Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND LABOR

Date:02/13/2006
ATTENDANCE
Time:01:35 PM to 06:23 PM
Balmer
X
Borodkin
X
Place:HCR 0107
Butcher
*
Carroll M.
X
This Meeting was called to order by
Coleman
*
Representative Marshall
Knoedler
X
Liston
X
This Report was prepared by
McCluskey
X
Christie Lee
Paccione
*
Penry
X
Welker
X
Cerbo
X
Marshall
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB06-1196
HB06-1319
HB06-1187
HB06-1316
HB06-1195
HB06-1097		Amended, Referred to Appropriations
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Witness Testimony Only
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Postponed Indefinitely


01:36 PM -- House Bill 06-1196

Representative Balmer, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 1196 is a sunset bill for the continuation for the regulation of architects. The bill would create the State Board for Licensure of Technical Professionals that would include the regulation of architects, land surveyors, and professional engineers. The board would add four new members to the board, 3 practicing licensed architects and a citizen of Colorado that is not a practicing architect, land surveyor, or professional engineer. Representative Balmer explained amendment L.002 (Attachment A) that would change the title of the State Board of Licensure for Technical Professions to the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers, and Professional Land Surveyors
BILL:HB06-1196
TIME: 01:38:10 PM
MOVED:Balmer
MOTION:Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment A). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Coleman
VOTE
Balmer
Borodkin
Butcher
Carroll M.
Coleman
Knoedler
Liston
McCluskey
Paccione
Penry
Welker
Cerbo
Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

BILL:HB06-1196
TIME: 01:42:02 PM
MOVED:Balmer
MOTION:Moved to refer House Bill 06-1196, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed 13-0.
SECONDED:McCluskey
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
Yes
Butcher
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Coleman
Yes
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
Yes
Marshall
Yes
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:44 PM -- House Bill 06-1319

Representative Vigil, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 1319. He explained that the bill allows the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to change the renewal dates for real estate appraisers licenses. Currently, real estate appraiser licenses are only valid until December 31 of the year they were issued. After the first renewal, licenses are valid until December 31 of the year in which they were issued. House Bill 1319 would remove the licensing renewal schedule for real estate appraisers from statute and require the director of the Division of Real Estate, to establish the schedule.


01:48 PM -- Debbie Campagnola, Director of the Division of Real Estate, DORA, came to the table to respond to committee questions about the current backlog of the system for the licenses. The committee asked about the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) checks taking 2 months. Ms. Campagnola clarified that only real estate brokers have to submit fingerprints for a background check. She added that DORA has met with CBI who is almost prepared with a system that can complete background checks in four days.
BILL:HB06-1319
TIME: 01:52:24 PM
MOVED:Coleman
MOTION:Moved to refer House Bill 06-1319 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 13-0.
SECONDED:Balmer
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
Yes
Butcher
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Coleman
Yes
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
Yes
Marshall
Yes
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:53 PM -- House Bill 06-1187

Representative Paccione, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 1187. The bill would continue the Utility Consumers' Board until July 1, 2015, rather than July 1, 2006. The Utility Consumers' Board is an 11-member board appointed by the Governor to provide the Office of Consumer Council with policy guidance as well as accountability by evaluating the performance of the office and its director. There were questions from the committee pertaining to the make up of the board. Representative Paccione responded.


01:57 PM -- Steve Durham, representing Qwest, testified in support of the bill. He stated that the public should be involved in the process and stated he would respond to questions.
BILL:HB06-1187
TIME: 01:58:33 PM
MOVED:Paccione
MOTION:Moved to refer House Bill 06-1187 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 12-0.
SECONDED:Coleman
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
Yes
Butcher
Yes
Carroll M.
Excused
Coleman
Yes
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
Yes
Marshall
Yes
Final YES: 12 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:59 PM -- House Bill 06-1316

Representative Solano, prime sponsor, explained House Bill 1316. The bill requires businesses who employ 3,500 or more employees to report the number of employees they have, and the amount they spend on health care for the employees to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. The bill creates a penalty for employers who fail to timely submit the information. Additionally, the bill requires employers who have 3,500 or more employees to spend 11 percent on health care for its employees. The committee asked why the bill set the number of employees at 3,500, and the percentage at 11 percent. Representative Solano stated that 11 percent is the national average from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 3,500 was a number that she felt matched Colorado. Representative Solano was asked how many employers in Colorado the bill would effect. Representative Solano estimated about 30 Colorado corporations. Representative Balmer disagreed and stated that he only found 27, and listed some of the corporations the bill would effect. There was a question about whether franchises would be covered under the bill.

02:15 PM

Representative Liston asked for clarification on Representative Solano's previous statement that small businesses are picking up the slack on health care for large businesses. Representative Liston stated that the bill could be a disincentive for businesses to stay or locate in Colorado. There was committee discussion that followed on whether the bill would cause large employers that are able to offer more benefits than smaller businesses, to cut back on other programs.


02:24 PM

Chuck Berry, representing the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, testified in opposition to House Bill 1316. He stated that many employers want to offer quality health insurance to their employees but cannot afford to. Mr. Berry stated the bill would cost people their jobs, and would violate the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that precludes a mandated health care policy. Mr. Berry stated that the bill would penalize companies that are already doing a good job providing health insurance for their employees. There were committee questions pertaining to profit sharing programs. Representative Paccione asked how many companies with over 3,500 employees already offer health insurance. Mr. Berry was asked how he felt about the 11 percent mandate. Mr. Berry believes it would make a significant impact on the businesses affected.

02:31 PM

Mr. Berry said that if companies are forced to offer health care they could move the jobs to another state or just eliminate most of their jobs altogether. Mr. Berry was asked if any specific employers have stated they will leave if this bill passes. He responded that he was not aware of any. There was committee discussion about whether companies should be responsible for employee health care.

02:38 PM

Representative Penry stated that he was concerned that the bill was part of a strategic national effort to force single payer socialized medicine from the bottom up. Mr. Berry agreed. Representative Solano stated that due to the increased dependency on Medicaid, the nation, by default, is coming closer to socialized medicine.

02:45 PM -- Tony Gagliardi, representing the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that even though the bill only pertains to large businesses, it is the first step in requiring small businesses to require health care as well. He stated that the 80 percent of NFIB members oppose this legislation. Mr. Gagliardi stated that the bill is side stepping the real problem of access to affordable health care. There was committee discussion that followed about small businesses.

02:53 PM -- Chris Howes, representing the Colorado Retail Council, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Howes provided statistics on companies that do and do not provide health care to their employees, and the retail industry. Representative Balmer asked for clarification on the growth of retail jobs. Committee discussion ensued about what the effect on businesses and the cost of goods would be if the bill passed.

03:09 PM -- Tom Clarke, Executive Vice President of the Denver Economic Development Corporation, testified in opposition to the bill. He gave three reasons why the Corporation opposes the bill. Mr. Clarke stated that there are 24 businesses in the Denver-metro region that will potentially be effected by the bill. Of those, 16 are companies that will offer the most employment growth. He spoke to the 11 percent mandate on health care.

03:12 PM -- Robin Kniech, representing the Front Range Economic Strategy Center, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Kniech stated that businesses are attracted to education of the workforce, not laws.

03:21 PM -- Sean Caddle and Eva Henry, representing Colorado for Health Care, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Caddle gave some statistics on the number of insured and uninsured workers in Colorado. Eva Henry, testified in support of the bill. She stated that she was a working uninsured and gave a personal story of the struggles she went through.


03:27 PM -- Duncan Harrington, representing the Communication Workers of America, testified in support of the bill. He talked about his employment with Qwest, and stated that the employees' health care at Qwest was maintained despite the hardships of the corporation.

03:30 PM -- Jeannette Galanis, Executive Director of 9 to 5 Colorado, National Association of Working Women, testified in support of the bill. She stated that lack of access to health care is the reason for poverty. She stated that when the uninsured are billed for health care they are billed top dollar. She urged the committee to support the bill and gave her personal account of a hospital she had to pay when she was uninsured.

03:33 PM -- Anna Flynn, retired Safeway Incorporated employee, representing the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, testified in support of the bill. She stated that when big corporations fail to provide health care to their employees, these costs are picked up by the taxpayers.

03:36 PM -- Carolyn Siegel, representing the Colorado AFL-CIO, testified in support of the bill. She talked about who is paying for the uninsured workers in Colorado. She spoke about the earlier discussion about a health care mandate created in the bill. Ms. Siegel stated that all the bill is saying is, 11 percent has to be spent on health care, how it is spent is up to the employer. She stated the bill would not violate ERISA, adding that the companies not offering health coverage are getting an unfair advantage.

03:40 PM

Representative Welker asked what the problem was that they are trying to solve. Ms. Siegel stated that the number of employers providing health care in Colorado is decreasing.

03:45 PM

Irysha Boone, representing the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, testified in support of the bill. She stated that affordable health care is an issue, and that the bill would hold employers responsible for adequate and affordable health care.

 03:47 PM -- Sam Polizzotto, citizen of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. He gave some examples of companies that have recently gone out of business, and stated that is why many people are applying for and taking the jobs that do not offer health care.

03:49 PM -- Delmar Beverly, a citizen, testified in support of the bill. He stated that many people are out of work because they were laid off, and that is why many people are applying for and taking the jobs that do not offer health care.

03:51 PM -- Lonna Fisher, citizen, testified in support of the bill.


03:52 PM

Representative Solano distributed amendment L.001 (Attachment B). She explained that the amendment cleans up some language by codifying what was done in an earlier section of the bill.
BILL:HB06-1316
TIME: 03:53:25 PM
MOVED:Coleman
MOTION:Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Carroll M.
VOTE
Balmer
Borodkin
Butcher
Carroll M.
Coleman
Knoedler
Liston
McCluskey
Paccione
Penry
Welker
Cerbo
Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

03:54 PM

Representative McCluskey asked for clarification on computing the 11 percent. He stated it appears to take 11 percent of the total wages of all employees, including part-time and full-time, no matter how many hours they work. He concluded that the bill would give health care to every employee no matter how many hours they work. Representative Solano stated that she would like to work clarifying the issue with him.

Representative Marshall stated that House Bill 1316 could not be acted on today since the fiscal note had not yet been finished for the bill, thus, the bill was taken off the table to be scheduled for Monday, February 20 for action on the bill.



04:08 PM -- House Bill 06-1195

Representative Gallegos, prime sponsor, explained that House Bill 1195 concerns the length of suspension from work for state-employed supervisors who fail to annually evaluate subordinate employees in the state personnel system. Representative Gallegos explained that currently the law requires that a supervisor who fails to evaluate subordinate employees in the state personnel system at least annually to be suspended from work without pay for up to one week. The bill would change that to up to one work day. The bill is conforming Colorado law with the United States Department of Labor's Fair Labor Standards Act.
BILL:HB06-1195
TIME: 04:12:05 PM
MOVED:Knoedler
MOTION:Moved to refer House Bill 06-1195 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed 13-0.
SECONDED:Paccione
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
Yes
Butcher
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Coleman
Yes
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
Yes
Marshall
Yes
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

04:13 PM -- House Bill 06-1097

Representative Carroll continued her presentation of House Bill 1097 from Wednesday February 8. She distributed two handouts: testimony in support of the bill submitted by various constituents and organizations (Attachment C), and a memo explaining HB 1097 (Attachment D). She explained that the bill would allow a worker who has been injured on the job, if he or she feels uncomfortable with the abilities or relationship with the doctor designated under the workers' compensation system, a one time change of physician. The change would not be allowed until 60 days after the filing of a claim, and could not be requested after the employee reaches maximum medical improvement. Representative Carroll responded to a committee question.

04:20 PM -- Shelley Dodge, a workers' compensation attorney representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She spoke on behalf of her client who testified last year in favor of the bill who had to leave today's hearing. Ms. Dodge explained that her client is still in the system trying to get treatment for her injury, but stated she is unsure if her client specifically asked for a change of physician. Ms. Dodge was asked how her client's situation would be different under the bill. Ms. Dodge stated that it would not have completely solved her problem. Ms. Dodge responded to additional questions from the committee.


04:34 PM -- James Oxbury, representing the Colorado Preferred Physician Association, testified in support of the bill. He stated that the bill addresses the need for physician choice. Representative Paccione mentioned she was concerned that a person could use the 60-day rule as a way to beat the system by waiting until the 60 days is almost up and then change a physician in order to stay off the job longer. Mr. Oxbury agreed.

04:39 PM -- Tim Lopez, representing the Laborer's Local 720, testified in support of the bill. He told his personal story about an injury he sustained four years ago. Mr. Lopez stated he had a broken heel and was treated for a sprained ankle. Mr. Lopez stated he now needs a cadaver bone implanted because of the misdiagnosis. He stated that had he been able to see another physician, he would not be as bad off as he is now. Mr. Lopez was asked who his insurer was, and whether he had received any paperwork explaining workers' compensation and his right to ask for a change of physician.

04:47 PM -- Rachel Olwarez-Sellers, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She stated she injured her back on the job and was told by the physician to take anti-inflammatories and to lay down for four months. Ms. Olwarez-Sellers stated that she never knew she could ask to see another physician and ultimately ended up paying for a chiropractor herself.

04:50 PM -- Laura Defloyd, representing her former husband William Haupt, testified in support of the bill. She explained that her husband, age 59, was a painter who fell off a roof and broke his back and pelvis, and fractured his femur bone. Mr. Haupt was given surgery and 6 days in the hospital compared to 6 months another man had received for a similar injury. Mr. Haupt, had some chest pain a few months later and went to the doctor who found several large blood clots were in his lungs. Ms. Defloyd added that she agreed the time period to change a physician should be shortened from 60 days.

04:54 PM -- Mike Byrd, Business Manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union, Local 111, testified in support of the bill. He stated he was involved in a car accident and suffered a broken arm. He stated that the doctor misdiagnosed him and Mr. Bird was told he could not change his physician.

04:57 PM -- Peter McGuire, with Sullivan, Sullivan, and McGuire, representing the Workers' Compensation Education Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. McGuire stated that under the current 20 day rule, an injured worker may make a request for a change in physician, the company then has 20 days to respond, and then the worker must wait 3 months for an administrative law judge to review the case and grant the request or not. Representative Paccione asked that if the damage is already done after the first physician, then how would the bill solve that problem. Mr. McGuire stated that there are many people who suffer quietly because they feel they have no choice. Mr. McGuire responded to a question about the 20 day rule, and committee discussion followed.

05:07 PM

There was committee discussion about whether the bill would have addressed the problems that the previous witnesses had raised.

05:12 PM -- Lois Kaness, representing herself as an injured worker whose claim was settled, spoke in support of the bill. She discussed the circumstances of her injury and the resulting medical care she required.

05:18 PM -- Paula Rhodes Hook, representing herself, distributed a handout (Attachment E), and testified in support of the bill. She told her personal story of a frontal lobe brain injury she sustained when she had fell on a patch of ice while working.



05:20 PM -- Steven Morehart, representing the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, testified in support of the bill. He discussed some of the injuries that have happened in the facilities where he worked.

05:22 PM -- Hank Hahne, representing the Colorado Self Insured Association, testified in opposition of the bill. He distributed the testimony of Zach Nicol who could not attend today's hearing (Attachment F). He stated the bill could increase costs by 5-21 percent. Representative Carroll asked Mr. Hahne some questions regarding his handout.

05:29 PM -- Lee Ziegler, representing Safeway, Inc., testified in opposition to the bill. He stated the bill would raise the cost of workers' compensation, and increase lost wages for employees who are injured on the job. Mr. Ziegler was asked how many of his employees have asked for a change in physician. He stated that less than 1 percent, and that when he receives a request he will work with the injured worker on the problems being experienced with the physician. Representative Liston asked for clarification on the types of injuries that occur in Safeway stores. Representative Paccione asked why a request for a change of doctor would be denied. Mr. Ziegler stated that the majority of the claims he has refused dealt with an injured worker attempting to beat the system.

05:41 PM -- Tony Gagliardi, representing the National Federation of Independent Businesses, testified in opposition to the bill.

05:43 PM -- Scott Arnold, representing Phil Long Ford Dealerships, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that currently there is a system in place to request a physician change. Mr. Arnold responded to questions pertaining to how many claims for a change of physician he had seen. He stated he has received 3, and 2 were approved for a change in physician.

05:50 PM -- Kim Griffiths, representing Pinnacol Assurance, testified in opposition to House Bill 1097. She stated that every employee is notified that they have the option to request a change in physician. She explained that 54 percent of the time requests were granted for change of physician by Pinnacol. Ms. Griffiths stated that most of the requests Pinnacol denies, are requests where an injured worker sees a physician for an injury that does not relate to his or her injury that occurred on the job. Then when the injured worker is told the injury is not covered, he or she want to see another physician. Ms. Griffiths stated that Administrative Law Judges deny claims at a similar rate to Pinnacol, 58 percent of the time.

05:59 PM

Ms. Griffiths stated that the request to change a physician can be made at any time, and that the company has 20 days to respond to that request. Additionally, an employee can make as many requests as they want and for as long as they want.

06:00 PM -- Roger Buelow, representing Mountain States Mutual, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that insurance companies want to get people the best care they can because that is the least expensive thing they can do. Representative Penry asked for an explanation of New Mexico's law that Representative Carroll had talked about earlier. Mr. Buelow explained that in New Mexico, either the employer, or the employee with permission from the employer, can make the initial selection of the physician. Whoever does not make the initial selection may, at 60 days, change the treating physician with no explanation. Mr. Buelow stated that in almost all cases where the employee makes the change in physician after 60 days, it is driven by an attorney rather than by the employee.


06:04 PM -- John Berry, representing the Workers' Compensation Coalition, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that they oppose the bill for many of the same reasons previous witnesses stated.

06:06 PM

Representative Carroll stated that the issue is balance and that every system needs it. She stated that no one wants an adversarial relationship between the doctor and the patient. She stated that currently the sole discretion is given to the insurance company whether or not an employee receives the right to change his or her physician. She referenced a Legislative Council memorandum that provides a 50-state overview of employee choice of physician laws (Attachment G).
BILL:HB06-1097
TIME: 06:16:26 PM
MOVED:Carroll M.
MOTION:Moved to refer House Bill 06-1097 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion failed on a 5-8 vote.
SECONDED:Butcher
VOTE
Balmer
No
Borodkin
No
Butcher
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Coleman
No
Knoedler
No
Liston
No
McCluskey
No
Paccione
Yes
Penry
No
Welker
No
Cerbo
Yes
Marshall
Yes
Not Final YES: 5 NO: 8 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

BILL:HB06-1097
TIME: 06:22:57 PM
MOVED:Balmer
MOTION:Moved to postpone House Bill 06-1097 indefinitely. The motion passed 8-5.
SECONDED:Liston
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
Yes
Butcher
No
Carroll M.
No
Coleman
No
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
No
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
No
Marshall
Yes
Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

06:23 PM

The committee adjourned.