Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 3/30/26, 9am

Chairman Steadman and Chairman Olson,

Senator Keel is excused. You should be expecting Senator Merrick, also President, Senator Coffman, Senator Cronk and myself Senator Hoffman. We have a quorum to conduct business.

We only have one item on today's agenda,

Senate Bill 193,

Practices of Net tariff.

I can't say it. My tongue is tied today.

So I invite Senator Kawasaki and his staff Joe Hayes to the table to introduce Senate Bill 193.

Please introduce yourself and proceed with your enlightenment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and members of the Senate Finance Committee.

I'll be very brief because I know that we started a little bit late and there's folks who are online who'd like to testify on behalf of Senate Bill 193.

I'm carrying this bill on behalf of the Senate State Affairs Committee by request.

And I'll just, for the record, just read some of the statement.

Alaska currently, as you know, is suffering from a critical shortage of medical primary care providers,

while at the same time we do restrict several medical professions from practicing to the full extent of their training.

That's what Senate Bill 193 addresses.

It allows licensed Alaskan naturopathic doctors to apply for a temporary endorsement to practice closer to their level of training and education by being able to prescribe certain drugs to their patients.

It also will ensure that Alaskans that choose naturopathy as the medical service will still receive the highest level of care and help to alleviate the shortage of primary care providers in Alaska.

Okay.

And with that, I will just end my testimony at this time.

That's good.

Do the chair Joe Hayes, Dax and Kawasaki and if you would like me to go through the section I will.

No, that's fine.

Any questions of the prime sponsor at this time?

We have several people that are

invited to give the committee testimony I think we have five individuals first being Clyde Jensen Dr. Clyde Jensen PhD of could you identify yourself for the record and provide us with your invited testimony doctor

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Hoffman. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. My name is Clyde Jensen. I have a PhD in pharmacology and have served as a leader and professor in colleges of allopathic, osteopathic, and naturopathic medicine.

Because of my unusually diverse medical education background,

I have often been invited to testify at congressional,

state legislative, and other policymaking hearings.

concerning comparisons in medical education programs.

So today I would like to address some misconceptions that I have encountered concerning the training of naturopathic physicians to prescribe drugs.

When I was first recruited to lead a naturopathic medical school,

I assumed that the pharmacology curriculum would be inadequate to justify drug prescription authority.

I've soon discovered that to be a misconception.

The fact is that allopathic, osteopathic, and naturopathic medical schools all deliver similar numbers of pharmacology contact hours in which they describe the same drugs with the same rigor using the same textbooks and relying upon faculty with similar credentials.

So my message is that the EDO and EMD students are equally well educated in pharmacology.

I understand that each of the members of the committee have been given that chart comparing the instruction hours of MDs, DOs, and naturopaths, and that chart was cited by the Vermont Office of Professional Regulation in 2013.

As they touched out to adjust the scope of practice for naturopathic, it has been suggested that I explain to you that I am the author of the paper from which that chart was extracted.

Some believe that naturopathic colleges teach their students about drugs so that they can do what MDs and DOs do.

The fact, however,

is that naturopathic colleges emphasize pharmacology.

At least two reasons.

One is to avoid the drug error and drug nutrient interactions that often occur when their patients are prescribed drugs by other providers.

And the second reason is to provide temporary pharmaceutical standard of care to patients who choose to rely primarily upon naturopathic physicians.

naturopathic opponents express concerns about patient safety when naturopathic physicians prescribe drugs.

The fact is that naturopathic physicians, because of their preference for preventive measures,

prescribe drugs very conservatively and when they do prescribe them, they apply the same pharmaceutical standards of care published by allopathic specialties.

Even in my opinion,

naturopaths that prescribe drugs do so at least as safely as MDs and DOs.

Testimony is sometimes given that naturopathic medicine is not evidence-based.

The fact is that naturopathic college accreditation standards require the same evidence-based medicine instruction as do allopathic and osteopathic colleges.

naturopathic students are taught to use that evidence in treating their patients.

Some have contended that the naturopathic board exams do not adequately assess knowledge of pharmacology. In response to that assertion, the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners in the year 2010 introduced an elective pharmacology exam that can be required by jurisdictions.

As conditions for naturopathic prescription authority,

it is my understanding that the House Senate Bill 193 calls for the successful completion of such an exam.

And finally, it has been observed that MDs and DMs must have a year of supervised clinical residency or internship training before independently prescribing drugs.

And since federally funded residencies are not available in enterprise,

there should be a period of mandatory prescription collaboration by MDs with MDs or DOs.

And the fact is that metric has already demonstrated their willingness to comply with such a mandate that noted that required collaboration should not exceed that of mid-level practitioners.

I want to respond to the technology training within MU.

So I want to summarize, Mr. Chairman,

by indicating that I believe that the arguments against pharmaceutical prescription authority by naturopathic physicians are based largely on misconceptions,

and I hope that my comments will help to dispel those.

The innovative prescription authority,

especially when initially reviewed by a licensed Alaskan allopathic or osteopathic physician,

is a sensible way to allow naturopaths to help meet the primary care needs in Alaska.

And I'll be happy to respond to any questions if there are any.

Thank you for that, Dr.

Jensen.

At ease.

At ease, please.

Sa.

Without meeting back to order,

we have one question for you, Doctor.

The question is,

how many complaints have you had from patients?

He's off the list.

We'll go back to the second presenter,

Dr.

Shannon Braddon.

Administrator for the Federation of Naturopathic Regulatory Authorities.

Dr.

Brandon, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your invited testimony.

Thank you, Co-Chair Hoffman. My name is Shannon Braden, and can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

I appear before you today as a board member of the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities.

The Federation, or FNRA, is an association of state regulatory authorities that oversee the licensure of naturopathic doctors in the United States.

Alaska is a member of the Federation.

The FNMI submitted a formal letter to the court for SB 193 dated February 17,

2026.

As you potentially hear concern about MD's obtaining limited prescription authority under SB 193, I would like to highlight the objective data in the FNMI letter that shows how safe the practice of maximalization is.

Even with prescriptive authority.

As a specific example in the state of Oregon,

which has broad prescriptive rights over a seven-year span of time,

when you compare the disciplinary actions taken against naturopath doctors,

allopathic physicians,

and doctors of osteopathy,

And to calculate the percentage of those licensees who have received disciplinary actions,

in other words, what portion as a percent of all the licensees have been subject to disciplinary action,

you will find that MDs had 11 times the number of disciplinary actions compared to naturopathic doctors.

VO's had twice the number of disciplinary actions compared to NDUs.

This objective data clearly demonstrates the safety of mass plastic doctors.

For more details you can see Addendum A,

page 5 of the FN-MRA letter of support.

So let's look specifically at disciplinary actions taken for reasons of inappropriate prescribing.

There is a table on page 3 of the S&MRA letter where we have calories between the years of 2010 and 2024,

so that's a 14-year period of data,

in the states where naturopathic doctors have broad prescription rights but are barred from prescribing controlled substances like opioids.

There were zero disciplinary actions.

So I'm going to pause and say that one more time. There were zero disciplinary actions taken against naturopathic doctors for inappropriate prescribing.

This is the level of prescriptive authority that SB 193 would extend to Alaskan naturopathic doctors. So

absolutely.

Since compelling information to the contrary,

this real-life objective data suggests the same safe results will be achieved in Alaska.

This is particularly true when taking into consideration the two-step process of 193,

where a licensed naturopathic doctor would first exercise prescriptive authority under a collaborative agreement.

within MCRDO, and then secondly be required to also complete continuing medical education in pharmacotherapy.

So in closing,

the provision of primary care by thousands of licensed naturopathic doctors in other states has proven itself to be safe over decades.

Even in states where there's broad prescriptive authority,

the safety record is still stellar.

And the safety record is shown by information gathered by the Federation of Natural Medicine Regulatory Authorities, of which Alaska is a member.

I thank the committee very much for your time and I'm available for questions.

Thank you for that testimony.

We don't see anyone for questions now.

We do have a question from how many complaints by patients have you seen?

I'm sorry,

could you please repeat the question?

How many complaints by patients have you seen?

This is exactly the process of disciplinary actions where patients complain to a regulatory authority and then the regulatory authority investigates and when there's reason to discipline, the doctor,

the disciplinary action is taken. So disciplinary actions are instigated by patient complaints.

Thank you for that. We'll move on to Dr.

Renee McCowers,

OBGYN.

Please proceed with your invited testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee,

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I am a practicing physician for the nearly 40 years of experience,

including the last 27 years in Anchorage,

Alaska.

I currently serve as president of the Alaska State Medical Association,

and I'm here to speak about patient safety as you consider Senate Bill 193.

Oh, Carolyn Renee McCurse is my name.

And in aviation,

safety is never assumed,

it is engineered.

Every flight depends on layered systems,

rigorous training,

standardized protocols,

and redundancy designed to prevent error before it occurs. Allopathic medicine

which is what you guys know as medicine,

physician medicine,

is defined as a practice of evidence-based medicine using scientifically validated treatments.

That includes FDA-approved medications and standardized protocols.

This operates under the same principles as the airlines.

Alaska Senate Bill 193 proposes to expand naturopathic prescriptive authority beginning with supervised endorsement and progressing toward independent prescribing of non-controlled medications.

While this may appear incremental,

it represents a structural change in medical decision-making.

Training differences are substantial and directly tied to safety. Physicians complete approximately 12,000 to...

sixteen thousand hours of supervised clinical training.

And this includes medical school and the first um about one to two years depending on the residency that they go on for up to nine years residency before they're allowed to become practising physicians in the community. So for the first four plus at least one year, these are supervised clinical um training for ability.

Naturopathic pathways often involve five hundred to one thousand five hundred hours. These are researched, they're by the A_M_A_ and it's about how many hours like you just saw on the ones thing. Uh what's interesting is that this form which shows hours is thirty years old.

It was from 1997 and so things have changed somewhat in 30 years, especially with the medications that we have and the complexities of the system.

Since this is different,

And it's about ten times the amount of prescriptive training and diagnostic training. Um it's important to note that it is not about the intent or the dedication of individuals, it is not. It's about the depth of training, the standardization and the supervised clinical experience. We would never accept a system in aviation where an individual with ten times less standardized training and flight

flight times was placed in command of an aircraft because that is when errors occur.

Allopathic medicine is held to the same standard.

Prescriptive authority is earned progressively within a structured system of medical school and residency.

It is designed to prevent error.

Medical training is built on FDA approved treatments and consistent evidence-based protocols.

Naturopathic training incorporates diverse and variable methods that are not uniformly standard or evidence-based, meaning

It's very hard when it comes to complaints and to different lawsuits to charge a naturopathic doctor because there are no standards of care as there are in medical practice. If you prescribe...

um a medication and it is used inappropriately, you can then complain and say hey I was damaged by this or this uh caused me issues. That is not possible in the different allopathic medications because there is no standard.

And I do have some examples of that later on.

The expanding access in rural areas is important and these community these communities are often the most vulnerable and depend on reliable systems of care. However, most naturopathic physicians are not located in Alaska's rural areas. They are primarily based in our towns and cities.

Access without appropriate safeguards is not a solution, it's a trade-off.

As you consider Senate Bill 193, I urge you to evaluate its long-term implications for patient safety and system reliability,

because waiting until adverse outcomes occur is not a strategy,

it's a failure of responsibility.

In both aviation and medicine,

safety is not defined by good intentions,

it is defined by training,

structure and systems that prevent error before it reaches the public.

In my own practice where I have been, there have been issues with naturopathic care.

I am an Ob-Gyn doctor,

and so what I see is the Ob-Gyn issues.

There are three things that I have seen.

One is a diabetic girl,

insulin-dependent diabetic.

who unfortunately, instead of being treated with insulin,

is treated with cinnamon.

There's two issues with that.

Number one, the patient herself presented with sugars in the 500 range,

which is a hair's breadth from being admitted to the hospital.

In fact, she was admitted to start insulin.

But in early pregnancy,

high sugars deform fetuses.

It actually makes them not develop legs.

And so now you end up with a patient who her life is threatened,

but also you end up with incredible cost for care of an abnormal child.

So cost increases when mistakes are made.

And that's why a risk-based system is so rigorous,

and that's why the training is so extensive.

Another issue I had...

was a woman who had a vulvar growth.

The growth was treated for a year and a half by an allopathic, excuse me, not allopathic, by a naturopathic physician using over-the-counter wart medicine.

The problem is that this was never a wart.

It was a vulvar carcinoma. The patient came to me because the treatment didn't work and unfortunately it progressed to a point where

She had complete resection of her vulvar and rectum,

which is a permanent change in her life.

Those are the issues that physicians are seeing.

My breast cancer patients are having issues with treatment,

but the treatment is not changing the outcome and the cancers are progressing to where surgery isn't working and now all we have is radiation.

The other, my ENT colleagues are telling me about the melanomas that again are treated with over-the-counter medications and progressing to where resection is impossible and all you're left with is radiation.

So I actually have more OBGYN stories,

but I think

Without a standardization of care,

there are no complaints because if you have a patient who has a vaginal infection and she's told by her naturopathic doctor, well, why don't you use garlic,

throw garlic in there.

Well,

personally,

I dig the garlic out.

But the diagnosis is what hasn't been made,

and the patient progresses with gonorrhea and chlamydia infection,

and that changes her life because now she's probably sterile.

So, you know, another naturopath may say,

yeah, garlic's a good idea.

It's, you know, it helps the immune system, but the use in this case is not appropriate.

So I think that's what what the fear of of the medical society is is that without without standardisation and experience an FDA evaluation I think when you mix

An allopathic in a system that is not based on that,

you're going to add veritability to a complex system just like an airplane.

You're going to have errors.

And I think that's what we worry about is the public being damaged by this, this bill,

this Senate bill.

So I want to say thank you and I'm ready for questions.

Thank you for that invited testimony.

Seeing no questions,

we'll move on to Anchorage where we will be hearing from Lee Cooper.

Please identify yourself and proceed with your invited testimony.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Dr.

Lee Cooper.

I am a family medicine resident physician and the secretary of the Alaska State Medical Association.

I am currently in the last few months of training at Alaska Family Medicine Residency Program here in Anchorage.

I've been invited today to give testimony regarding the rigorous nature of schooling and training it entails to become a competent and safe provider.

As a family medicine doctor,

there is required training the law mandates I have in order to diagnose,

treat,

and prescribe to patients.

In order to provide care in a similar manner,

all providers should be held to the same standard.

The process of becoming a physician requires one to complete an undergraduate degree,

often physicians are getting master's degrees prior to starting medical school,

as is the case with myself.

Medical school consists of four years at an accredited medical school which is structured into two years of classroom education and two years of clinical education.

Throughout the first two years of didactics, there are numerous block exams.

These test the knowledge we are taught from the molecular and cellular level of physiology to the macrostructure of anatomy.

We are tested on disease processes and pharmacology, which is integrated into every health system.

We are taught about FDA-approved pharmacological management and evidence-based medicine from the beginning of our schooling.

In order to progress from didactics to clinical education,

we are required to pass our first of three national exams.

Sam, over a two-year period in clinical education,

we accumulate nearly 3,000 hours of hands-on training prior to entering residency.

A second national exam is taken prior to graduating medical school.

After passing two national medical exams,

we are deemed competent to graduate medical school and earn the title doctor.

Across the United States, including Alaska,

physicians are not allowed to practice any medicine without going into a residency training program of their specialty of choice and passing a third national licensing exam.

Physicians must have a minimum of two years of residency training to legally be considered competent to practice medicine without oversight in the state of Alaska.

However, the gold standard in medicine is to be board certified in your specialty.

This means one must complete a residency training program in order to sit for those specialty boards.

Residency training is anywhere from three to seven years and sometimes longer if a fellowship is pursued.

Family Medicine Residency is a three-year post-graduate training program which incorporates applying foundational knowledge learned from books to complex patients across the lifespan.

It is a time to learn the finesse of medicine,

the application of theoretical knowledge to real-life situations of complex patients with multiple comorbidities and individualized needs.

Residency helps develop critical skills such as diagnostic reasoning,

patient communication,

and teamwork in the clinical setting.

Residency programs are accredited and governed by an agency that ensures quality and consistency for all physicians in that specialty.

I am trained to care for prenatal, labor and delivery,

newborn,

children,

adults, and geriatrics.

Over a three-year period,

I am overseen by a board-certified physician monitoring the practical application of pharmacology for every single patient for every numerous afflictions that patient may have.

This is to ensure I am providing safe and comprehensive care.

There are nuances to prescribing that are not taught in books but gained through the postgraduate training process.

During residency,

I often worked 80 hours a week with direct supervision inside and outside the hospital.

I have had approximately 3,000 hours each year of supervised patient contact hours.

At the end of training,

I will have seen over 5,000 patients in which I have been supervised in the application of my diagnostic skills and decision making regarding pharmacological interventions.

We must remember that all drugs, no matter how benign they may seem, have a physiological effect on the people taking them,

and this should not be taken lightly.

The federal government and the state of Alaska has deemed this training to be necessary for a physician to practice medicine safely and competently.

There is no pathway for a physician to practice medicine without residency training right out of medical school.

Passing a bill allowing any other provider to bypass an accredited training program following their degree program is cutting corners on what patients deserve regarding their safety and the treatments they are receiving.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes invited testimony.

I'll go ahead and open up public testimony at this time,

and we will go to Fairbanks.

And here from Bruce Campbell,

you have two minutes of testimony, Mr. Campbell. Please identify yourself and proceed with your two minutes of testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Bruce Campbell,

Fairbanks, Alaska.

District 33 is my house district.

I'm here and greatly appreciate Dr.

Olsen the opportunity to testify in support of SB 193.

I believe this is an important update to Alaska's existing statutes regarding the medical practice of naturopathy.

And if I may divert for just a second in case there's a senator from an interior on your committee,

this is a gorgeous blue sky day with snow that's fallen off the trees and it's just a wonderful day to be in the interior.

That aside,

I'm a retired city employee testifying on my own behalf and as a retiree my primary insurance is Medicare.

I use naturopathic care and I have used other forms of care as well including allopathic and various surgeons.

I had a great experience with Dr.

Vermillion,

Premier's head and knee surgeon in Anchorage. And as one of Dr.

Vermillion's prerequisites was requiring patients to take

Training prior to the surgery,

not only myself, but my wife, he asked to come in and we would go through training with PAs and EMTs on how the surgery was going to go,

what the aspects were,

how to, for instance,

use an ice machine to supplant more serious opioid pain medications and the training included supplements to facilitate recovery.

vitamins minerals and what things to take before surgery but not to take before surgery and what to take after surgery to improve the outcome one of the interesting parts of his book was that he requested that if you took it to a regular doctor I'm sure the doctor had training in naturopathic medicine before they altered the supplement prescription

And the result was fantastic.

I had a great recovery.

I used virtually none of the opioid painkillers out post-hospital and it was fine on acetaminophen.

The scar was great and I really appreciate the spurred support of this for the Duke Task Recommendation from committee.

Thank you. We will go to Washington, D.C., and hear from Laura Farr,

the Executive Director from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians.

Good morning,

Mr. Huffman.

Just asking if you can hear all right.

Yes, we can hear you loud and clear.

Thank you. Good morning.

I'm Laura Farr, Executive Director.

With the Asian of natural plastic position,

I've been asked to share the national landscape of how states are safely and effectively updating prescriptive authority for NDs who have prescribing rights in 15 states and notably every other western state allows ND prescriptive authority.

Alaska is unfortunately currently an outlier.

MD-193 is modeled after Vermont's bill where MDs have had prescribing privileges since 2013,

completely the same as MDs and DOs, and believe me there has been no medical catastrophe in Vermont.

By listening to the prior testimonies with interest,

we work hard to share with you actual data on safety and not anecdotal stories or fear-based theories.

I'll repeat what Dr.

Brayden already mentioned,

which comes from real data from the actual regulatory boards charged with insurance public safety.

MDs had 11 times the number of disciplinary actions compared to naturopathic doctors.

In those states where anesthetic doctors have broad prescribing rights but are barred from prescribing controlled substances,

which SB 193 is modeled after,

there were zero disciplinary actions in the last 14 years.

Comparing MD curriculum only to MDs and DOs is intentionally misleading.

MDs receive more pharmacology specific classroom hours than PAs, APRNs, or dentists.

All of whom have independent prescribing rights in Alaska.

It is also misleading to compare ND education solely to that of MDs and DOs regarding residency.

Naturopathic doctors do not do surgery and are not safe in hospital type situations.

We are trained as primary care providers in outpatient clinics.

And residences are not a prerequisite for safe prescribing.

Again,

nurse practitioners,

optometrists, dentists all prescribe independently in Alaska without residencies.

You have already heard about the safety record of NDs prescribers. I'd like to add that insurance premiums reflect this low risk.

Malpractice rates for NDs in full-time practice are roughly 72 to 84 percent lower than that of MDs and DOs.

Believe me, if there was a substantial risk, insurance companies would not reward us with these lower rates.

In conclusion,

this bill is not an experiment,

and these are already higher to prescribe daily in conventional settings,

Providence Health System in Oregon,

Seattle Children's Hospital,

University of Washington Clinics, dozens of federally qualified health care clinics across the country, to name just a few.

These are established MD conventional medical institutions that hire naturopathic doctors and prescribe where naturopathic doctors prescribe every day alongside their MD peers.

The only opposition we typically see comes from medical societies and the doctors that they recruit,

not from.

The reality of safe patient care for the MD who works side-by-side every day with naturopathic doctors.

SP-193 is a good compromise.

I urge your yes vote.

Thank you, Laura Farr. We'll go to Anchorage, Alaska,

and hear from Dr.

Natalie Wiggins, Secretary for the Alaska Association of Naturopathic Doctors.

Ms.

Wiggins, two minutes of testimony.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you so much for your time today.

I'm Dr.

Natalie Wiggins. I'm a licensed naturopathic doctor in Anchorage where I provide primary care to hundreds of patients.

I'm here today representing the Alaska Association of Naturopathic Doctors and speaking on behalf of my patients in support of Senate Bill 193.

So before I moved to Alaska,

I was practicing medicine in Arizona,

and there I held a drug enforcement agency,

or a DEA license,

which allowed broad prescriptive authority,

including controlled substances.

And this isn't an authority that's granted lightly.

In order to qualify for this license,

the federal government requires demonstrated competency in formal pharmacology examination.

My prescriptive authority in Arizona allowed me to manage patient care in a single visit,

improving continuity and reducing barriers.

It's really important to note that Arizona is not a medically underserved state like Alaska.

Arizona grants this authority because it's safe and sensible,

not out of necessity.

And there I was able to provide care in community clinics to patients who otherwise lacked care.

My training and knowledge of safe prescribing didn't change just because I crossed state lines,

but my ability to care for patients has.

Since moving to Alaska, my patients now have to see an additional provider solely to obtain prescriptions,

which creates a necessary financial burden for them,

delays their care,

increases strain on their already limited medical resources.

And it can compromise patient safety.

Delays in treatment can be critical in cases such as infections,

hypertension,

or mental health conditions,

just to name a few examples.

But it also disrupts their continuity of care if patients are managed by providers who are unfamiliar with their medical history,

resulting in times and less effective treatment.

I moved to Alaska in part to serve rural and underserved communities as I did in Arizona,

but without prescription authority I'm unable to meet those needs.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the state have safely and effectively helped to fill in some of the needs for primary care here,

but we obviously have a really long way to go.

Future PAS completes equal or more clinical hours than these provider types in Alaska who already have broad prescriptive authority without required residency,

and these training requirements have clear differences than MDs, particularly given the high rates of MDs who go into specialties.

And as you've heard, the safety records in states like Arizona where MDs prescribe is strong and well established.

Alaska doesn't need a medical turf war.

We need to train providers with the ability to care for patients fully.

This bill isn't about expanding beyond our role,

it's about removing unnecessary barriers so we can do the job we're already trained to do.

And this bill provides a practical and evidence-based solution.

Thank you for your time and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you,

Dr.

Wiggins. We'll move to Fairbanks where we'll hear from Dr.

Scott Luper,

President of the Alaska Association of Naturopathic Doctors in Fairbanks.

Please proceed with two minutes of testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Hoffman. I'm just checking to see if you guys can hear me.

I can hear you loud and clear.

Excellent.

My name is Dr.

Scott Luper.

I'm a naturopathic doctor.

I've been in practice at Fairbanks for 26 years now.

I'd like to give you a historical perspective of the naturopathic profession to shed some light on the potential benefit of passing Senate Bill 193.

I came to Fairbanks

in the year 2000 largely due to a bill that passed years before requiring insurance companies to reimburse naturopathic care.

This law has allowed regular people with insurance to be able to afford to see me and my colleagues so that I can make a decent living and raise my kids.

I had to give up prescription rights to practice in Alaska. I had prescription rights both in Oregon and in Arizona. And this irked me. And I've been trying to regain my prescription rights ever since. As time passed, my practice grew and I hired young doctors to work with me. I mostly recruited from the lower 48, and at one point the clinic grew to employ 25 people, including 14 practitioners.

Thank

Don't

Thank you,

Doctor.

Any questions?

No questions. Thank you, Dr.

Luper. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify at this time?

Seeing none,

we'll close the public hearing.

Senator Stedman, fiscal note.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

We got a fiscal note from the Department of Commerce,

Community Economic Development appropriation.

From the Corporation of Business and Professional Licensing, and the allocation is Business and Professional Licensing, and they want to be numbers 2360 for $24,000.1 in the first year and then on to $20,000 after that.

193 will allow licensed national paths to obtain an endorsement to allow for the prescription and administering of prescription drugs, except controlled substances,

poisons, cancer.

chemical therapeutic drugs and antipsychotic drugs.

Thank you, Senator Stedman.

We invite Senator Kawasaki back to the table for any closing comments before we set this bill aside.

Senator Kawasaki.

Thank you.

Senator Scott Kawasaki, District P in Fairbanks.

I just wanted to say thank you to the Senate Finance Committee for hearing Senate Bill 193.

It's a bill that's been around batting both sides of both houses for probably sounds like two decades.

And we're the latest,

this is the latest iteration in Senate Bill 193. I will say that Senate Bill 193

That naturopaths, naturopathic doctors,

osteopathic doctors and medical doctors are different parts.

They're three sides of a three-sided coin.

But they are licensed and registered.

They go through 4,100 hours of practice before obtaining the license.

This would provide a temporary license.

with a written agreement with a supervising physician.

The endorsement would prohibit certain prescriptions, especially controlled substances,

chemotherapy drugs,

antiseptics, and from performing the invasive surgeries.

The legislation would also require that these licensed naturopathic doctors would be required to complete 60 hours of continuing education.

Every two years, including 20 hours,

focused specifically on pharmacology.

We're not asking for a lot in this bill.

This is, again,

this is an iterative bill that's been through the process for many, many years.

But we hope that this will allow our naturopathic doctors to be able to prescribe and to be able to perform the duties in the medical profession and address some of the critical shortages that we have.

for primary care.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Kawasaki.

That concludes this morning's meeting.

This afternoon's meeting is sadly canceled.

meeting is sadly canceled.

But our next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. We will take up confirmation hearing for the Department of Natural Resources Commissioner designee John Crouther.

Seeing nothing else to come before the committee,

we are adjourned.