MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-First Session
May 30, 2001
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilitieswas called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:59 p.m., on Wednesday, May 30, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas 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 Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Maurice Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27
Senator Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly
District No. 9
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill, White Pine, Eureka (part), and Lander (part) Counties, Assembly District No. 35
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Patricia Vardakis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nelza Meligan, Concerned Citizen
Jana Vickers, Concerned Citizen
Gary Yup, M.D., Medical Director, Intensive Care Nursery, Washoe Medical Center
Susan Lund, Concerned Citizen
Lindsey Nunn, Concerned Citizen
Sean G. Gamble, Lobbyist, PacifiCare/Secure Horizons
Bill M. Welch, Lobbyist, Nevada Hospital Association
Kathy Naumann, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Jean Irwin, Concerned Citizen
Yvonne Sylva, M.P.A., Administrator, Health Division, Department of Human Resources
Charles Duarte, Medicaid Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources
James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Daniel M. Hart, Lobbyist, Nevadans for Medical Rights
Rose, Concerned Citizen
Earlene Forsythe, Lobbyist, Cancer Screening and Treatment Center of Nevada
Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor- Congress of Industrial Organizations
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender
Phillip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer I, Fiscal, Services and Personnel, Health Division, Department of Human Resources
Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer
Senator Amodei opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 250.
ASSEMBLY BILL 250: Requires screening of certain newborn children for hearing impairments. (BDR 40-155)
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27, explained a similar bill was proposed by Senator Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, but he has joined in sponsorship of A.B. 250. She told the committee 34 states have adopted policies or mandates concerning the issue of universal newborn hearing screening. Assemblywoman Leslie stated 12,000, or 1 in 300, infants are born each year with a hearing impairment, and 4000 infants are born profoundly deaf. She said 46 percent of babies in the United States are currently screened for hearing impairment at birth, and in Nevada the total is only 16 percent. Assemblywoman Leslie emphasized Nevada has been rated as unsatisfactory by the National Campaign for Hearing Health, even though Nevada’s Health Division has encouraged screening; there is a lack of funding and legislative support.
Senator Terry John Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, said he became aware of the issue of newborn hearing screening because of his friendship with the Altman family. He remarked through various conversations with the Altman family he realized early detection is the key to assisting the child and family. Senator Care presented for the committee’s information the written testimony delivered to the Assembly by Corrine Altman (Exhibit C).
Senator Care stressed hearing impairment is the number one birth defect in the country. He emphasized early detection saves children valuable learning time, their families distress, and in addition, money can be saved “down the road.” Senator Care encouraged the committee to vote in favor of A.B. 250.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked permission to show a video of a news segment aired by Channel 8 TV, in Reno, on newborn hearing testing, and the importance of early detection.
Chairman Rawson asked for a clarification on the cost of the hearing test. Assemblywoman Leslie replied half of the insurance companies in Nevada cover the hearing test. She said, presently, the concept is: the test will be offered by the hospital; the hospital will bill back the insurance company; and then there will be negotiation of the cost of the test to be made as part of the “standard of care for newborns;” but until that occurs, parents will be charged the cost of the testing.
Assemblywoman Leslie noted the cost of the hearing test ranged from $13 to $160. She emphasized hospitals have agreed to offer the test. Chairman Rawson asked whether the test is offered, or required, in the second reprint of A.B. 250. Assemblywoman Leslie replied A.B. 250 requires hospitals to offer the hearing test. Chairman Rawson commented an amendment would be presented “to offer or refer” for a hearing screening. Chairman Rawson called attention to a letter presented to the committee from the Nevada Hospital Association (Exhibit D) proposing the language, “or has been referred for a hearing screening,” be added to line 10, page 2 of A.B. 250. Assemblywoman Leslie said the understanding of the amendment would not exempt hospitals from offering the test. Chairman Rawson reiterated the proposed language states, “offers or refers.” Assemblywoman Leslie responded it was her understanding the proposed language referred to any additional screenings would be referred.
Nelza Meligan, Concerned Citizen, stated she was a member-parent representing the Inter-agency Coordinative Counsel (ICC), an early intervention detection service for children with developmental delay from birth to 3 years old, which has been appointed by the Governor, and is federally mandated. She emphasized the importance of A.B. 250, and urged the committee to support the bill.
Jana Vickers, Concerned Citizen, testified she and her two daughters are hearing impaired. She pointed out the vast difference in the advancement of children when hearing loss is detected early. Mrs. Vickers commented she needed 5 years’ special education, and spent her entire school career “catching up,” but because of the early detection of her daughters’ hearing impairments they were able to enter school at a “normal” academic level.
Mrs. Vickers referred to her written testimony (Exhibit E), explaining page 4 indicated how a normal child would hear “Hush little baby;” page 5 was an example of how a baby with a hearing loss would hear the same lullaby; and on page 6, the hearing capabilities of a baby with profound hearing loss. Mrs. Vickers stressed, because of modern technology, hearing aids can be provided to babies making a substantial difference in their progress.
Gary Yup, M.D., Medical Director, Intensive Care Nursery, Washoe Medical Center, emphasized the necessity of early detection. Chairman Rawson asked Dr. Yup to address the cost-effectiveness, and the occurrence rate of early hearing screening. Dr. Yup replied several thousand babies have been screened in northern Nevada, and have found that 2 in every 1000 babies are deaf. He emphasized hearing impairment is the most frequent infant defect, and most babies are not tested. Dr. Yup stressed the testing for hearing impairment should be mandatory.
Senator Wiener questioned the significance of the 24-hour window mentioned in A.B. 250. Dr. Yup responded the best time to test an infant is before the infant is taken out of the hospital setting.
Susan Lund, Concerned Citizen, stated, as a teacher of the hearing impaired, she supported A.B. 250. Referring to the document titled, “Health and Education Advocacy” (Exhibit F), she said hearing loss is the most common congenital disorder that affects children in this country. Ms. Lund pointed out the sections highlighted in the document (Exhibit F) would provide information concerning early detection as the key to providing children with higher language levels, and there is the potential of cost savings of up to $200,000 per child. She emphasized A.B. 250 is critical to the babies in Nevada.
Lindsey Nunn, Concerned Citizen, read from prepared testimony (Exhibit G), expounding on the importance of the early detection of newborn hearing impairment.
Sean G. Gamble, Lobbyist, PacifiCare/Secure Horizons, voiced support of A.B. 250. She testified PacifiCare/Secure Horizons’ total package of benefits includes hearing screening for infants.
Bill M. Welch, Lobbyist, Nevada Hospital Association (NHA), told the committee the NHA supports A.B. 250. He referred to page 3, lines 1 through 7, explaining the language provides for the discharge of a baby who has not had a hearing screening, and the hospital’s requirements. Mr. Welch said the proposed language in (Exhibit D) is important because not all hospitals have the capabilities to perform the hearing screening; therefore, with the additional language the hospital would be able to make a referral, and the baby could be discharged.
Kathy Naumann, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14, testified on behalf of over 25,000 Teamster member families who believe in quality health care, and support A.B. 250. She stressed A.B. 250 is very important because early intervention not only helps children achieve, but the families cope with the challenges a hearing disability presents.
Jean Irwin, Concerned Citizen, and teacher of the hearing impaired, testified most people who are deaf, hear some sound. She said there are many degrees of deafness. Ms. Irwin stated a child with a mild hearing loss could be hampered in school. She called attention to a document titled “Hear US” (Exhibit H), explaining the results of a study conducted in Colorado of 150 students showed there was a significant difference in the achievement of children diagnosed before 6 months of age than after 6 months of age. Ms. Irwin stated the cost to educate a hearing-impaired student is $28,000 a year, but a student in special education costs the state $6015.
Ms. Irwin played a tape for the committee demonstrating the sounds heard by children with different degrees of hearing loss. She told the committee early diagnosis permits teachers of the hearing impaired to take the degree of hearing loss and turn it into something the child can understand. Ms. Irwin emphasized a thought cannot be formed without language; therefore, a baby with a hearing impairment becomes more handicapped.
Assemblywoman Leslie commented on the waiting list at the Special Childrens’ Clinic. She stressed a waiting list for this type of disability is not acceptable. Assemblywoman Leslie stated the main concern about money is because the state Health Division is insisting more money is needed for audiologists. She said the MAXIMUS Company would be doing an assessment of the Special Childrens’ Clinic because the state is not maximizing federal reimbursements. She said the MAXIMUS Company has suggested, as the assessment moves forward and A.B. 250 is implemented, additional audiologists can be hired to shorten the waiting list for Special Childrens’ Clinic. Chairman Rawson asked whether the waiting list would continue if A.B. 250 is passed, and the MAXIMUS Company does not provide any financial relief. Assemblywoman Leslie affirmed the waiting list would continue, but pledged to locate the funding from other sources. Chairman Rawson questioned whether interim finance needed to be approached due to the closing of the budgets. Assemblywoman Leslie replied a letter of intent designating that the MAXIMUS money would be dedicated to the purpose of infant hearing screening would be needed.
Yvonne Sylva, M.P.A., Administrator, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, also requested a letter of intent, which would express the purposes of the MAXIMUS money. She reminded Chairman Rawson the “money committees did include some funding for MAXIMUS: the first dollars are for the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, and funding for the homeless project.” Ms. Sylva iterated MAXIMUS would do an analysis of the clinics, the revenues they generate, and would bring in increased revenues.” She stated a letter of intent would provide direction for the additional funding. Ms. Sylva respectfully requested a delay in the implementation of A.B. 250 until July 1, 2002, to allow time to generate revenues.
Charles Duarte, Medicaid Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources, said the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy would be working with the Health Division to maximize federal reimbursement through the Medicaid program. He opined there would be additional monies that could be generated for children who are Medicaid eligible. Mr. Duarte voiced support of A.B. 250 but stated Medicaid currently only pays for the hearing screening of children who have been admitted into the neonatal intensive care unit of a facility. He said Medicaid pays for approximately one-third of the births in Nevada, and 10 percent of the hearing screening for those births. Mr. Duarte stated Medicaid presently is not in a position to pay for non-neonatal intensive care births.
Chairman Rawson commented on the importance of A.B. 250, and the need to shorten the waiting list. Assemblywoman Leslie pointed out there is nothing preventing Medicaid from negotiating in the same manner as private insurance companies. Chairman Rawson reiterated his concern over the amount of funding needed for this program to be implemented, and the anticipation of longer waiting lists.
Ms. Irwin stated the audiological and medical department of the University of Nevada has received permission not to turn a parent away who cannot afford the test. She added an application for a $100,000 grant has been submitted to help defray the costs.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing and asked for a motion on A.B. 250.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED A.B. 250.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Washington questioned whether a child would develop behavioral problems if not screened early. Ms. Irwin responded a child would be frustrated and might act out his or her frustrations. She commented hearing-impaired students graduating from high school can only read at a fourth grade level, but this does not occur if detection is made early.
Senator Washington asked whether the speech related to hearing loss is easily detected. Ms. Irwin answered, generally, a hearing impaired child speaks the way he or she hears, and that is how their parents recognize their child has a hearing impairment.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing, and invited testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 453.
ASSEMBLY BILL 453: Authorizes medical use of marijuana in certain circumstances and revises penalties for possessing marijuana. (BDR 40-121)
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, testified A.B. 453 authorizes the use of medical marijuana for treatment of certain medical conditions including AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), cancer, glaucoma, ataxia and others. She said A.B. 453 also establishes a registry identification card system for the medical distribution of marijuana. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated a person holding a registry identification card is exempt from state prosecution for being in the presence of marijuana. She said a person holding a card could possess, deliver, and produce not more than 1 ounce of usable marijuana, 3 mature plants, and 4 immature plants. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated A.B. 453 reduces the penalties for the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana for a first offense to a misdemeanor, with a fine of not more than $600, and a mandatory examination for drug treatment. Continuing, she said, for a second offense, the penalty is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $1000, and an assignment to a program of treatment and rehabilitation; and for a third offense it is a gross misdemeanor, and a fine not to exceed $2000.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani emphasized the voters of Nevada have passed this concept on two occasions with 65.4 percent of the vote. She urged the committee not to undermine the “will of the people.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stressed the second issue concerning A. B. 453 is the defelonization. Referring to a packet of letters and other information supporting A.B. 453 (Exhibit I), Assemblywoman Giunchigliani called attention to the first letter, written by Nevada Supreme Court Justice, Robert E. Rose, recommending Nevada bring in-line the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana with the rest of the nation, and by doing so, would “benefit the whole judicial system by reducing its workload.” She stated A.B. 453 does not permit “trafficking” of marijuana.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani pointed out items contained within the packet (Exhibit I) were: newspaper articles supporting the defelonization and the medical marijuana issues; an Americans for Medical Rights press release; a legal opinion A.B. 453 would not be impacted by the federal court ruling; a vote tabulation of the Assembly; and a sampling of articles, letters, and e-mails from individuals supporting A.B. 453.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani acknowledged the key piece to A.B. 453 is assisting people who are severely ill. She emphasized medical doctors would use every treatment available before prescribing medical marijuana.
Senator Wiener questioned how the amounts were determined on page 3, line 41 through 43. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded the amounts are an exact model of the Oregon statute. She elaborated on a plan the State Department of Agriculture devised, but was cautioned by the district attorney’s office that a state-run plan would “invite the federal government in”; therefore, A.B. 453 addresses the “grow-your-own-method.”
Senator Wiener referred to lines 5 through 9, on page 9 of A.B. 453 and asked whether other places had been considered. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded even though an individual possesses an identification card that does not exempt them from prosecution, if they are driving, operating, or in control of a vehicle or vessel, they cannot engage in conduct prohibited by law, and cannot possess a firearm. Continuing, she clarified for Senator Wiener no other public place, other than what is included in A.B. 453, was discussed.
Senator Wiener queried why there was no treatment recommended at the third offense, and what the legal effect would be of not completing treatment at the other offense levels. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded defelonization in A.B. 453 was crafted to focus on a prevention and treatment program, but at the third-level offense it was left to the judgment of the courts. She explained the fines collected would be used for drug treatment and prevention. Senator Wiener questioned what the consequence would be of a person not completing a drug program ordered by the courts. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied it would come under the jurisdiction of the judge.
Senator Wiener opined A.B. 453 could be interpreted to mean the judge does not have the option to send an offender, at the third level, to participate in drug treatment. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated an amendment to clarify that issue would be acceptable.
Senator Amodei voiced agreement with Senator Wiener explaining the progression of treatment and help appears to stop before the third level of offense. He questioned whether the consequences for this type of drug offense are consistent with those for alcohol abuse. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested, by including lines 23 and 24 in lines 25 through 27, on page 15 of A.B. 453, the judge would not be prohibited from ordering a drug treatment program. Another proposal made by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani was to include, “and/or” in all three offenses.
Senator Amodei questioned why a jail term was excluded at the “chronic” level. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani opined a judge would have that discretion.
James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said the word “shall” would restrict the discretion of the court. Senator Amodei commented it would be responsible of the legislature to allow the judicial officer full discretion over the penalty for a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Jackson addressed Chairman Rawson and offered to assist in drafting language to overcome that concern. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani concurred with the suggestion.
Chairman Rawson questioned whether there were federal laws addressing the growing of marijuana. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied it would be a schedule 1 offense for marijuana. Chairman Rawson queried where a “home grower” would obtain seeds without getting involved in “trafficking.” Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded the Internet would provide access. Continuing the discussion, Chairman Rawson commented on federal programs for raising research marijuana.
Daniel M. Hart, Lobbyist, Nevadans for Medical Rights, stated the federal programs are very limited with approximately a dozen patients nationally. He stated the Nevadans for Medical Rights support A.B. 453. Mr. Hart voiced concern about requiring a terminally ill person to grow marijuana. He suggested using police-confiscated marijuana for terminally ill patients. Chairman Rawson questioned whether the police would be considered distributing an illegal substance. Mr. Hart replied the federal policy and law are inconsistent concerning this issue.
Chairman Rawson asked for an estimated number of patients A.B. 453 would affect. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded there would be approximately 200 patients over a 12- to 18-month period. She noted the Oregon model, over a 5-year period, has had 1900 patients, and only 2 instances of any type of legal violation. Chairman Rawson asked whether the patients were critically ill. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered the patients were both chronically and critically ill.
Chairman Rawson questioned whether a caregiver under state law could grow marijuana for a patient who is chronically or critically ill. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Mr. Hart answered in the affirmative. Chairman Rawson questioned whether there was a mechanism which would allow patients to grow or obtain marijuana without being in violation of federal law, such as a properly-sponsored research program. Mr. Hart objected to the concept proposed by Chairman Rawson because he emphasized the referendum voted on by the people of Nevada was specific in terms of this issue. Chairman Rawson acknowledged his understanding of the intent of the language, but commented on the legal obligation of the legislature.
Mr. Jackson opined a research program would complement the initiative and the referendum passed by the voters. Chairman Rawson asked whether the federal government determines the proper execution of a study, or could a medical school conduct appropriate studies. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated research shows a parallel program is best, but the state would need to apply to the federal government for permission.
Chairman Rawson commented there were two pieces to consider: one, would be the supplying of the substance; and the other would be to determine whether people fit a certain model and place them in a program that is considered by the state an appropriate research methodology. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked whether that would be in addition to what is currently proposed in A.B. 453. Chairman Rawson remarked he was exploring alternative approaches. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani declared if this suggestion was in addition to, and paralleled A.B. 453, then she said the alternative could be considered, but, not in lieu of A.B. 453.
Chairman Rawson explored the possibilities of a statewide research program. Mr. Hart commented federal approval for such a program would have a long wait. Mr. Jackson said, in the Oakland Cannabis case, the U.S. Supreme Court put “extra language” in the opinion because the justices were struggling for a way a medical necessity would not run “afoul” of the controlled substances act. He stated the U.S. Supreme Court decided a medical necessity would need to be part of a medical study. Mr. Jackson said a medical study would satisfy the Oakland Cannabis case, but, he opined, it would not restrict the state’s ability to produce a plan which would allow for the possession of marijuana under certain circumstances.
Chairman Rawson mentioned Nevada is renowned for “going beyond convention.” Assemblywoman Giunchigliani commented the Nevada State Department of Agriculture has a “seed lab” for marijuana, and the department formulated a plan which was broached to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Las Vegas, but the DEA did not have the authority. She said consequently the federal government warned the DEA, if such a project were undertaken, they would disband such an operation.
Senator Washington questioned the use of marijuana over the use of Marinol, a pill with the marijuana derivative. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani explained Marinol may work for some patients but not all, and Marinol does not contain all the ingredients of marijuana. She reiterated a physician would use medical marijuana as a last measure after all other medical intervention had been tried. Senator Washington claimed reports state Marinol works just as effectively as marijuana. Mr. Hart clarified marijuana is inhaled and helps with the “wasting or nausea” associated with chemotherapy or various medications, whereas, Marinol is a pill patients ingest. He added controlling the dosage of Marinol is another problem.
Chairman Rawson asked whether Marinol is a legal, class 2 drug. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered in the affirmative, and said it could be prescribed by a physician.
Rose, Concerned Citizen, told the committee her husband is a paraplegic, and smoking marijuana assists him with the painful spasms he suffers due to his condition. She urged the committee to vote in favor of A.B. 453.
Senator Mathews questioned whether there was a continuous source and supply of medical marijuana for her husband. Rose declined to answer the question, but said when A. B. 453 is put into effect she and her husband would follow the new process. Chairman Rawson asked whether secondhand smoke was an issue in her home. Rose responded her husband smokes in another part of the house, and she personally does not indulge in this practice.
Chairman Rawson stated a subcommittee would be formed to discuss and conclude any outstanding issues concerning A.B. 453.
Senator Washington asked for a clarification of the effects of Marinol.
Earlene Forsythe, Lobbyist, Cancer Screening and Treatment Center of Nevada, told the committee she was a nurse practitioner and works with her husband, treating approximately 600 cancer patients a month. She said 10 to 15 percent of the patients do not experience relief from pain medications; therefore, the patients provide their own source of marijuana. Mrs. Forsythe explained Marinol does not give the same effect as smoking marijuana.
Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, stated he was representing the “street officers,” and the defelonization proposed in A.B. 453 is appropriate. He said A.B. 453 would assure patients were getting the proper medical marijuana, not “street marijuana” which could be laced with other substances. Mr. Anderson stressed control over the program would be important.
Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, testified in support of A.B. 453, and stressed the people have voiced their consent on this issue. He stated it is incumbent upon the legislature not only to satisfy the “will of the people,” but to keep our laws intact.
Ms. Naumann spoke on behalf of Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, and Teamsters Local 14, in support of A.B. 453.
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, stated the medical benefits of A.B. 453 were important, and the defelonization would be an appropriate step. Mr. Morrow addressed a concern previously expressed about the graduated punishment level, and stated a third offense for possession being considered a gross misdemeanor, escalates the offense to be under the supervision of the Division of Parole and Probation.
Senator Amodei asked whether placing a period at the conclusion of the language ”. . . is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. . .“ on line 25, page 15 of A.B. 453, would leave all the sentencing options under the gross misdemeanor statute open to a judge. Mr. Morrow opined a person could not be sent to jail with A.B. 453 in the present form. He said Senator Amodei’s suggestion would remove all ambiguity and make the third offense a true gross misdemeanor, and allow the judge every latitude. Senator Amodei commented the judge could then sentence the offender accordingly.
Senator Wiener echoed the same concern, and asked for affirmation of the escalation process in A.B. 453. Mr. Morrow responded positively. Senator Wiener questioned the penalty of an offender violating a proposed treatment program. Mr. Morrow replied the sanction would be a contempt of court, or civil contempt.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 453, and assigned Senator Amodei and Senator Wiener to work on the subcommittee concerning A.B. 453.
Chairman Rawson opened the hearing A.B. 630.
ASSEMBLY BILL 630: Revises provisions regarding system for reporting of information on cancer that is maintained by state health officer. (BDR 40-1456)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill, White Pine, Eureka (part) and Lander (part) Counties, Assembly District No. 35, testified A.B. 630 would expedite the process of reporting cases of cancer to the State Board of Health, to be compiled in the cancer registry. She explained, during the investigation of leukemia cases in Fallon, it was discovered the cancer registry was behind in data by 2 years. Assemblywoman de Braga noted A.B. 630 requires a fine of up to $1000 for not reporting in a timely manner. She mentioned A.B. 630 has a provision the Health Division would compile the data not later than 6 months after the information has been received. Chairman Rawson commented on the importance of reporting to the cancer registry in a timely manner.
Senator Mathews asked whether the method of reporting sexually transmitted diseases had been investigated. Assemblywoman de Braga replied it was not possible for every hospital to report in that manner. Chairman Rawson said there is an abstracting software available for that purpose.
Phillip Weyrick, Administrative Services Officer I, Fiscal, Services and Personnel, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, stated he had no knowledge of the abstracting software, but the initial diagnosis could be “obtusely reflected in the medical record.” Mr. Weyrick said test results and other factors could cause a delay in the system. He stated, presently, the Health Division is working with primary laboratories in the state to get an on-line connection to obtain the results. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Weyrick about the Health Division’s position on A.B. 453. Mr. Weyrick responded the Health Division had no objection to A.B. 453.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on A.B. 630, and opened the hearing on A.B. 554.
ASSEMBLY BILL 554: Provides for establishment of Nevada college savings program as authorized by federal law. (BDR 31-357)
Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer, testified Assembly Bill 554 serves two purposes: the first is to preserve the existing prepaid college tuition program, and second, it establishes a college savings plan.
Mr. Krolicki referred to a letter written by Laura Fitzpatrick (Exhibit J), supporting the college savings plan, and a Newsweek article titled, “New College Savings Plan” (Exhibit K), which gives an overview of 529 tax-deferred investment plans (section 529 of Internal Revenue Code). He stated there were over 8000 people enrolled in the prepaid college tuition plan, and $20 million in assets. Mr. Krolicki explained the plan was only for tuition, but other expenses not covered could exceed the tuition cost.
Mr. Krolicki claimed the college savings plan will not be an expense to the state. He said the state would be “partnering” through a competitive process with a “Wall Street” type firm. Mr. Krolicki pointed out the college savings plan gets more favorable financial aid treatment from institutions than the prepaid program.
Mr. Krolicki said the college savings plan would be a “money producer” for the state. He noted the state would receive a percentage of the assets under management. Mr. Krolicki told the committee it was his expectation to make the college saving plan self-sufficient, and the outstanding liability for the prepaid tuition program would also repay the General Fund.
Continuing, Mr. Krolicki stated A.B. 554 creates the legal framework to accomplish these plans. He said A.B. 554 would create a five-member board, as exists for the prepaid college tuition plan, and establish the trust fund for the college savings plan. Mr. Krolicki noted the “sunset” clause would be removed from A.B. 554.
Chairman Rawson asked whether the Millennium Scholarship Plan has impacted the prepaid tuition plan. Mr. Krolicki replied the response to the prepaid tuition plan has not been disappointing. He expounded on the need for both plans because of the increasing costs of a college education. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Krolicki whether the prepaid or college savings would give the most “usable product.” Mr. Krolicki emphasized the prepaid tuition plan is a basic package plan that addresses one issue. He said both plans are tax-deferred, but there are out-of-state or private universities that look at whether a student is bringing a “529 program.”
Senator Wiener asked to have section 5 of A.B. 554 explained. Mr. Krolicki replied it provides an ability to purchase an insurance product to guarantee payments would be made. Senator Wiener asked whether the insurance could be an earning tool. Mr. Krolicki answered in the affirmative.
Senator Wiener questioned the amount of money that would be allocated for the administrative, endowment, and program accounts. Mr. Krolicki replied the program account would contain the money contributed; the administrative account would be the money received from the private sector “partner” and any administrative costs; and the endowment account would exist to have the legal authority to accept corporate donations, or federal monies. Senator Wiener asked whether protections for the state were built into Assembly Bill 554. Mr. Krolicki stated the state has no liability based on the construction of the contracts.
Senator Washington questioned whether there were any projections about revenue. Mr. Krolicki replied the state would charge “between 10 and 15 basis-points on the assets that would be under management.” He added the anticipated revenue could be approximately $500,000 in the next biennium. Senator Washington asked how the marketing would be accomplished. Mr. Krolicki responded the treasurers office does not have the capability, and would use an outside vendor to market this program nationally. Senator Washington conjectured a person could avail themselves of all three programs. Mr. Krolicki stressed there would be no fee to people in Nevada, only people out of state using the program.
Chairman Rawson closed the hearing and asked for a motion on A.B. 554.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 554.
SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson requested a motion on A.B. 630.
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 630.
SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 5:18 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Vardakis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: