HB 502-DISPENSING OPTICIANS: BOARD & REGULATION Number 1940 CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 502, "An Act relating to dispensing opticians and dispensing optician apprentices." Number 1936 MATT RUDIG, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 502 on behalf of Representative Holm, sponsor of HB 502. He told the members that the bill clarifies the education and training requirements to become an optician, allows qualified opticians from other states to practice in Alaska, and sets out requirement to fit and sell contact lenses. This bill will increase the amount of hours necessary to become a dispensing optician or an apprentice. Mr. Rudig explained that a few years ago the levels of training hours were lowered below any other state that requires training hours and this bill would restore that requirement. MR. RUDIG warned that the members may hear objections from national interests such as Wal-Mart and Target who want to put 18 year olds out there and call them opticians. This bill will ensure that the necessary training hours in Alaska is comparable to other states. The Alaska Opticians Board brought this issue forward, and Representative Holms believes Alaskan opticians should regulate their own industry, he said. Number 1844 CHAIR WILSON asked how many training hours were necessary before there was a reduction in education and training. MR. RUDIG replied there were 6,000 hours. He added that there was no distinction between training for eyeglasses and contact lenses. There was a request that there be a distinction drawn between the number of hours for each of these. HB 502 accomplishes this, he commented. CHAIR WILSON asked how the requirements for education and training were reduced. What was the reasoning behind this reduction, she questioned. MR. RUDIG responded that it was done "under the 24-hour rule by the National Opticians and Optometrists." CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification that this was a nationwide move done in Washington, D.C. MR. RUDIG replied that he believes it was done at the state level in various states that had optician boards. He suggested that someone on the optician board could provide more definitive information on that question. In response to Chair Wilson's inquiry, Mr. Rudig said that Alaska has an opticians' board and the Opticians Association of Alaska. The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee has recommended that the opticians board be sunsetted. This bill does not extend that sunset, but transfers the burden of licensing and apprentice program authority to the U.S. Department of Labor. Number 1772 CHAIR WILSON asked if she understands correctly that several years ago the Alaska Board of Opticians asked for the number of hours of training and education be reduced, and the legislature approved that reduction. MR. RUDIG agreed and said that he believes the reduction in training and education occurred two years ago. CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification on his comment regarding the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's recommendation. Number 1737 MR. RUDIG pointed to the audit in the members' packet [Alaska Division of Legislative Audit, Audit Digest #08-20022-03]. In that audit there was no recommendation with respect to the number of hours of training needed for opticians. He offered to get back to the committee with additional information on the recommendations in the audit. However, he suggested that perhaps one of the opticians who will testify could provide further clarification. Number 1558 RANDALL DAHL, Opticians Association of Alaska, testified in support of HB 502 and answered questions from the members. He told the members that he could not comment on the questions Chair Wilson posed. Mr. Dahl said that his main point in testifying is to express his strong support for increased training and the apprenticeship program. He said that he has been a licensed optician in Alaska for 22 years and one of his main duties has been to train opticians. Under the prior statute that preceded 2002 the apprenticeship program was not structured. Even though there was a 6,000-hour apprentice requirement, there was no program. The new program which will be administered through the U.S. Department of Labor is quite structured, he explained. There are learning objectives, training schedules, and sign offs. Mr. Dahl said he supports the required 6,000 hours of training as an apprentice, including 4,000 hours of training for eyeglasses and at least 2,000 hours for contact lenses. This bill would bring the state's requirements into alignment with the U.S. Department of Labor's requirement for its apprenticeship program. Mr. Dahl summarized that he believes this is a very good bill and urged the members to pass the bill out of committee. CHAIR WILSON asked how many hours the U.S. Department of Labor requires for licensure as an optician. MR. DAHL responded that the U.S. Department of Labor has a 4,000-hour requirement, but he noted that he is not sure if that is inclusive of the spectacles and contact lenses training. CHAIR WILSON commented that normally Alaskans like to do things independently, separate from federal involvement. She asked why he believes this is a good idea. Number 1522 MR. DAHL replied that the state program was not structured even though there was a lot of time spent administering the program. The U.S. Department of Labor has an existing nationwide, cohesive program already in place, he added. Number 1475 CHRISTI BRAND, President, Optician Association of Alaska, testified in support of HB 502 and answered questions from the members. She told the members that opticians found themselves in the position of having to sign up every employee as an apprentice, even if the individual had no interest in being an apprentice. It was required by state law. Two years ago, SB 270 provided for separate classification for optician's assistants. In this way an employee can work in the office, but not be classified as an apprentice unless that is their desire, she explained. This bill would formalize the training through the U.S. Department of Labor's program which would enable employers to apply for grants and provide an incentive to hire unemployed people. This program would clean things up, Ms. Brand said. In summary, if the state does sunset the board of opticians it is important to have this program in place, she added. Number 1381 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if he is correct in assuming that there are no education requirements for an optician's assistant. MS. BRAND replied that is correct. An optician's assistant is more of a sales clerk who helps a customer pick out glasses or sells glasses. An assistant would not be able to help a customer with a prescription or provide advice regarding vision. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that there are currently distinctions between an optician's assistant and an apprentice. MS. BRAND responded that is correct. This bill would maintain that distinction, she added. Number 1314 JAMES ROTHMEYER, Chair, Board of Dispensing Opticians, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic Development, testified in support of HB 502 and answered questions from the members. He told the members that the education and training of apprentices use to be left to chance. If an apprentice got a good sponsor or employer then the individual received the training, but many did not, he said. This bill will provide that only those who are career bound need to register as apprentices. All the apprentices will have the same structured training through the U.S. Department of Labor. This bill will also fix the problem of the expenses connected to the board in administering the apprenticeship program, he added. Number 1258 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification that if the Board of Dispensing Opticians sunsets, then the apprenticeship program will be administered by a federal regulatory program. MR. ROTHMEYER responded that if the board sunsets there will be no licensing or oversight of dispensing of contact lenses or spectacles in the state, other than a doctor of optometry or ophthalmologists. CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Rothmeyer whether the legislative audit recommended a sunset of the board. MR. ROTHMEYER replied that the legislative audit had two major concerns. The first is that the training for apprentices is too subjective and prone to challenge by license applicants. The bill provides that there would be a structured educational opportunity through the U.S. Department of Labor. CHAIR WILSON surmised that Mr. Rothmeyer is saying the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee recommended sunsetting the Board of Dispensing Opticians. MR. ROTHMEYER replied that the audit provided several recommendations, one of which was sunsetting the board, and another was to move to a voluntary certification program. Under the voluntary plan there would not be anyone to oversee the continuing educational components, he added. Number 1158 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that several boards are being eliminated and the duties and authority are being assumed by the Division of Occupational Licensing. MR. ROTHMEYER responded that the Division of Occupational Licensing is ill prepared to assume the mantel of distinguishing a licensed opticians duties and the continuing education required. It would be licensing in name only and no oversight would actually be provided, he said. Number 1088 FRANKLIN ROZAK, Secretary-Treasurer, National Association of Optometrists and Opticians, testified on HB 502 and answered questions from the members. Mr. Rozak told the committee several companies that are members of the association provide services to Alaska. He told the members that Legislative Budget and Audit Committee has recommended that the board be sunsetted for a variety of reasons. Mr. Rozak commented that he will focus in on one main reason which is manpower. At the present time, according to the Legislative Audit for FY03 there are 107 licensed opticians in Alaska. That is far below what is necessary to effectively have a pro-competitive and pro-consumer market for Alaskan consumers, he said. He pointed out that FY00, FY01, and FY02 there were between 34 and 40 apprentice opticians registered. In FY03 there are 11 registered apprentice opticians. There is a significant drop off, he stated. Mr. Rozak commented that some of that may be due to the discussions of doubling the education requirements which is in HB 502. In 2002, the legislature decreased the education requirements for eligibility to take the exam for licensure, Mr. Rozak commented. Two things happen when there is a shortage of manpower, prices go up, and accessibility is diminished, he explained. If the board is to continue then the association would support doing whatever is necessary to increase the availability of qualified manpower in Alaska. Number 0997 MR. ROZAK pointed to page 19 of the report [Alaska Division of Legislative Audit, Audit Digest #08-20022-03] which shows that there was a total of eight complaints, only one of which was a consumer in the previous 48 months. The balance of the complaints came from competitors, he said. MR. ROZAK shared that the departments of health in Kansas, Colorado, and Minnesota have written formal reports where it was advised against the need to license opticians. It was found that there was no public health or protection benefit. It was also found that adequate existing training was provided through apprenticeships by various corporations, optometrists, ophthalmologists, and other dispensing opticians. Mr. Rozak told the members that these reports showed that there were numerous means of regress for customer problems. In summary, he said, it was found that licensing would result in an economic disadvantage for optical consumers. MR. ROZAK said that increasing the number of hours for apprenticeship is not the way to increase manpower, given the fact that the number of apprenticeships is going down. He supports the U.S. Department of Labor's efforts to run an apprenticeship program, but believes the department will be hamstrung if it necessary to meet the number of hours required in HB 502. Number 0872 MR. RUDIG asked Mr. Rozak where he is calling from. MR. ROZAK responded that he is calling from Marblehead, Ohio. Number 0854 CHAIR WILSON commented that she agrees that when the requirements are increased on an area where there is a shortage prices usually do go up. It is a concern for rural area of Alaska, she stated. MR. RUDIG agreed that is a good point. He questioned why the prices did not go down when the requirements were lowered a few years ago. He told the committee he respects Mr. Rozak's opinion, but believes that Alaskan opticians have a better handle on what is happening here in Alaska. Number 0768 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the members that the legislative audit is recommending not to extend the board which would mean it would terminate on June 30, 2005. He commented that there is at least one more legislative session before this would take effect. Representative Seaton asked Mr. Rudig if there have been discussions about the audit because he cannot understand the recommendation not to extend the board. He asked if Representative Holm rejects the recommendations of the audit. MR. RUDIG responded that the sponsor has accepted the recommendations of the audit. This bill allows the board to sunset because it was losing money and the opticians wished to move to the program [offered through the U.S. Department of Labor]. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that this bill is in line with the Legislative Audit, #08-20022-03. MR. RUDIG replied that is correct. CHAIR WILSON suggested that a checklist of recommendations made by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee be provided at the next hearing of the bill. She announced that HB 502 will be held in committee.