HB 70-EMERGENCY MED SVCS; OPERATIONAL CANINES  4:02:40 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final 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).] CO-CHAIR FIELDS entertained amendments. 4:03:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Amendment [1] to CSHB 70(HSS), labeled 34-LS0245\I.5, Gunther, 4/5/25, which read as follows: Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 25: Delete all material and insert: "(a) A person may not practice veterinary medicine, surgery, or dentistry unless the person is licensed as a veterinarian under this chapter or has a temporary permit issued under AS 08.98.186, except that a person may perform [FUNCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY] (1) functions authorized by regulation of the board if the person is licensed as a veterinary technician; [OR] (2) functions authorized by a permit issued under AS 08.02.050 if the person is employed by an agency that has a permit issued under AS 08.02.050; or  (3) emergency medical services on an  operational canine under AS 18.08.082(a)(6) if the  person is certified as an emergency medical technician  or licensed as a mobile intensive care paramedic." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 3, lines 25 - 27: Delete "to operational canines the emergency  medical services enumerated on a written document  filed with the department by the medical director and  approved by the department in regulation" Insert "emergency medical services to an  operational canine" Page 5, line 29, following "danger;": Insert "and" Page 5, line 31, through page 6, line 11: Delete "; and (3) meets at least one of the following requirements: (A) the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic has obtained informed consent from the owner of the operational canine or a person authorized to make medical decisions about the operational canine; (B) the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic is employed by the governmental agency that owns or has authority to make medical decisions about the operational canine; or (C) the emergency medical technician or mobile intensive care paramedic provides the emergency medical service in accordance with a written protocol developed and approved by a veterinarian" Page 6, lines 6 - 28: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. CO-CHAIR HALL objected. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER shared his concern that the proposed legislation would give emergency medical technicians (EMTs) too much authority. He explained that Amendment [1] would, in Section 1, "add language to say emergency medical services to clarify ... that EMTs can only perform emergency medical services in operational canines and not perform any other kind of veterinary medicine." He referenced public testimony, citing concerns about EMTs providing intensive medical care for canines. He stated that it would remove Section 2, offering his belief that Section 2 would give EMTs too much authority. He further stated that Section 2 allowed EMTs to enter a home, or have a car moved or destroyed for the purpose of gaining access to an injured or potentially injured operational canine. He explained that Section 3 states that "EMTs can provide operational canines only the services that are listed on a document filed with the medical director and approved by the Department of Health." He explained this his amendment would remove this limitation, asserting that it was redundant. He stated that Amendment [1] would additionally remove conditions that must be met for EMTs to provide services to operational canines, listed in Section 7. He offered his belief that the requirements listed in Section 7 are onerous. He concluded by stating that Amendment [1] would remove Section 8, as he did not believe Section 8 to be a likely scenario. He explained that Section 8 refers to a scenario in which an operational canine is receiving emergency services from a practitioner via telehealth between the owner and an EMT. 4:06:14 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS requested Representative Shrage, prime sponsor of CSHB 70(HSS), to share his thoughts on Amendment [1]. 4:06:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, deferred to his staff member for a response. 4:06:44 PM JEREMY HOUSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska State Legislature, answered questions on behalf of Representative Shrage, prime sponsor of CSHB 70(HSS). He stated that their office was opposed to changes made to Sections 2 and 3. He further stated that they found changes made to Sections 1 and 8 amenable. 4:07:29 PM BRIAN WEBB, at the invitation of Co-Chair Fields, noted that he had been working with Representative Schrage on HB 70. He explained that there are already statutes regarding domicile entry by EMS, due to local authorities not always readily being available in the event of emergencies in all communities. MR. WEBB referred to Section 3, explaining that it was added because Alaska Statute (AS) is clear that dogs in Alaska are considered private property. He noted that, because dogs are considered private property, permission has to be granted for treatment. He noted that it is the same for humans, explaining that EMS have to obtain permission for treatment. He noted that 13 other states that have enacted similar legislation "wrestled with the same issues." He further stated that DOH licenses all EMS clinicians and further defined the scope of practice. He explained that the EMS medical director further determines what EMTs are allowed to do within their scope of practice. He provided a personal anecdote to illustrate his answer, noting that he was an EMT 3. He stated that there are clear definitions between the scope of practice given by the state versus what is allowed by the EMS medical director. CO-CHAIR HALL maintained her objection. 4:11:54 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Saddler and Nelson voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment [1] to CSHB 70(HSS). Representatives Burke, Carrick, Coulombe, Hall, and Fields voted against it. Therefore, Amendment [1] failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5. 4:12:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Amendment [2] to CSHB 70(HSS), labeled 34-LS0245\I.7, Gunther, 4/7/25, which read as follows: Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 1: Delete all material and insert: "(a) A person may not practice veterinary medicine, surgery, or dentistry unless the person is licensed as a veterinarian under this chapter or has a temporary permit issued under AS 08.98.186, except that a person may perform [FUNCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY] (1) functions authorized by regulation of the board if the person is licensed as a veterinary technician; [OR] (2) functions authorized by a permit issued under AS 08.02.050 if the person is employed by an agency that has a permit issued under AS 08.02.050; or  (3) emergency medical services on an  operational canine under AS 18.08.093 if the person is  certified as an emergency medical technician or  licensed as a mobile intensive care paramedic." Page 6, lines 16 - 28: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. CO-CHAIR HALL objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER spoke to Amendment [2], explaining that it would make changes to Section 1 and Section 8 of the proposed legislation as he had previously described in Amendment [1]. 4:13:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHRAGE stated that he was supportive of the amendment. CO-CHAIR HALL removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment [2] to CSHB 70(HSS) was adopted. 4:13:53 PM CO-CHAIR HALL moved to report CSHB 70(HSS), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 70(L&C) was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.