
examines firefighters' exposures to toxic chemicals,
including carcinogens and hormone disruptors, on the
fire ground, in stations, and from their gear.
Exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and hormone-
disrupting chemicals do not discriminate based on sex
or gender. Exposure to these chemicals may be
mitigated, but not eliminated, through protective
equipment, firehouse design, and structural changes.
Firefighters involved in fire suppression, whether it
be as a volunteer or career firefighter, are at higher
risk of cancer.
SB 131 would help recognize this additional risk
firefighters take to keep us safe. Thank you for your
consideration of the addition of breast cancer to the
list of presumed disability coverages for
firefighters.
4:20:46 PM
CRAIG VALDEZ, STAFF, SENATOR ROGER HOLLAND, reviewed the
sectional analysis (copy on file):
Amends this Act relating to the presumption of
compensability for a disability resulting from certain
diseases for firefighters.
Sec. 1 AS 23.30.121(b), relating to the list of
coverage for firefighters, is amended by:
? Adding the terms "skin cancer, breast cancer,
cervical cancer, testicular cancer, mesothelioma,
multiple myeloma, colon cancer, thyroid cancer, and
ovarian cancer" to list of AS 23.30.121(b).
Sec. 2 Adds a section definition of "firefighter."
Sec. 3 Clarifies this change applies to claims made on
or after the effective date of this Act.
4:22:46 PM
Senator Holland introduced a PowerPoint presentation titled
"Senate Bill 131: Workers' Compensation Disability for
Firefighters" (copy on file). He briefly reviewed slides 2
through 5.
Senator Holland turned to slide 2 titled SB 131:
Firefighting is an inherently dangerous job. It is
important that workers compensation insurance provides
coverage for the inherent risks in that job.
Currently, there is an oversight in Alaska Statutes
regarding that coverage: Breast Cancer.
Senator Holland pointed to slide 3 titled Senate Bill
131:
SB 131 would add breast cancer to the list of presumed
disability coverages for firefighters, so long as the
firefighter could establish that the breast cancer was
caused by their work as a firefighter.
Senator Holland indicated that the coverage was difficult
to qualify for. The firefighter had to obtain a zero year
exam that demonstrated no evidence of the disease and
maintain an examination over the following seven years to
qualify.
Senator Holland reviewed slide 4 titled Firefighters at
Risk:
Instances of cancer in firefighters is shown to be
higher than the general population. Studies that have
evaluated cancer risk among women firefighters suggest
women firefighters, like their male coworkers, may be
at an elevated risk for overall cancer incidence
(Daniels et al, 2014). These studies also suggest
women firefighters may be at an elevated incidence of
risk for breast cancer (Daniels et al, 2014).
Senator Holland briefly moved to slide 5 titled General
Statistics:
In the general population, less than one percent of
males are likely to develop breast cancer in their
lifetime. Studies have found strong associations
between firefighting and male breast cancer (Ma et al,
2005). Male firefighters are 7.5 times more likely to
die from breast cancer than their non-Fire Service
counterparts. (Ma et al, 2005) The same mechanism
that would cause increases in breast cancer in men is
thought to result in proportional increases in risk
among women.
Senator Holland shared that a Fairbanks fire chief, Fire
Chief Warren Cummings died of breast cancer in 2017 after
42 years of service.
4:25:51 PM
Senator Holland moved to slide 6 titled General
Statistics:
In the general population, one in eight women (12 %)
will likely contract breast cancer in their lifetime.
At only about four percent of the firefighter
population, small sample sizes make it difficult to
draw conclusions about females and breast cancer in
the Fire Service.
This bill protects not only women, because exposure to
carcinogenic chemicals, which often occurs in the
normal course of a firefighter's job, does not
discriminate based on sex or gender.
Senator Holland reviewed slide 7 titled Presumptive Laws:
Presumptive laws are regulations that assume a given
disease is linked, by default, to a specific
occupation. This means that when someone is diagnosed
with an illness covered under a presumptive law, they
are automatically entitled to disability or workers'
compensation, medical expense coverage, and medical
leave, provided they meet certain criteria.
Senator Holland continued to slide 8 titled Presumptive
Laws:
Without presumptive laws, to get these benefits,
firefighters and other workers may have to prove that
their line of work caused their disease.
This process can be lengthy and expensive at a time
when resources should be dedicated toward treatment,
wellness, and, sometimes, end-of-life decisions.
Senator Holland highlighted slide 9 titled Alaska Statute
23.30.121:
Breast Cancer would join the existing list, including:
Respiratory Disease, Cardiovascular Events (Limited),
Primary Brain Cancer, Malignant Melanoma, Non-
Hodgkins Lymphoma, Bladder Cancer, Ureter Cancer,
Kidney Cancer, Prostate Cancer.
Senator Holland briefly mentioned slide 10 that repeated
what presumptive laws were on slide 7 and asked the
question, What are those criteria?
Senator Holland highlighted slide 11 titled "Alaska Statute
23.30.121:
Once added to the list, several standard limitations
would apply.
The firefighter must:
Have been a firefighter for at least seven years,
Have had initial and annual medical exams showing no
evidence of disease,
Be able to demonstrate exposure to a known carcinogen
while in the Fire Service,
At a minimum, be certified as a Firefighter I.
Senator Holland referred to bullet point number 3 and
interjected that proving exposure was difficult. There were
so many chemicals in structures that were burning.
Senator Holland highlighted slide 12 titled "Alaska Statute
23.30.121:
Other qualifying criteria would apply, including:
1. Coverage may be denied based on:
a. Use of tobacco products, b. Physical fitness
and weight,
c. Lifestyle decisions, d. Hereditary factors,
e. Exposure from other employment/non-employment
activities.
2. Some post-employment coverage is available,
a. Three months accrued for every year of
service,
b. Five year maximum.
Senator Holland pointed to slide 13 titled enate Bill
131 that listed the 14 states that added breast cancer in
presumptive laws. Slide 14 concluded by asking that Alaska
be added to the list of states.
4:29:26 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked why a five year limit after
retirement was set. She asked if it was possible a person
could develop cancer seven to ten years after retiring.
Senator Holland believed that it was an industry standard.
He would follow up with information.
Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony.
SCOTT RAYGOR, FIRE CHIEF, FAIRBANKS FIRE DEPARTMENT,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), asked to hear the question
repeated.
Representative Rasmussen wondered why the limit was set for
5 years considering the states retention problems and that
many firefighters were serving their communities for over
20 years. She noted that a firefighter could develop cancer
7 or 10 years after retirement. Mr. Raygor answered that
the reason was related to the presumptive law. He explained
that after the 5 year period it was not presumed that the
cancer was caused by exposure; other things post retirement
could be the cause. He added that it did not mean the claim
would be denied, work exposure was just not the presumed
cause.
Co-Chair Merrick asked to hear Mr. Raygor's testimony.
Mr. Raygor urged the committee to pass SB 131. He shared
that he had worked with former Fire Chief Cummings who had
died from breast cancer. At the time, he was not even aware
that men could die from breast cancer. He related that
firefighters were at a three times higher risk of a cancer
diagnosis. He reported that less than seven percent of
firefighters were women and currently studies were
beginning to determine how the cancer rates affected women
firefighters. He expected that the rates for female
firefighters would be higher than for male firefighters.
He elaborated that most structures were rarely wood based
anymore and were full of petroleum based products; almost
all fires caused exposure to carcinogens. He reported that
research demonstrated that the places where a firefighter
sweated tended to be locations where cancers were
discovered. He reiterated that every fire was now a
carcinogen. In addition, the chemicals used to fight fires
were carcinogens. He summarized that firefighters were
three times more likely to develop cancer. He requested
that the committee pass the bill.
4:35:35 PM
Representative Josephson supported the bill. He shared that
a good friend and former legislator [and attorney] Eric
Croft handled many of the firefighters' legal cases
regarding the issue. He referred to the Adams Decision
that considered a challenge by a municipality to the
assertion of benefits under Workers Compensation. He
reported that public employers were often very aggressive
about challenging the claims. He looked at page 2, line 27
of the bill and stated the phrase, the firefighter was
exposed to a known carcinogen. He wondered how evidence of
exposure was collected. Mr. Raygor replied that there were
different ways exposure data was collected. Sometimes
individual firefighters document every fire they fought.
Currently, the National Cancer Institute had a web portal
that allowed the firefighter to document the fire. In some
cases, the fire department looked back over a firefighters
career and documented every fire fought. He concluded that
there were many ways fire departments could manage tracking
exposure incidents. Representative Josephson asked if it
was true that in the Adams Decision the public employer may
put up an extensive fight over the cases. Mr. Raygor
believed so but was not sure of the outcome of the
decision. He opined that insurance companies fought all
claims, presumptive or personal.
4:39:29 PM
Representative Carpenter asked how exposure was defined by
the International Agency for Research on Cancer or the
National Toxicology Program. He asked how the organizations
determined the exposure.
Senator Holland deferred to the testifier
Mr. Raygor did not have the answer.
Co-Chair Merrick requested they could get the answer prior
to the next hearing.
Representative Carpenter observed that other cancers in
addition to breast cancer were included in the bill. He
read the list: (x) cervical cancer; 7 (xi) testicular
cancer; 8 (xii) mesothelioma; 9 (xiii) multiple myeloma; 10
(xiv) colon cancer; 11 (xv) thyroid cancer; and 12 (xvi)
ovarian cancer. He presumed the other cancers were added in
the prior committee [House Labor and Commerce Committee.]
Senator Holland answered that the prior committee had added
other cancers to the list, and it had been somewhat of a
surprise. In addition, the committee dropped malignant
melanoma and added the more general skin cancer. He noted
that the director of the Division of Insurance was present
and could speak to the costs of adding cancers to the list.
He indicated that the cost of just adding breast cancer
would be almost unrecognizable in terms of cost due to the
low instance of claims. He disclosed that he had some cost
concerns over the inclusion of the other cancers.
4:42:21 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
asked Representative Carpenter if his concerns were over
costs. Representative Carpenter replied that one of his
concerns was over costs, but he wanted to understand how
the other cancers were added.
Senator Holland believed the thought in the prior committee
was that the other cancers were just as important to add.
He would personally have liked to maintain the focus on
breast cancer. He confirmed that the original bill only
added breast cancer to the list.
Ms. Wing-Heier responded that the division did extensive
research to determine what other states had done and
examined the data base of the National Council on
Compensation that tracked other states data. The council
set the rates that the other states adopted. The council
and the division did not find any evidence that adding
breast cancer or other cancers were increasing workers
compensation rates in other states. She elaborated that
part of the reason was the presumptions were so strong
and few claims were made. She indicated that currently,
no data existed to support that the rates would increase.
Representative Carpenter asked if the rates were not
increasing it meant few claims were being submitted. Ms.
Wing-Heier agreed with the conclusion. She explained that
not all states had adopted the presumption of
compensability for certain cancers, and some fire
departments were not eligible. She reiterated that
currently, there were not enough claims to raise the rates
or presume the rate would increase. Representative
Carpenter thought part of the issue was about how exposure
was defined. He shared from personal experience that there
had been a lot of open pit burning in Afghanistan and
Iraq, that was impossible to protect oneself from. He
believed that the definition of exposure was key to why an
increase in claims may not be seen. He guessed that maybe
firefighters were not technically exposed to carcinogens
due to protective gear like masks.
4:46:39 PM
Senator Holland would follow up with the information. He
observed that firefighting procedures had changed over the
last 20 years. He commented that firefighters remain fully
geared up while in the fire and refrain from removing their
protective gear until after the fire and separate
themselves from the gear. The protocols decreased the risk
of exposure, but firefighting was still a very dangerous
career.
Representative Josephson asked Representative Carpenter to
repeat the question he wanted an answer to. Representative
Carpenter complied. He stated that the two entities listed
in the bill would determine whether the firefighter was
exposed to a known carcinogen. He exemplified a firefighter
wearing a mask when fighting a fire and wondered whether
that was considered an exposure or if something more had to
happen. He wanted to understand the definition of exposure.
Representative Josephson suggested that the Adams Decision
was worth reading. He explained that the presumption meant
that even if the cancer did not actually happen because of
exposure an individual could still obtain coverage.
Representative Josephson asked if there was any testimony
regarding other states adding the other recently added
cancers to the list. Senator Holland answered that it had
not been brought forward in the Senate. Representative
Josephson asked if any of the cancers or just ovarian
cancer had been added by his office. Senator Holland
answered that the original bill only added breast cancer.
He recalled that Representative Kaufman added ovarian
cancer to the list in the prior committee.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked who would share the burden of
additional costs. Senator Holland responded that there was
an employee component of the insurance and with the
addition of the other cancers he noted some concern over a
potential cost increase to the employer. He deferred to
Director Wing-Heier or Fire chief Raygnor to respond.
4:52:13 PM
Ms. Wing-Heier asked Vice-Chair Ortiz to repeat the
question. Vice-Chair Ortiz complied. Ms. Wing-Heier replied
that Workers Compensation was paid completely by the
employer.
Senator Holland appreciated the correction to his prior
statement.
Representative LeBon noted that the prior committee
substitute also expanded the definition of firefighter to
include a firefighter employed by a municipal or state fire
department. He wondered whether the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) had weighed in with a concern. Senator Holland had
received a letter of concern from AML. He would follow up
with the information.
Co-Chair Merrick wondered if he had heard opposition from
the Alaska Public Entity Insurance. Senator Holland was
unable to answer the question.
4:55:04 PM
Representative Josephson deduced that the addition of the
state firefighters, which included airport firefighters was
minimal and was likely not a concern of the AML. He guessed
that AMLs opposition would be to the added cancers.
Co-Chair Merrick stated she would try to get the
information for the committee. She asked if there had been
discussion about naming the bill after the former Fire
Chief Cummings. Senator Holland answered in the negative
and thought it was an excellent idea.
Representative Carpenter referred to Section 1, Subsection
(C) on page 2, lines 25 to 26 of the bill and read, (C)
with regard to diseases described in (1)(C) of this
subsection, demonstrates He ascertained that the
individual had to demonstrate exposure during their
employment. He wondered how the requirement or burden to
prove exposure was defined. Senator Holland deferred to Mr.
Raygor.
Mr. Raygor answered that the Fairbanks Fire Department
procedure was through HAZMAT physicals. He detailed that an
initial baseline physical was performed for a new hire and
every year of employment after they were required to get a
HAZMAT physical. If a firefighter developed cancer, the
department examined every fire the individual fought and
did backwards detective work to list all the potential
exposures. Representative Carpenter thought the answer made
it even more important to understand the definition of
exposure.
Senator Holland asked the fire chief if the reason for
logging the firefighters exposure to carcinogens was to
differentiate from someone working in the fire service but
who did not fight fires.
4:59:54 PM
Mr. Raygor answered that it could be an exclusion. He
exemplified the EMTs who worked for a fire department but
never fought fires.
SB 131(title am) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
5:00:59 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 131 AKPFFA Letter of Support Miranda.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 CVFRD Letter Benningfield.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Firefighter Final rdh.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Summary of Changes.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 45 - Replacement Amendment #4 Rasmussen D.16 050522.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 45 |
| SB 131 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Rec'd by 050622.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 173 Sponsor Statement v. I 1.28.2022.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 173 |
| SB 173 Sectional Analysis v. W 4.25.2022.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 173 |
| SB 173 Testimony as of 1.31.22.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 173 |