HB 70-EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES  3:39:14 PM CHAIR MINA announced the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 70, "An Act relating to emergency medical services for operational canines; relating to the powers, duties, and liability of emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedics; relating to the practice of veterinary medicine; and providing for an effective date." 3:39:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, gave the sponsor statement [included in the committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided, with some formatting changes]: House Bill 70 empowers Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel to deliver on-scene point-of injury (POI) emergency care and transport for operational canines (OpK9s). Operational canines are essential members of law enforcement, other government operations, and search- and-rescue teams. These courageous animals amplify the success of countless military, law enforcement, search-and-rescue, and humanitarian missions. Their roles even extend to police or fire chaplaincy during crises. This bill is named "Rico's Law" in honor of Alaska State Trooper K9 Rico, whose end of watch occurred on March 26, 2017. Rico was fatally shot while heroically attempting to apprehend a suspect after a lengthy pursuit on the Parks Highway in Wasilla, Alaska. K9 Rico, like all operational canines, demonstrated unwavering dedication, protecting, and defending his community. These animals are more than just assets or propertythey are teammates, partners, and family members who deserve emergency care and transportation rights. Operational canines, especially those deployed in tactical or high-threat situations, face significant risks of injury or preventable death. Currently, Alaska lacks statutory authority allowing EMS personnel to apply life-saving care to these animals. Under current law, providing such care could be deemed "practicing veterinary medicine without a license," a violation under AS 08.98.120, carrying severe penalties. The super-rural nature of Alaska adds another dimension of acuity for our operational canines outside of Alaska's major urban centers. Alaska's EMS professionals already possess the equipment, supplies, and medications needed to adapt existing prehospital standards of care for human patients to operational canines. Training programs like the K9 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (K9 TECC) course provide additional training for clinicians to confidently manage operational canine emergencies. The passage of this bill would eliminate legal barriers, allowing EMS personnel to administer life-saving care and transport injured operational canines to emergency veterinary facilities. With minimal investment by our participating EMS services, Alaska EMS can ensure that our operational canines have a fighting chance at survival when injured in the line of duty. 3:42:32 PM JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, prime sponsor, gave the sectional analysis for HB 70 [included in the committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided, with some formatting changes]: Section 1: Amends AS 08.98.125 exempts emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic from penalty for practicing veterinary medicine without a license when providing emergency medical services to an operational canine as provided under AS 18.08.093. Section 2: Amends AS 18.08.075(a) to authorize emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedic to enter a building or premises where a report of an injury or illness has taken place or where there is reasonable cause to believe an operational canine has been injured or is ill to render emergency medical care and direct the removal of a motor vehicle or other thing determined necessary to prevent further harm to operational canines. Section 3: Amends AS 18.08.086(a) to provide for civil liability protection to providers, or a director of a provider licensed under AS 18.08.082 who administers emergency medical services to an operational canine within the scope of the person's certification or licensure and if the operational canine reasonably seems to be in immediate danger of serious harm or death. Section 4: Amends AS 18.08.087 to remove language limiting physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, or physician assistants' permission to disclose medical information of a patient to emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedics when the information is not for the purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or physician. Section 5: Adds two new subsections to AS 18.08.087. The first allows licensed veterinarians to disclose medical or hospital records of an operational canine to an emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic for the purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic. The second adds language restricting physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, or physician assistants' permission to disclose medical information of a patient to emergency medical technicians and mobile intensive care paramedics when the information is not for the purpose of evaluating the performance of an emergency medical technician, mobile intensive care paramedic or physician. Section 6: Adds one new section to AS 18.08 with two subsections. Subsection (a) allows for an emergency medical technician to provide emergency medical services to an operational canine if 2 Tuesday, February 4th, 2025 a veterinarian is unavailable to provide emergency medical services in a reasonable amount of time, the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic has received training on providing emergency medical services to operational canines, is trained to provide comparable medical services to humans, is authorized to provide the comparable medical service to a human under the scope of their license or certification, and has informed consent from the owner or someone authorized to make medical decisions about the operational canine or is providing medical service in accordance with a written protocol developed by a veterinarian. Subsection (b) requires the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic to transfer the operational canine to a licensed veterinarian at the earliest practicable opportunity and comply with all laws governing the administration of drugs or biologics to a human when administering a drug or biologic to an operational canine. Section 7: Amends AS 18.08.100(b) to clarify that if individuals licensed under this chapter determine, during a telehealth encounter, that the encounter will extend past their scope of practice they shall advise the person who is authorized to make medical decisions for the operational canine that they are not authorized to provide the services needed, provide recommendation for an appropriate provider, and limit the encounter to the services they are authorized to provide. Section 8: Amends AS 18.08.200 to define "veterinarian" in this chapter the same as it is under AS 08.98 and "operational canine" as a dog used by law enforcement or other government operations; or in search and rescue operations. Section 9: Sets an effective date of January 1st, 2026. 3:47:41 PM KERRY KIRKPATRICK, Southeast Alaska Dogs Organized for Ground Search (SEADOGS), as invited testifier, introduced the committee to Bizzy, an 11-year-old search dog [seated next to her at the witness table] certified in multiple disciplines for search, including avalanche, wilderness, cadaver, and water. She stated that she has been doing this work for 30 years, often in remote areas out of reach of communication where there is no access to veterinarians. Sometimes, when working with Coast Guard or National Guard, the search team has access to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) or paramedics. She emphasized the importance of having people working with the team that have the knowledge to be able to, at the very least, stabilize an injured search animal and get them to a veterinarian. She said she thinks that whether a professional or a volunteer, anyone would do their utmost to keep a dog alive, and she hopes that anyone who made that effort would not then be held liable for attempting to help. 3:50:06 PM MR. HOUSTON, in response to Representative Gray, explained that language from Section 4 was moved to Section 5 at the recommendation of Legislative Legal Services. 3:52:10 PM SEAN MCPECK, DVM, Tier 1 Veterinary Medical Center, in response to a question from Representative Gray regarding when Section 7 "would come into play," surmised there could be a scenario in which a doctor is speaking to someone telephonically and "going off of the interpretation" of the person who is present [with the injured animal]. Without diagnostics, x-ray, and hands-on examination, the doctor on the phone is guessing at the best course of treatment with limited information. REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said he interpreted Section 7 as pertaining to a situation in which a person who is not a veterinarian is trying to provide medical advice to someone who is rendering care to a canine. Under this scenario, the person would have to disclose that they were not a veterinarian. 3:54:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE offered to get back to Representative Gray and the committee with a specific example of when Section 7 would apply. In response to Representative Gray, he said he is not aware of any case in which care was not rendered "as a result of this concern." That said, he noted that there is concern within the medical community about continuing to provide care moving forward. 3:56:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE, in response to Representative Prax, talked about the choice to call this "Rico's Law" and recognized Brian Webb, a former legislative staff and emergency medical services provider with experience with this issue, who brought the issue to Representative Schrage. REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed concern that the proposed bill would open up "a can of worms." REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE suggested the flip side is to question whether not addressing the issue would result in failed care of a canine in the future. The concern for this issue has already been expressed, thus the can of worms has already been opened. In response to whether he would consider expanding liability by further clarifying the bill, Representative Schrage said he worries about broadening the scope of the bill beyond "those who are reasonably assumed to have the necessary medical skills to provide care to an operation canine." He suggested his is a policy question for the committee. 4:01:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE observed there seems to be a need for definitions, including: what is a reasonable amount of time; who trains; and what does that training look like. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE proposed to hold a dialogue between this this bill hearing and the next to address those concerns. 4:03:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHWANKE noted that she has training in animal welfare and immobilization training, and she talked about varying schedules and reporting requirements. She noted her question mirrored that of Representative Ruffridge and is related to training. 4:04:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE referred again to Brian Webb as a source for answering questions. MR. HOUSTON noted that there is national training course standard, called Canine TECC. 4:06:03 PM CHAIR MINA announced that HB 70 was held over.