Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/29/2017 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| HB126 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB103 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2017
3:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sam Kito, Chair
Representative Adam Wool, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Bryce Edgmon (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Pharmacy
James Henderson - Soldotna
- CONFIRMATION(S) HEARD
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Katherine Ostrom - Homer, Alaska
-CONFIRMATION(S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
Board of Professional Counselors
Harold Henderson - No address provided
-CONFIRMATION(S) SCHEDULED BUY NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to workers' compensation benefits for members
of the organized militia."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to unemployment insurance benefits; increasing
the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 103
"An Act relating to the practice of optometry."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 126
SHORT TITLE: ORGANIZED MILITIA: WORKERS COMPENSATION
SPONSOR(s): MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
02/15/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/17 (H) MLV, L&C
02/21/17 (H) MLV AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/23/17 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/17 (H) Moved CSHB 126(MLV) Out of Committee
02/23/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/24/17 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 5DP 1NR
02/24/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX, SADDLER, RAUSCHER,
SPOHNHOLZ, TUCK
02/24/17 (H) NR: REINBOLD
03/29/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 142
SHORT TITLE: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
SPONSOR(s): TUCK
02/24/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/17 (H) L&C, FIN
03/29/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 103
SHORT TITLE: OPTOMETRY & OPTOMETRISTS
SPONSOR(s): SPOHNHOLZ
02/03/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/17 (H) HSS, L&C
03/14/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/17 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/16/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/16/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/18/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/17 (H) Moved CSHB 103(HSS) Out of Committee
03/18/17 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/22/17 (H) HSS RPT CS(HSS) NT 5DP 1NR
03/22/17 (H) DP: JOHNSTON, TARR, SULLIVAN-LEONARD,
KITO, SPOHNHOLZ
03/22/17 (H) NR: EASTMAN
03/27/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/27/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/17 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/29/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES HENDERSON, Appointee
Board of Pharmacy
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Pharmacy.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 142, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor.
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA)
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142 and answered
questions during the hearing.
COLONEL JOHN JAMES, Commander
Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF)
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Joint Base Elemendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 142.
MARIE MARX, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 142.
SCOTT JORDAN, Director
Division of Risk Management
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 142.
ED FLANAGAN, Director
Central Office
Division of Employment & Training Services
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
142.
AARON PLIKAT, President
Building and Construction Trades Council of Southcentral Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
DOUG TANSY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
BRANDON MCGUIRE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
RALPH KIBBY, Owner
Chatham Electric Inc
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
WALTER ROBINSON
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local
1547
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
LAKE WILLIAMS, District Representative
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local 302;
President
Fairbanks Building and Construction Trades Council
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
BRONSON FRYE, Recording Secretary
Building and Construction Trades Council of South Central Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
PAUL GROSSI
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 142.
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 103.
BERNICE NESBITT, Staff
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on House Bill 103 on
behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime sponsor.
RACHEL REINHARDT, MD
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 103 on behalf
of The American Academy of Ophthalmology.
DAVID S. ZUMBRO, MD, Ophthalmologist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 103.
CARL ELI ROSEN, MD, Ophthalmologist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 103.
ERIC COULTER, MD, Ophthalmologist;
Director
Alaska Eye Surgery and Laser Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 103.
DAVID KARPIK, OD
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 103.
ALFRED DERAMUS, MD, Ophthalmologist
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 103.
ELIZABETH MORGAN, MD, Ophthalmologist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 103.
JEFF GONNASON, OD, Legislative Chair
Alaska Optometric Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 103.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:19:11 PM
CHAIR SAM KITO called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:19 p.m. Representatives
Josephson, Wool, Birch, Knopp, Sullivan-Leonard, and Kito were
present at the call to order.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Board of Pharmacy
3:19:42 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the first order of business would be
confirmation hearings for the governor's appointments to various
state boards and commissions.
CHAIR KITO stated that the committee has received 61 names of
the governor's appointments and members were asked to submit
names of any appointees they wished to speak with directly or
question. He stated that the committee requested to speak to
nine individuals. The committee has spoken to five of the
individuals and has forwarded 57 names.
3:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON thanked James Henderson for
volunteering to serve on the Board of Pharmacy. He asked for
clarification about any potential conflicts of interest and he
asked Mr. Henderson to explain any financial benefit that might
arise.
3:21:50 PM
JAMES HENDERSON, Appointee, Board of Pharmacy, stated that his
lack of explanation in his application was mostly due to there
being too many possibilities to list. He explained that as a
business owner and a potential board member, many things could
occur.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether Mr. Henderson would be
prepared to explain and declare a conflict if one occurred.
MR. HENDERSON affirmed that he would recuse himself and let the
other board members take care of the issue.
3:22:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked Mr. Henderson why he wants
to be on the board, what challenges he sees in the Pharmacy
world, and how he would address those challenges.
MR. HENDERSON stated there are several reasons why he wants to
serve on the board. He offered his opinion that it is a civic
duty, and at this point he has some time to fulfill that duty.
He noted his desire to shape the way the pharmacy profession
runs in the state and to use his experience to shape
regulations. He said he wants to be involved with new trends.
He informed the board is currently considering Governor Bill
Walker's recent mandates on opioids. The board is also looking
at updating rules in U.S. Pharmacopoeia (USP) 797 and USP 800,
which regulate compounding and sterility.
3:24:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH thanked Mr. Henderson for his interest in
the board. He stated that four of the five pharmacists studying
in the first class of Pharmacy at the University of Alaska were
on the House floor this morning. He expressed that it's nice to
see an Alaskan crop of pharmacists.
3:24:57 PM
CHAIR KITO thanked Mr. Henderson.
[Confirmation was held over.]
HB 126-ORGANIZED MILITIA: WORKERS COMPENSATION
3:25:14 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be CS
FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 126(MLV) "An Act relating to workers'
compensation benefits for members of the organized militia."
3:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that when the legislature modernized
the judicial system for the military during the last legislative
session, it recognized the need for other changes to the current
military code. He read the sponsor statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska State Legislature and Department of
Military and Veterans' Affairs have been working
together to modernize the 1955 Alaska Military Code by
providing statutory changes that will better serve our
Alaska organized militia.
House Bill 126 would expand workers' compensation
coverage to the organized militia while they are
participating training exercises. Currently, Alaska
statutes already provides workers' compensation
coverage during active state service, but not during
training. By expending [sic] this protection, we could
potentially provide a fiscally significant coverage
and save the state money in the future.
This issue came to light during an incident when a
member of the Alaska State Defense Force suffered an
injury during a training exercise that led to his
inability to work. Since workers' compensation was not
available, this injury ultimately cost the state twice
the amount of the entire annual budget of the Alaska
State Defense Force. The Risk Management Division of
the Alaska Department of Administration estimates
there would be little to no additional cost to cover
the Alaska State Defense Force members under existing
state workers' compensation policies.
As we face tight fiscal times, it is important that we
are taking steps to ensure cost savings where we can
and pass responsible legislation that will protect
Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that this was one of four bills
updating the Military Code of Alaska; HB 126 would expand
workers compensation for the militia and save the state money.
3:28:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked if there were any
statistics on members that were injured during training within
the last 10 years.
3:28:33 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of
HB 126, said that currently the Alaska State Defense Force
(ASDF) has 76 members that participate and that the only known
incident was a leg injury. She noted that the injured
individual intended to bring the matter to court, but the case
eventually settled out of court. She said it was this case that
brought the bill to life. She made the point that if the state
is going to cover members during their active state service,
then it will want to cover them for their training as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD requested confirmation that the
injury described was the only one in the last 10 years.
MS. KLOUSTER stated that it was the only one of which she was
aware. She suggested Department of Military and Veterans'
Affairs Deputy Commissioner Bob Doehl could confirm this.
3:29:59 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military and
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), stated that the department supports HB
126 as it provides predictability and sound risk management for
the training activities of ASDF. He remarked that even one
injury can be "budget busting," as was evidenced in the
previously discussed case. He also stated that the proposed
bill would create parity with volunteer search and rescue
groups, volunteer firefighters, and the [Alaska] National Guard,
all of which are in a paid status with federal training.
3:31:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if anyone could provide him with
information on the militia in Alaska; for example, what it does,
how many members exist, and how it differs from the National
Guard.
3:32:06 PM
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOEHL said that the organized militia in
Alaska consists of four components; the best known being the Air
and Army National Guards, which make up about 4,000 members
combined. The two lesser known components are the Alaska Naval
Militia made up of Navy and Marine Corps reservists, and ASDF,
which is the group to which this bill pertains. He stated that
ASDF is a state-only militia, having no federal affiliation, and
it trains to augment the National Guard at times when disaster
response needs exceed the capacity of the National Guard. He
stated that ASDF has communications detachments running high
frequency and satellite radios, water purification units, and
generators, and recently ASDF ran the phone bank for the
disaster assistance center after the storms in Gambell and
Savoonga. Their duties of ASDF include basic first aid and
other training. Last year during the fires, ASDF ran shelter
management at evacuation points. Deputy Commissioner Doehl said
that members are paid only when they are in active duty
assisting in a disaster; preparation for a disaster is performed
on their own time.
3:33:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how ASDF's schedule is different from
the National Guard, regarding whether their training periods are
specified or as needed.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOEHL responded by saying that ASDF's
training consists of one weekend each month to be ready for a
disaster. He explained that unlike the National Guard, ASDF
members do not deploy or go to federal training but may have
periods of annual training greater than the one weekend each
month or take courses like officer candidate school. Training
is specialized. He said currently ASDF does not have weapons
training like the National Guard.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if ASDF members are paid for training.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOEHL answered that they are not paid at all
when in training; they are only paid when performing actual
operational duties. All training time is volunteer time, which
adds up to thousands of hours among all the volunteers.
3:35:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP inquired further about the general nature
of ASDF training. He stated that he did not want to refer to it
as administrative or clerical; however, it did not appear to be
the same as the training or fieldwork provided to the National
Guard and Reserves.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DOEHL offered his understanding that ASDF
members are trained in the field rather than at a desk setting
when, for example, operating generators or other equipment,
performing litter drills, or providing first aid training. He
also included the example of [members] setting up a high
frequency radio and erecting an antenna in a field expedient
site. He said that they don't, for example, work in protective
chemical gear, but that there are some physically demanding
requirements for working in an emergency environment.
3:36:14 PM
COLONEL JOHN JAMES, Commander, Alaska State Defense Force
(ASDF), Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA),
confirmed that Deputy Commissioner Doehl's comments were "spot
on." He added that ASDF augments the National Guard when the
latter has "capability gaps" or personnel shortages. While some
of the responsibilities include administrative duties or perhaps
operating a radio, there are times when ASDF augments the
National Guard in the field with more strenuous types of duties.
He said their purpose is to augment and be a force multiplier
for the National Guard, and the department feels this is how
they can be most effective.
3:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted the zero-fiscal note and asked how
there can be zero cost when the state would be providing
workers' compensation benefits.
3:37:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he would let the Department of
Administration respond to that question.
3:37:52 PM
MARIE MARX, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), said there
were a few fiscal notes Chair Kito attached to this bill. One
is from the Division of Workers' Compensation, which administers
but does not pay workers' compensation benefits. It is a zero
fiscal note because the bill would not require any change in the
administration of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act. She
then deferred to the Division of Risk Management, which she
described as the employer arm of the state, to speak to its own
fiscal note. She said the Division of Risk Management is the
entity that would pay benefits if there was a work injury or
death.
3:38:44 PM
SCOTT JORDAN, Director, Division of Risk Management, Department
of Administration (DOA), said that the Division of Risk
Management covers similar groups, such as Search and Rescue for
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and some Emergency Medical
Technicians, and they are not calculated as full-time employees
(FTEs). He said that the militia members in question are
already covered for active duty, and adding coverage for
training is a low risk, which is the reason for a zero fiscal
note. He added that Risk Management has no way of calculating
the risk for these people, because they are not calculated into
the FTEs of their departments.
3:39:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated his understanding is that workers'
compensation typically extends to employees and the cost is
covered by employer/employee contributions; however, in this
case the legislature is being asked to extend that benefit to
volunteers that are not employees and are not compensated unless
they are on official business. He said this situation brings to
mind a discussion held about extending the "life benefits" for
non-profit emergency medical service members that respond to
accidents on the highway, in the same fashion as public safety
officers, yet don't receive the same benefits as the public
safety officers. He asked if it would be normal to extend this
type of benefit to volunteers or if the legislature would be
creating a precedence.
MR. JORDAN said it would be normal for them to do this for
volunteers and would not create a precedence by providing
workers' compensation for this group. He said the Division of
Risk Management is self-insured and its rates are different from
what you might see at a private entity. The division insures
several volunteer groups, like search and rescue, emergency
medical technicians operating in an unincorporated city, and
even high school students involved in work programs within the
state.
3:42:09 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 126 was held over.
HB 142-UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
3:42:27 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 142. "An Act relating to unemployment insurance
benefits; increasing the maximum weekly unemployment insurance
benefit rate; and providing for an effective date."
3:42:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK described HB 142 by stating that it relates
to the effectiveness of Alaska's Unemployment Insurance (UI)
program. He continued as follows:
The national unemployment insurance program was
initially created in 1935 by the Social Security Act.
Congress chose to create a national system of
compensation for unemployed workers based on an
insurance model rather than an entitlement program.
This insurance model has worked well for over 80
years. As with any other insurance program, the
objective is to underwrite and identify potential loss
incurred by a small percentage of the insured through
accumulation of funds collected from the group as a
whole. The loss insured by the program is the loss of
wages by unemployed workers. The premiums required to
cover this potential loss are in most states paid
solely by the employer; although in Alaska the cost is
shared by the employer and the worker. We are one of
three states in the nation that does this. Alaskan
employers carry 73 percent of the direct cost and the
workers pay 27 percent of these costs through payroll
taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that as with any program that
compensates individuals while they are not working, there may be
concerns about providing a disincentive for returning to work.
He said, "In striving to provide sufficient temporary income to
enable workers to bridge the gap between jobs while meeting non-
deferrable expenses without that disincentive, the U.S.
Department of Labor encourages a target of 50 percent wage
replacement to try to balance that out." He explained that wage
replacement measures the state's average weekly benefit amount
as a percent of the average weekly wage. According to the most
recent figures published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Alaska
ranks last in wage replacement at 28.8 percent, forty-fourth in
the nation in terms of the average weekly benefit paid to
unemployed workers - $252 per week, and 39th in the nation in
terms of the maximum weekly benefit amount of $370 per week.
Benefit amounts are based on the amount of wages a worker earns
during a prescribed base period. Workers with higher earnings
whose loss of work has a higher financial impact can receive a
higher benefit amount. Representative Tuck related that under
Alaska's current statute, the maximum benefit amount that can be
paid to workers who have earned $42,000 or more is $370 per
week, regardless whether the amount of wages lost was $42,000 or
$100,000 or $200,000 per year. The current maximum weekly
benefit amount represents approximately 36 percent of the
average weekly wage of $1,020 in Alaska. The proposed
legislation seeks to raise the maximum weekly benefit amount in
Alaska to an amount that is roughly one-half the average weekly
rate in the state for 2017, up to $510 per week effective
January 1, 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that the second intent of the
proposed bill is to tie future increases to the maximum weekly
benefit amount to a percentage of the average weekly wage, as is
the case in 36 other states. This would allow the wage
replacement offered by the program to rise based on the
relationship to the wages that are being replaced. He said the
estimated cost to employers, for each employee earning the full
taxable wage base of approximately $38,000, would increase
gradually beginning in 2019 [until it reaches] an additional
$233 per employee in 2023. He indicated this is over the
baseline forecast, and the proposed bill would not increase the
minimum wage benefit assessment. The estimated additional cost
to employees earning the full taxable wage base in 2023 will be
$31 over the baseline forecast. Representative Tuck advised
that after December 31, 2019, the maximum weekly benefit amount
would be calculated each year based on 50 percent of the average
weekly wage in the state. He said tying future increases to
increases in the average weekly wage over time would result in a
less dramatic change to employer taxes than what the state has
experienced in the past when the maximum benefit amount remained
static and became less and less adequate over time, as it has
since the last increase in 2009.
3:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he had a number of letters of
opposition from individuals concerned about the impact that this
additional cost increment will have on small businesses during a
time of economic challenge and recession. He asked what the
actual cost would be to elevate this benefit.
3:47:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the estimated cost to employers for
each employee earning the full taxable wage base of
approximately $38,000 will increase gradually and be an
additional $233 per employee by the year 2023.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if it would be $233 per employee per
year.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said yes, that it would be $233 per employee
once it reaches its full maximum in 2023.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH pointed out that the bill refers to base
period wages and a weekly benefit amount, and he asked for
clarification on the duration of a base period.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that he believed it is the qualifying
period for someone to receive UI benefits and that it is a
period of one year.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH, referring to the table in HB 142, asked if
someone with a base period of $2,500 to $2,700 per year would
then be entitled to a $56 per week benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes. He said that for every $250
increase in annual base period wages, the weekly benefit
increases $2. However, again referring to the table in the
bill, he pointed out that HB 142 would not change UI benefits
for those at lower incomes. He said the change HB 142 brings to
the current statute is that of an increase in the weekly benefit
for those at higher income levels, and this could be seen on
page 7 of the bill. He said that HB 142 would allow for those
who earn more and have contributed more to the insurance program
to be able to receive a larger proportion of their annual pay
than what they would receive now. It would also bring benefits
closer to the recommended average of the U.S. Department of
Labor, as well as making Alaska current with 36 other states in
the country. Representative Tuck said Alaska has more seasonal
workers than any other state in the country, citing the seasonal
industries of fishing, tourism, and construction, as well as the
labor that occurs on the North Slope and in mining. He stated,
"We want to make sure that families are able to weather out some
of those ... tough economic times ...."
3:51:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH, referencing page 8 of the bill, asked what
the duration of a benefit would be in the case of a fisherman
working three months and earning $50,000 annually, with a
corresponding benefit of approximately $20,000.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested to bring Ed Flanagan of the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development to the discussion
to explain the number of weeks someone would be qualified to
receive a benefit.
3:51:59 PM
ED FLANAGAN, Director, Central Office, Division of Employment &
Training Services, Department of Labor & Workforce Development
(DLWD), responding to the question from Representative Birch,
said fishermen are not covered under UI. He added that the
maximum benefit for a seafood processing worker would be 26
weeks. He also said that in the past, a claim could be extended
under a federal extended benefit program, which would add up to
an additional 13 weeks of benefits. In the 1980s, the program
was changed to address claims from workers with earnings that
occurred in only one quarter. Mr. Flanagan offered his
understanding that at least 10 percent of earnings occur in a
second quarter. In addition, there is "a differential ratio"
utilized to determine the length of the benefit period based on
how well earnings were distributed over the entire year. He
said that earnings occurring in just two quarters would result
in a maximum benefit period of 18 weeks rather than 26 weeks.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said the concern voiced to him was that of
the cost impact on an employer and "certainly not a reflection
on the individuals involved." He also said he wasn't aware of
the mechanics of the system, for example, how it would prevent a
situation where someone could work for only three months and
then "basically kick back for nine months."
MR. FLANAGAN said that such a situation was not possible and
that he would not presume to tell an employer at any time, let
alone in troubled times, that $233 per employee five years out
is not something they should be concerned about. However, he
would encourage employers to think about how UI benefits support
many communities, especially those that have strong seasonal
workforces. He noted that he feels we lost something when we
went away from paper payroll checks, as people would cash those
checks after hours at a time when there were limited banking and
credit card options. He summarized by saying he thinks there
are employers that understand UI benefits not only help the
worker but also insure the community.
3:54:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Representative Tuck to explain
his earlier statement, which indicated Alaska is one of only
three states that does or does not "do something."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that Alaska is one of only three
states where employees contribute to their unemployment
insurance program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON then made the point that in addition to
Alaska's [UI benefit] rates not being anything close to a
livable wage, the state is one of only three that require
employees to contribute to their UI program.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that he did not recall the names of
the three other states, but that of the three, Alaska has
employee contribution rates that are significantly greater.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked why the sponsor of the bill did
not want to [increase] the lower wage earner's rates.
3:55:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that the bill was focused on providing
UI benefits to higher income wage earners and, in doing so,
balancing the increase in benefits with the associated
additional cost to the employee. He emphasized his concern that
Alaska retain skilled workers and support industry and
employers, while sharing the burden "on both sides."
3:56:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the annual salary is calculated
based on a weekly salary extrapolated over 52 weeks.
3:56:25 PM
MR. FLANNAGAN answered no; it is based on actual earnings during
the base period. He gave the example that if someone filed a
new claim this week, then all the wages for the period October
1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, would be considered. If a claim
was filed next week, when it would be a new quarter, the
earnings period would be the calendar year 2016. He said there
is no averaging or smoothing; and that it is the actual earnings
that are utilized.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that the reason he asked was because he
knows that some people work seasonally and [become unemployed]
following a season of high earnings, and he wanted to confirm
that someone who, for example, earned $1,000 per week for 3
months (for a total of $12,000) would fall under the $12,000
category and not the $48,000 or $52,000 category.
MR. FLANNAGAN stated that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that under his prior
example, the UI benefit would be $132 per week, even though
earnings were $1,000 per week for one quarter.
MR. FLANAGAN stated that this is correct. He added that if the
beneficiary had dependents, then he/she would be eligible for an
additional $24 per week for up to three children.
3:58:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD pointed out that the existing
statute describes the eligible individual, and then asked how a
benefit is calculated for a family.
MR. FLANAGAN stated unemployment insurance is based strictly on
the individual, with the possibility of a dependent child
allowance of $24 per child to maximum of three. He said that
this has been in statute for some time. He added that there is
no measure in any system nationwide regarding family income.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked what the fiscal note might
be, noting that it was shown as zero.
MR. FLANAGAN said that the fiscal note reflects the agency cost,
and in this case, it is de minimis, if calculable. He indicated
that a change in benefit amount does not change the cost to the
agency. He said if Representative Sullivan-Leonard was asking
for the cost to individuals or businesses, it was his
understanding that this was never reflected in the fiscal note.
3:59:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked if there was a way to
quantify what the financial impact is going to be, not only to
the department but also what the benefits would show for the
individual as well as for one, two, or three children. She
asked if there was a way to calculate what it would be annually.
MR. FLANAGAN said he could provide the agency's annual
projections on what it expects to pay. He said the benefits
paid out have never been considered relevant to the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD said that she was looking for
those dollar amounts, especially since there is a request to
increase the unemployment insurance for both the employee and
the employer.
MR. FLANAGAN said it was those dollar amounts that were used to
come up with the estimates for 2022 for additional cost versus
"doing nothing." He said that they have run those numbers to
figure out a "phasing up" over five years to an additional $233
per employee for the employer. He noted that this was for
employees making the $38,000 or $39,000 taxable wage base. The
employer's and the employee's contributions stop there. For the
employee it is an additional $31 per year. These are determined
from the estimate of the change in the benefits that will be
paid. He said the agency can provide this information.
4:02:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH pointed out that HB 142 would create a
second, and therefore additional, increase under the UI program,
as there was an earlier bill that established training as a
benefit. He then asked if there are any other existing parts or
if we would see any other new additions to the UI program.
4:03:08 PM
MR. FLANAGAN said that he was not aware of any others or
proposals for any others. He said that the two training
programs Representative Birch was referring to are the State
Training and Employment Program (STEP) and the Technical and
Vocational Education Program (TVEP). He stated that in the
past, he had misunderstood these programs by thinking
incorrectly that because there is a diversion from the employee
share, it is an additional cost to the employee. He explained
that the cost of the program is determined on a 73 percent
employer/27 percent employee split, and it is after that split
that the diversion is made. He said that employees don't pay
more except over time in the long run, because some money is not
coming out of the trust fund that otherwise would. He said he
could provide even more detailed information if requested, as he
had a staff member from research and analysis on hand.
CHAIR KITO said additional information would not be necessary as
the issue was not related to the bill.
4:04:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP directed attention to Section 2, on page 9
of HB 142, and asked what the maximum benefit would be for an
individual that makes $100,000 per year.
4:04:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the maximum
benefit would be $510, because the benefits "max out" at a base
income of $59,500. However, he pointed out that Section 2 is
"kind of a self-evaluating factor" that he mentioned earlier,
which would allow the unemployment benefit to update itself
based on 50 percent of the average income.
4:05:17 PM
MR. FLANAGAN clarified that the current weekly benefit is $370,
and under the proposed bill it would increase to $510. He added
that "at the lower end it's much closer to 50 percent than it
is, because it starts at that $2,500, with a benefit amount."
He explained that currently an unemployed worker who made
$42,000 in his/her base year receives the same benefit as a laid
off worker making $84,000. Both workers would have contributed
the same amount, "because $39,000 is where it cuts off for
contributions." He said that the benefits are "out of whack,"
because the person with the higher income is going to have
higher expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP said that his interpretation of Section 2
was that the maximum benefit of $510 would increase at a rate of
$2 for every $250 increase in earnings greater than $59,500. He
provided a hypothetical example of an individual earning
$100,000 and asked if his maximum benefit calculation of $834
for the individual (based on the language in Section 2) was
correct.
4:06:50 PM
MR. FLANAGAN said that he understood how Section 2 might be
interpreted in that way; however, the annual income of $59,500
is a cap, and income greater than $59,500 is not considered. He
explained that Section 2 would provide an adjustment to the
benefit schedule by; extending it out beyond $59,500 if the
average annual wage for the state increases. He added that he
does not expect any adjustments in the schedule to reach
$100,000 in his lifetime. He again acknowledged that this was a
confusing element of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP reiterated his interpretation that Section
2 states that weekly benefits would increase based on an
"individual's base period wages," not based on changes in "state
wages on an average."
MR. FLANAGAN reemphasized that no one would receive a benefit
greater than that listed for an income of $59,500; in subsequent
years, if the average annual wage went up, say $4,000, then
"they would use that column on the left to calculate a benefit
which would go up another $2,000 total in the year."
4:08:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL brought attention to the language [in
Section 2], to which Mr. Flanagan and Representative Knopp had
referred, was on Page 9, Line 25, and read: "the department
shall determine the average annual wage paid to employees". He
then asked for confirmation that this referred to the "overall
state average" and not individual wage.
MR. FLANAGAN answered that's correct. He said the department
[reviews the average annual wage], which currently is $53,000.
The taxable wage base is three-fourths of the average annual
wage.
4:09:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK brought the committee's attention to
language in [Section 2], subsections (j) and (h), and he noted
that the language in subsection (h), [on page 9], lines 15-17,
refers to the ["average annual wage"] mentioned in subsection
(j).
4:09:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation of his understanding
of the issue by providing an example where the average wage is
$52,000 or $1,000 per week. He then asked if, in this
situation, benefits under this section may not exceed 50 percent
of $1,000 per week or a $500 weekly benefit.
MR. FLANAGAN answered that is correct.
4:10:23 PM
CHAIR KITO asked if Mr. Flanagan had any further comment.
MR FLANAGAN stated that he would be available for questions. He
added, "It hasn't been done since 2009 ..., and it is past due."
4:11:11 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 142.
4:11:29 PM
AARON PLIKAT, President, Building and Construction Trades
Council of Southcentral Alaska, introduced himself as the
business agent for Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 367 and the
president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of
Southcentral Alaska. He stated that as the son of a journeyman
pipefitter and someone who has been in the trade for 22 years,
he is knowledgeable about being out of work. He said he can
tell firsthand about the pride a worker feels when completing a
project, as well as the fear of the impending layoff that
follows project completion. He said construction has always
been a path of peaks and valleys; when it's good, it's
fantastic, and when it's bad, the span between projects can be
months or even longer. As a business agent, he spoke about the
highly skilled craftsmen that are more than willing to perform
their crafts anywhere under any circumstances. These workers
and all workers should take some comfort in the fact that there
is a benefit for their short-term security should their
employment end suddenly or otherwise.
MR. PLIKAT said the current benefit is one of the lowest in the
country and has not been adjusted since 2008. He said the cost
of living is increasing in Alaska. He stated support for an
adjustment of the state's unemployment insurance from the
current weekly maximum benefit of $370 to the proposed $510,
because doing so will assist workers by allowing them the time
to find long term quality employment again. He strongly
encouraged the committee to support HB 142.
4:13:32 PM
DOUG TANSY introduced himself as a person wearing multiple hats:
current president of the Fairbanks Central Labor Council; member
of the Alaska Workforce Investment Board; and member of the
Fairbanks Building and Construction Trades Council. He opined
that wage (indisc.) unemployed or underemployed is critical
because of the high rate of seasonal employment here in Alaska.
He is a construction electrician who served his apprenticeship
in Fairbanks and he has experienced UI benefits first hand. He
is now a member of his local apprenticeship committee, which
oversees the school and the apprentices while they are in the
program.
MR. TANSY said the school has invested close to $50,000 in each
apprentice by the time each completes the program. The benefits
of the program are having journeyman-level workers available to
safely and efficiently do high-quality jobs for contractors and
to train the next batch of apprentices that are coming up behind
them. He said that with low UI wage replacement there is a
stress on individuals and families, and sometimes the way out of
that stress is to look for employment opportunities in
Washington, Oregon, and California. He said that when this
occurs, a percentage of those who leave the state don't come
back home, which results in a loss on our investment, a loss on
the investment of contractors, and a diminishment of a ready
workforce. This scenario is a typical setting for all
construction trades, not only the mechanical trades. Mr. Tansy
said the outward migration during leaner times doesn't cause
only financial impact to families; he has seen it contribute to
divorce or stress for children who must move to different
schools and not have in place the things that are conducive to
their development. He strongly encouraged movement of the
proposed legislation. He noted that the groups he mentioned
today have passed resolutions in support of HB 142.
4:16:48 PM
BRANDON MCGUIRE expressed his support for the bill and provided
an example of how it supports the working class, which not only
helps drive the local economy but also the economy of the
nation. He said that he has a typically employed friend that is
a construction worker with the laborers union. The friend and
his wife are expecting a child later this year and, as a
seasonal construction worker, Mr. McGuire's friend stands a
chance of being unemployed in and around the birth of his child.
He noted that in a situation like this, "when Murphy's Law rears
its head, every little thing helps."
MR. MCGUIRE said he knows that when a person is laid off, after
working for 1.5 years on a long project, unemployment checks
don't cover the bills. He said Alaska is such a great state,
yet it's UI benefits are low compared to those of other states
in the country. Given this, he said he doesn't see how a bill
like this could see any opposition, and he hopes that it will
not. He opined that Alaska should lead the way in support of
its working-class citizens.
4:19:03 PM
RALPH KIBBY, Owner, Chatham Electric Inc, stated that Chatham
Electric Inc is a statewide electrical contractor that works
primarily in Southeast Alaska. He stated that his business
provides the first response for many communities in Southeast
Alaska and other areas, for power outages and emergencies. He
said his company hires highly skilled workers, and he asked the
committee to pass HB 142 to retain that highly skilled work
force. He expressed concerned about workers leaving the state
because their needs are not being met. He said contractors
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars training their employees
regardless of the five-year period required to become a
journeyman. At this point, he said, whatever can be done to
maintain a skilled workforce - "our brain-trust" - is going to
help Chatham Electric Inc stay in business.
4:20:42 PM
WALTER ROBINSON, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW), stated that he feels the past and current UI weekly
benefit amount in Alaska is far too low. Alaska's average
weekly benefit amount ranks forty-fourth nationally, yet the
state has one of the highest costs of living. Having personally
drawn UI benefits himself, he can attest to the fact that a $370
weekly benefit is not enough. With this amount of money, it is
hard to maintain a household and put food on the table with two
kids and a wife to support. Alaska is not a cheap state to live
in because of the cost of housing, food, electricity, and heat.
Under the current price of oil and state of the economy, he
said, jobs are decreasing, and unemployment is increasing.
Alaskans are going to need help in this recession to get through
hard times.
MR. ROBINSON said that he feels the proposed increase comes at
the perfect time to ensure Alaskans will remain in the state.
People on UI benefits spend money in the state; therefore,
increasing the maximum weekly benefit will put more money into
the economy and help the business community. He stated that
people do not want to be on unemployment insurance as it is
stressful not having a job while trying to pay the bills and put
food on the table. The proposed legislation bill would relieve
some of the hardship placed on Alaskans during the current
recession and unemployment. Mr. Robinson stated that he is a
proud Alaskan but feels rating forty-fourth in the nation for UI
benefits is not something he is proud of. He urged the
committee to move HB 142 and help Alaskans that are suffering.
4:22:50 PM
LAKE WILLIAMS, District Representative, International Union of
Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local 302; President, Fairbanks
Building and Construction Trades Council, stated that on March
15 the council passed a resolution in support of HB 142, urging
the House to pass the bill and for the Senate to take action.
He said he would submit that resolution into the record.
MR. WILLIAMS said as an apprentice he relied on UI benefits
while he was in school to help pay bills, and when he was a
journeyman he relied on them until the next job came along. He
pointed out that work has slowed, with smaller capital budgets
and a reduction of work on the North Slope. He said that often
employers are struggling to maintain their workforce; while a
lot of them will find things for workers to do, they are forced
to lay people off and then hope that this skilled workforce will
not leave the state. He said that this is a constant battle for
employers; they are always worried about losing skilled workers.
He said that [employers] are seeing more and more people "raise
the white flag" and move out of state when they cannot find work
or pay their bills. Some of them come back and then are
referred to as "out-of-state workers." He said that it's hard
to blame these people as they are going places where it is
cheaper to live, but they are taking their money with them. Any
little bit [the state] can do to help workers and contractors,
maintain a workforce, and assist local families in getting by
until the next job comes around is a smart thing to do. He
reiterated his support for HB 142 and urged the committee to
pass it.
4:25:02 PM
BRONSON FRYE, Recording Secretary, South Central Alaska Building
Trades Council, stated that he is a business representative for
the Painters Union and is at the meeting to testify in his role
as the Recording Secretary of the Building and Construction
Trades Council of Southcentral Alaska. He said he is in favor
HB 142 and, while many reasons for supporting it have been
already articulated, he thinks it is notable that UI benefits
have not been raised since 2009 and that the state's maximum
weekly benefit amount ranks thirty-ninth in the country. He
pointed out that the U.S. Department of Labor recommends a 50
percent wage replacement and that HB 142 would meet that
recommendation, increasing the benefit from the current maximum
benefit of $370 to a maximum of $510. He said he believes that
it is also noteworthy that the State of Washington's current
maximum weekly benefit is $681, almost double our $370 benefit.
A benefit of $510 would bring Alaska much closer to other states
in the Pacific Northwest.
MR. FRYE opined that when workers lose their job, it is a loss
to not only the individual but to the entire community; having
adequate unemployment insurance benefits lessens that negative
impact. He pointed out that Alaska is seeing a downturn in its
economy and that if all the skilled workers must move Outside
for work and stay there, then the state loses a major investment
in time, money, training, and development of assets productive
to Alaska. He warned against a situation in which the economy
improves and Alaska finds itself with a shortage of workers. He
indicated that [helping workers] "stay afloat" and stay in
Alaska is a wise investment. In conclusion, he encouraged the
passage of HB 142.
4:27:40 PM
PAUL GROSSI stated that he was representing the Alaska State
Pipe Trades. He stated that [the Alaska State Pipe Trades]
support HB 142, as it will help unemployed workers. He said
that he was hearing a lot of resistance about the proposed bill,
based it not being the appropriate time to increase the benefit
because there is a downturn in the economy. He provided two
reasons why he thinks this is the "exact time" to increase the
benefit: to help unemployed workers and to help businesses that
rely on the workers as customers. He said that although the UI
benefit would not replace the wages earned during employment,
the lower income would provide some help to both the workers and
the businesses.
MR. GROSSI said he is probably the only one in the room old
enough to remember the last recession. He said that he was
living in Anchorage at the time, and the recession was "really
terrible"; it affected him personally. He described people
having to leave their homes and condos, with their furniture
left behind. He also described families leaving the state with
only their suitcases, after driving down to the Department of
Labor to pick up their checks. He said that the bill was "not a
cure for that" but would help to create a softer landing. He
finished by urging the committee to pass HB 142.
4:30:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP ventured that Mr. Grossi was referring to
the recession in '85, '86, and '87.
4:30:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH remarked there had been a lot of testimony
about the job losses that are occurring and discussion on
whether Alaska is or is not in a recession. He stated that from
a budget standpoint, Alaska has issues to deal with at the state
level and "some of us would like to see the state budget track
the private budget" if there is "a contraction." He then asked
if benefits are taxable as income.
MR. GROSSI replied that he could not remember for certain but
thinks they are taxable.
4:31:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he shares the concerns of most of
the people testifying and, along with Mr. Grossi, is concerned
that laid off workers will go to other parts of the country and
that some of them will not come back to Alaska. He said that he
is not sure the $200 increase in weekly benefits that the bill
would provide would be sufficient to keep a worker here when
they could make "decent money" [elsewhere]. He indicated that
it would be helpful if the provision under HB 142 kept people
here a little longer. He ventured that the real solution is
getting the economy back on line to ensure future jobs.
MR. GROSSI responded, "The only real solution is a job." He
said he hopes Alaska would not again experience a recession as
bad as the one in the mid-1980s, in Anchorage, which he
characterized as "pretty terrible" and "like the Grapes of
Wrath." He said that he didn't know if [HB 142] was enough, but
he thinks it's worth a try, as it may cause a "softer landing"
and help not only individuals but businesses as well. He
pointed out that while individuals can leave to find work,
businesses will close and, as a result, will be gone. He said
that there were a lot of businesses in the 1980s that closed
because they did not have the customers to stay open.
4:33:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL added that training through the TVEP
program, which is covered under the UI program, was also
available.
4:34:16 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 142 was held over.
HB 103-OPTOMETRY & OPTOMETRISTS
4:34:22 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 103 "An Act relating to the practice of
optometry."
4:35:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ provided a brief reintroduction of
HB 103. She said the bill would give authority to the Board of
Optometry to regulate the practice of optometrists. It would
ensure that the Board of Optometrists would have the opportunity
to update the current and continuing education standards and
scope of practice based on best available evidence. The bill
would not allow optometrists to perform outside of their scope
of practice, for example as in performing surgeries. It would
allow the board to utilize the regulatory process to manage
itself, just as doctors, chiropractors, nurses, and dentists are
regulated.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that current statute, AS
08.72.273, does not allow optometrists to provide invasive
surgeries. She further noted that licensees must submit the
necessary credentials, including the proper experience,
education, and training, to perform procedures that require
approval from the board. Lastly, she pointed out that Assistant
Attorney General Harriet Milks had testified that a robust
process for adopting new regulations already exists and includes
board meetings that are open to the public, a 30-day public
comment period, a Department of Law review period, and a review
from the governor's office. She said that this final point gets
at Representative Josephson's question about "where the buck
stops"; it stops with the governor when it relates to the
adoption of any new regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ acknowledged that it was the
legislature that developed the statute in question. She stated
that it was her hope that this bill will remove the legislature
from the business of managing optometrists, so they can focus on
other issues they need to resolve, rather than the "eye wars."
She said that the intent of HB 103 is to delegate the "eye wars"
to the Board of Optometry, which is where it belongs. She
pointed out further that the legislature is not a group of
medical professionals, and yet they have been discussing medical
procedures. Such discussions should be held at the Board of
Optometry, just as dental and chiropractic issues are discussed
at their respective boards.
4:39:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there was perhaps an analogy to
this issue in the world of dentists and oral surgeons; such that
there might be one board for dentists and one for oral surgeons.
4:41:28 PM
BERNICE NESBITT, Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Spohnholz, prime
sponsor of HB 103, said that she thought Representative Wool was
correct: because oral surgeons are medical doctors, they would
be regulated by a medical board, whereas dentists, she believed,
would be regulated by a board of dentistry.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that if that is the case, then the
situation with optometrists and ophthalmologists is very
similar. He said that he would assume that a dentist would not
have to come and ask the legislature if say he/she wanted to
pull a tooth.
4:42:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that Representative Wool provided
a good analogy; if dentists wanted to introduce a regulation
that would expand their scope, then the process would occur at a
board of dentistry. She also said that in that process, oral
surgeons, like any member of the public, would have the
opportunity to provide testimony and feedback. Similarly, oral
surgeons could attend any board of dentistry meetings to stay
apprised of new developments.
4:43:10 PM
CHAIR KITO stated that they would now return to public
testimony.
4:43:55 PM
RACHEL REINHARDT, MD, stated that she was testifying on behalf
of The American Academy of Ophthalmologists and its world-wide
membership of 32,000 eye physicians and surgeons. She said that
she was a board-certified ophthalmologist from Washington state.
She stated, "We are asking for your opposition to HB 103." She
stated that the bill was "without a shred of doubt" a "surgery
bill" that would make two very concerning changes to existing
law: removing from existing law the surgery restrictions that
currently exist; and inserting a new definition of the word
optometry in Section 6 that includes the words "treatment" and
"procedures". She said the addition of the word "treatment"
would leave "absolutely no limitations" on the type of
treatment; therefore, any surgeries on the eye would be allowed
under this new law if the Board of Optometry deemed them within
its scope. She said the new definition would allow the Board of
Optometry to redefine itself into a surgical field. She also
said that if proponents of the bill continue to insist that it
is not a surgery bill, then she thinks the bill either cannot
pass or "it needs to be put in writing," because without
specific language Alaska would be the first state in the country
to adopt such broad unprecedented legislation.
DR. REINHARDT said that a number of years ago a similar bill
proposed in Washington state added a definition of surgery that
cleared up the issue, specifically prohibiting an optometrist
from performing surgery. She stated that there are only three
states in the United States that have allowed bills similar [to
HB 103] to pass. In Oklahoma, language in a bill did not
specifically allow surgery, including laser surgery, but it was
never specifically restricted. As such, the Board of Optometry
in Oklahoma interpreted the law to redefine its scope to include
surgery. A study now shows that optometrists in Oklahoma are
causing people harm and increasing healthcare costs.
DR. REINHARDT stated that [the American Academy of
Ophthalmologists] respectfully but strongly disagrees that [the
board addressed under HB 103] is similar to other professional
boards, such as those for nursing, dentistry, and even
engineers. She said that unlike nursing, dentistry, and even
pharmacy, optometry education is not medical education, and it's
not surgical education, yet this bill would allow the Board of
Optometry, which is made up of nonmedical nonsurgical doctors,
to regulate a profession that is nonmedical and nonsurgical.
She said, "This says everything." The statutes and regulations
for the boards of pharmacy, nursing, dentistry, and even
engineering comprise 45-65 pages of Alaska Statutes, yet the
optometry statutes and regulations comprise 12 pages.
DR. REINHARDT said two days ago, an optometrist was heard
stating that insurance companies understand risk. She said that
while she agrees with that 100 percent, committee members should
bear in mind that the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company
(OMIC), the largest insurance company for ophthalmologists in
the country, has essentially come out with a policy stating it
will refuse to insure any ophthalmologist that hires an
optometrist to perform surgery, including laser surgery. She
said that this is the third consecutive year this surgery bill
has been heard, the first time being under Senate Bill 55,
during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature. During that
time, she noted, the legislature heard the concerns of scores of
MDs, who were not all ophthalmologists. She implored the
committee to listen to the experts in eye care and "not to leave
the safety of your constituents up to a public comment period or
the assistant attorney general after the fact." Those are not
people that are trained medically. If MDs are having a
difficult time voicing their concerns now, she proffered,
imagine how futile their efforts will be to protect their
patients after HB 103 is passed. She stated there are four
states in the country that don't even allow optometrists to
prescribe oral medication, yet here we are debating (indisc.)
surgery in Alaska. She said HB 103 would be unprecedented, and
it would change the scope for the practice of optometry. She
said that she respectfully asks the committee to vote no;
however, she stated that if the proposed legislation must pass,
then at the very least the definition of surgery should be
added, as it was in other states like Washington, to ensure
public safety. She said that the committee member's
constituents are counting on them.
DR. REINHARDT concluded by mentioning amendment language
regarding the practice and procedures of optometry complying
with acceptable standards, and she said such language would not
resolve the core concern regarding board authority.
4:49:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Dr. Reinhardt whether she had an
opinion on what he described as the apparent conflict between
the two following conditions: passage of a bill with language
stating an optometrist cannot perform any invasive surgery other
than removal of a foreign body; and the elimination of existing
language that says [optometrists] can do assorted things but not
surgery.
4:50:32 PM
MS. REINHARDT said the concern is that when there is conflicting
language in a bill, it is not abnormal for laws to be
interpreted in different ways. The risk is that not defining
the term "invasive surgery" creates loopholes for performing
surgeries. She said she takes issue with categorizing surgeries
as "invasive" versus "noninvasive," because "surgery is
surgery." She explained that surgery involves cutting,
ablating, or altering tissue somehow. She also said that it's
not hard to define surgery, adding that the American Medical
Association has had a definition for decades. She concluded by
saying that the problem lies in not defining the word surgery
[in the proposed bill].
4:51:37 PM
DAVID S. ZUMBRO, MD, Ophthalmologist, introduced himself as an
eye physician, surgeon, and retina specialist in Anchorage,
Alaska. He said that he is also a partner with Alaska Retina
Consultants and a retired colonel from the U.S. Army, and he has
had the opportunity to participate in a training program for
ophthalmologists for five years in San Antonio, Texas. He
expressed his hope that the committee would consider rejecting
or modifying HB 103. He said that while the bill may seem
"innocent and safe," the vagueness of the language would allow
non-physicians and non-surgeons to determine the medical and
surgical procedures they can perform on the eye, which is a real
patient safety issue. He proposed the question of why he should
still be worried about procedures when it has been said the bill
is not about surgery and optometrists will not perform surgeries
they are not trained to perform. In response to his question,
he stated that an optometrist in Alaska told him that they are
planning to help with eye injections. He said that looking
around the country we see multiple states which have similar and
current legislation, some of which are worded more directly.
All of these are associated with expanding the scope of practice
for optometry into surgery.
DR. ZUMBRO said that the reason he is worried about patient
safety is because the "optometry curriculum" does not provide
the training for optometrists to perform surgery, gives
injections, and operate lasers, let alone regulate such
activity. He stated that with any procedure there is a
difference between knowing what to do and how to do it safely,
and the hardest thing for a surgeon to learn is when to step
back and not do something. As in any profession, where a person
is young and eager to serve, inexperience sometimes interferes
with proper judgement. He said that all one must do is look at
the ophthalmology curriculum to understand the "gold standard"
for training eye physicians and surgeons. He asked for the
evidence optometry has produced to show their curriculum is
equivalent to the gold standard.
DR. ZUMBRO stated that he has no problem with the Board of
Optometry regulating the optometry profession. Notwithstanding
that, he stated that while it has been said that the Board of
Optometry will hold public testimony for any procedure, that is
what is being done now, and he opined that if eye surgery is
being discussed, then it would make sense that the current
board-certified eye surgeons should participate in the
discussion. Dr. Zumbro questioned how it could be logical for
non-physicians and non-surgeons to regulate eye surgery. He
stated that the antidote to this argument is simple: if the
optometrists wish to practice medicine and surgery, then they
should be regulated by the medical board, as it is with
podiatry. If this is unpalatable, then Alaska needs an eye
surgery amendment just like Washington, Arizona, and Florida.
He said HB 103 is not a simple housekeeping bill, as it would
redefine optometry into a surgical profession, and this makes
for legitimate patient safety concerns.
4:54:34 PM
CARL ELI ROSEN, MD, Ophthalmologist, specified that he is an
ocular plastic surgeon and neuro-ophthalmologist. He said that
he interfaces with neurology and neurosurgery with regard to
patient diagnosis and treatment. He said that he "takes care
of" bumps and cysts on eyelids and has performed over 15,000
surgeries on eyelids for folks with eyelid and cornea
abnormalities, cancers, reconstructions, trauma, et cetera. He
said he has been in practice for 23 years with Ophthalmic
Associates in Anchorage and has taken emergency calls
voluntarily. He said he is a past president with the Alaska
State Medical Association.
DR. ROSEN indicated that he had been confused by what he heard
at the committee's previous hearing on HB 103, on Monday, March
27, 2017. He pointed out that at that meeting, Dr. Dobson had
said that the bill was not about surgery and that optometrists
have no business performing surgery and do not want to perform
surgery. He said the prime sponsor of HB 103 and her aide had
stated that the proposed bill is not about surgery, and all
surgery language was removed from the bill. He went on to point
out that during that meeting, Dr. Matheson had testified that
she had been doing surgical procedures for 30 years, removing
eyelashes and foreign bodies from the cornea. He reminded the
committee that Dr. Christianson said that he drains sties.
Further, he had heard that optometry removes fish hooks from
eyes. He said that he also heard that as times change, scope of
practice must be modernized by the Board of Optometry; should a
surgical procedure be deemed within the scope of practice by the
board, it won't want to come back to the legislature. He also
recollected that the attorney general had stated that public
testimony would help decide if surgery was appropriate for an
optometrist.
DR. ROSEN asked, "Doesn't that bother any of you? Not only
would there be no one with actual surgical experience on this
board, but you're going to double down and ask the public for
help?" He answered his own question by emphasizing that an
expert - someone with actual experience - should be consulted,
because "the stakes are far too high." He said that while it
seems so innocent for someone to say that they'll remove a
foreign body or drain/inject a sty or a cyst, there are serious
situations that might arise under those circumstances,
including: when a foreign body is full thickness and results in
a leaking, open globe; when a drained sty results in lid
retraction, and the patient can't close the eye; or when
infection and necrosis of the eyelid results, requiring a full-
thickness skin graft.
DR. ROSEN stated that (indisc.) boards and nurse practitioner
boards police themselves because of the procedures learned in
graduate school. He said that optometry students do not perform
surgery, operate lasers, or administer injections. He
questioned why [someone without sufficient training] would be
allowed to put a needle into an eye with macular degeneration,
for example. He warned that if something is said enough, it
becomes reality; therefore, he is asking folks to wake up and
think about what is being said here [in this process].
DR. ROSEN said an article, dated July 2016, in the Journal of
American Medical Association (JAMA) states that health policy
making should be cautious with approving laser privileges for
optometrists. He said that optometrists do not take hospital
emergency calls or (indisc. -- overlapping voices). He said
that optometrists cannot transfer or admit patients to the
hospital as bylaws do not allow this. He remarked that people
like to plan for the unknown by buying fire and earthquake
insurance, even though it is unlikely they will ever use it. He
then asked why anyone would be willing to risk patients' safety
based on the words "trust us." He emphasized the need to set
boundaries and consequences. He said, "Let's fix this all with
a definition of surgery and we can all go home." Dr. Rosen
concluded, "At some point in your lives you will need an
ophthalmologist. Do you want to continue to alienate and
marginalize the Alaskan ophthalmology community? As it stands
it is difficult enough to recruit new ophthalmologists to
Alaska. This bill only makes it more so."
4:58:28 PM
ERIC COULTER, MD, Ophthalmologist; Medical Director, Alaska Eye
Surgery and Laser Center, stated that the last testimony in
favor of HB 103 expressed nebulous reasons why [optometrists]
require HB 103, except "to modernize and be more able to manage
themselves." He mentioned the testimony of Dr. Rosen and the
questions of why ophthalmologists should get into a conflict
over a nonsurgical issue. Dr. Coulter stated, "We agree that
they are good and great optometrists, but we disagree that that
group is ready, now or in the future, to be great surgeons, and
despite what they say, this is a surgical bill. ... Unless
self-governance is dependent upon expanded scope of practice and
surgical privileges, this really doesn't have anything to do
with self-governance."
DR. COULTER said there is ample evidence that HB 103 is "a
surgical-oriented bill." He noted that the original bill
version would have, under AS 08.72.050, required the Board [of
Optometry] to adopt regulations "describing the scope of
practice for a licensee to perform ophthalmic surgery and
noninvasive procedures"; however, that language was subsequently
removed from [CSHB 103(HSS), the version that passed out of the
previous committee of referral], as a result the legislature
receiving "overwhelming concern about optometrists performing
surgery." He said this is a moot point, because the current
version would define "optometry" under AS 08.72.300 as "the
examination, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, or performance of
preventive procedures related to diseases, disorders, or
conditions of the human eyes or adjacent and associated
structures, consistent with this chapter and regulations adopted
by the board". He said this language removes restrictions
related to the use of lasers or performing surgery. He said he
does not see how this change in the definition of optometry is
going to enhance the ability to self-regulate.
5:02:20 PM
DAVID KARPIK, OD, introduced himself as a residency-trained and
board-certified Doctor of Optometry testifying in full support
of HB 103. He said that he and his wife are partners in a four-
doctor, two-location practice that provides the majority of eye
care on the Kenai Peninsula. He said that he is also the
medical director for the Vision Source Network in Alaska,
representing 18 private optometry practice locations scattered
throughout the state, many of which are remote and rural. He
said that some of the opposing testimony has indicated that all
optometrists' training occurs within the statutorily required
continuing education but neglects to mention the thousands of
hours of training on the human body for the diagnosis and
treatment of eye disease that optometrists receive during their
4 years at optometry school, post graduate residency, and
additional maintenance requirements for board certification,
which are well beyond the statutory requirements.
DR. KARPIK said that Doctors of Optometry have a long history of
providing quality, conservative care and practicing within the
limits of what they are highly trained to do. Non-
ophthalmologist medical doctors, osteopaths, and nurse
practitioners are not statutorily restricted from performing any
eye treatment or surgery. The average medical student receives
about two weeks in an ophthalmology rotation, yet they safely
perform eye treatment within their training and comfort level
and refer the balance often to optometrists in their small
communities, like himself.
DR. KARPIK said that a U.S. News & World Report study published
this month ranked Alaska last in access to health care. Today
[the legislature] has an opportunity to change that alarming
statistic by creating a statute that will be durable and allow
incorporation of new technology as it is developed, provided
that training is certified. He said all healthcare providers
need to practice to the extent of their training, which he added
is provided at great cost to tax payers whose tax dollars
support optometry schools at state universities, hospitals, and
VA hospitals.
DR. KARPIK said that he supports the proposed bill because it's
simple and would replace the rigid and aging current optometry
law with one that would match the laws for other prescribing
professions like dentistry and advanced practice nursing, which
are also regulated by state boards. He said that as regulation,
technology, and research continue to change best practices,
regulation by an optometry board appointed by the governor and
confirmed by the legislature ensures protection of the public
with timely updates in practice, and that allows for optimum
access to eye care for Alaskans.
5:05:15 PM
ALFRED DERAMUS, MD, Ophthalmologist, stated, "It is well
understood by both sides that the issue of surgery and the
definition of surgery is the lynchpin for the continued need for
us to go back to the legislature and be very specific about the
definition." He said that both sides have tried to talk about
performing and not performing surgery, but that this does not
ring true to him. He said that the definition of surgery is the
incision and the alteration of tissue. He opined that
optometrists are doing a very good job in optometry, and the
surgeons - the ophthalmologists - are doing a very good job at
what they do. He emphasized the need to provide a clear
definition of surgery in statute, because "... just like water
goes through small cracks, we are very concerned that surgery
will be performed by the optometrists if there's a small crack."
5:07:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recollected that the definition of surgery -
possibly with a laser - that he had heard from other
ophthalmologists that testified is to cut, ablate, or alter
tissue. He asked Dr. Deramus if this is correct.
DR. DERAMUS answered that the definition was "getting close,
yes." He added that if laser energy is applied to tissue, then
there would be no question that tissue would be altered.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if that would qualify as surgery.
DR. DERAMUS responded that it would qualify as surgery, because
laser trabeculoplasty affects the tissue in a fashion that
causes contraction and movement of the microstructures, which
increases outflow; therefore, that is surgery.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if having a tattoo removed with a
laser would fall under the same definition.
DR. DERAMUS said, "Yes, I'm sorry, you walked right into that
one, it sure does." He offered further details.
5:09:28 PM
ELIZABETH MORGAN, MD, Ophthalmologist, introduced herself as a
board-certified ophthalmologist who also has a fellowship in
glaucoma. She said that she has heard repeated testimony
regarding how "self-legislation" by optometrists could "easily"
result in increased scope of care for optometrists. She said
that this precedent has been set in Oklahoma. She cited
information from JAMA, dated October 2016, which looks at the
difference in outcomes in the use of lasers for glaucoma
performed by optometrists versus ophthalmologists. She said it
was a very powerful study, as there were 13,084 eyes included in
it. She said the study discovered there were more than two
times the number of repeat laser surgeries performed by
optometrists. She said the potential explanation for this is
ominous, because it indicates that either optometrists are not
performing laser surgery correctly or they are repeating the
laser surgeries as an effort to increase reimbursement, which is
an issue with cost containment in healthcare today. Dr. Morgan
acknowledged that she was repeating a lot of what had already
been said, but as a glaucoma specialist wanted to bring these
details to light. She said she would like to work together with
optometrists and ophthalmologist but thinks it is very important
to "come up with a definition of surgery so that we may continue
to do that for the people of Alaska."
5:11:33 PM
JEFF GONNASON, OD, Legislative Chair, Alaska Optometric
Association, stated that he has served under the state optometry
board under two different governors and has been testifying on
this issue for over 40 years in Alaska. He said that every one
of the ophthalmologists and medical organizations that have
testified on this issue for the past 40 years have the same two
demeaning arguments: optometrists are a danger to the public,
and optometrists' education is not adequate. He stated that
both of these statements have been proven patently untrue.
DR. GONNASON, regarding the claim that optometrists are a danger
to the public, stated that public safety has never been an issue
in over 40 years of expanding scope of practice. He said he is
not aware of a single case before the board involving harm from
any optometrist's treatment or drug prescription, and this is a
wonderful record for Alaska. He pointed out that Dr. Lindstrom
commented on the current statute's 4-day supply limit on
narcotics, as described in Sections 4 and 5 of HB 103, and he
stated that this restriction would be kept in regulation by the
board. He said that "optometry" strongly agrees with the new
push to limit narcotics by all providers, and optometry in
Alaska has a 10-year history of prescribing narcotics without
issue; therefore, this part of the bill is not an issue. He
said that optometrists began using eyedrop drugs in the U.S. in
1972, but it was 16 more years before Alaska became the fiftieth
and last legislature to approve this practice. He added that
this was a result of the same arguments of danger and poor
training. He said that he would not be able to give eyedrops to
a child in Yakutat that had pinkeye, even though the health aide
with only a few weeks of training could do this. He said that
Alaskans suffer and pay more when educated providers cannot
utilize their skills.
DR. GONNASON, regarding inadequate education, said that the
education model is identical to dentistry with 8-10 years of
university study. He said that optometrists are not like
technicians; they are real doctors receiving a bachelor's degree
followed by a four-year doctoral program, which first includes
two years of sciences, then two years of clinical experience,
which is followed by the requirement of having to pass state and
national boards. He added that many optometrists take on
additional residencies. He said that optometry and dentistry
schools are similar to medical schools during the first two
years of sciences, stating that optometry and medical students
often train together and have the same professors. He said that
the second two years of clinical are different: Because medical
students must cover the entire range of the body, more clinical
time is spent on the priorities of heart disease, cancer, and
stroke; in comparison, optometry students cover systemic
diseases, diabetes, hypertension, and brain tumors to make the
appropriate referrals.
DR. GONNASON said that his final comment pertains to the scare
tactic regarding surgery. He said optometrists do very little
of the work of ophthalmologists and that optometrists perform
none of the advanced specialty surgeries of the subspecialists,
who have testified. He said that optometrists perform only the
minor procedures for which they are fully competent. He went on
to say that the reason surgery cannot be well defined in statute
is because, technically, anything touching human tissue is
surgery; including clipping fingernails, tattooing of eyelids,
and piercing metal through parts of the body. He said that if
the legislature tries to define surgery in statute, it will end
up with the problem that exists in other states, where they have
long lists of everything that can and cannot be performed. He
stated that having to return to the legislature is the main
problem. He indicated there is always opposition from
"organized medicine." For example, there was opposition to
Alaska's advanced practice nurses, whom Dr. Gonnason opined
provide a "magnificent" service to Alaskans. He asked the
committee to please note the support letters from Southcentral
Foundation, other native health organizations, and Dr.
Castillo's letter, which "aren't, you know, on either side of
this." He said optometrists in Alaska provide the majority of
eye care at lower cost; therefore, he would thank the committee
for [supporting] better eyecare access for Alaskans.
5:15:50 PM
CHAIR KITO, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 103.
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 103 was held over.
5:16:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:16 p.m.