The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, February 19, 1999, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

Senator Ann O’Connell, Vice Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Michael A. (Mike) Schneider

Senator Maggie Carlton

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst

Beverly Willis, Committee Secretary

Senator Raymond D. (Ray) Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6

Senator Joseph M. (Joe) Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4,

OTHERS PRESENT:

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Health Plans/Hometown Health Plan

Katy Mariner, Contracts Analyst, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, referred to S.B. 133, claiming the intent of portions of S.B. 102 was the same as the intent contained within S.B. 133. It was her suggestion that S.B. 102 be removed from consideration.

* * * * *

Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, gave an overview of this legislation, noting it dealt with uniform health policy provision to groups, and blanket health insurance covering health insurance for small groups of employees. Senator O’Connell stated this legislation was intended to cover two major areas for health care providers. Senator O’Connell continued, "Sections 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 speak to limiting the fees for doctors to remain on a list of providers." She maintained a problem was the escalation of these charges. Senator O’Connell claimed at the same time these organizations have reduced the doctor’s customary fees by 30 to 50 percent, along with using delay tactics for payment for up to as much as 8 years. She noted the issue regarding payment was dealt with in sections 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 13.

Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association, introduced John G. Scott, M.D., President, Nevada State Medical Association. Dr. Scott presented his remarks (Exhibit C), and proceeded to read them into the record. His testimony emphasized two areas; failure of companies to pay for medical services promptly, and the levying of unrestricted charges to physicians to be listed on managed-care insurance panels. Senator O’Connell reiterated her comments pertaining to slow payment, noting some doctors found they must leave their profession, as it does not benefit them to stay in practice.

Joseph P. Walls, M.D., Capitol Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, presented his concerns and his reasons for supporting this legislation. He presented his written remarks (Exhibit D) and read them into the record. Dr. Walls offered a scenario illustrating his frustration.

Alice A. Molasky-Arman, Commissioner, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and Industry, noted this legislation mirrored bulletins issued by her office. Ms. Molasky-Arman contended a portion missing from this legislation pertained to third-party administrators. She referred to a bulletin from her office, "Payment of Claims and Payment for Services of Medical Providers" (Exhibit E).

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Health Plans/Hometown Health Plan, voiced his support for this legislation. Mr. Hillerby referred to Exhibit E suggesting language in Exhibit E might be used for this legislation. He concurred with the suggestion, by Ms. Molasky-Arman, to add language pertaining to third-party administrators. Senator O’Connell and Mr. Hillerby discussed the merits of using language in Exhibit E, with Senator O’Connell confirming this would give Ms. Molasky-Arman the ability to enforce the law.

Senator Rhoads inquired if the distribution of Exhibit E had helped the payment process. Ms. Molasky-Arman replied there were still a number of claims yet to be paid.

Senator Townsend and Guy A. Perkins, Jr., Supervisor, Life and Health, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and Industry, discussed the division of payments between hospitals and physicians/chiropractors. Mr. Perkins claimed more hospitals had been paid than physicians/chiropractors, presumably because amounts owed to hospitals were larger.

Senator Townsend, directing remarks to Mr. Hillerby, maintained when health care is provided, those providing it deserved the opportunity to be paid. He stated, "Once you have contracted and agreed to pay someone and they have provided that service, anytime you step outside that, it is the worst kind of thing that happens in commercial America." Senator Townsend asserted it was his hope this situation would be resolved with this legislative session.

The hearing was closed on S.B. 145 and opened on S.B. 178.

Carol Widmer-Hanna, Executive Director, Private Investigator’s Licensing Board, Office of the Attorney General, asserted this legislation was needed as a result of an examination to determine if tenant screeners fell under the auspices of the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board. Ms. Widmer-Hanna presented several items of information (Exhibit F), along with a letter from Ken Braunstein, Licensed Security Consultant (Exhibit G) to substantiate her position.

Senator Townsend addressed a question pertaining to whether or not this legislation was drafted correctly. Donald Klasic, Attorney, assured Senator Townsend he had reviewed S.B. 178 and would recommend favorable consideration by the committee.

Peter C. Wetherall, Esq., Landlord Protection Service – Nevada, National Credit Reporting, and The U.D. Registry, Inc., declared his support for this legislation. Senator O’Connell inquired about any abuse of a person’s privacy that might be caused by investigators. Mr. Wetherall stated he did not know of any abuses reported. He asserted it was his thought the impetus for this legislation was the possibility of inappropriate invasion of privacy. Senator O’Connell and Mr. Wetherall continued their discussion on problems connected with possible invasion of privacy and requirements involved to develop skills to become a tenant screener. Senator Townsend and Ms. Widmer-Hanna explored differences between a security consultant and a private investigator.

Ken Braunstein, Security Consultant, International Association of Professional Security Consultants, noted his support for S.B. 178 and offered an amendment (Exhibit G). Mr. Braunstein emphasized items concerning the purpose of this legislation, claiming his understanding of S.B. 178 dealt with those who evaluate the security on a particular property, making recommendations to improve security on that particular property. He maintained this did not deal with, in any way, but has come to include individuals who come into the state as expert witnesses in litigation. Continuing, Mr. Braunstein referred to language in Exhibit F coinciding with his viewpoint.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, noted his objections, citing situations that could hamper hiring practices. Citing several examples, he maintained this legislation was restrictive and could cause hardships on employee hiring.

Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, World Gaming Network, claimed with proper acquisition and disclosure of reliable information liability should be at a minimum. Ms. Foley pointed out several difficulties pertaining to background checks, in particular lack of accurate information on an application. She maintained it was very important to give companies the ability to conduct adequate screening on employees. Ms. Foley contended legislation should be available with the special provision for adequate screening; however, she felt this legislation was inadequate. Senator O’Connell inquired if a private investigator’s license was necessary in other states. Ms. Foley replied her company did not need this type of license in other states and did not know the extent of licensing necessary. Senator Schneider, Mr. Ostrovsky and Ms. Foley commented on various problems connected with hiring practice involved, especially when local employers would be advertising for employees out of state.

Amy Halley Hill, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, and Retail Association of Nevada, stated she concurred with views expressed by Ms. Foley and Mr. Ostrovsky.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 178. The hearing was opened on S.B. 181.

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6 declared S.B. 181 allowed for the credentialing of faculty and updating of fees for licensure, and presented a letter to George F. Seng, D.D.S. (Exhibit H). According to Senator Rawson, this letter offers legal evidence of the necessity of this legislation. Senator Rawson maintained a number of years had passed since an adjustment was made in the fee structure and felt this item was overdue. He presented an amendment for S.B. 181 (Exhibit I) dealing with certification of licensure. Senator Townsend posed the question concerning the disposition of the extra money obtained with the new fee structure.

A. Ted Twesme, D.D.S., President, Board of Dental Examiners of Nevada, claimed the funds generated from these fees would help recoup the loss incurred when licensing examinations are given. Senator Rawson confirmed numerous expenses were sustained when these examinations were given. Dr. Twesme maintained his intent was to recover costs of increased expenses, not to make money.

Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Director of Government Relations, Wadhams & Akridge, Nevada Dental Association, offered her support for S.B. 181.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 181. At this time, Senator Townsend presented two bill draft requests (BDRs) for committee introduction.

* * * * *

Senator Townsend directed the attention of the committee to S.B. 16.

* * * * *

Senator Townsend next presented S.B. 25.

Senator Townsend referred the committee to a memo of clarification on S.B. 25 (Exhibit J). It was determined to postpone the hearing until later in the meeting. Senator Townsend then presented S. B. 56.

Senator Townsend requested information on proposed amendments (Exhibit K) and was informed there was a question on language. David Horton, Lobbyist, Nevada Homeopathic Medical Association, presented various amendments (Exhibit L) to S.B. 56. As a number of parties concerned; i.e., podiatrists, dentists, etc., had not been contacted by Mr. Horton, Senator Townsend determined to postpone further work on S.B. 56 until all could be notified.

Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Smith Kline Beecham, noted he received Exhibit L recently and was not able to review it, as yet. Mr. Coward maintained he would not be in favor of amending this legislation any further. He claimed there was a balance between the needs of the patient in specific areas and the balance of costs associated with health care in certain areas.

Mr. Hillerby indicated he had doubts concerning this legislation. Senator Townsend, Mr. Coward and Mr. Hillerby continued their discussion in an attempt to clarify and modify this legislation. Senator Townsend stated his wish to obtain further clarification before any final action was taken.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 56. At this time, Senator Townsend returned to the hearing on S.B. 25.

Senator Joseph M. (Joe) Neal, Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4, noted he would answer any questions that might arise in connection with S.B. 25. Senator O’Connell, Senator Townsend and Senator Neal reviewed justification for this legislation. Senator Neal explained S.B. 25 would allow individuals to purchase fireworks, as opposed to a possible monopoly for the sale of fireworks being in place. Senator O’Connell offered the suggestion of a county licensing facility being employed to regulate the licensing to alleviate the possibility of a monopoly.

The hearing was closed on S.B. 25 and opened on S.B. 74.

Robert R. Barengo, Lobbyist, Nevada Insurance Guaranty Association, noted he had made contact with interested parties with the hope issues and language would be resolved.

The hearing was closed on S.B. 74 and opened on S.B. 99.

Senator O’Connell declared her husband is a licensed real estate broker. Senator Townsend declared his wife is a licensed real estate broker.

Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, introduced Stephanie Miles, Commissioner, Real Estate Commission. Ms. Buchanan presented facts on education required for a broker or a broker-salesman (Exhibit M). She gave her rationale concerning the need for S.B. 99. Senator Townsend, Senator O’Connell and Ms. Buchanan discussed criteria involved for becoming a broker/broker-salesman. In particular Senator O’Connell was interested in whether or not experience in another field dealing with management would be accepted in lieu of some education. Ms. Buchanan claimed she would prefer real estate brokers have specific experience in running a real estate office.

Ms. Miles concurred with those opinions expressed by Ms. Buchanan.

Senator O’Connell inquired if anyone could take the broker’s test, with Ms. Buchanan replying anyone could take the test. Ms. Buchanan noted, however, this would not change the education requirement.

The hearing was closed on S.B. 99 and the hearing opened on S.B. 134.

Senator Townsend and Senator Schneider reviewed the status of S.B. 134, with Senator Schneider noting in the subcommittee it had been determined this legislation was not required.

* * * * *

As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Beverly Willis,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

DATE: