MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
February 14, 2001
The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Wednesday, February 14, 2001. Chairman Joe Dini, Jr. presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Bob Beers
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. David Humke
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. David Goldwater
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst
Darlene Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chelsea C. Burchette, Nevada Academy of Physician Assistants
Janet Wheble, Nevada Academy of Physician Assistants
Nancy Munoz, PA-C, Nevada Academy of Physician Assistants
Chip Nuttall, PA-C, Nevada Academy of Physician Assistants
Kevin Jensen, MD, Sierra View Urgent Care Clinic, Director
Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association, Executive Director
Cynthia Bunch, RN, Nevada Nurses Association
Sydney Wickliffe, CPA, Director Department of Business and Industry
Scott Walshaw, Commissioner, Division of Financial Institutions
Alice A. Molasky-Arman, Commissioner, Division of Insurance
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dini at 3:55 p.m.
A quorum was present.
Chairman Dini proceeded with committee introductions for the following Bill Draft Requests (BDRs):
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO INTRODUCE
BDR 53-1056.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO INTRODUCE
BDR 53-1055.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 52-486.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 52-485.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 54-402.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
SPEAKER PERKINS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 52-443.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
SPEAKER PERKINS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 28-366.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 28-365.
SPEAKER PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 53-1097.
MRS. GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Chairman Dini presented a request made by the AFL-CIO for a BDR. The request dealt with construction defects and mandated that the state licensed contractor who had been cited by the Nevada State Contractors Board for regular violation, and had received ten or more citations which remained open, could get his license back once the citations were reduced down to five. (BDR 54-1298, later introduced as A.B. 495.) Chairman Dini informed the committee Danny L. Thompson, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Nevada State AFL-CIO, was in attendance if anyone had questions for him.
MRS. GIBBONS MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE MAKE A REQUEST FOR THIS BDR.
MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini presented a request from Ronald Dreher, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, on behalf of Carolyn Sullivan, that a bill be introduced to amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 616C.505 to eliminate the “remarriage penalty” (Exhibit C). (BDR 53-1251, later introduced as A.B. 217.)
MR. HUMKE MOVED THE COMMITTEE MAKE A REQUEST FOR THIS BILL.
MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assembly Bill 78: Authorizes nurses to accept direction from physicians’ assistants. (BDR 54-153)
Chelsea Burchette, a physicians’ assistant from southern Nevada, introduced herself and other physicians’ assistants present on behalf of the Nevada Academy of Physician Assistants in support of A.B. 78.
Janet Wheble, a physicians’ assistant, also representing the Nevada Academy of Physician Assistants, introduced herself and thanked the committee for their time. Ms. Wheble stated that as the state population has increased significantly so has the need for health care. She felt physicians’ assistants could increase the access to quality health care for all Nevadans because they provided medical care for people in the rural areas, as well as in large cities. Ms. Wheble also stated the bill would provide accountability and responsibility and would legitimize the physicians’ assistant as part of the health care team in Nevada. In Ms. Wheble’s opinion, overcrowding of all health care facilities could be alleviated and the health care team strengthened by allowing nurses to receive directions from a physicians’ assistant. Ms. Wheble informed the committee A.B. 78 had the support of the Nevada Nurses Association, the Board of Nursing and the Board of Medical Examiners, as well as the Medical Society.
Nancy Munoz, also a physicians’ assistant representing the Nevada Academy of Physician Assistants, noted this was an issue she had been dealing with since being accepted into the physicians’ assistant program in the state of Washington. She had difficulty with clinical rotations because of this issue. Ms. Munoz also added passage of this bill would ease the similar problem in Nevada and would probably send more physicians’ assistants to the rural areas.
Chairman Dini clarified the purpose of this bill would be to enable the physicians’ assistants to give orders to the nurses who worked with them.
Mrs. Gibbons asked for information as to the educational background of physicians’ assistants and the difference between a nurse, a physicians’ assistant and a physician.
Nancy Munoz informed the committee a two-year core curriculum for physicians’ assistants was mostly standard throughout the country, although some programs required more than others. A nurse practitioner would be a mid level practitioner as would a physicians’ assistant, but a nurse practitioners’ training would mostly be at a Master’s level. Nurses would be licensed by the Board of Nursing, whereas physicians’ assistants were licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners. Noting that laws vary from state to state, Ms. Munoz believed that the only difference in Nevada between physicians’ assistants and nurse practitioners would be that nurses could not write prescriptions for controlled substances. Otherwise, their scope of practice was mostly identical and they served the same types of populations.
Ms. Leslie inquired as to whether or not we had a physicians’ assistant program in our universities here in Nevada. Ms. Munoz explained the program associated with the university here was in cooperation with the University of Washington MEDEX program. She also noted there was a desire to have a satellite program in Nevada.
Ms. Leslie asked how this program would reach the rural areas. Ms. Munoz responded the primary focus of physicians’ assistant programs was to provide health care in the underserved and rural areas of any state in the country. It was also clarified, at Ms. Leslie’s request, that the key difference between a physicians’ assistant and a nurse practitioner was physicians’ assistants could write prescriptions.
Chairman Dini asked if there were any further questions.
Chip Nuttall, a physicians' assistant, Kevin Jensen, MD, a board certified emergency physician, and Cameron Byers, a physicians’ assistant in Fallon, introduced themselves.
Mr. Nuttall prefaced his support with a brief summary of his experience as a physicians’ assistant and echoed the remarks of those who testified before him as to the merits of this bill. He acknowledged long time support of A.B. 78 by colleagues and the nursing profession as expressed in a letter of clarification in 1984. Mr. Nuttall attested passage of this bill would enable the physicians’ assistant profession to improve patient care and allow for better use of the expertise of the “health care team.”
Dr. Kevin Jensen, an emergency physician, summarized his experience with physicians’ assistants. He acknowledged this bill was clarifying and would allow physicians’ assistants to give orders to nurses in hospitals and other institutions so nurses would be able to take the orders as “legal and binding”. Dr. Jensen clarified for the committee that a physicians’ assistant in Nevada could be either practice-trained or education-trained, and that the majority of physicians’ assistants had a four-year college degree with a two-year physicians’ assistant degree, the equivalent of a master’s degree, plus an additional internship. Dr. Jensen added physician’s assistants worked under the direction of a supervising physician and could prescribe all pharmaceuticals and medical “gadgetry” that the supervising physician would allow up to and including controlled substances. Nurse practitioners could also prescribe medications, said Dr. Jensen, but not controlled substances. Dr. Jensen perceived physicians’ assistants as “physician extenders” and acknowledged their worth.
Mrs. Gibbons asked if both physicians’ assistants and physicians were licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners and, should there be something wrong with the orders given by a physicians’ assistant to a nurse, would the physician be responsible. Dr. Jensen replied the supervising physician would be legally responsible and the responsibility would first fall upon the physicians’ assistant, then the physician and finally the Board of Medicine.
Mrs. Gibbons posed the question as to whether or not a physician who had a physicians’ assistant whom he/she did not believe had the qualifications to carry out orders would have the ability to not leave the physicians’ assistant in charge. Dr. Jensen responded the physician’s assistant could only practice within the scope of practice prescribed by the supervising physician.
Mrs. Gibbons further inquired as to whether or not the patients would be made aware of the fact they are being seen by a physicians’ assistant and not the physician. Dr. Jensen responded the physician’s assistant is usually required to wear a name badge and to introduce himself/herself to the patient as a physicians’ assistant.
Mrs. Gibbons asked where the physicians’ assistant would be utilized. Dr. Jensen responded physicians’ assistants were typically utilized in physician’s offices but the range of practice could be anything with which the supervising physician felt safe and would allow. Dr. Jensen noted physicians’ assistants were utilized in a “fast track” and would therefore see less acute disease; other physicians’ assistants worked alongside physicians in the emergency department.
Mrs. Gibbons wanted to know if the physician would choose the physicians’ assistant who would work under him/her in an emergency room. Dr. Jensen affirmed that would be the case. He also added the line of authority for a physicians’ assistant would fall directly under the physician who is his/her supervisor.
Ms. Leslie inquired as to whether or not psychiatrists had physicians’ assistants, to which Dr. Jensen replied there were physicians’ assistants for psychiatry.
Ms. Leslie noted it would be very helpful to have physicians’ assistants do evaluations in emergency rooms. Dr. Jensen responded not only could the physicians’ assistant do the evaluations, but they could prescribe medications as well. He added that a psychiatrist physicians’ assistant could also clear a patient to go to the state hospital, but could not commit a person to a mental institution. The physicians’ assistant could only clear the patient medically.
Ms. Leslie inquired as to the compensation for physicians’ assistants. Dr. Jensen answered physicians’ assistants could be paid hourly or by salary, and that in Nevada their annual salary would range from $50,000 to over $100,000.
Mr. Oceguera requested clarification regarding the physicians’ assistant’s authority to give orders for drugs. He further inquired as to the orders a physicians’ assistant could give a nurse. Dr. Jensen informed the committee that a physicians’ assistant could give the same orders to a nurse, as could a physician.
Mr. Oceguera inquired as to the highest order of drugs a physicians’ assistant could give a nurse without speaking to a physician. According to Dr. Jensen, the supervising physician would establish the protocols with the State Board of Pharmacy. He added the physician would also usually address the duties of the physicians’ assistant with the hospital and that the details would be clearly outlined.
Mr. Beers asked what impact this change would have on the accessibility to health care for rural Nevadans. Dr. Jensen affirmed there would be “great ability” for rural areas to be able to access health care. Rural communities, because of their small size, would attract few physicians but could attract physicians’ assistants. Physicians’ assistants could work under a physician’s supervision by telephonic morning rounds. The physicians’ assistant could see the patients one day and report by telephone to the physician the following day. The University of Nevada was presently investigating the ability to do video conferencing on-line with its nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants in rural Nevada. This would allow a mid-level provider to visually present the patient to an attending physician or specialist in Las Vegas or Reno. The physician or specialist on the other end would be able to witness what the nurse or physician’s assistant witnessed. In addition, the expertise of the entire university medical system would be available to the physicians’ assistant.
Mr. Beers further asked if in a rural community, in a medical clinic, a physicians’ assistant could give a nurse orders to administer a tetanus shot. Dr. Jensen replied the physicians’ assistant could give this order in a physician’s office but not in a hospital setting or clinic. However, he stated that under this bill the physicians’ assistant would be able to give the order to a nurse in a clinic as well. He also stated that under the present laws, the physicians’ assistant himself/herself could administer the shot.
Mr. Parks added for three years he was treated by a physicians’ assistant who was very well trained and qualified. He asked if there was a precedent for this in other states and how they handled the requirement the physicians’ assistants were seeking.
Dr. Jensen replied in the east, as well as in California, it was very common practice to utilize physicians’ assistants. Dr. Jensen also stated a physicians’ assistant, after being licensed in the state of Nevada, required a hundred hours of continuing education every two years to keep current and needed to take the boards (exams) every six years.
Chip Nuttall added nurses were allowed to refuse an order given by a physician should they have serious question about the order given. Passage of this bill would in no way alter this.
Larry Matheis, Executive Director of the Nevada State Medical Association and speaking on behalf of the association, announced their support of the bill. He also acknowledged this bill would be a small change that would largely facilitate care of patients under a situation of reduced manpower in a number of health care settings. He believed this would be a good step and assured the committee of the protection of the required physician’s supervisory role should there be any questions or consequences to be reviewed.
Cynthia Bunch, representing the Nevada Nurses Association, also spoke in support of A.B. 78. A task force they had formed researched the educational preparation of physicians’ assistants throughout the country as well as their role under other state boards of nursing. The task force perceived physicians’ assistants as valuable members of the health care team and considered this bill an important provision that would ensure access to health care.
Chairman Dini asked if there were any questions from the committee. He thanked the panel for their testimony. There being no further questions or comments on A.B.78, Chairman Dini closed the hearing.
ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B.78.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY AND GOLDWATER AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN BUCKLEY AND GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE EXCUSED AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
Chairman Dini opened the floor to presentations by various divisions of the state of Nevada.
Sydney Wickliffe, Director of the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, introduced Doug Walther who was the Chief of the Office of Business Finance and Planning for the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry and Deputy Director.
Ms. Wickliffe addressed the scope of the Department of Business and Industry as being more compact with a narrower focus than before the 1999 Legislative Session. She stated the purpose of the Department of Business and Industry was to encourage growth and development and lawful operation of business and industry. She added the department regulated business and industry with fairness and promoted safe working environments that ensured workers’ rights and provided goods and services that were safe, accessible, competitively priced and marketed fairly and legally. Ms. Wickliffe further described the organization as one that helped facilitate financing and other services that assisted individuals and businesses in start-up and expansion. She added that the Department of Business and Industry promoted education and public awareness that kept businesses and consumers informed of their legal rights, privileges and responsibilities.
Ms. Wickliffe reported the total budget for the Department of Business and Industry was about $80 million with only 10 to 11 percent coming from a general fund. She stated most of the funding was a result of licensing fees, federal funds and funds from the department’s reserves.
In reference to regulatory agencies, Ms. Wickliffe informed the committee that the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) continued to be the principal regulator of national banks and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) still regulated thrift institutions.
Regarding the 2001 legislation, Ms. Wickliffe noted that the Department of Business and Industry proposed “modest” legislation for the most part, mostly housekeeping measures. She noted an exception would be the request to move dairy inspection from the State Board of Health to the Dairy Commission in order to consolidate regulation of the Nevada dairy industry from the farm to the grocery store.
Another item mentioned for consideration this session was from the Division of Insurance regarding the Omnibus bill for the Federal Modernization Act of 1999. Ms. Wickliffe also stated there would be proposed legislation that affected the Division of Financial Institutions which proposed mortgage commissioners and a mortgage commission.
In addition, Ms. Wickliffe informed the committee there would be legislation brought forward regarding a merger between the Transportation Service Authority (TSA) and the Taxicab Authority, which would regulate all instate taxicabs through one agency. This proposed merger would also include limousines, household-goods movers and non-consent tows.
Lastly, Ms. Wickliffe mentioned the Common-Interest Communities for which she understood several legislators would be proposing changes. She stated that was a “mediation and information” service within the Real Estate Division whose purpose it was to educate the association, boards and homeowners of their rights and obligations. She emphasized the legislation would affect many Nevadans.
Mr. Beers asked Ms. Wickliffe if she had any details regarding the Taxicab Authority and the TSA. Ms. Wickliffe responded the bill proposed to handle the action as a merger of the two agencies.
Scott Walshaw, Commissioner of the Division of Financial Institutions, stated his office was responsible for issuing licenses to various depository institutions and financial intermediaries and also was responsible for the subsequent checks to assess compliance with statutes and regulations under which they were licensed. Mr. Walshaw stated that the Division of Financial Institutions had no pending legislation at this time but he wanted to inform the committee of possible legislation from various industry factions. One such piece of legislation would be, he noted, the creation of a new regulatory authority for regulation of mortgage brokers. Another possible issue, he mentioned, concerned Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 604 and addressed those entities involved in deferred deposit, or post-dated check activity. Mr. Walshaw also informed the committee there could be a proposal from the collection agency industry to change the section that dealt with unlicensed activity, and that the Attorney General’s Office was presently analyzing this bill. Mr. Walshaw added it wasn’t yet known whether or not there would be a fiscal impact.
Chairman Dini asked Mr. Walshaw if he would give a brief history of the mortgage bills from the 1999 legislative session. Mr. Walshaw informed the committee A. B. 64 of the Seventieth Session was adopted during the interim and his office incorporated numerous regulations that had been in effect six to eight months to implement the bill. Mr. Walshaw added the bill was doing what it was intended to do, although there could be some legislation required to correct technical issues.
Mrs. Gibbons asked Mr. Walshaw to describe the structure of his department with regards to the hierarchy within, the location of the department, the staff, and the types of complaints legislators would refer to the department and to whom.
Mr. Walshaw responded he would report to the director and had an approved staff of 32 people, the majority of whom were examiners. He stated there were five vacant positions at the present time that were examiner positions not yet filled. He added offices were in the old Armory building in Carson City, and the old Bradley building in Las Vegas, Suite 300. Mr. Walshaw noted the complaints referred to the Division of Financial Institutions would include the wide array of licensees the division handled. This would include such issues as those involving banks, credit unions, thrift and loan companies, savings and loan associations, mortgage companies, installment loan companies, collection agencies, check cashing firms, money transmitters and debt adjustment firms.
Mrs. Gibbons also asked if there was any correlation between the economy and the amount of complaints received. Mr. Walshaw responded inquiries and complaints had risen over the years as the population grew and he believed this increase correlated with the increase in population rather than with the economy. He added they received many complaints regarding companies over which they had no authority, such as national banks.
Chairman Dini thanked Mr. Walshaw for his presentation.
Alice A. Molasky-Arman, Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Insurance Division, informed the committee there were at least 100 bills on the list of BDRs this session that would affect insurance. Ms. Molasky-Arman referred to a report on the Nevada insurance market her department delivered to the Assembly Sergeant at Arms on February 1, 2001. She recommended this report as a useful tool for the legislators this session. A report on health insurance would also be forthcoming.
The focus of Ms. Molasky-Arman’s presentation was the Federal Financial Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and its expected impact on legislation proposed this session (Exhibit D). Ms. Molasky-Arman described the act as a “challenge to every insurance regulator in the country” and “the most significant change to the legal structure of the United States financial system since the 1930s.”
Ms. Molasky-Arman informed the committee GLBA authorized affiliation among financial services “eliminating barriers that separated banking, insurance and security industries.” She said it also allowed for the formation of financial holding companies.
Under GLBA, Ms. Molasky-Arman added, banking would continue to be regulated by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. She added, securities would be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and insurance would remain regulated by state insurance departments or divisions.
Ms. Molasky-Arman also noted GLBA granted new powers to national banks, but prohibited certain activities. These new powers, she added, were granted to banks only through the affiliates or subsidiaries.
GLBA, Ms. Molasky-Arman continued, placed the Federal Reserve Board as the “umbrella regulator” for financial holding companies. This board would be required to consult with state insurance regulators before taking any actions that would affect the affiliates. Also in response to GLBA, added Ms. Molasky-Arman, the Insurance Division’s bill, BDR 57-564 (A.B. 618), would propose amendments to NRS 692C.010 that affected the Insurance Holding Company Law.
States would regulate insurance activities; however, state laws could be pre-empted if the state discriminated against banks.
GLBA addressed confidentiality and stated consumers’ nonpublic financial information could be shared with affiliates, but not with third parties. Ms. Molasky-Arman informed the committee the division’s bill would ask the legislature to reaffirm the commissioner’s authority to adopt regulations consistent with GLBA in regards to privacy. Those regulations would also need to be consistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s rules of privacy.
According to GLBA, states must allow their insurance regulators to assure federal regulators they could maintain confidential information including personal information and complaints. According to Ms. Molasky-Arman, the Division’s bill would provide for this. It was noted that to assure the federal agencies that confidentiality was being maintained, the commissioners must sign agreements with the Federal Reserve System, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Another provision of GLBA preempted state laws that restricted redomestication of mutual insurance companies. The bill introduced by the Division of Insurance would establish reasonable requirements for the conversion of a mutual insurer into a stock company.
A “very critical” piece of GLBA, emphasized Ms. Molasky-Arman, was the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB). NARAB would be created by November 12, 2002 unless a majority of states had enacted uniform laws, or reciprocal laws and regulations, regarding licensing of nonresident agents. NARAB would be a national licensing authority by which agents and brokers could be licensed in numerous states without having to apply to each state individually. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners developed an act to address these requirements. All states were working to adopt this NAIC model. The bill would create a single licensee called a producer, rather than an agent or broker. Under the bill the state would maintain regulation of license renewals, service of process, fiduciary responsibility, record retention, hearings and administrative fines. The bill would also amend the licensing for insurance consultants to include nonresidents.
Ms. Molasky-Arman told the committee the division would also propose amendments in compliance with the Woman’s Health and Cancer Rights Omnibus Appropriations Act (WHCRA) that would improve benefits for mastectomies and reconstructive surgery and also would require written notice of the availability of that coverage.
Ms. Molasky-Arman explained a major portion of the bill would deal with viaticals. Viaticals involved the selling of life insurance death proceeds by a person who knew they would die within a specified time. Viatical settlements had been the source of illegal transactions and fraudulent activities. The bill would request legal guidelines that protected the consumer against such fraud.
Finally, Ms. Molasky-Arman added, the bill would seek “enabling language” for various regulations proposed by the Commissioner of Insurance which included electronic signatures, patient’s bill of rights, national treatment of insurance companies, retention of records for insurers and suitability of insurance products.
Ms. Molasky-Arman thanked the committee for their support of S.J.R. 22 of the Seventieth Session whereby the legislators encouraged Congress to reform the federal laws that governed financial services and urged preservation of state regulation.
Ms. Molasky-Arman informed the committee of a proposal made to Congress some months ago by the American Bankers Association. They proposed the National Insurance Act of 2001. By this act, an office of the national insurance commissioner would be created which allowed for the chartering of national insurance agencies and therefore national insurance agents. She related to the committee the negative impact to be expected from such legislation, including a projected loss of $1.6 million in licensing fees and the potential loss of $32.3 million in premium tax monies.
Mr. Nolan inquired, in reference to phone calls from his constituents, as to the narrowing of insurance providers which included health care for individuals, small groups and families, as well as general liability, carriers for small business and workers’ compensation.
Ms. Molasky-Arman replied our market had grown with regard to medical malpractice insurers and there was a very active market in the area of workers’ compensation. The residual market, she added, was not as active as expected. She explained what Mr. Nolan may have heard about was the failure of several workers’ compensation insurers here in Nevada. She added that those were nationwide insurers.
Mrs. Gibbons asked if GLBA was an unfunded mandate from the federal government and what were the additional costs to the Insurance Division.
Ms. Molasky-Arman replied that it was an unfunded mandate and what it had cost the department was mainly time and energy to develop a response. To meet the demands of GLBA, changes had been implemented at the Insurance Division such as adoption of a new computer program and a request to the Governor for two new positions in their budget.
Chairman Dini asked if there were any further questions. He thanked Ms. Molasky-Arman and Ms. Wickliffe for their presentations.
Chairman Dini opened the work Session on A.B.32.
Assembly Bill 32: Revises provisions regarding practice of chiropractic. (BDR 54-167)
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, reviewed the content of A.B. 32 and the testimony presented at the bill’s introduction. He noted A.B. 32 was requested by the Chiropractic Physicians Board of Nevada and that there were several housekeeping changes to the bill; one change that was considered to be more substantive. The substantive change to the bill would increase from two to four the number of chiropractic assistants the chiropractor could supervise at the same time. Mr. Hughey reported there was no opposition testimony presented to the bill during its hearing on February 7 and there have been no amendments proposed.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 32.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business, Chairman Dini adjourned the meeting at 5:18 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Darlene Nevin
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman
DATE: