SENATE BILL NO. 126 "An Act providing for an exception to the regulation of the practice of medicine for a physician who provides medical services to an athletic team from another state." 9:08:52 AM Co-Chair Foster reported that it was the first time the bill was heard in committee. JULI LUCKY, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, shared that the bill had been brought to the chair by a constituent who was an orthopedic surgeon and member of the National Council of Orthopedic Surgery and Spots Medicine. She explained that the bill was part of a nationwide effort to provide certainty for sports teams' physicians that were licensed in another state and traveling with the team in other states. The bill would add an exemption for state licensure for the physicians traveling with sports teams. The physician would have to be licensed to practice medicine in another state, under a written contract to provide care to an athletic team in that state and would be limited to providing services to members of the team while they were traveling or participating in a sporting event in Alaska. The sponsor believed that the exemption was very specific. She added that the first section of the bill dealt with the exemption and the second section was a conforming amendment that renumbered exemptions in existing statute. Representative Wilson asked if the physicians would be required to fill out any paperwork. Ms. Lucky answered that the individuals would not have to fill out any additional paperwork. She clarified that the bill did not allow any hospital privileges. She relayed that the bill addressed common concerns like an athlete who was without an asthma inhaler and the student otherwise would have to go to a clinic, which would be time consuming. 9:12:31 AM Representative Thompson asked how other states handled the issue. Ms. Lucky answered that the effort included getting the measure passed in all 50 states. She reported that 48 states had either introduced or passed the legislation. Representative Ortiz asked for the reason the constituent had brought the issue forward. Ms. Lucky deferred to the constituent to answer the question. DR. JEFF MOORE, ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), replied that he was the national delegate for the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine and the bill was a national program for the society. He concurred that the bill was currently passed in 35 states and was pending in 14 states and only allowed authority to treat "simple" health issues. Representative Ortiz deduced that the legislation was a national effort to standardize the rights for visiting physicians. Mr. Moore answered in the affirmative. 9:15:23 AM Representative Guttenberg thought the bill seemed simple and positive but wondered about the "mechanics". He provided a scenario of a team member that lost their asthma inhaler and the team doctor wrote a prescription, but the pharmacist recognized that the physician was from out of state. He asked how the situation would work. Mr. Moore replied that without the bill, typically the traveling team doctor could not prescribe out of state and would need to call a local physician to get a prescription filled. He reiterated that the bill precluded surgery. Representative Guttenberg asked how the Alaskan pharmacist would know the traveling physician had the authority. Mr. Moore answered that the pharmacist would need a national "DEA" number [Drug Enforcement Administration Registration Number]. Representative Kawasaki asked if a physician would have the ability to write an order for an X-Ray. Mr. Moore answered that the physicians would not have any inpatient privileges and would not be able to order an x-ray. Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the previously published fiscal impact note from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) FN1 (CED). He noted the one- time $2,500 for regulatory costs. 9:20:52 AM Representative Guttenberg remarked that the committee saw a variety of trivial fiscal notes. He asked what the $2,500 represented. Ms. Lucky deferred to DCCED. DEBORA STOVERN, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR, STATE MEDICAL BOARD, DIVISION OF CORPORATE, BUSINESS, AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), replied that the fiscal note represented the cost for the board to adopt regulations to implement the statute change. Representative Guttenberg voiced that the answer did not address his question. JANEY MCCULLOUGH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, answered that the division estimated the costs to adopt regulations from other similar previous regulation projects. The fiscal note authorized the division to spend the money on behalf of the licensees. Representative Guttenberg asked for further clarification. Ms. McCullough replied that regulation project costs did vary depending on the number of interested parties that needed mail notification. She stated that 731 people would be affected by the regulation change. She pointed out that one newspaper ad was $772. Ms. Lucky pointed out that the funds were receipt supported services and General Fund (GF) was not used in updating regulations. Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT SB 126 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SB 126 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED). 9:25:50 AM AT EASE 9:26:15 AM RECONVENED