Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/10/2017 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB222 | |
| HB103 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 10, 2017
9:27 a.m.
9:27:12 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:27 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Shelley Hughes
MEMBERS ABSENT
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Sponsor; Sara Perman, Staff,
Representative Matt Claman; Representative Ivy Spohnholz,
Sponsor; Bernice Nisbett, Staff, Representative Ivy
Spohnholz; Griff Steiner, Ophthalmologist, Anchorage; Jill
Geering Matheson, Optometry, Juneau; Paul Barney, Board of
Optometry, Juneau; Senator Cathy Giessel;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ed Lopez, General Manager, Regal Nail Salon & Spa,
Anchoage; Philip Brower, Self, North Slope; Johna Beech,
Self, Kenai; Yen Nguyen, Self, Anchorage; Lisa Moreno,
Self, Anchorage; Deborah Lee Harper, Self, Anchorage;
Rosalyn Wyche, Hairdresser, Anchorage; Kevin McKinley,
Chair, Board of Barbers & Hairdressers, Anchorage; David
Zumbro, Ophthalmologist, Anchorage; Jeff Gonnason, Chair,
Alaska Optometry Association, Anchorage; Andrew Peter,
Self, Homer; Carl Rosen, Ophthalmologist, Anchorage;
Rebekah Sawers, Self, Hoonah; Lucretia Dennis, Self,
Anchorage; David Karpik, Self, Kenai; David Katzeek, Self,
Juneau; Stanley Fuller MD, Self, Fairbanks; Mary Nanuwak,
Self, Bethel;
SUMMARY
HB 103 OPTOMETRY & OPTOMETRISTS
CSHB 103(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
"no recommendation" and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN2(CED).
HB 222 LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/NAIL TECHS
HB 222 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 222(L&C) am
"An Act relating to the licensure of nail technicians;
relating to the practice of manicuring; and providing
for an effective date."
9:27:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon introduced HB 222.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, offered a sponsor
statement for the bill (copy on file):
The amended House Labor & Commerce version of House
Bill 222 reverses legislation passed by the 2015
Alaska State Legislature that updated the licensing
requirements for Alaskan manicurists. The enrolled
House Bill 131, which became effective on December
31st, 2015 increased the training requirements to
become a licensed nail technician from 12 theory hours
with no examination to 250 practical and theory hours
with a state board examination. Prior to the passage
of HB 131, manicurists could take 12 hours of
coursework and receive a manicurist's license, or they
could take 250 hours and become an advanced
manicurist. The 2015 legislation eliminated the 12-
hour license and instead required all licensees to
take 250 classroom hours. The updated legislation
negatively impacted practicing nail technicians
seeking license renewal who were now required to take
250 hours off work to take redundant coursework. It
also required all manicurists, including those seeking
license renewal, to take an exam which was only
offered in four languages, creating equal opportunity
issues for individuals who may have difficulties with
language barriers.
House Bill 222 in its original form sought to extend a
grandfather clause allowing individuals who held a
manicurists' license prior to December 2015 to forego
the 250 hours of instruction in manicuring required of
new applicants. They would still be required to prove
250 hours of prior work experience as a manicurist and
take an examination. The original version also allowed
test takers to use foreign language interpreters.
However, the House Finance Committee expressed their
concern with the arbitrary 250 hours required. They
thought this was restrictive and unnecessary for
manicurists. The bill was then amended to remove the
requirements of 250 hours of coursework and an exam
and reverse the statutes to their prior form. The
amended version will once again allow for two types of
licenses; the general manicurists license requiring 12
hours of training, and the advanced manicurist license
requiring 250 hours.
It is the intention of HB 222 is to remove the
unnecessary burden of redundant educational training
hours for experienced manicurists who practiced prior
to December 31st, 2015 and extend equal opportunity to
individuals who may have difficulty with language
barriers.
Representative Claman shared that 832 of the 944 practicing
manicurists in the state could lose their jobs by August
31, 2017 if they could not pass the written test. He
lamented that the unintended job losses would negatively
affect Alaskan families.
9:31:35 AM
Representative Claman relayed that there had been concern
as to whether human trafficking related in any way to the
licenses. He shared that it had been discovered that in the
last month someone had come to the Department of Community,
Commerce, and Economic Development with 50 applications for
the 12-hour license, and that nearly all the applicants had
not physically been in the state; the licenses were
apparently being used in relation to human trafficking
efforts in other states. He said human trafficking had
never not been discussed during the vetting of HB 131. He
asserted that there was not much that could be done in
Alaska to prevent human trafficking in other states,
particularly at the expense of Alaskan jobs. He felt that
the focus should be on the job interests of Alaskans. He
noted that the issue of hairdressers with a manicurist
endorsement would be addressed with an amendment that would
assure that hairdressers that were also doing nail work
would have the manicurist endorsement.
9:33:49 AM
SARA PERMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, reiterated
statements from the sponsor regarding the intent of the
legislation. She addressed the sectional analysis:
Section 1 - Amends AS 08.13.040 [Meetings and Exams]
The Board may not require an exam for an applicant
seeking licensure as a manicurist. However, the Board
may require an exam for a licensed manicurist wishing
to seek an additional optional advanced manicurist
endorsement.
Section 2 - Amends AS 08.13.080(a) [Qualifications of
Applicants] Removes language that all persons applying
to take an exam for manicuring must have successfully
completed 250 hours of instruction from a licensed
school of manicuring. Adds that an instructor in
hairdressing may also be an instructor in manicuring
for health and safety related courses, and that the
Board may establish additional requirements for
manicuring instructors.
Section 3 - Amends AS 08.13.080 - adds new
subsections: (e) An applicant for licensing must
submit 1) proof of certification in 12-hour health and
safety course from Board approved and licensed school,
and 2) pay required fees. (f) An applicant for an
advanced manicurist endorsement must 1) already hold
or be approved for a manicurist license, 2) request
the endorsement, 3) submit documentation of 250-hours
of required coursework from an approved school, 4)
pass the Board approved exam, and 5) pay required
fees.
Section 4 - AmendsASO8.13.100(a) Removes manicuring
from list of licenses that require exams.
Section 5 - Amends AS 08.13.100(d) Provides that
manicurists licensed in another state are entitled to
licenses/endorsements without taking additional
training or exams, given that they can provide proof
of completed training that meets Alaska requirements.
Section 6 - Adds new subsection to AS 08.13.110 d) The
Board shall license a school that offers 12-hour
safety course, but may not license the school if it
requires greater than 12 hours for the safety course
e) Schools may seek approval from the Board for the
curriculum for advanced endorsements. The Board shall
establish curriculum requirements.
Section 7 - Amends AS 08.13.160(d) The licensing
provisions mentioned in this chapter don't apply to
persons actively taking an approved 12-hour course.
Section 8 - Amends AS 08.13.1 75 Licensed manicurists
applying for the 250-hour advanced manicurist
endorsement are entitled to a temporary license while
applying for the exam as long as they are supervised
by a licensed manicurist.
Section 9 - Amends AS 08.13.185(a) Adds initial
licensing and renewals for the endorsement for
advanced manicurist training to fees that may be
collected by DCCED.
Section 10 - Repeals 08.13.082(e) Repeals the
apprenticeship term periods set by the Board.
Section 11 - Repeals Section 13, Ch. 27 SLA 2015
Repeals the grandfather clause set in HB 131:
"allowing a person who holds a valid license on Jan 1,
2016 to continue practicing manicuring until their
license normally expires. Subsection (1) states that a
person is allowed to renew their license before August
31, 2017, if the person meets preexisting requirements
under AS 08.13 as it existed prior to Jan 1, 2016.
Subsection (2) states that a person may renew their
license for an additional period before August 31,
2019 if the person submits (A) proofof250 hours of
satisfactory work experience and (B) has taken and
passed a written or oral exam under AS 08.13.090."
Section 12 - Sets the effective date. Effective
immediately.
9:37:35 AM
Senator von Imhof referred to Section 6. She questioned why
the board would not also license schools for courses
exceeding 12 hours.
Representative Claman felt that the limit was a "curiosity"
about the prior way that the law had been written; however,
that was how the statute that he was seeking to reset had
been written in 2015.
Senator von Imhof understood that the sponsor wanted to
revert to the exact language from the 2015 statute, rather
than rewriting the language to expand the limitations for
licensing.
Representative Claman responded that the bill had been
initially introduced to address the grandfather clause
issue, which had become convoluted, but had been amended in
the house to reset back to prior statute. He shared that
the issue raised by Representative von Imhof had not been
discussed by the house.
9:39:18 AM
Senator Olson queried whether the sponsor would support an
amendment that would allow for courses the exceeded 12
hours.
Representative Claman responded no.
Senator Olson referred to Section 11. He questioned the
reasoning behind repealing the grandfather clause.
Representative Claman stated that the bill would change an
unintended consequence of HB 131 by resetting to the prior
statute. He explained that the bill would repeal the
grandfather clause because the new training requirement in
HB 131 would no longer apply.
9:40:27 AM
Senator Micciche noted that the current version of the bill
had changed considerably from the sponsors original
legislation. He stated that the bill had "morphed" after
going through the legislative process on the house side,
which had eliminated all qualification training.
Representative Claman said that training requirements had
been significantly increased by HB 131. He shared that
constituents had testified to him about the enormity of the
testing requirements and language barriers in the industry.
He relayed that through the process it had become apparent
that the consequences of HB 131 needed to be addressed.
Senator Micciche acknowledged that the purpose of HB 131
was to address the public safety of Alaskans. He thought
that a balance could be struck between the two pieces of
legislation.
9:42:32 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop commented that he was happy to hear that
the sponsor was amiable to amending Section 6.
9:43:21 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the average hours of training
for comparable licensing in other states.
Representative Claman understood that there was a range in
hours and that Alaska was on the lower end of the spectrum.
He understood that 250 hours training was more common in
other states.
Ms. Perman stated that Alaska has the lowest licensing
requirements, 12 hours, and that the next lowest was
Colorado with 20 hours. She said that nationwide there was
an average bracket of 250 and 600 hours.
Co-Chair MacKinnon corrected that the lowest licensing
requirement was in Connecticut; it was zero, and that
Colorado required 600 hours for licensing.
Representative Claman recalled that when he trained to
become an emergency medical technical (EMT), 250 hours of
training was not required to provide lifesaving medical
care. He believed that the required EMT training was
approximately 100 hours in Alaska. He felt that it would be
strange to require more training for a nail technician than
for a person providing lifesaving medical care.
Co-Chair MacKinnon reminded the committee that the bill
pertained to manicurists and the safety of Alaskan
residents. She noted that Alaska was second to last on the
list of required training hours. She expressed concern for
the human trafficking issue being raised in connection with
the industry. She asserted that the intention behind HB 131
had been to protect Alaskans from the consequences of
improperly sanitized manicure equipment, and she questioned
the safety of lowering the training requirements to only 12
hours.
9:47:06 AM
Representative Claman said that the board supported the
legislation, but agreed that it would take further
discussions to determine a more effective way to regulate
the industry for safety without putting manicurists out of
work.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that HB 222 had been
introduced one month previous.
Representative Claman replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the bill had been changed
in each committee of referral.
Representative Claman did not believe so.
9:48:47 AM
Senator von Imhof understood that there was a specific
pending issue that needed to be addressed by August 2017
that had to do with licensing requirements. She wondered
whether there was a way to address that specific issue, and
then find a more appropriate balance between 12 and 250
hours during the interim.
Representative Claman thought the most effective way to
address the issue and protect workers was to pass HB 222.
9:51:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
ED LOPEZ, GENERAL MANAGER, REGAL NAIL SALON & SPA, ANCHOAGE
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He
relayed that for the past two months he had learned about
the impact from the passage of HB 131. He discussed the
requirement for additional training for manicurists. He
opined that the exam required by current law was poorly
written, poorly translated, and did not follow a specific
course of study, which meant that there was no way to
prepare for the exam. He said that most of the specialists
in the industry were Asian, and English was their second
language, which made the exam discriminatory toward the
Asian community in Alaska. He discussed the grandfather
clause, which had been missing from the previous bill. He
noted that there were only three schools in the state at
which technicians could acquire the newly required
training. He predicted that if HB 222 did not pass there
would be adverse effects on businesses and families.
9:56:14 AM
PHILIP BROWER, SELF, NORTH SLOPE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. He relayed that his
partner had been a practicing nail technician for 8 years.
He asserted that she had determined through her experience
that 250 hours of coursework should be required. He said
that her classes had educated her about labor laws and
proper sanitation.
10:00:23 AM
JOHNA BEECH, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), testified in
support of the bill.
10:01:19 AM
YEN NGUYEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of her bill. She relayed that her parents owned
a nail salon. She discussed the hardship her family endured
after immigrating to America. She discussed her parent's
business, and the difficulty that would ensue if HB 222 did
not pass.
10:04:19 AM
LISA MORENO, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She discussed her work on a taskforce
that had focused on human trafficking in the state. She
shared that in her research she had never discovered a case
of human trafficking in the state that had been linked to a
nail salon. She noted that human trafficking could be
linked to many industries across the state. She believed
that it was bad policy to use the threat of human
trafficking as the reason to overregulate one industry. She
asserted that the current law would result in a loss of
industry jobs.
10:08:30 AM
DEBORAH LEE HARPER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of HB 222. She discussed the negative
impact of the additional training requirements imposed
after the passage of HB 131. She expounded on the
logistical and language barriers that manicurists faced
that had been exacerbated by HB 131. She emphasized that HB
222 would have an impact on approximately a thousand
Alaskan business owners and their families. She suggested
that nail technicians should take part in crafting new
legislation would speak to appropriate education and
regulation for their industry.
10:10:47 AM
ROSALYN WYCHE, HAIRDRESSER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to HB 222 in its current form. She
believed that HB 131 had not received proper vetting before
passage, and she feared that HB 222 was being equally
rushed through the process. She stressed the importance of
proper sanitation and disinfection practices in the
industry. She believed that the state could offer an
interpreter to help with the language barrier faced by some
manicurists and nail technicians. She understood that HB
131 had a deadline for licensing of 2019, with work
experience counting toward the 250 required training hours
providing the test was passed.
10:14:55 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited Kevin McKinley from the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers to offer closing thoughts.
KEVIN MCKINLEY, CHAIR, BOARD OF BARBERS & HAIRDRESSERS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), relayed that 300 hours of
coursework was the national average in training for the
industry. He reiterated that he state was at the bottom of
the national average. He said that the average curriculum
included: nail art and design, manicures, pedicures,
acrylics, gels, wraps, and nail extensions; additionally,
the history of nail care; personal hygiene and public
health; safety, sterilization, and sanitation; nail care
chemicals; uses and technique applications; nailcare tools;
manicure apparatus uses; nail design and artistry; fabric
and sculpting procedures, light cured gels, nail
extensions, acrylic nail forms, nail product knowledge, and
bacteriology disorders of nails. He felt that practical
applications of education were absent from the current
legislation. He said that changes in the industry
necessitated more than 12 course hours of education in the
field. He offered some possible compromise language that
could be added to the legislation. He stressed the need for
substantial education course hours. He shared that the
industry was working at improving testing on the national
level, for both the issue of the language barrier and
content.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Mr. McKinley supported the
legislation.
Mr. McKinley responded that he supported the legislation
only in the sense that it would keep people employed. He
added that he did not believe the bill represented quality
legislation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon interjected that a representative from
her office would contact Mr. McKinley offline to discuss
the issue further.
HB 222 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:21:56 AM
AT EASE
10:22:52 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 103(FIN)
"An Act relating to the practice of optometry; and
providing for an effective date."
10:22:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, SPONSOR, introduced the bill.
She relayed that HB 103, as amended in the house, would not
allow optometrists to perform services outside of their
scope of practice; performing invasive surgery would
continue to be illegal. She said that if optometrists
wanted to perform procedures beyond what was currently
allowed in statute and regulation, they would only be
allowed to do so if the licensee had been educated and
trained in the procedure at one of the accredited schools
of optometry. Additionally, procedures would need to be
authorized by regulations adopted by the board. She stated
that there should be room for innovation in the healthcare
sector, but that optometrists should only practice
procedures that had been taught by a credited school of
optometry. She noted that the ophthalmologist definition of
"surgery" was used in the bill, which expressly stated that
optometrists would not practice any of the listed
surgeries, with narrow exceptions. She relayed that the
definition of "surgery" was broad and that some of the
things that optometrists currently practiced met the
definition of surgery. She added that there had to be an
allowance for narrow exceptions, which would change over
time as the skills and training of optometrists continued.
She offered a personal anecdote pertaining to the nebulous
definition of surgery under the current law. She concluded
that the bill would allow for the board of optometry to
regulate itself in an ongoing and iterative fashion that
would allow for evolution in best practices.
10:27:29 AM
BERNICE NISBETT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ,
discussed the sectional analysis for HB 103:
Notes differences between HB 103 v. U and SB 36 v. J
Section 1 - The Board of Examiners of Optometry will
regulate prescriptive authority and develop standards
for the practice of optometry. No difference.
Section 2 - The board will publish advisory opinions
regarding standards for the practice of optometry.
Language was changed by the House Labor & Commerce
committee: expanded to state that the Board of
Examiners of Optometry will be allowed to publish
advisory opinions to the public regarding whether the
standards of practice of optometry comply with what is
currently written in statute.
Section 3 - The licensee must provide evidence that
they have completed their continuing education hours
during the preceding licensing period. No difference.
Section 4 - A licensee can prescribe pharmaceuticals
in a manner that is consistent with board regulations
and complies with the limitation on practice in
section 5. No difference.
Section 5 - Limits an individual licensee to
performing services that are within the scope of the
licensee's education, training, and experience. No
difference in subsection (a). Subsections (b) and (c)
were added in the House Finance committee: (b) added
setting a limitation on performing ophthalmic surgery
unless a licensee has received education and training
from an accredited school of optometry and the
procedure is authorized in regulations set by the
Board of Examiners of Optometry. Subsection (c) has
been added to define ophthalmic surgery.
Section 6 - The definition of optometry has been
updated. No difference.
Section 7 - Section 2 is effective July 17, 2017. No
difference.
10:29:11 AM
Representative Spohnholz stressed the importance that the
board have the flexibility to evolve, while also addressing
the issue of access to healthcare. She said that there were
26 ophthalmologists, verses 160 optometrists, providing the
majority of eye healthcare throughout the state. She
thought that allowing the board to manage itself would help
to increase access to high quality eye healthcare in rural
Alaska.
10:30:40 AM
Senator Hughes asked about Page 2, line 29. She asked about
the word "experience" and wondered how it applied to
someone fresh out of school. She wondered how experience
would be measured.
Representative Spohnholz explained that there were
optometrists practicing in the state that had been trained
in procedures that they had not had the opportunity to
provide in 20 years. She said that before those doctors
could practice those procedures they would be expected to
be retrained in updated methods.
Senator Hughes remained confused about how the experience
levels would be measured.
Representative Spohnholz referred the question to the board
of optometry.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
10:33:41 AM
DAVID ZUMBRO, OPHTHALMOLOGIST, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to HB 103. He spoke to
the assertion that the statutes pertaining to optometry had
not been updated in 40 years; he countered that multiple
times in the past 25 years legislation had been passed and
signed into law that expanded the scope of practice. He
contended that optometry and ophthalmology educations were
not equivalent or similar. He encouraged members to further
study the accreditation requirements for completing an
ophthalmology residency. He said that his opposition to the
bill had nothing to do with economics. He contended that
the reason behind standards and board certification was
patient safety, and that the only way to expand medical and
surgical scope of practice was proper education and not
legislation.
10:36:58 AM
JEFF GONNASON, CHAIR, ALASKA OPTOMETRY ASSOCIATION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. He believed that the bill was innocuous and would do
very little to the practice of optometry in the state. He
noted that he had sent a letter to the committee (copy on
file).
10:38:34 AM
GRIFF STEINER, OPHTHALMOLOGIST, ANCHORAGE, testified in
opposition to the bill. He asserted that the bill pertained
to surgical procedures. He stated that optometrists were
not qualified to perform surgery. He relayed that the cost
for care would increase under the legislation.
10:40:47 AM
ANDREW PETER, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke in
support of HB 103. He believed that the bill would create
board autonomy, which would remove the legislature from the
position of managing optometry. He noted that optometrists
catered to a diverse section of the state's population. He
offered some details as to how his practice worked on a
day-to-day basis. He contended that emergency cases in
rural areas of the state posed the need for immediate
attention, which occasionally called for optometrists to
perform services like ophthalmologists.
10:44:07 AM
CARL ROSEN, OPHTHALMOLOGIST, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in strong opposition to the
bill. He highlighted that the optometry board should not
have the authority to decide which surgical procedures,
laser procedures, and injections were possible. He argued
that optometrists were not qualified to perform the same
medical procedures as ophthalmologists because they did not
have the same rigorous medical training. He believed that
the bill would work if the word "unless" was removed from
the language pertaining to surgery and optometry.
10:46:43 AM
REBEKAH SAWERS, SELF, HOONAH (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill.
10:47:08 AM
LUCRETIA DENNIS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. She provided a
comparison between armed and unarmed security officers, and
ophthalmologists versus optometrists.
10:50:13 AM
DAVID KARPIK, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in
support of HB 103. He testified that optometrists were
sometimes the only eyecare providers in rural Alaska. He
said that as an optometrist he supported practices that
provided comprehensive eyecare services and referred to
sub-special services, which enhanced patient care and
lowered costs by allowing primary eyecare to be provided
locally. He referred to a U.S News and World report study
published in early 2017, that ranked Alaska as last in
access to healthcare. He believed that the delays to
healthcare that were currently written into statute
hindered access to eyecare. He believed that the
legislation would create an optometry statute that would be
durable and would allow for the incorporation of new
technology in the field.
10:52:38 AM
DAVID KATZEEK, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to HB 103. He testified of the delicate nature
and importance of the human eye. He asserted that eyes
"speak" in a way understood by optometrists and
ophthalmologists. He worried that the bill was being used
as a political tool at the expense of the eye health of
Alaskans. He warned that the legislation passed by the
committee should protect the eyes of current and future
Alaskans. He stressed the importance of teaching young
people to maintain a health whole body, which included
their eyes.
10:57:28 AM
STANLEY FULLER MD, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill. He noted that the
expansion of the scope of practice for optometrists was an
issue that was being discussed on the national level, and
what more than just a housekeeping issue. He believed that
the legislation would allow optometrists to perform
surgery, which would result in dangerous and unsafe
practices. He stressed that optometrists were not trained
in surgical procedures, and that optometry schools did not
offer training in surgical procedures. He agreed that
access to healthcare in Alaska was a problem, but he felt
that access to providers that were appropriately trained to
safely perform procedures should be germane to the
conversation.
11:00:35 AM
MARY NANUWAK, SELF, BETHEL (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She provided remarks in Yup'ik. She
thanked the committee for allowing her to testify. She
believed that optometrists should not be performing eye
surgery.
11:03:22 AM
JILL GEERING MATHESON, OPTOMETRY, JUNEAU, spoke in support
of the bill. She believed that the intent of the
legislation was to allow the Alaska State Board of
Optometry to regulate optometrists in the state. She
asserted that the bill would not expand the privileges
allowed to optometrists, but would give the optometry board
the ability to decide what optometrists were trained and
qualified to perform and then provide for regulation. She
believed that the opposition was employing fear tactics
concerning surgery to sway public opinion on the bill. She
argued that the board needed to be able to act quickly, via
the regulatory process, to make changes as technology
advanced.
11:07:00 AM
PAUL BARNEY, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, JUNEAU, testified in
support of the bill. He discussed his experience in the
field. He believed that the bill would allow for the board
of optometry to regulate the details of the practice of
optometry, and would allow optometrists to practice to
their highest education level. He felt that the bill
clearly defined "surgery".
11:10:31 AM
Senator Olson asked what kind of complaints the board
received from licensees.
Dr. Barney relayed that he had been on the board for the
past 6 years and in that time the board had received zero
complaints.
Senator Olson asked whether Dr. Barney was familiar with
the Oklahoma study that had been referenced earlier in the
meeting.
Dr. Barney replied that he was familiar with the study. He
said that the study was regarding a laser trabeculoplasty,
which was a surgery used to lower pressure in glaucoma. He
said that the study examined billing codes. He spoke to the
details of the study and concluded that it had not
accurately examined outcomes of different surgery
procedures.
11:12:52 AM
Senator von Imhof stated that she had researched an
optometry school in Ohio. She felt that an accredited
school of optometry could license a person to perform
ophthalmic surgery non-invasively.
Dr. Barney stated that he performed procedures daily that
were considered surgery. He added that there were different
levels to ophthalmic surgery.
11:14:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
11:14:57 AM
RECESSED
2:37:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
Senator Olson asked whether the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (ANTHC) supported the legislation.
Ms. Nisbett responded that ANTHC had not provided any
comments regarding HB 103.
Senator Olson understood that the Southcentral Foundation
had provided an opinion on the legislation.
Ms. Nisbett relayed that the bill carried with it a letter
of support from the Southcentral Foundation, in addition to
one from the Alaska Native Health Board.
Senator Olson commented that healthcare was primarily
handled by tribal health corporations in Western and
Southern Alaska. He asked whether the sponsor had been in
contact with tribal health corporations regarding HB 103.
Ms. Nisbett stated that the sponsor's office had not
reached out to those organizations, but would be willing to
do so.
2:40:06 PM
Senator Hughes referred to her earlier question about how
experience would be quantified for new optometrists. She
wondered whether Dr. Barney could speak to the issue.
Dr. Barney provided that as part of their clinical training
optometrists would experience any procedures that needed to
be done, which would provide them with the necessary
experience upon graduation.
Senator Hughes asked what procedures a newly graduated
optometrist in the state was trained to do, but could not
currently execute due to current statutes.
Dr. Barney provided the example of removal of minor eye lid
lesions. He said that optometrists would receive education
and training for the procedure during optometry school, but
that state statute currently did not allow for optometrists
to perform the procedure.
Senator Hughes understood that the bill would give the
board the authority through regulation to allow for
practices within the scope of the licensee's education and
training from an accredited school of optometry. She asked
how, as a board member, Dr. Barney would make decisions as
to whether a procedure could be performed by an
optometrist.
Dr. Barney explained that the federal accreditation process
for optometry schools within the state was overseen by the
U.S. Department of Education. He said that there would be
federal oversight into the curricula to assure that it was
complete and thorough. He stated that an optometrist that
had been practicing for 20 years that wanted to perform a
board approved procedure would be required by the board to
acquire the proper updated training.
2:44:48 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed FN2(CED) for the bill.
2:46:15 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that Senator Giessel had sponsored
the Senate companion bill for HB 103.
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, remarked that she supported the
changes that had been made in the house version of the
legislation.
2:46:58 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to report CSHB 103(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 103(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2(CED).
2:47:30 PM
AT EASE
2:49:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping for SB 79 and HB
111. She stated that each member's office had received a
Senate Finance Committee Resolution that pertained to the
Real ID Act and the handling of Alaskan's private data.
ADJOURNMENT
2:51:32 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:51 p.m.