02/15/2017 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB36 | |
| SB32 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2017
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator David Wilson, Chair
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Vice Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Tom Begich
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Peter Micciche
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to the practice of optometry."
- MOVED SB 36 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 32
"An Act relating to biological products; relating to the
practice of pharmacy; relating to the Board of Pharmacy; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 32 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 36
SHORT TITLE: OPTOMETRY & OPTOMETRISTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
01/25/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/17 (S) HSS, FIN
02/03/17 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/03/17 (S) Heard & Held
02/03/17 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/15/17 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 32
SHORT TITLE: PRESCRIPTIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) HUGHES
01/23/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (S) HSS, L&C
02/10/17 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/10/17 (S) Heard & Held
02/10/17 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/15/17 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. PAUL BARNEY, Chairman
Board of Examiners in Optometry
Corporations, Business & Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 36.
DR. JEFF GONNASON, Legislative Chair
Alaska Optometric Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 36.
SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 32.
JANE CONWAY, Staff
Senator Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of Amendment 1 for SB
32.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:58 PM
CHAIR DAVID WILSON called the Senate Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the
call to order were Senators von Imhof, Begich, Giessel, and
Chair Wilson.
SB 36-OPTOMETRY & OPTOMETRISTS
1:33:22 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced the consideration of SB 36. He welcomed
invited testimony to address SB 36.
1:34:05 PM
DR. PAUL BARNEY, Chairman; Board of Examiners in Optometry,
Corporations, Business & Professional Licensing; Alaska
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development;
Juneau, Alaska; testified in support of SB 36. He noted that he
has served on the board for five years and was also the director
for Pacific Cataract and Laser Institute in Anchorage, Alaska.
He detailed that his practice specializes in cataract care,
laser vision correction, and medical eye-care. He pointed out
that he works with an ophthalmic surgeon and an advanced-
practice nurse; together they work as a team and use their
training to provide care more efficiently and affordably.
He emphasized that SB 36 would not allow optometrists to do
anything more than what they have already been trained to do. He
specified that there is a limitation that would prevent
optometrists from writing regulations beyond the scope of their
training. He revealed that the Alaska the Department of Law
oversees all health-care boards; consequently, the Board of
Examiners in Optometry has to prove that optometrists are
trained for the regulations that they write. He asserted that
the Alaska Department of Law oversight acts as a fail-safe to
prevent optometrists from doing something outside of their scope
of training. He added that as a provider, if he were to do
something outside of his scope of training, his medical
malpractice insurance would be immediately negated. He
summarized that there really is no incentive for optometrists to
provide care that they are not trained to do because they would
not get paid and more importantly, optometrists could end their
careers by doing something outside of their scope of training.
1:37:11 PM
DR. JEFF GONNASON, Legislative Chairman, Alaska Optometric
Association, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 36.
He disclosed that he has been licensed as an optometrist in
Alaska for 40 years, the past chairman of the Board of Examiners
in Optometry, and served twice on the state board in the past
under two different governors. He added that he was also a 22-
year volunteer for the American Optometric Association.
He pointed out that optometrists' education is exactly the same
as a dentistry-model with 8 to 10 years of university-level
education. He addressed testimony from an ophthalmologist during
an earlier committee meeting and noted that he had the same
professor for pharmacology as the ophthalmologist.
DR. GONNASON disclosed that optometrists are defined as
physicians under federal Medicare and that has been the case for
approximately 18 years. He divulged that 160-plus optometrists
serve over 80 communities in the state. He set forth that
optometrists work together very well with general-family doctors
and ophthalmologists.
He opined that optometrist training cannot be compared to
ophthalmologist training because it would be like comparing a
family physician with a neurosurgeon. He summarized as follows:
We need ophthalmologists, we love having their
abilities to do their surgeries, we only overlap in a
small area; but, we do very few of the things that
they do and we are not trying to do things that are
outside of our scope of training. Of the four-
prescribing professions, only optometry has to always
come back to, "Ask daddy for permission" to change
something as technology goes along. We are very
skilled in using our professional judgement to know
when to refer patients.
1:39:56 PM
SENATOR BEGICH revealed that Dr. Barney did his Lasik eye
surgery.
DR. BARNEY clarified that Dr. Ford from Seattle did Senator
Begich's surgery. He specified that he did the preoperative
evaluation and the postoperative care.
SENATOR BEGICH disclosed that he had talked earlier with Dr.
Barney and Dr. Gonnason to express his concerns about the
Legislature's responsibility to public safety. He said he asked
both doctors about the importance in clarifying surgery in a way
that would meet the American Medical Association's health
concerns as well as meet some of the needs and interests of what
optometrists in Alaska are doing. He said he suggested to Dr.
Barney that language around surgery might be required and noted
that Dr. Barney appeared to respond that his suggestion made
sense. He asked Dr. Barney to comment on the idea of a tighter
surgery definition to help committee members understand what the
optometrists are seeking in statute.
1:42:06 PM
DR. BARNEY replied that if necessary, he is not opposed to
language that further defines surgery.
SENATOR BEGICH set forth that his hope is the committee can come
to a conclusion that further defines surgery.
1:44:03 PM
DR. GONNASON remarked that part of the difficulty is that
"forces" have tried to suppress the optometrist profession for a
long time. He said to answer Senator Begich's question on
surgery, the problem is everyone knows what surgery is, but
trying to define surgery can get murky. He pointed out that
clipping a finger nail alters tissue and can be considered
surgery. He noted that some states have defined surgery for
physicians and dentists. He remarked that putting a surgery
definition in SB 36 would apply to other fields too, unless
exempted. He opined that details should be left to the medical,
dental, and nursing boards. He pointed out that there in nothing
in the nursing statute that says, "You will not do brain
surgery" because nurses do not do that. He asserted that there's
no need for defining surgery in the optometry law that says,
"You will not do these 16 things." He noted that a proposal came
out to put 110 procedures that could not be done in statute, a
proposal that made no sense. He emphasized that optometrists
perform procedures that do not "penetrate." He added that
optometrists do not do the things that ophthalmologists claim
optometrists will be trying to do.
1:46:26 PM
SENATOR BEGICH stated that Dr. Gonnason's reply is more
difficult for him to understand. He said he thought Dr. Gonnason
provided a clear answer that surgery as a definition might be
something that he would entertain. He continued as follows:
You understood that concern and we do have a
definition of surgery in statute and admittedly part
of why we have a legislative-affairs agency here that
drafts bills is that they look at other statutes where
those definitions will conflict, and they identify in
those statutes where they do and they allow us to know
that in the process because all of us are generally
generalists here. With that understanding, a
definition of surgery is a norm in many states and
I've provided to some members of the committee some of
those definitions that I've researched some myself. I
am now confused whether you are or are not willing to
look at a definition of surgery in statute because
I've heard you now say "no," and I heard Dr. Barney
say "yes." So which is it, I'm confused.
DR. GONNASON clarified that he did not mean he would not look at
a definition of surgery. He specified that he was trying to
explain why defining surgery is difficult and pointed out that
most states address through regulation. He remarked that laws
are different in all 50 states due to legislative compromise
that results in optometrists having to go back and ask for
permission when new technology comes along rather than having
the board be able to say "yes" when an optometrist is trained
for a procedure.
1:48:29 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF addressed Dr. Gonnason's remarks as follows:
Trying to create a bill, any bill, so open ended that
it precludes having to go back and change statute as
technology changes, as circumstances changes, is
probably too difficult in any industry. I'm already
noticing that we are tweaking things now in this
legislature for all sorts of different things as new
chemicals come about, as new technology comes about,
as new laws come about, that's just the nature of the
beast, I think.
That being said, what I'm understanding is that this
particular conflict has been around for quite some
time and I understand the challenge of optometrists
having to come legislatively every single time, it's
not cost effective for any stakeholder. So the key is
to stop this nonsense and to move forward that while
we may find a solution that not everyone is happy
with, everyone can live with.
I think what's important is Senator Begich and I and a
few others have looked at what other states have done,
some are more onerous than others, but some have tried
to thread-the-needle to make it make sense for all
parties. I think what Senator Begich was asking you
today for a deliverable is to perhaps, could you take
a first crack at what you think based on other states'
legislation, what might make sense.
1:50:28 PM
At ease.
1:50:38 PM
CHAIR WILSON called the committee back to order.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she was thrilled that Senator Begich has
done research on the definition of surgery, but noted that she
was one of the committee members that did not receive his
information.
She asked Dr. Barney to address the number of patient complaints
that the Board of Examiners in Optometry has received in the
last decade.
DR. BARNEY answered that there have been some complaints, but no
complaints that required disciplinary action over the past ten
years.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Dr. Barney if the Board of Examiners in
Optometry was in good standing financially with regards to
licensing fees covering their costs.
DR. BARNEY replied that the board is currently in good standing.
He noted that the last scope-of-practice bill passed 10 years
ago and the board had to address legal expenses implemented from
the scope-of-practice change.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Dr. Barney to clarify the legal issues
that he referenced.
1:52:57 PM
DR. BARNEY specified that the Alaska Department of Law billed
the board for their investigative work involved with the scope-
of-practice change. He detailed that license fees were not
increased, and the board fell behind, but noted that the board
will be caught up in the next cycle.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked him to verify that the board pays the cost
in implementing regulatory changes and the funding ultimately
comes from licensees.
DR. BARNEY answered correct.
CHAIR WILSON asked for final comments from the bill's sponsor.
1:54:15 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL summarized intent and issues of SB 36 as
follows:
I think Senator von Imhof really encapsulated it, this
has been an issue that has been discussed multiple
times over at least a decade, it continues to take
time in this legislature; in that time optometrists
have been practicing safely. You've heard testimony
that professional complaints against their practice
are zero. I think it is time to allow this board to
function as other boards do.
I have the definitions of the scope-of-practice for
the four boards that currently have authority over
their regulation, over their regulatory authority and
that is: nursing, physicians, dentistry, and pharmacy.
All are extremely broad, I will speak only of my own
advanced nurse practitioner scope-of-practice, it
means that, "A registered nurse authorized to practice
in the state, who because of specialized education and
experience, is certified to perform acts of medical
diagnosis and the prescription and dispensing of
medical, therapeutic or corrective measures under
regulations adopted by the board."
One of the really interesting ones is for the scope-
of-practice for medicine and osteopathy. Osteopaths
are not medical doctors, they are doctors of
osteopathy, this is a subspecialty so to speak that
believes that adjustment of the spine is often an
answer to medical problems, they however fall into the
same definition and says, "For a fee, donation or
other consideration, to diagnose, treat, operate on or
prescribe for or administer to any human ailment,
blemish, deformity, disease, disfigurement, disorder,
injury or other mental or physical condition, or to
attempt to perform or represent that a person is
authorized to perform any of the acts set out in the
subparagraph;" I think listening to that you can hear
that the practice of medicine is all encompassing of
everything possible that could happen to a human
being. We don't worry that a family practice doctor is
going to attempt heart surgery, we don't worry about
that. I suggest that the same reasonable outlook could
be applied to optometry.
1:56:39 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that hearing no call for amendments,
asked for a motion to move SB 36 out of committee.
1:56:51 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF moved to report SB 36, [30-LS0328\A], from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
1:57:02 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that seeing no objection SB 36 moved from
the Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
1:57:15 PM
At ease.
SB 32-PRESCRIPTIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS
1:58:35 PM
CHAIR WILSON called the committee back order. He announced the
consideration of SB 32. He summarized that the committee heard a
bill overview and had taken public testimony on February 10. He
asked that Senator Hughes, the bill sponsor, provide final
comments on SB 32.
1:59:06 PM
SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 32, stated she was available to answer
questions.
SENATOR BEGICH noted that he received a letter from the Alaska
State Medical Association (ASMA) that indicated opposition to SB
32. He detailed that ASMA proclaimed that SB 32 was not as
permissive as it needed to be because biosimilars are perceived
by the FDA to be considerably safe.
SENATOR HUGHES replied that she was surprised by the ASMA letter
because she received an earlier letter from a physician who
requested notification and prior authorization. She remarked
that ASMA has indicated their belief that the FDA process and
approval of biosimilars for substitution at the "silver
standard" level would be fine versus the "gold standard" of
interchangeable. She opined that biosimilars are new and because
the FDA does plan to have additional criteria for the
interchangeable "gold standard," SB 32 should be left as is in
order to provide another level of safety. She set forth that a
prescriber needs to stay in the "driver's seat" with the ability
to write, "Dispense as written" or "Call if substitute
available".
SENATOR HUGHES detailed that the FDA criteria for
interchangeable is very strict:
1. The interchangeable first has to be classified as a
biosimilar.
2. The biosimilar must be expected to produce the same
clinical results as the original-biologic product in any
given patient.
3. The risk in terms of safety and efficacy of alternating or
switching between the use of an interchangeable and the
original biologic is not greater than the risk of continued
use of just the original biologic product.
2:02:45 PM
She noted health-care provider groups that announced their
support as follows:
· Every state medical society,
· The American College of Rheumatology,
· The National Medical Association,
· The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists,
· The American Association of Neurological Surgeons,
· The American College of Mohs Surgery,
· Association of Black Cardiologists,
· American Society of Plastic Surgeons,
· The Congress of Neurological Surgeons,
· The National Hispanic Medical Association.
She emphasized that the list consisted of health-care providers,
not just patient-advocacy groups. She opined that the groups
looked hard at the legislation and the consensus language that
was reached seems to be appropriate. She reiterated that
maintaining the interchangeable "gold standard" is what's best
for Alaskans.
2:04:02 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked Senator Hughes to address a $4,500 Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development fiscal note for
the bill.
SENATOR HUGHES concurred that the fiscal was a little odd. She
remarked that she is not accustomed to departments that ask for
funding to write a minor set of regulations. She noted that the
fiscal note can be addressed in the Senator Labor and Commerce
Committee, the next committee of referral.
SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that the fiscal note analysis was
referenced on page 2 of the fiscal note.
CHAIR WILSON asked if there were any amendments for SB 32.
2:05:33 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL offered Amendment 1:
30-LS0188\J.1
Bruce
2/14/17
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR GIESSEL
TO: SB 32
Page 2, line 17:
Delete "equivalent drug product or interchangeable biological
product"
Insert "(1) equivalent drug product; or
(2) interchangeable biological product after obtaining
authorization under (c) of this section"
Page 2, line 25, following "shall":
Insert ", before dispensing the interchangeable biological
product,"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "biological product"
Insert "proposed biological product that may be"
Page 2, line 27, following "product":
Insert ", and obtain authorization from the prescribing
practitioner"
Page 2, lines 27 - 29:
Delete "The communication must be provided within three business
days after dispensing the biological product as follows:"
Insert "The communication may be provided as follows:"
Page 3, line 10, following "information":
Insert "to or obtain authorization from the prescribing
practitioner"
Page 3, line 19, following "information":
Insert "and obtain the authorization"
Page 3, lines 21 - 22:
Delete ", without the prescriber's expressed authorization,"
Page 3, line 23, following "(A)":
Insert "without the prescriber's expressed authorization,"
Page 3, line 25, following "(B)":
Insert "with the prescriber's authorization,"
2:05:40 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF objected for discussion purposes.
2:06:14 PM
At ease.
2:06:42 PM
CHAIR WILSON called the committee back to order.
2:06:48 PM
JANE CONWAY, Staff, Senator Giessel, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, summarized that Amendment 1 requires that
communication must be provided and authorization obtained from
the prescribing practitioner prior to dispensing the medication,
the interchangeable biological product. She explained the
changes as follows:
Page 2, line 17:
Page 2, line 17: adds "or interchangeable biological
product." It also adds "interchangeable biological
product after obtaining authorization" under "C" of
this section.
Page 2, line 25:
Following "shall", insert "before dispensing the
interchangeable biological product"; again, just
emphasizing that these things shall happen before the
dispensing of the product.
Page 2, line 26:
Deletes the words "biological product" and inserts
"proposed biological product that may be" dispensed.
Page 2, line 27:
Following "product", inserts the words "and obtain
authorization from the prescribing practitioner".
Page 2, lines 27-29:
Deletes the line, "The communication must be provided
within three business days after dispensing the
biological product as follows:", that whole line is
deleted and inserted instead is, "The communication
may be provided as follows:", and then it goes on to
show how those different communications can be done.
Page 3, line 10:
Following "information", inserts the words, "to or
obtain authorization from the prescribing
practitioner".
Page 3, line 19:
Following "information", inserts the words, "and
obtain the authorization".
Page 3, lines 21-22:
An error to a comma that was caught during the draft
of the amendment, delete "',' without the prescriber's
expressed authorization".
Page 3, line 23:
Following "(A)" inserts, "without the prescriber's
expressed authorization".
Page 3, line 25:
Following "(B)" inserts, "with the prescriber's
authorization".
All of these changes have to do with the intent of
that amendment to have all of the communication be
provided and authorized before the dispensing of the
drug.
2:10:32 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL spoke to Amendment 1 as follows:
We held public testimony on this bill last week. My
concern is that the testimony was solely from those
individuals who advocates for the bill. Oral history
last week had 7-national organizations advocating for
this bill and 4-local organizations, there was no
oppositional testimony. In the letters, written
documents, we have 16-national organizations
advocating and 1-local organization, and 2-local folks
are opposing this; those local folks were never heard
from, so I'm actually speaking on behalf of them, I'm
actually told that one of those local individuals who
wrote a letter was asked to withdraw her letter, that
concerns me.
The argument that's put forth in the most recent
document I received today, in fact an hour or so, came
from the Arthritis Foundation and I've heard this
argument before that such an amendment that I'm
offering would conflict with federal law, because the
federal law allows this without the substitution,
without intervention of the health-care provider, and
this is asserted to be a reason that the state of
Alaska cannot be more strict and I'm no lawyer, but I
contested that assertion. I believe state law can be
more restrictive than federal law, so I don't believe
that negates the amendment.
I'm a clinician, it has been asserted that if the FDA
approves this, it's got to be okay. I have heard from
specialists who use these medications that these are
unique proteins that act uniquely in each one of us in
a different way and that switching from one protein to
the other, in other words these allegedly
interchangeable products actually diminishes the
effectiveness of these unique proteins in the
individual's body, that concerns me.
The second thing that concerns me is FDA approval
being asserted as a "gold standard." About 15 years
ago, the Varivax vaccine was approved by the FDA, this
is a vaccination for children to prevent the
occurrence of chicken pox. I worked at a pediatric
clinic at that time and we gave one of the first
Varivax vaccines in this state; a week later that two-
year old came in and could no longer walk, his verbal
skills were significantly impaired, and he was having
a reaction to this Varivax vaccine. FDA does not mean
that there will not be adverse events; that sticks in
my mind as the question I always put behind someone
who says, "FDA approves it, it must be okay."
I also question, and I have heard from a pharmacist
that they are not sure they have a concern about this,
but I have concerns for the pharmacist's liability. So
the pharmacist is now making a decision to change this
very unique protein medication without discussion with
the clinician, change it to a different formulation.
So the clinician has the health records of this
individual, the clinician knows a lot about the
patient and he has chosen, he or she, has chosen this
unique protein medication, wonderful medications, and
now the pharmacist is unilaterally going to change
that without consultation with the clinician. I
contend that there's going to be a liability for that
pharmacist if there's an adverse outcome; that of
course can only be tested in a court of law, that's a
very expensive process.
So that's my reason for offering this amendment. I
don't believe this has to be rushed, I don't believe
this needs to be done without the team that makes up
health care: the clinician, the pharmacist, and the
patient, all consulting together for the best
outcomes.
2:15:27 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked if there was further objection to the
amendment.
SENATOR BEGICH announced that he objected to Amendment 1. He
explained his objection as follows:
As Senator Giessel duly noted in a duly noticed public
hearing that all of the proper, appropriate notice
required by law, a number of organizations testified
on this bill and anyone was able and had opportunity
to testify on this bill. We had testimony, as she
points out, that was overwhelmingly in favor of this
legislation.
I also take note of some of the comments from the
Arthritis Foundation, which I also received today and
would note that there's a question here of the
amendment proposed potentially delaying prescription
service, but I want to go further and since we are
talking about personal stories, a member of my own
staff is a beneficiary of these products. My staffer
who is in the audience, Richard Benavides, suffers
from cancer, uses these and has identified to me that
the ability to have rapid access to what are known to
be safe procedures is something that he finds is
essential to his wellbeing.
I would argue that our duty here is to allow a public
process and then through that public process, adjust
if necessary a bill. We have done that public process,
the testimony overwhelmingly favored the bill as is or
in fact moves in the opposite direction of what
Senator Giessel is proposing. We will have further
committees and there will be further opportunity, but
at this time I just want to express my objection to
that amendment and would urge the members to not
support this amendment.
2:17:56 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL clarified that public testimony did not allow
opposition. She set forth that the individuals who opposed the
bill were online and were not allowed to testify because the
meeting ran out and public testimony was closed; consequently,
their voice was not heard. She explained that Amendment 1 does
not limit access to biologics in any way. She specified that the
interchangeables, which are addressed in the bill, are not yet
available and may not be available for several years. She asked
what the rush is.
CHAIR WILSON noted for the record that some of the comments for
and against were publicized and made available on the internet
for folks to see.
SENATOR VON IMHOF commented on Amendment 1 as follows:
I very much appreciate the robust dialogue and thank
you Senator Giessel, you brought up actually some
interesting points that gave me pause today and made
me think, it's interesting trying to digest the
information that comes in associated with all of these
bills, both in the written form and in the verbal
form. As we sit here, I feel that it is best to try
to, again, to use my words I said in the previous
bill, thread-the-needle and try to find the best-foot-
forward based on the information that we have in front
of us.
I understand the concern with the FDA, I don't share
those same concerns; I believe that it is a very
robust and successful entity and that their analysis
gives me comfort. I also see in the letter we received
today that biosimilars have been used in Europe with
excellent safety and efficacy profile since 2006, and
have resulted in significant cost savings. Health-care
costs in Alaska is a significant issue as we can all
attest and if there's no clinical, meaningful
differences between biologic and the reference
biological in terms of safety, purity and potency, yet
it provides a cost difference, then I think it makes
sense to go forward with this.
I understand that there are no biosimilars on the
market now, but yes it could be years from now, or it
could be months from now, we don't know. So as a good
boy scout it's best to be prepared. I'm going to vote
for the pure form of this bill and not support the
amendment.
2:21:40 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Giessel and Chair Wilson
voted in favor of Amendment 1; Senators Begich and von Imhof
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a 2:2 vote.
CHAIR WILSON announced that hearing no further amendments, he
would entertain a motion to move SB 32 out of committee.
2:21:53 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF moved to report SB 32, [30-LD0188\J], from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s)
2:22:03 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that without objection, SB 32 moved from
Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
2:22:12 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL commented as follows:
Before we leave this subject, you know there's a
reason that Senator von Imhof is on the finance
committee. She has expertise in that area. There's a
reason that I am on the health committee. I'm a
clinician. I appreciate the discussion today, thank
you.
2:22:32 PM
At ease.
2:23:58 PM
CHAIR WILSON called the committee back to order.
2:24:17 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Wilson adjourned the Senate Health and Social Services
Committee at 2:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ASPS Comments - Scope Optometric - AK SB36 - 02-13-2017.pdf |
SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Carmen Moore - oppose.pdf |
SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Drug schedules - Giessel.pdf |
SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| New Mexico House Business & Industry Committee Letter 2007.pdf |
SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| SB 32 Legislation - Version J.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2017 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/10/2017 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 36 ASMA oppose.pdf |
SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 36 |
| Alaska Biosimilars Arth Fdn oppose amendment sb 32.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2017 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32 - Clarification on Questions Asked in the Committee (Sen Hughes).doc |
HHSS 4/13/2017 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB32_ASMA.pdf |
HHSS 4/13/2017 3:00:00 PM SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |
| SB 32 Am No. 1.PDF |
SHSS 2/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 32 |