SENATE BILL NO. 243 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners; and relating to chiropractors." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Therriault, spoke to the details of the bill. She informed there is an accompanying committee substitute in the packet. Senator Leman offered a motion to adopt CS SB 243, 22-LS1266\F Lauterbach, as a working draft. There being no objection, the document was ADOPTED as a working draft. Ms. Brakes spoke of the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit report [copy on file] which supports restoring the Board of Chiropractic Examiners to implement full licensure by credentials as outlined in Section 2 of the bill. Ms. Brakes referenced page 5 of the Audit Report which stated the Board of Chiropractic Examiners is "operating in an efficient and effective manner and should continue to regulate and license chiropractors." She noted the Report also states the Board Chiropractic Examiners "serves a public purpose by promoting the competent and safe practice of chiropractic therapy." She summarized this bill as being based on the audit recommendations. KATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic Development stated the Division provides the administrative support for the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Co-Chair Kelly asked Ms. Reardon to explain the differences in licensure requirements as presented in the committee substitute. Ms. Reardon explained both the committee substitute and the original bill include licensure by credentials which applies to people applying for a license in the state of Alaska who have had a previous license in another state. The committee substitute establishes identical criteria; however the Board has the option of permitting an applicant to pass two of the four sections of the national exam or pass another special national exam that is designed for people who have been in practice. She stated some sections of the current test are geared for people who are coming right out of medical school, and this committee substitute allows for a different sort of test for those who have been out of school for a while and have been in practice. Ms. Reardon continued that the original bill specifically mentions paying a licensing fee; however, licensing fees are not mentioned in this committee substitute as fees are addressed in other statutes. Ms. Reardon stated the committee substitute specifies the applicant must have graduated from a licensed chiropractic school; the original bill does not. She continued that the committee substitute states the applicant must have passed the national exam and must have held a license in another state for five years; whereas the "original bill gave you an option of one or the other." She continued that the committee substitute states the applicant must have been in active practice three of the past five years; recent practice guidelines are not specified in the original bill. She outlined other differences in the bills including the new provision for a different test if the applicant has been practicing in another state. PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative Budget and Audit, Legislative Affairs Agency, spoke to the audit review on the sunset of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners and verified the audit recommends the standard four-year extension with the additional recommendation of licensure by credentials. Senator Green, referring to page 2, line 26, Section 2(C)(3), of the committee substitute, asked for clarification of what qualifies as length of practice. Ms. Reardon responded the section regarding prior length of practice is "pretty common" and "within the typical range of other programs." She noted the intent of this requirement is to address that an applicant has practiced recently and "not twenty years ago." She informed that the dental board has "even more strident time requirements with no break in time" of active practice. Senator Green asked what the requirement is for medical doctors. At ease 10:08 AM /10:12 AM Ms. Reardon responded there is no recent active practice requirement for medical doctors, but reiterated there are such requirements for dentists. Senator Olson asked what constitutes active practice and how is the time accounted for if a practitioner works, for example, only three days a week. Ms. Reardon replied that the Board would have to interpret what constitutes active clinical practice. She surmised if a practitioner were actively seeing patients for only nine months of the year, the time would have to accumulate to 36 months within a five-year span to qualify for the three-year active practice requirement. She reiterated this would be a decision of the Board. Senator Green voiced she is not comfortable supporting this committee substitute without this active practice requirement being further clarified. Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Green to work with Ms. Davidson and the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit to work on appropriate language. Senator Olson stated there are many circumstances to consider, and he supports holding the bill pending further clarification. Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Green to form a subcommittee to address this concern and to report back to the Committee by February 18. The bill was held in Committee.