HB 70-EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES  3:20:22 PM CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the first 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." [Before the committee was CSHB 70(HSS).] 3:20:52 PM JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Shrage, prime sponsor, presented HB 70 via PowerPoint [hard copy included in the committee file]. He began on slide 2, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Alaska currently lacks statutory authority for emergency medical personnel to care for operational canines. EMS personnel already have the medications and equipment needed to provide this care. Operational canines have been essential to many successful government and search and rescue operations. Passing this bill would allow EMS personnel to provide critical care to their canine colleagues. MR. HOUSTON gave an overview of Sections 1 and 2 of CSHB 70(HSS), as shown on slide 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1 authorizes EMTs and paramedics to provide medical care and transport to operational canines without from (sic) risk of prosecution. Section 2 permits EMTs and paramedics to enter private property when caring for an operational canine. MR. HOUSTON noted that Section 1 would be authorized under Section 7 of CSHB 70(HSS) and Alaska Statute (AS) 18.08.093. He noted that Section 2 applies only in the event of a serious illness or injury of an operational canine. MR. HOUSTON gave an overview of Section 3 and 4 of CSHB 70(HSS), shown on slide 4, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 3 directs the Department of Heath to set requirements prior to authorizing a licensed EMT or paramedic to provide emergency medical services to an operational canine. Section 4 extends civil liability protection to providers, or directors of providers, who care for operational canines. MR. HOUSTON explained that protocols would be written by the medical director [of the Department of Health] in consultation with a licensed veterinarian. He further noted that Section 4 applies only if the operational canine is in immediate danger, seriously harmed, or at-risk of death. MR. HOUSTON gave an overview of Sections 5 and 6 of CSHB 70(HSS), shown on slide 5, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 5 removes language preventing the release of medical records to EMTs and paramedics unless necessary for evaluating their performance. Section 6 reinserts the removed language and adds a subsection to protect operational canines' medical records. MR. HOUSTON moved to slide 6, an overview of Section 7 of CSHB 70(HSS), which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Subsection (a) sets specific training and authorization requirements for EMTs and paramedics to provide care to an operational canine. Subsection (b) sets requirements for transporting and administering drugs to operational canines. MR. HOUSTON moved to slide 7, an overview of Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the proposed legislation, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section [8] sets requirements for telehealth encounters with operational canines. Section [9] defines operational canine and veterinarian under AS 18.08 Section [10] sets an effective date of January 1, 2026. MR. HOUSTON moved to slide 8, closing remarks, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Currently, emergency medical services personnel are not allowed to apply life-saving point of injury care to operational canines. Alaska's EMS professionals already possess the equipment and medications needed to care for operational canines. The passage of this bill would allow EMS personnel to provide life-saving care and transport for injured operational canines. 3:26:23 PM BRIAN WEBB, representing self, stated that he had 46 years of experience as a paramedic. Additionally, he stated that he had provided care for operational canines during his long career. He stated that operational canines face gunshot wounds, stabbings, and dangerous environmental conditions. He referred to Rico, a canine who was shot in Wasilla, Alaska, in 2017 and consequently bled to death. Mr. Webb noted that emergency medical service (EMS) personnel were available on the scene but were legally barred from providing medical care. He stated that CSHB 70(HSS) would prevent situations like Rico's from happening again by allowing EMS to provide life-saving stabilization care to operational canines. He addressed the concern that the proposed legislation would blur the line between EMS and veterinary medicine, stating that CSHB 70(HSS) strictly limits EMS care to pre-hospital trauma stabilization, mandates immediate transport to veterinary facilities and direct oversight by EMS medical directors and licensed veterinarians. He stressed that the proposed legislation was not mandatory, noting that only EMS that support law enforcement or search and rescue operations would opt in. He asserted that EMS personnel are already experienced with extreme variation in patients, noting that there are large differences between neonate and geriatric care. He stated that the implementation of the proposed legislation was multi-phased. He stressed that CSHB 70(HSS) was particularly important in Alaska, given the long transport times in rural areas of the state. He noted that CSHB 70(HSS) aligned with successful laws in 13 other states and had support from the National Association of Veterinary EMS (NAVEMS) and several other veterinarians statewide and nationally. He stated that EMS operational canine care was supported by peer- reviewed veterinary medical journals. He further stated that both the Board of Veterinary Examiners and the [Alaska] State Medical Board were consulted prior to the introduction of the bill. He concluded by asserting that CSHB 70(HSS) would save lives with proper oversight, training, and defined protocols and urged the committee to pass the proposed legislation. 3:32:07 PM JANICE BAKER, DVM, Director & Lead Veterinarian, Veterinary Tactical Group, began her invited testimony by reporting that in late 2007, the United States (U.S.) lost five dogs related to combat-related injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. She stated that she had 22 years of experience in the military, noting that for approximately half of that time, she provided medical care for canines. She provided an anecdote about performing a successful procedure on an operational canine while in the field that saved the canine's life, which would have otherwise passed on the two-hour flight to the nearest combat veterinarian. She identified five basic differences in anatomy and physiology between humans and canines that medics needed to learn, including landmarks for intravenous (IV) placement, and airway conditioning for advanced airway placement. She said the "understanding that that point-of-injury treatment, or pre- hospital treatment, is essential to the dog's survival" is well- accepted by the working dog community. She also cited guidelines for treatment of dogs by medics published by the Journal of Veterinary Emergency Critical Care, the Military Medicine Journal, and the Journal of Specialized Emergency Medicine which, she argued, demonstrated their endorsement. She additionally cited a study of gunshot wounds in military working dogs, which showed that dogs treated by medics before receiving veterinary care not only ultimately survive their injuries, but in that particular study, 100 percent of the surviving dogs eventually returned to full duty. She concluded by offering strong support for CSHB 70(HSS), as long as it was within the scope of care legally provided to humans. 3:36:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK asked the reason for not including non- operational canines, like personal pets injured in a car accident, for example. She offered appreciation for the proposed legislation. 3:37:10 PM MR. HOUSTON responded that he would get back to the committee. He noted that since CSHB 70(HSS) had been drafted, it has been a conversation. 3:37:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK commented that the lack of inclusion of personal pets seemed like a "huge gap." 3:38:22 PM CO-CHAIR HALL announced that CSHB 70(HSS) was held over.