House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor (01/27/2010)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND LABOR

Date:	01/27/2010	ATTENDANCE

Time:	09:47 AM to 06:54 PM	Balmer	X
		Bradford	X
Place:	HCR 0112	Casso	X
		Kerr A.	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Liston	X
	Representative Rice	Middleton	X
		Priola	X
This Report was prepared by		Soper	X
	Christie Lee	Stephens	X
		Gagliardi	X
		Rice	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
HB10-1141 HB10-1075 HB10-1074 HB10-1003 HB10-1016 HB10-1085 HB10-1144		Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Committee Vote - Final Action Failed Postponed Indefinitely Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to the Committee of the Whole

09:48 AM -- House Bill 10-1141

Speaker Carroll, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1141 concerning a requirement for mortgage companies to be registered by the Division of Real Estate. The bill allows the regulation of mortgage companies. Mortgage companies take residential loan applications or offer to negotiate the terms of a residential mortgage loans. Mortgage companies may be distinct from the lender of residential mortgage loans. Mortgage companies are required to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, a national tracking system established by the federal Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. Nationally registered mortgage companies will obtain a unique identifying number that must appear on all residential mortgage loan application forms. The director of the Division of Real Estate in the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) is responsible for ensuring that mortgage companies are registered and for adopting rules to implement the new provision. The director may also impose fines, among other disciplinary actions, for companies that fail to meet the adopted rules. All fines are deposited in the Mortgage Company and Loan Originator Fund. Finally, the bill extends the date for repeal of mortgage company regulations from July 1, 2011, until July 1, 2014.

09:52 AM -- Erin Toll, Division of Real Estate Director, Department of Regulatory Agencies, testified on the bill. She responded to questions from committee members regarding previous bills relating to the mortgage industry. She explained that there have been a total of seven bills in the last three years passed relating to the mortgage industry. Representative Balmer asked some questions about the bill and what it does in addition to the federal policy statement. There was a discussion about the federal government requirements.

10:03 AM

Ms. Toll continued to respond to questions from the committee regarding the recent laws that were passed relating to the mortgage industry.

10:07 AM -- Bill Kidwell, representing the Impact Mortgage Management Advocacy and Advisory Group and the Colorado Association of Mortgage Brokers, testified on the bill. He said he believes that the changes in the bill could be made without a law and instead through the director of the Division of Real Estate. Mr. Kidwell also suggested changing the word "shall" to "may" in regards to director investigations.

10:13 AM -- Terry Jones, representing the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association (CMLA), testified in support of the bill. Mr. Jones suggested leaving the sunset date as it is currently and not changing it in the bill. Mr. Jones responded to questions from the committee. He was also asked to give a brief history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He talked about the crash two years ago after the fall of Lehman Brothers and explained that unlike Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an implied guarantee from the federal government. Mr. Jones explained that the amount of Federal Housing Administration loans went from about two percent of the market to 40 percent of loans for FHA. Representative Balmer asked whether CMLA voted on this bill and what the outcome was. Mr. Jones responded.

10:26 AM -- Bart Bartholomew, representing himself as an individual mortgage broker, testified in support of the bill. He talked about the negative impact on the mortgage industry in Colorado that may occur if the bill is not passed.


BILL:	HB10-1141
TIME:	10:29:50 AM
MOVED:	Rice
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment A). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Gagliardi
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Bradford
	Casso
	Kerr A.
	Liston
	Middleton
	Priola
	Soper
	Stephens
	Gagliardi
	Rice

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1141
TIME:	10:30:35 AM
MOVED:	Rice
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 09-1141, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 10-1.
SECONDED:	Middleton
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Bradford	Yes
	Casso	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	Middleton	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Rice	Yes

Final YES: 10 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

10:31 AM -- House Bill 10-1075

The committee took a brief recess.

10:39 AM

The committee was called back to order. Representative Kagan, co-prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1075 concerning the authority for public entities to use credit unions as financial institutions, and, in connection therewith, allowing credit unions to make loans to public entities and allowing for the deposit of public moneys in credit unions. Representative Sonnenberg, co-prime sponsor of House Bill 10-1075, later joined him from another committee. The bill allows the investment or deposit of public funds in credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration, and allows credit unions to make loans to public entities. To receive state funds above the deposit insurance limits, a credit union must be designated by the Commissioner of Financial Services in the Department of Regulatory Agencies as an eligible public depository and follow the procedures and rules of the Public Deposit Protection Act.

Representative Kagan talked about an amendment that would be offered later. He stated that banks have kept credit unions from competing with them in this area. Representative Kagan also warned the committee that the banks will argue that this bill will draw money from them. Representative Kagan explained that 27 states have passed this type of legislation and that less than one percent of the deposits in banks have moved over to credit unions in these states.

10:54 AM

Representative Soper asked the witnesses when they speak to talk about the percentage of the market that is controlled by banks versus credit unions. Representative Kagan stated that with regards to public deposits, 100 percent is controlled by banks and zero percent by credit unions, however, he does not know the make-up in other markets. Representative Gagliardi asked a question about the wording "other authorized insurers" on page 11 of the bill. Representative Kagan said the language makes it clear that the credit union must be insured by an insurance scheme that has the full faith and credit behind it which includes the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), but should it change to something other than the NCUA, that language is in the bill. Representative Liston asked what taxes credit unions are required to pay and which they do not have to pay compared to banks. Representative Kagan said credit unions are owned by their members and those members pay taxes. However, they do not pay state corporate income taxes since they are not-for-profit. Representative Priola asked a follow-up question regarding taxes. Representative Rice stated that he would like witnesses to talk about community reinvestment, small business and lending rates, and the regulatory aspects of the bill.

11:08 AM -- Barbara Cleland, representing credit unions, testified in support of the bill.

11:09 AM -- Barbara Walker, representing the Independent Bankers of Colorado (IBC), testified against the bill. She said the bill will harm the ability of banks, especially rural banks, to loan money to small businesses. She asked the committee to keep in mind that although 27 states have allowed this type of practice, 23 states have not. Ms. Walker talked about the impact the bill might have on banks. Ms.Walker estimated the amount of taxes that the state will lose if the bill passes to be about $2 million annually. She compared the regulations that banks must follow to credit unions.

11:22 AM

Representative Soper asked about the agricultural loans she mentioned in her testimony. He also asked what is done with the money banks hold that is not being loaned. Representative Liston asked Ms. Walker to comment on the earlier questions regarding taxes.

11:33 AM -- Meghan Harman, representing the IBC, testified against the bill. She talked about the impact the bill will have on local banks and reiterated Ms. Walker's earlier comments. Representative Liston asked about her earlier comments regarding her bank waiting to be able to provide public entity loans. Ms. Harman explained that with the bidding process, it took them 10 years to be able to bid for the public entity loans.

11:45 AM -- Emily Robinson, representing First Bank in Arvada, testified against the bill. She discussed the amount of taxes they pay. Ms. Robinson talked about the Community Reinvestment Act banks must comply with.

11:52 AM -- Richard Fulkerson, representing himself, testified against the bill. He talked about his experience with the Division of Banking. Mr. Fulkerson asked the committee to think about the protection of public funds. He talked about some of the differences between the laws that banks are required to follow and the requirements for credit unions that would be provided in the bill. Mr. Fulkerson stated that he feels the fiscal note is accurate and the bill will cost money. Representative Soper talked about an amendment that would eliminate the fiscal note. Mr. Fulkerson commented on the fiscal note. Representative Sonnenberg asked that the department representative discuss the amendment's effect on the fiscal note. Mr. Fulkerson responded to additional questions from the committee.

12:09 PM -- Chris Myklebust, Commissioner of Financial Services, responded to an earlier question regarding the amendment and how it would affect the fiscal note. He responded to additional questions from the committee.

12:13 PM -- Sam Pace, representing the County of Saguache and the Town of Crestone Credit Union, testified in support of the bill. He talked about the difficulty of finding a lender in his area and the benefits of being able to work with a credit union.

12:20 PM -- John Dill, Tim Dore, and Mike O'Neill, representing the Credit Union Association, testified in support of the bill. John Dill talked about the history of credit unions in Colorado and their tax exempt status. Mr. Dill explained that credit union insurance is exactly the same as bank insurance. He said during the current financial crisis, Congress raised the amount of the insurance fund from $100,000 per account to $250,000 per account. Mr. Dill also addressed Representative Soper's earlier question about the relative market share of credit unions versus banks. Mr. Dill responded to additional questions

12:36 PM

Mike O'Neill explained the numbers that were given to the committee earlier comparing asset growth and loan growth for banks and credit unions. Tim Dore distributed a packet of information to the committee (Attachment B). He also stated that the Franktown Fire Chief, Chief Willis, wanted to testify, but could not be there. So on Mr. Willis' behalf, Mr. Dore stated that Mr. Willis went to look for loans in his community and eventually obtained one from Wells Fargo Bank. However, he had hoped he could obtain one from the local credit union because he knew that ultimately the money from Wells Fargo would not stay in the local community, but the credit union could not loan to him.

12:43 PM -- Marilyn James Rhoades, representing Saint Charles Mesa Sanitation District, testified in favor of the bill. She talked about the difficulty finding a bank to take a public deposit and the only bank that would in her community was a national bank and not a local one.

12:49 PM -- Dawn Hart, representing the Ken Caryl Foundation, testified in support of the bill. She talked about the community involvement of the local credit unions and the lack thereof from the bank in the area.

12:51 PM -- Don Childears, representing the Colorado Bankers Association, testified against the bill. He talked about the provision referred to by Representative Gagliardi earlier relating to the wording, "other authorized insurers." He also discussed the fiscal note. He mentioned that if there is a level playing field then he is in favor of the bill, but it is not level so they do not support the bill.

01:09 PM -- Rhett Bartley Rowe, Premiere Members Federal Credit Union CEO, testified in support of the bill. He said he was a former banker.

01:14 PM -- Brad Johnson, CEO of Aurora Schools Federal Credit Union, testified in support of the bill. He said CFOs of the school districts have asked to give deposits for a higher rate of return to credit unions, but they have been unable to do so. Representative Priola asked Mr. Johnson some questions.

01:20 PM

Representative Sonnenberg closed with some comments regarding the amendment. He said the bill simply puts credit unions in the same statutes as banks. He briefly talked about the amendment.


BILL:	HB10-1075
TIME:	01:22:35 PM
MOVED:	Soper
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Balmer
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Bradford
	Casso
	Kerr A.
	Liston
	Middleton
	Priola
	Soper
	Stephens
	Gagliardi
	Rice

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

01:23 PM

Representative Kagan addressed Mr. Childears' comments stating that he would support it if there was a level playing field. He also responded to earlier testimony that the credit unions will give a higher yield in return, and do not pay taxes.

01:28 PM

Representative Sonnenberg also made some closing comments.


BILL:	HB10-1075
TIME:	01:32:18 PM
MOVED:	Soper
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1075, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion failed 5-6.
SECONDED:	Balmer
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Bradford	No
	Casso	No
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Liston	No
	Middleton	No
	Priola	No
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Rice	No

Not Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	HB10-1075
TIME:	01:39:01 PM
MOVED:	Rice
MOTION:	Moved to postpone House Bill 10-1075 indefinitely. The motion failed 5-6.
SECONDED:	Priola
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Bradford	Yes
	Casso	No
	Kerr A.	No
	Liston	Yes
	Middleton	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Soper	No
	Stephens	No
	Gagliardi	No
	Rice	Yes

Not Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

01:41 PM

The committee recessed for the joint hearing with the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee at 1:45 p.m.

03:42 PM -- House Bill 10-1074

The House Business Affairs and Labor Committee was called back to order and the committee picked up where it left off on January 26, on House Bill 10-1074 concerning measures to protect consumers with regard to automobile insurance policies. This bill changes how insurers administer automobile insurance claims. Insurers are required to use original equipment manufactured (OEM) parts for repairs to vehicles with less than 10,000 miles that were purchased within one year before the damage occurred. By January 1, 2011, and in every subsequent 3 year period, insurers must complete market surveys of all Colorado motor vehicle repair businesses to establish fair and reasonable market prices for vehicle repair services and products. Finally, the bill authorizes the Commissioner of Insurance to set rules establishing a minimum amount that an insurer must pay under a policy for a single at-fault accident before the insurer can raise the policy premium.

03:45 PM -- R.J. Hicks, representing Colorado Auto Recyclers, said he was available for questions. He said he was concerned and urged the committee to look at the recycling industry and asked that it not be taken out of this business.

03:47 PM -- Rich Gebhardt, representing the Colorado Insurance Coalition, testified against the bill and distributed a handout (Attachment D). He responded to questions from the committee.

03:57 PM -- Dave Stauber and Martin Valenti, representing NAPA Auto Parts, testified against the bill. Mr. Stauber mentioned that CarQuest is also against the bill, but they could not return today to testify. Mr. Stauber said that they are concerned with some of the definitions in the bill, including "crash part" and "repair part." He also talked about the effect the bill will have on NAPA businesses. Representative Soper responded to some concerns the witnesses had. Representative Liston asked Mr. Stauber to clarify his comments on the reliability of after market parts. Mr. Valenti added that competition between the after market and manufacturer market already exists today and said the bill is unnecessary.

04:17 PM -- Vince Vecchiarelli, representing Hank's Auto Body West, testified against the bill. He said the bill should not be based on how old the car is.

04:27 PM -- Cheryl Rogers, owner of Bear Creek Auto Body, testified against the bill. She said she used to work for an insurance company prior to owning her business. She commented on Section 3 and said it would be detrimental to the consumer, body shop, and insurance company.

04:30 PM -- Steve Tarleton, representing Farmers Insurance, testified against the bill.

04:32 PM -- Frank Hileman and Randy Miskol, representing LKQ Corporation, testified against the bill together. He said when if you require OEM parts, you are bringing the estimates up which could lead to totalling the car. Mr. Hileman commented on the amendment. Mr. Hileman said with the current language, he has to oppose the bill. Mr. Miskol talked about the growth of his company in Colorado and the jobs it has created and he said the bill could stall that growth.

04:43 PM -- Thomas Constant, representing the collision industry on behalf of the Division of Insurance, testified in support of the bill. He said there are so many variations of parts that insurance companies require in repair that it can be very confusing to the consumer. He also talked about how consumers are concerned about what will happen to their rates if they file a claim for repairs.

04:50 PM -- Marcy Morrison, Insurance Commissioner, testified in support of the bill. Stacy Coleman, representing the Colorado Division of Insurance, spoke about the bill. She talked about the insurance company that she worked for and stated that they used the OEM 24-month rule. She said the bill includes many consumer protections. Representative Middleton asked her to comment on the number of complaints in this area as compared to complaints in other areas. Ms. Coleman said the complaints are on the lower side of overall complaints. Representative Middleton said it sounds like requiring the insurance company to disclose this type of information would better solve the problem than the bill would and asked whether that was considered prior to drafting this bill. Bobbie Baca responded, stating that the division did not look into that option. There was a discussion about the benefits of a disclosure. Representative Liston asked a question about warranties. A discussion ensued about warranties and the federal law pertaining to them.

05:17 PM

Representative Soper made some closing remarks and said when you have a brand new vehicle, you should get a new part, and if you do not want a new part, that should be the consumers choice, not the insurance company's choice.


BILL:	HB10-1074
TIME:	05:19:48 PM
MOVED:	Soper
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment E). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Gagliardi
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Bradford
	Casso
	Kerr A.
	Liston
	Middleton
	Priola
	Soper
	Stephens
	Gagliardi
	Rice

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1074
TIME:	05:20:25 PM
MOVED:	Soper
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment F). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Casso
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Bradford
	Casso
	Kerr A.
	Liston
	Middleton
	Priola
	Soper
	Stephens
	Gagliardi
	Rice

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1074
TIME:	05:20:59 PM
MOVED:	Soper
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1074, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion failed 8-3.
SECONDED:	Casso
		VOTE
	Balmer	No
	Bradford	No
	Casso	Yes
	Kerr A.	No
	Liston	No
	Middleton	No
	Priola	No
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	No
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Rice	No

Not Final YES: 3 NO: 8 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	HB10-1074
TIME:	05:21:54 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved to postpone House Bill 10-1074 indefinitely. The motion passed 8-3.
SECONDED:	Priola
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Bradford	Yes
	Casso	No
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	Middleton	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Soper	No
	Stephens	Yes
	Gagliardi	No
	Rice	Yes

Final YES: 8 NO: 3 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:22 PM -- House Bill 10-1003

Representative McNulty, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1003 concerning the extension of the deadline for the review of grievance petitions filed with the State Personnel Board and distributed a handout (Attachment G). Recommended by the Legislative Audit Committee, the bill extends the State Personnel Board deadline to review and decide whether to grant a hearing in response to an employee grievance petition from 90 days to 120 days. Petitions filed with the board requiring an investigation for discrimination or for complaints by state personnel system employees are exempt from the 120-day review requirement.

The board is responsible for promulgating rules related to certain aspects of the state personnel system and resolving employee disputes that cannot be resolved at the agency level. The board is required to conduct a hearing for all mandatory appeals, which involve disciplinary actions that affect an employee's base pay, classification status, or tenure. In discretionary or grievance appeals, the board may grant a hearing when it appears that the agency has violated the employee's rights under state law. The bill was proposed in response to recommendations offered by the Office of the State Auditor in its May 2009 performance audit of the Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA) and the board.


BILL:	HB10-1003
TIME:	05:24:50 PM
MOVED:	Middleton
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1003 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 11-0.
SECONDED:	Soper
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Bradford	Yes
	Casso	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	Middleton	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Rice	Yes

Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:26 PM -- House Bill 10-1016

Representative Waller, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1016 concerning the extension of the term of the retired member of the Board of Directors of the Fire and Police Pension Association. This bill was recommended by the Police Officers' and Firefighters' Pension Reform Commission, a legislative committee, during the 2009 interim.

Effective for terms beginning on or after January 1, 2010, the bill extends the term of the retired firefighter or police officer serving as a member of the Fire and Police Pension Association's board of directors from four years to six years.

05:27 PM

Representative Pace stated that the bill would give the board members one six-year term to obtain institutional knowledge.


BILL:	HB10-1016
TIME:	05:28:23 PM
MOVED:	Priola
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1016 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 11-0.
SECONDED:	Balmer
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Bradford	Yes
	Casso	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	Middleton	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Rice	Yes

Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:30 PM -- House Bill 10-1085

Representative J. Kerr, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1085 concerning land surveying, and, in connection therewith, altering licensure criteria for land surveyor applicants and specifying procedures for issuance of a surveyor's affidavit of correction. This bill:

changes the qualifying criteria for professional land surveyor applicants;
defines the terms "professional land surveyor of record" and "surveyor's affidavit of record";
establishes the provisions for changes to a survey plat or parcel description that a land surveyor had previously recorded with a county clerk; and
requires that when the courts determine the corners and boundaries of disputed parcels, that determination be recorded in the grantor-grantee index of real property records maintained by the county clerk.

05:34 PM -- Kate Meyer, Office of Legislative Legal Services, came to respond to questions about the amendments on the bill. Representative Middleton asked about people who are currently in the field and whether this would affect them. Ms. Meyer said the bill does not impact currently licensed people.

05:36 PM -- Gene Kooper, representing himself, testified against the bill and distributed a handout of his testimony (Attachment H). Representative Middleton asked some questions.

05:43 PM -- Roger Nelson, representing Professional Land Surveyors of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Representative Middleton expressed her concern with the education requirements.

05:50 PM -- Warren Ward, representing Professional Land Surveyors of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. He said in his experience, the apprenticeship is not working anymore.

05:52 PM -- Angie Kinnaird Linn, representing the Department of Regulatory Agencies, testified on the bill. She said the department has similar concerns as Mr. Kooper, however, the department is not against the affidavits. She said they are concerned about the licensure qualifications. She said most of their concerns are addressed in the amendments. She also mentioned the department is concerned that this legislation has not gone through the sunset process. Ms. Kinnaird Linn said the department would feel better about the bill if it included the amendments.


BILL:	HB10-1085
TIME:	05:57:18 PM
MOVED:	Gagliardi
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment I). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Soper
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Bradford
	Casso
	Kerr A.
	Liston
	Middleton
	Priola
	Soper
	Stephens
	Gagliardi
	Rice

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1085
TIME:	05:57:58 PM
MOVED:	Stephens
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.004 (Attachment J). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Bradford
	Casso
	Kerr A.
	Liston
	Middleton
	Priola
	Soper
	Stephens
	Gagliardi
	Rice

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1085
TIME:	05:59:12 PM
MOVED:	Soper
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1085, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 10-0.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Balmer	Excused
	Bradford	Yes
	Casso	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	Middleton	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Rice	Yes

Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:59 PM -- House Bill 10-1144

Representative Rice, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1144 concerning prohibiting a carrier from setting fees for a dental service that is not paid for by the carrier. This bill prohibits an insurance carrier from setting a fee for a dental service unless the insurer pays for the service.

06:05 PM

Representative Bradford asked Representative Rice to explain why the dentist cannot tell the patient their choices under current law.

06:11 PM -- Kathryn A. Paul, representing Delta Dental, testified against the bill and distributed a packet of information that included her talking points (Attachment K). Ms. Paul responded to questions from the committee. Representative Stephens asked about consumer protection. Representative Liston asked a question.

06:28 PM -- Charlie Hebeler, representing the Colorado Dental Association, testified in support of the bill. She said they are trying to avoid cost shifting. Representative Stephens asked about consumer protection.

06:33 PM -- Dr. Jeff Hurst, President of the Colorado Dental Association, testified in support of the bill. He said for 29 years he has been under Delta Dental. He said regardless of your insurance, he has a fee and his overhead is about 24 percent. Dr. Hurst gave an example of the bridge option for a missing tooth as opposed to an implant. Representative Stephens said there are dentists that do not have the same integrity as Dr. Hurst. Dr. Hurst said the consumer can change dentists if they do not like them. Representative Liston asked a follow-up question. Representative Middleton asked a question. Representative Bradford talked about the varying costs in the dental arena and stated that they vary by patient because all teeth are not the same.

06:47 PM -- Dr. Dave Lury, representing the Colorado Dental Association, testified in support of the bill. He said he is not a part of Delta Dental and talked about cost shifting.


BILL:	HB10-1144
TIME:	06:53:23 PM
MOVED:	Rice
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1144 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 9-1.
SECONDED:	Gagliardi
		VOTE
	Balmer	Excused
	Bradford	Yes
	Casso	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	Middleton	Yes
	Priola	Yes
	Soper	Yes
	Stephens	No
	Gagliardi	Yes
	Rice	Yes

Final YES: 9 NO: 1 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

06:55 PM

The committee adjourned.