Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/21/2000 03:21 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 21, 2000
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act providing for the licensing of speech-language
pathologists; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 105(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING SPEECH PATHOLOGY/AUDIOLOGY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 260 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 260 (H) L&C, FIN
1/21/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 105.
KIT ROBERTS, Representative
Alaska Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 105.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 105.
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on transitional regulation language
as it relates to HB 105.
PATTI SWENSEN, Staff
to Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the issue of a
temporary license as it relates to HB 105.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Murkowski,
Harris and Cissna.
HB 105 - LICENSING SPEECH PATHOLOGY/AUDIOLOGY
Number 0040
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the first and only item of business
would be House Bill No. 105, "An Act providing for the licensing of
speech-language pathologists; and providing for an effective date."
[NOTE: THE COMMITTEE WILL BE DISCUSSING WORK DRAFT VERSION
1-LS0340\H, LAUTERBACH, 1/20/00]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that the bill appears to be an
excellent piece of draftsmanship in that it does not develop a new
board or commission and therefore, presumably, would be a very
cost-effective way to bring needed regulation and control of speech
pathology and audiology in the state.
Number 0073
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of the
bill, began by disclosing that when he first came to Alaska he
worked as a speech and hearing therapist so he has some personal
knowledge of this area. At that time, the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association's [ASHA] certification was just
beginning to grow as a professional goal for speech and hearing
therapists. Although it would not have been required for their
employment, he said many people aspired to the certification
because it establishes ethical and clinical competencies and gives
the public a bit of assurance. He is pleased to bring this bill
before the committee. It is another illustration of folks who want
to create certification upon themselves to reassure members of the
public that they are getting the best service possible rather than
having the state presume to place a certification on an occupation.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE further stated that Alaska is one of only six
states that does not require this license or certification.
Therefore, the goal of HB 105 is to set out the requirements for
licensure. He noted that the legislation was requested by the
Alaska Speech-Language-Hearing Association to allow speech and
language professionals to follow more stringent clinical and
ethical competency standards. The bill would - in essence - take
what is being done already on a voluntary basis and put it into
statute.
Number 0286
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE acknowledged that there has been some
discussion about the fee, which he described as "pretty
substantial" - about $700 biennially or $350 per person per year.
He noted that about a dozen speech/language pathologists are
anticipated to be licensed, and suggested combining them with the
audiologists, whose licensing fee is substantially less, thereby
spreading the cost over greater numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE announced that Ms. Kit Roberts is online [to
testify]. She is a member of the Alaska Speech-Language-Hearing
Association and is able to give a personal point of view as a
requester of this type of certification as well as answer any
clinical questions.
Number 0383
KIT ROBERTS, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage,
introduced herself as a speech/language pathologist. She mentioned
that she is the director of Emerald Speech & Learning Clinic in
Anchorage, but she is testifying today as a representative of the
Alaska Speech-Language-Hearing Association. She also thanked
Representative Bunde for his help. She has been in private
practice since 1976 in the state. For many years speech/language
pathologists have gotten along pretty well with the honor system.
However, a few years ago a gentleman started advertising himself as
a speech/language pathologist who had a bachelors degree that
wasn't even in speech therapy. There were complaints made, but
there was nothing that could be done. There is nothing to protect
consumers. She also noted that reimbursements have become an issue
because medical insurance companies are looking at state licensing
to determine if a speech/language pathologist is a qualified
provider. As a result, some have been denied payments by medical
insurance companies. She cited the profession has a very low
incidence rate: only 5 to 10 percent of the population will ever
need to see a speech/language pathologist. There are no training
programs in the state, yet all have worked for and received a
Certificate of Clinical Competence [CCC], the minimum certification
needed to work in private practice nationally, which is why it was
chosen as the entry level for state licensing. She remarked that
there is a shortage of speech/language pathologists in the state,
but all are concerned about maintaining a high standard for the
profession. She said, "We're kind of a picky lot, and we like
things done right. We like things done well so we're ready for
this."
MS. ROBERTS further stated, in regards to the fiscal note, there
are an estimated 25 audiologists who are licensed and practicing
now, and an estimated 25 to 30 speech/language pathologists would
be licensed. She explained that both audiologists and
speech/language pathologists are certified under the same parent
organization - the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association -
and both receive the same testing and certification. Therefore, a
fee similar to audiologists would be fair and reasonable, which is
$190 biennially.
Number 0715
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS asked Ms. Roberts whether she is looking
for uniformity amongst the professions.
MS. ROBERTS replied, "Yes."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Roberts to explain the difference
between an audiologist and a speech/language pathologist.
MS. ROBERTS replied both professions start with the same course
work and share similar core courses at school. At some point,
however, a decision is made as to what path to pursue. She
explained that an audiologist deals mostly with hearing and hearing
impairments, while a speech/language pathologist deals mostly with
speech, language and voice. Both can have clients in common; for
example, they both work with deaf children. A speech/language
pathologist works with deaf children in ways to improve their
speech or to teach them sign language, while an audiologist tests
and prescribes hearing aids. She also noted that speech/language
pathologists work with stroke victims, stutters, individuals who
have had surgery for a cleft palate, and individuals who have had
a head injury. She called it a very broad field.
Number 0836
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that when his Mother had a stroke she
worked with a speech/language pathologist to learn how to swallow
and eat.
MS. ROBERTS confirmed that speech/language pathologists also treat
swallowing disorders.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that his Mother's care was covered by
Medicare. Is that typical? he asked.
MS. ROBERTS replied, "Yes." Swallowing is a good example of an
area in which a person can get injured if treated by someone who is
not trained or thinks they know what they are doing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Roberts to explain the education
requirements for certification for a speech/language pathologist.
MS. ROBERTS replied, in order to qualify for a CCC, a person must
have a masters degree from a qualified institution; undergo a
supervised year of training; and pass a national examination.
Number 0992
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed that the bill would not present any
difficult barriers. There are hundreds if not thousands of
colleges and universities that offer programs in speech/language
therapy.
Number 1011
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Roberts whether the
requirements for an audiologist are similar to the requirements for
a speech/language pathologist.
MS. ROBERTS replied, "Yes." According to her understanding, it's
exactly the same thing - a masters degree and a CCC. She noted
that a person can be dually certified as an audiologist and as a
speech/language pathologist.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Roberts how would a dual
certification be handled in regards to licensing. In other words,
would a person have to pay both fees?
MS. ROBERTS replied that's a decision the committee will have to
consider. She is thinking that a person would have to get two
licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA requested that the committee hear from
the Division of Occupational Licensing [Department of Community &
Economic Development] on that issue.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Bunde whether a person who
is certified and licensed in another state would just have to pay
a licensing fee.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the CCC is a national certification.
He suspects, therefore, that a person would just have to apply for
a license upon entering the state, if that person already has a
CCC. He called it a transfer of paper.
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Section 13, "Exemptions," of
the work draft, and wondered whether those who teach
speech/language pathology would have to be licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied a person working as such in a school
district is not really teaching speech pathology but acting as a
speech/language pathologist.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would hope that a person who is
teaching speech/language pathology would be licensed, which is not
how subsection (c) reads [Section 13].
MS. ROBERTS explained that a license is for those who are
practicing and treating clients. However, if at some point she
wanted to become a professor for example, then she wouldn't need a
license. She doesn't have a problem with that as long as the
person is not treating any clients.
Number 1266
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated, according to personal experience,
professors typically work with clients as well and in those cases
they would have to be licensed. However, a person teaching a class
in semantics, which leads to a degree in speech/language pathology,
wouldn't have to be certified [licensed].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI replied she is concerned because she
wouldn't like to see a person - who had never been licensed -
elevated through the speech department who is now training students
of speech/language pathology.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied that is a hypothetical scenario; there
are no training programs in the state and he doubts that there ever
would be. The language that Representative Murkowski is concerned
about refers to those who are licensed to deal with
clients/patients as opposed to those who deal with theory. In
reality, he can't imagine that those who are teaching would not
have had a clinical practice.
Number 1401
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to Section 3, paragraph (5), of the
work draft, and wondered whether the language would cover the issue
at hand. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association would
have a fairly rigorous screening process for those applying for a
CCC. Similarly, an instructor would not be able to teach unless
he/she has a fairly rigorous background.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied there are individuals who are not
licensed in the state yet they teach theory. In addition, he wants
to stay away from telling the university who they can or cannot
hire.
Number 1489
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to Section 13, paragraph (2), of the
work draft, and asked Representative Bunde to explain why a school
district employee should be exempt from this type of licensing.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the bill is addressing those
individuals who are practicing and calling themselves
speech/language pathologists. A school district can set up its own
criteria as to who it can or cannot hire.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered whether this would cause "violence" to
those with a bachelors degree who don't have a CCC but who are
employed in the field.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated, according to his own experience, he
didn't hurt anybody while working in the public schools with a
bachelors degree.
MS. ROBERTS explained the minimum requirements for those who work
as a speech/language pathologist in the public schools is a masters
degree. School districts stop short of requiring a CCC, but they
are starting to recognize it as a way to give pay increases.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that the requirements vary from school
district to school district, but that nothing less than a bachelors
[degree] is required.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether there are practitioners outside the
realm of education who don't have a certificate that would be
harmed by this.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied he would reverse the question; is it
wise to protect the public from someone who hangs up a shingle and
calls himself a speech/language pathologist according to his own
definition? He doesn't know of anybody - specifically - who would
be driven out of business because of this certification
[licensing]; it's a consumer protection issue.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the point of the bill is to create another
occupation guild with prohibitions of practice to set a minimum
standard.
Number 1733
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to page 7, line 7, of the work draft,
and wondered whether referring to a code of ethics in statute is
"running afoul." There is no code of ethics either memorialized in
statute or regulation. Furthermore, what code of ethics is the
bill talking about?
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied it refers to the code of ethics of the
individual's profession. The language refers to the exemption of
a licensed physician who chooses to practice some speech/language
pathology such as swallowing exercises.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked: What code of ethics exists for a
speech/language pathologist?
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association's code of ethics applies to them.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG exclaimed this is a classic occupational
licensing "thing." Each profession may or may not have adopted a
code of ethics, but in certain instances a code is codified...
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE interjected and stated the bill refers to a
code of ethics and clinical competency...
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected and stated that once a person has
been certified - presumably - he/she would have to be incompliance
with that code of ethics or stand a chance of being decertified.
In other words, there would be two enforcement agencies - the
Division of Occupational Licensing and the certification agency.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that the public would also act as an
enforcement as they would be the ones complaining.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered whether the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association would indicate to the Division
of Occupational Licensing [Department of Community & Economic
Development] that there had been a breach in the code of ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said there would have to be another step
because the association would remove that person's certification
which would automatically make him/her incompliant for a state
license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Roberts whether she is aware of any
actions against a person based on a code of ethics violation.
MS. ROBERTS replied, "Yes." There have been a few cases related to
insurance fraud of which the state licensing agencies were
notified. She offered to make available to the committee members
a copy of the code.
Number 1930
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he is concerned because there are
different levels of a breach; therefore, would a person
automatically be decertified for a breach?
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that, if a person loses his/her
CCC, then...
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected and stated the language in the work
draft doesn't say that.
MS. ROBERTS said she thought the exemption language meant a person
didn't have to get a license; there's nothing to lose, right?
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "That's true."
MS. ROBERTS further noted that the language is included because
sometimes a doctor will give hearing tests.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he is troubled by this section because it
sets up a standard on top of a laundry list of exemptions. He
asked: What does the code of ethics have to do with an exemption?
Is a person not exempt if unethical?
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that the language reads, "...this
chapter does not apply to an individual who practices
speech-language pathology consistent with the accepted standards
and code of ethics of the individual's profession..." He noted
that physicians take an Hippocratic oath and that the employees of
a school district and interns follow professional standards.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the issue as a drafting "thing." If
a person is exempt from overview, why is that person's code of
ethics mentioned?
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE interjected and stated - obviously - the
drafter of the bill is comfortable with the language. "But,
legally, are we going to say some doctor who practices speech
therapy and breaches -- he does it poorly and breaches his own
ethics -- he does harm first. We don't want to then exempt that
behavior. We want to say that he's exempted as long as he or she
is doing this in an acceptable manner."
Number 2062
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked: If a school district employee is acting
unethically as a speech/language pathologist, what does the
Division of Occupational Licensing [Department of Community &
Economic Development] have to do with that?
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that the individuals in the
exemptions section are not covered by a license...
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected and stated that is his point; why is
the bill talking about a code of ethics?
Number 2075
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE avowed, if this is a major problem with the
Chairman, then the language should be deleted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reiterated that he is confused about what the
language, "accepted standards and code of ethics," has to do with
an exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that the language was borrowed from
other states and is part of the current statute for audiologists.
Number 2142
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said it's clear to him. The section just
says that those in other professions have their own accepted
standards and code of ethics and that they must follow them, if
they are to be allowed to practice speech/language pathology. They
wouldn't be able to practice their own profession if they didn't
follow their own code of ethics.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that the language refers to the
exemptions which are not under the purview of the Division of
Occupational Licensing [Department of Community & Economic
Development].
Number 2180
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development, came before the
committee to help clarify the issue. She stated, if the division
was to prove that a person was not following his/her own accepted
standards and code of ethics, then that person would no longer be
eligible for an exemption and, therefore, practicing without a
license, which is a misdemeanor.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected and said: "So, somebody could be
doing something and not have a license, know they don't have to
have a license, and then if they do something wrong then all of a
sudden you [Division of Occupational Licensing] claim that they
should have a license so you can exempt them. That's nonsense."
MS. REARDON replied it appears that is what is permitted in the
bill, but it wouldn't be wise for the division to pursue something
like that because those in question are not regulated and they
haven't paid anything into the system. She noted that the language
is the same for the audiologists and the division has not had to
pursue a complaint. She suggested either taking the language out
for both [occupations] or leaving it in for both.
Number 2257
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether the profession itself feels
that this is an important way to police itself.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, he thinks, it's a drafting "thing."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested, in the interest of time, deleting
the language, "consistent with the accepted standards and code of
ethics of the individual's profession" [page 7, lines 7-8].
Number 2329
MS. REARDON continued testifying on HB 105. She explained that the
bill is modeled after the audiology statute, and that the fiscal
note is a feature of what the division spends on the profession.
MS. REARDON stated, in response to earlier concerns, she's not
certain as to whether or not those who have a CCC are reputable,
but she pointed out that the effective date of the bill is July 1,
2000, which if passed into law would hit the profession quite soon.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon whether she would have to draft
any regulations against the statute.
MS. REARDON replied she would draft regulations to put limits
around the temporary license, which would take longer than July 1,
2000. Until such time, however, the division would probably give
out temporary licenses without a termination date.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Bunde to comment on the
effective date; it's not very "clean."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, in regards to the state's need for
time, he can't comment on that. But, in regards to a
practitioner's need for time, he/she certainly has the option of
applying for a CCC. He clarified with Ms. Roberts that all of the
25 members of the Alaska Speech-Language-Hearing Association have
their CCC and Ms Roberts replied in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said: "So, but, but given the nature here we may
only have 30 to 45 days to 60 days to get geared up at
occ[upational] licencing. Is that sufficient time for these people
not to...I mean..."
MS. REARDON stated she would prefer a longer time because often
legislation like this is passed near the end of a session then off
to the Governor. There may not be very much time... [TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 00-3, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Roberts whether an additional 90
days would be an inconvenience or danger to the public's safety.
MS. ROBERTS replied, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Reardon whether an additional 90
days would take care of her concern.
MS. REARDON replied it would take care of her concern regarding
licensing, but regulations take a year.
Number 0027
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to boiler plate language for
transitional regulations and asserted that the committee should
give Ms. Reardon the authority to write regulations prior to the
effective date.
MS. REARDON stated her dream date would be January 1, 2001.
Number 0052
JANET SEITZ, Staff to House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee,
came before the committee to testify on transitional regulation
language. She noted that the language for transitional regulations
says something to the effect of, "notwithstanding the effective
date of a piece of legislation the department can go ahead and
start developing regulations."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the language says "developing"
not "implementing."
MS. REARDON noted that the language would allow her to adopt
regulations and present them to the public.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said adding the language would cover both
concerns of delaying the implementation of the regulations and
giving the division more time.
MS. REARDON asserted that she needs to know the amount of the
licensing fee so that she can start drafting regulations and
informing those who apply for a license.
MS. REARDON continued her testimony on HB 105. She referred to
page 3, paragraphs (1) and (2), and noted that a temporary license
is good for 60 days or less in a calendar year which, according to
her understanding, are not consecutive days. She is concerned
about how the division would track that information. As written,
it would probably be left to the licensee to stick to the limit.
She doesn't want people to think that the division is going to
clock them in and out every time they enter the state.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that those who are not incompliant with
the laws and regulations of their licensing would lose their CCC.
There has to be some expectation of professional responsibility.
MS. REARDON noted that the division advocated for the language to
read "consecutive [days]," but the supporters didn't want that.
She is concerned how it would work.
Number 0217
PATTI SWENSEN, Staff to Representative Con Bunde, came before the
committee to answer questions regarding the issue of the temporary
license. She noted, according to discussions with individuals in
the profession, that those who commute with a temporary license
have a contract with a certain amount of days attached, which is
how it could be measured.
Number 0242
MS. ROBERTS explained - as an analogy - when there is a nursing
shortage a hospital will hire a temporary nurse from outside for a
certain amount of time. That happens in Alaska as well for
speech/language pathologists. She cited that usually a
speech/language pathologist is hired from the state of Washington
or Oregon as a consultant for a school district in a small
community when the rest are booked up. She doesn't want to
penalize a therapist or a school district for a temporary visit,
but if it turns out to be a consistent visit then that therapist
would need to get a full license.
MS. REARDON stated, according to her read on the bill, a therapist
could get a temporary license every year.
MS. ROBERTS replied there should be something in the bill that
indicates a temporary license is good for only one year, after
which, a person would have to get a regular license.
MS. SWENSEN replied the language reads, "60 days or less in a
calendar year," which could be used 5 days at a time or 60 days
straight.
MS. ROBERTS said a person should get a temporary license once.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI wondered whether the issue could be
addressed under Section 4, subsection (d), which reads as follows:
(d) The department may impose by regulation additional
limitations that it determines appropriate on a temporary
license issued under this section.
MS. REARDON indicated to Ms. Roberts that she can address the issue
through the regulations. She doesn't see a limit in statute. It's
helpful to know the intent, however. She stated - for the record
- that since a temporary license would be issued for only one year
rather than two she is assuming that the cost would be half of the
regular license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered whether the fee for a temporary license
should be in statute.
MS. REARDON replied she prefers that it not be in statute. She
would prefer that no fees be in statute.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon what she would contemplate
charging for a license.
MS. REARDON replied, according to the fiscal note, the division is
proposing to spend $7,500 a year, which comes out to $700 for
approximately 25 people. If it doesn't cost $7,500 a year then the
fees would not be as high, and similarly if it costs more than
$7,500 a year then the fees would be higher. The fiscal note
indicates what the division thinks it would cost for a license, but
that doesn't govern it absolutely. It's the actual experience that
in the end determines what the fee would be; for example,
enforcement money for an appeals process can cost $100 an hour for
legal time, which is billed to the profession. That is the
downside of having a self-sufficiency statute. But, as pointed out
by the sponsor, there are professions which are also very small and
since no legal monies have been expended the fees are running
anywhere from $200 to $300.
MS. REARDON further stated, in regards to the issue of the
temporary license, the division would not track the days, otherwise
it would start costing money in terms of staff time.
MS. REARDON further stated she would like to see the loss of a
person's CCC as a ground for disciplinary action stated clearly in
the bill. As written it says that a person has to have a CCC to
get a license; it doesn't say that a loss is grounds for
revocation.
MS. ROBERTS indicated that that is reasonable language to add to
the bill. Where would it be added? she asked.
MS. REARDON replied she would recommend including it in Section 9,
"Grounds for imposition of disciplinary sanctions on a
speech-language pathologist." She noted that the bill drafter
would probably make it a separate subsection because it would be an
automatic [revocation]. She pointed out that the other grounds are
actions for which the department "may" impose a sanction. She
further pointed out that there is similar language in statute for
hunting crimes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG closed the meeting to public testimony.
Number 0669
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the suggested changes apply
towards audiologists, yet the title of the bill does not include
them.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied it is not his intent to include these
requirements for audiologists.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that there is a section for
disciplinary sanctions and prohibited acts for audiologists, which
leads her to believe that they might need to be reflected in the
title of the bill as well.
MS. SWENSEN replied the speech/language pathologists are being
added to the audiologist statute. It doesn't affect the
audiologists. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, many therapists
are dually certified.
Number 0758
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that Sections 8 and 9, of the work
draft, are different; therefore, the bill drafter could argue a
title change is not necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether there is any place in the bill
that makes for inconsistencies since a person can be dually
licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, "No." A person needs to meet the
requirements for licensure in each area.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether they would pay a double fee.
MS. REARDON replied, "Yes." They would be treated separately; they
would have to pay both fees.
Number 0822
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why there is a difference between
the grounds for dismissal for audiologists and speech/language
pathologists. She specifically referred to the inclusion of
paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) [Section 9], of the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the bill simply amends speech/language
pathologists into the audiologist statute. He has not investigated
into whether or not there should be changes made to the audiologist
statute as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that she is simply wondering whether
there would be a problem within the industry since they "swap"
licenses.
MS. SWENSEN reiterated that the bill is simply adding
speech/language pathologists into the audiologist statute, and from
what she has heard from the association it wouldn't create a
conflict...
MS. REARDON interjected and stated the language probably came from
a national organization. She has never heard of a license being
bartered in Alaska before.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon whether she has an amendment to
combine the audiologists and pathologists to help lower their
licensing fees.
MS. REARDON replied licensing fees are less volatile if there is a
larger number of licensees. At this point in time, the division
expects about 25 individuals to be licensed as a speech/language
pathologist, while currently there are 68 individuals licensed as
audiologists. Although it wouldn't solve the problem entirely, it
would be better financially for the division to track 100 licensees
in one program; it helps to spread the cost in the "spiked" years.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon whether anything needs to be
done in statute to accomplish that goal.
MS. REARDON replied yes, but there is an interest to do that in the
[House] Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asserted that he would prefer to do that in
the [House] Finance [Committee]; it would give him a chance to
spend more time on it.
MS. REARDON further stated that something similar was done when
the landscape architects were licensed a few years ago. She cited
that there were only going to be about 50 landscape architects so
language was included in statute to pool their licensing fees with
the architects, engineers and landscape surveyors.
Number 1015
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it's the purview of this committee to make
that type of change and to inquire as to whether the audiologists
want to be put in that type of position since there is risk
involved in the "spiked" years.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that the audiologists have not been
consulted, which is why he needs more time. Representative Bunde
asked Ms. Roberts whether there is a state audiologist society.
MS. ROBERTS replied the audiologists and speech/language
pathologists are part of the same association.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Roberts whether she believes combining
the licensing fee amongst the two professions would create a
problem.
MS. ROBERTS replied she would have to take that issue back to the
association and notify the audiologists before she could reply.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that is what Representative Bunde would
like her to do.
MS. ROBERTS said she would like to have some information to present
to the audiologists as it relates to money.
MS. SWENSEN pointed out that she received the fiscal note only a
few days ago at which time she learned how high the fees were
projected, which is another reason more time is needed to notify
those involved.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that since this is a financial issue he is
willing to move the bill on to the [House] Finance Committee with
the provision that the bill sponsor does the right thing, and that
the committee members concur with that right thing.
Number 1215
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether an individual who is working
for a school district can use the title speech/language
pathologist.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied they are often hired as
speech-language-hearing pathologists.
Number 1255
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that there are four amendments to be
discussed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 1
that would clarify the loss of one's CCC as grounds for mandatory
revocation. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 2
that would change the effective date to October 1, 2000, thereby
adding 90 days. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 3
that would give permission to the department to begin developing
regulations prior to the effective date of the bill. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 4
that would delete the language, "consistent with the accepted
standards and code of ethics of the individual's profession," on
page 7, lines 7-8, of the work draft. There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
Number 1430
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to move CSHB 105, Version
1-LS0340\H, Lauterbach, 1/20/00, as amended, from the committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 105(L&C) so moved from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, Chairman
Rokeberg adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
meeting at 4:42 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|