HFIN-260511-0900

Okay, I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently 9:25 AM on Monday, May 11th, 2026, and present today is Representative Allard, Representative Steph, Representative Moore, Representative Kocher-Schraggi, Representative Kocher-Josephson, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, and myself, Kocher-Foster. And just a reminder, folks can mute their cell phones. We do have 2 items on the agenda today. However, I know that we do also have a hard stop in 35 minutes at 10 o'clock.

We do have floor session today. So it's unlikely that we'll get to the second bill. Possible, but unlikely. The first bill that we do have up is the pharmacist bill. It's House Bill 195.

And then the second bill is Senate Bill 130, Fish Production Development Tax Credit. And so with that, we'll just get through as much as we can. It is getting to be that time of the year, end of the year, when A lot of things are popping up, and so there might be delayed meetings more often. So with that, House Bill 195, we could have Representative Mena as well as her staff, Ms. Katie Giorgio, if you could come up to the table and put yourself on the record and give us a brief recap. Sounds like Sounds like we might be pushed back a little bit.

We might have a little extra time, so we'll see what— how far we get along here. We had 3— let's see, we've heard this bill 3 times in committee. We've had invited testimony, public testimony. We've reviewed the fiscal notes, and we have 6 amendments. So if there is nothing else in terms of questions, we'll just jump right into the amendments.

And Representative Sharagi. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment Number 1. Okay. Object.

Okay, we have an objection. Representative Sharagi. Thank you. Amendment Number 1 adds clarity to the term practitioner under the federal prescription drug monitoring program. This amendment recognizes that not all pharmacists— man, I cannot talk this morning.

I need some more coffee. Sorry, Mr. Co-Chair. This amendment recognizes that not all pharmacists will be required to interface with the PDMP, or the prescription drug database. This database will only be a requirement for pharmacists that hold a DEA license and are prescribing and dispensing controlled substances that are under that requirement. That is not most pharmacists.

This amendment, I would just add, it was flagged and requested by DCCED's Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, and has been vetted in a okayed by stakeholders. And if desired, I'm sure the bill sponsor could speak to that as well. Okay, Representative Mina. For the record, Genevieve Mina, I represent House District 19, the English neighborhoods of Airport Heights, Mountain View, and Russian Jack. Uh, to the chair, I support Amendment Number 1, and this came forward as a recommendation from CPPL.

Okay, thank you. Also like to note that we do have with us Representative Jimmy as well as Representative Bynum, Representative Steph. I'm going to withdraw my objection, Co-Chair. Okay. The objection has been withdrawn.

Hearing no further objection, Amendment Number 1 has been adopted. And so that takes us to Amendment Number 2. Representative Sharagi. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment Number 2.

Dick. Representative Sharagi. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Amendment Number 2 aligns drug schedule references to only the federal drug schedule. As currently written, the bill references Alaska's to state drug schedules, which are not identical to the federal schedule.

Because the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program is a federal program and only monitors federally scheduled medications, this amendment will bring the bill into line with the federal drug schedule. Again, this amendment was flagged and requested by DCCEB's Division of Corporate— Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing. It's been vetted and okayed by stakeholders, and I believe is supported by the bill sponsor. Okay. And discussion?

Representative Snap? Yeah, the only question I would have, co-chair, to maybe the maker of the amendment, we have a bunch of future amendments that deal with these state references to these schedules. Looking at them, they also reference the federal law schedule, so I don't know if that will create a conflict going forward. So that's the only thing probably to watch out for. So, and I'll withdraw my objection.

Object. Representative Ballard, would you like to speak to your objection? Okay. Okay, so with that and hearing no further discussion, uh, we are on Amendment Number 2. Madam Clerk, brief it is.

Brief it is.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 9:33 AM. Just would like to recognize that we also have with us Representative Colon. Thanks for joining us. We also have Representative Hannon. And we did have an objection.

I think there is a question to Representative Mena. Representative Stout. Yeah, thank you, Chair Foster. Through the chair to the bill sponsor staff, thanks for being here as always. I'm just curious.

I don't think this is a material change to the bill, just deleting the state kind of reference to the federal reference. But maybe just explain that for me through the chair. Representative Mena. For the record, Genevieve Mena. I'm going to hand this off to my chief of staff to explain the amendment number 2.

Ms. Georgiou, if you could put yourself on the record. Katie Georgiou. For the record, staff to Representative Mena, through the chair to representative staff. The prescription drug monitoring program statutes all include the federal drug schedules. Within HB 195, there are statutory references to the PDMP statute.

And so it's just to align the federal drug schedules between 195 and the PDMP statutes for this purpose. Representative Stout. Yeah, I think, good chair, through the chair to our wonderful, illustrious Ms. Giorgio and Representative Mena. I'm just curious, why is that Texas? Why was that in there?

I don't know if that was the original bill or came out of Labor and Commerce like that. If it's a cleanup, I think it's fine. I'm just curious why it didn't come up till now. Ms. Georgiou. Katie Georgiou, for the record, to Representative Stapp.

This was an amendment we've had in hand for a while, and this was the time to bring it forward. It just— we hadn't gotten to it quite yet. So, okay. Representative Mena, for the record, Genevieve Mena, through the co-chair to Representative staff. Yes, we received some of these recommendations for technical cleanups by CBPO when the bill was in Labor and Commerce, but that language for the amendments were not fully formed by the time that we were ready to do the amendments in Labor and Commerce.

That's why they're being introduced now. Okay, thanks. Okay, any further discussion? Representative Ballard? No.

Okay, the objection has been removed. Hearing no further objection, Amendment Number 2 has been adopted. OK, that takes us to Amendment Number 3. Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I move Amendment Number 3. OK. And I'll object. We've got an objection. Representative Moore. All right, thank you.

Amendment Number 3 says that the expanded authority in this bill should not include certain high-risk oh, I can't talk this morning either— specifically restricted drugs. The intent of this amendment is to make sure pharmacists are not authorized under this bill to prescribe or administer opioids or mifepristone. The bill also limits Schedule Ia and Iia controlled substances as well as Schedule II controlled substances under the federal law unless they are being used for treatment of opioid use disorder in a clinic. This amendment keeps that limitation but also adds drugs that require special certification, a required education program, or federal REMS requirements. That matters because the drug— that some of these drugs are not treated like ordinary prescriptions under federal law.

They have extra safety protocols, certification requirements, and restricted dispensing rules. If a drug requires that level of oversight, then I do not believe that this bill should be the vehicle that expands pharmacists' authority into that space. This amendment is not about limiting routine pharmacy care. It's about drawing a clear boundary that around controlled substances, opioids, and drugs that come with federal certification or, or our EMS requirements. Representative Ellard.

Thank you. I appreciate this amendment being brought forward, but there is a— I don't want to say deliberate— there is a— the word abortion is being left out. That it circumvents the system. So for me, I, I think what I, I see what this bill is driving at, or this amendment is what it's driving at, but it doesn't actually hone in into what I needed to say. So I'll be a no on this amendment.

Further discussion on Amendment Number 3? Representative Staff. I think— Kuchier Foster— I'm going to support the amendment. I appreciate the maker for bringing it. I think it solves kind of the big discussion that we had earlier in the committee on the bill in a very meaningful way.

And I think that's a good amendment and it works for better Alaskans where you can be mindful of certain drugs that might have adverse impact and be dangerous. And but at the same time, allow the pharmacists the ability to expand their scope of practice to put her better in line with the Rural Health Transformation Fund. So thank you. Okay. And I'll go to Representative Bynum, Allard, and then Mena.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I was hoping to hear from the bill sponsor. Representative Mena. For the record, Genevieve Mena, through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Bynum.

I'm supportive of Amendment Number 3, and this is in response to a lot of feedback that we've had about the bill from both the public and also from other legislators wanting more clarity and what it means for pharmacists' ability to be able to prescribe certain medications. The heart of the bill is really about expanding basic primary care access. We don't want pharmacists to be doing, uh, prescriptions for a lot of different specialty drugs, particularly these high-risk drugs that the FDA designates as being risky to a patient or an individual. And so this amendment clarifies that pharmacists are not able to prescribe any of these high-risk drugs. Uh, this could be acutane, which could cause deformities to someone who's pregnant with a child.

There's a lot of different high-risk drugs that are different from what the intent of the bill is.

Representative Ellard. Thank you. I just wanted to be one— just clear one more time that this amendment does not stop from the abortions being performed. It just mentions a drug, but it doesn't actually say abortion can't be performed. By different meds and different medications through a pharmacist.

So again, this is not what my constituency has asked for. So again, I'll be a no vote, and then I will object when we go further. Thank you. Okay, further discussion?

Okay, seeing none, the objection is maintained by Representative Allard. And so, Madam Clerk, we are on Amendment Number 3. If you could please call the roll. Representative Jimmy? Yes.

Representative Allard? No. Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Galvin?

Yes. Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Hannan? Yes.

Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Josephson?

Yes. Representative Schraggy? Yes. Yes. Representative Foster?

Yes. 10 Yay, 1 nay. So on a vote of 10 yay to 1 nay, Amendment Number 3 has been adopted, and we'll take a brief ease.

Okay, House Finance back on record and we have Amendment Number 4. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment 4. Objection.

Discussion. Okay. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So this is a simple amendment with a title change relating to the prescription of opioid overdose drugs.

So basically, very simply, it mandates a prescription from a— so it mandates a prescription from anyone who can prescribe an opioid drug. And what it does is it says, you know what, if we're getting an opioid drug over a certain amount then they also give a prescription for an overdose drug, which is like naloxone or that sort of thing. So it's, it's a simple— it's not mandatory. So the, the doctor would prescribe— if the doctor prescribes an opioid, he would also give the prescription for the antidote to that opioid. So we look forward to any questions.

Okay. Any discussion? I'd just like to hear from the bill sponsor if we could. Representative Mena and then staff. Representative Mena.

For the record, Genevieve Mena through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Schraggy. I'm neutral on this amendment. We heard a version of this provision in a bill in House Health and Social Services. And from that hearing, my understanding is that there's a pretty narrow set of circumstances where this provision would apply, where a pharmacist would offer the Narcan or the naloxone. So I'm currently neutral on the amendment.

Okay. Representative Stapp and then Hannon and Galvin. Representative Stapp. I'm going to pass for now, co-chair. Okay.

Representative Hannon. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. To the maker of the amendment, Representative Tomaszewski. In looking at this, was there any difference in insurance coverage for the prescription if it comes secondary to the original opioid prescription? So if it's the pharmacist who then says, here's your naloxone prescription, does— is there any problem with insurance coverage of that drug at that time?

Or is that why there's— you're allowing the patient to say, I don't need it? Representative Tomczewski. Yes, so there should be no difference in whether a physician at their local hospital prescribes it or if the— well, it sends it to the pharmacist with the prescription, so there would be no difference. It comes directly from the doctor because technically the pharmacist should not be prescribing the opioids. Representative Hannan.

Okay. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster. So just to clarify then, this is not giving pharmacists the authority to prescribe it. It is mandating that the prescribing physician or physician's assistant at the time of prescribing more than a 3-day supply of an opioid must also provide a prescription for opioid overdose drugs. Representative Tomaszewski.

That is correct. Okay. I've got Representative Galvin, Stapp, and Josephson. Representative Galvin. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate that. We do have a tremendous problem with Alaskans overdosing and not having Narcan or whatever drug available nearby. I do have just a couple of questions for Representative Tomaszewski. Firstly, have we heard from either the pharmacists or public health that this is something that should be in place and in this way?

And then the second question I had is if there is any education around that. I remember receiving sort of a training on that and I just want to make sure that if we're passing it out that we also allow for the educational piece as well.

Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So any pharmacists that I have actually talked to about this say it's a great idea. They would They would be happy to be able to provide that at the pharmacy. And it really is a good opportunity for doctors to educate their patients when they're giving them a prescription, you know, because it's— many people do not know how to use that Narcan, what it's for.

But just having that available in their own medicine cabinet, especially if they have an opioid in their own medicine cabinet, it's a great way to, to quickly help with any problems that are overdoses that could arise in their family.

Okay. Good. Representative Gelman. Thank you. And I do have a question as well about the cost of it.

I know that, for example, if it's— if we have patients who are on Medicaid, likely, they— the state would be incurring some sort of a cost for that, perhaps. Not that it's not important, because perhaps it's less cost than them going to the hospital because of other problems related to addiction, so— overdose, I should say. But if you could tell us a little bit more about the cost. What would the cost be to the patient or to the insurance company if you know? And give us a sense of that in a more broad sense as well.

Thank you. Representative Tomaszewski. So the cost would actually probably vary depending on the negotiations with Medicaid and all that between the pharmacy. It's very difficult to to nail down what exactly it's going to cost. I think if you were to buy this across over the counter without insurance, you're probably looking at about $35 to $50 for, for this particular overdose.

And so, but it would depend on what your insurance— I mean, what is your copay for your prescription? It's really, really negligible. Considering, you know, you may have an ambulance ride or a trip to the emergency room without it. So very negligible. Representative Goldman, thank you.

Do you have a sense of the volume? How many patients would we be talking about who would need this prescription of Narcan? If, if there's just a sense of that. Representative Tomaszewski. So being that it is voluntary, it's not mandatory.

So you can go with to the pharmacist and not and not buy it. It's very difficult to determine how many people are actually going to buy it. Thank you. Okay. In the queue, I've got Representative Steph Josephson in Bynum.

Representative Steph. I think, Co-Chair Foster, through the chair to the amendment sponsor, or maybe even the bill sponsor or Ms. Giorgio. Just curious, I'm reading this stuff. It seems like this is actually pretty standard overdose prevention language, especially when someone's concurrently prescribed a benzodiazepine when they get an opioid. I am curious if this amendment applies to more than just pharmacists, because on page 2 of the amendment it adds a new Section 7, which says an advanced practice registered nurse.

So I assume it applies to at least them. If not anyone else who prescribes medications. And I'm just hoping the bill sponsor could clarify that. Just but for the record, I like the amendment. I'm going to support it.

I just want to know the answer to the question. Thank you.

Representative Mena. For the record, Genevieve Mena through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Staff. If you're asking just for clarification on which providers this amendment applies to, you're correct. Section 7 also includes APRNs. And I would also defer to the amendment sponsor on the other sections of the amendment.

Representative Tomczewski. So thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So the new subsection is obviously something that must clean up some language that wasn't currently in place for the registered advanced practice registered nurse. It also not just the physician because a registered nurse can also prescribe this already. But it's just giving that ability for the nurse who can prescribe these things also the ability to do it.

Not just a medical doctor.

Okay. Representative Stepp, any further? I withdraw my objection if I made it. But I think I didn't make it. Senator Sharagi objected.

We do have questions. Representative Josephson, then Bynum. Representative Josephson. Yes, it sounds like this would be prepared by the pharmacist and the patient could decline it, is what I think Representative Tomaszewski said. So it would be— the patient would show up to the pharmacy with the prescription from his medical doctor.

That's what this amendment is saying. Any medical doctor, and also registered nurse practitioner, who prescribes an opioid with a 3-day supply or a 50 milliliter— millimeter— milligrams equivalent of morphine, anybody who prescribes more than that sends them to the pharmacist. So they're going to come there in hand to the pharmacy with with this prescription. All right. Just to follow up, I don't know that—.

Oh, really quick, just for the record, that was Representative Tomczewski speaking previously. Representative Josephson. Yes, through the chair. I don't know that it matters much, but a lot of these prescriptions are done electronically. I think it's irrelevant.

But I do have a question for the sponsors. So I value your opinion, Representative Mena. I know that you have concerns about Narcan and its availability in a positive way. You like to see it available. And so I'm just curious why you're— why you're neutral rather than leaning favorable.

Representative Mena. For the record, Genevieve Mena through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Josephson. I'm neutral just because my focus right now is just the pharmacist bill at its heart. But I am friendly towards policies that help expand Narcan access. It's just a different provision that is related to pharmacists.

And the bill had one hearing in Health and Social Services. So my current familiarity with the bill is that I think the bill is fine. But if there are any other concerns potentially related to insurance coverage, etc., I think we can help tease out those aspects. Thank you. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I'm going to be in support of the amendment. When I read the amendment, it says that they shall provide the opportunity to get this, but there is no obligation that they actually take it. So we're concerned about cost or insurance or any of those factors. This is just like any other drug that you may be able to get from a pharmacist where you go, they tell you what the costs are. You may not have insurance and then you decide maybe it isn't something that you want to get.

So there isn't anything in here saying that they shall get this with the prescription for the opioid. So I will be in support of this as it will just give further access without an obligation to pay. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion?

I remove my objection. The objection is removed. Any further objection? Seeing none, Amendment Number 4 has been adopted. That takes us to Amendment Number 5.

Representative Allard. Thank you. I move Amendment Number 5. Okay. We have an objection.

Representative Allard. Thank you.

So under this bill, HB 195 expands the pharmacist's authority to independently prescribe and administer drugs under collaborative practice agreements, this amendment draws a clear line why pharmacists may gain broader prescribing latitude for general health conditions. Dispensing abortion-inducing drugs, which carry serious moral, ethical, and medical weight, should remain gated through a physician. And then without this amendment, the bill would be read to permit the pharmacist to dispense medications like the mifeprestone and SPRMs used in medication abortions under those expanded authorities. The amendment provides an explicit, unambiguous carve-out, ensuring the legislature's intent is clear rather than leaving it to regulatory interpretation later. Adding this prohibit— prohibit— prohibition— I can't speak either.

Adding this to prohibit into statute rather than leaving it to the broad— or the Board of Pharmacy's discretion reflects a policy preference that us as elected officials and representatives, not an administrative board, should determine where the line falls on abortion-related medications. This keeps accountability with the legislature. So I would urge a yes. Okay. Discussion.

Amendment number 5. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair to Representative Allard. It appears to me that the amendment currently that you're offering adds a new section of law that's under 883.85, abortion-inducing drugs, and it basically says may not dispense, and then the rest of the item there.

Under existing statute, under definitions 8— AB 480, Section 8. There's a provision in the law that talks about dispense or dispensing, meaning the preparation and delivery of a drug or device to a patient or patient's agent under a lawful order of a practitioner. And under the current statute, they define the practitioner being a medical doctor under the medical board. So I'm just trying to understand how this amendment applies to a pharmacist being able to prescribe and/or perform these activities, especially given the adoption of a prior amendment, Amendment Number 3. Amendment Number 3.

Thank you. May I? Representative Ballard, you can—. We can call in at ease. You can do that research yourself.

This is my amendment that I am bringing forward. I— we as the body can decide what and what does not go into this bill. And I've decided this is the language that I wanted into the bill to prohibit any abortion. It might counter that and we can move forward. But I don't— I don't really have an answer for you at this time.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. If I could go to the sponsor, Representative Mena, just your thoughts on the amendment, then we'll come over to Representative Moore. Representative Mena.

For the record, Genevieve Mena to the co-chair. I'm opposed to the amendment, particularly because language that is specific to abortion has been heavily litigated in the past. And as we've said before, this bill related to pharmacists is not about any particular drug or aspect. It's really about basic primary care. We worked worked very diligently with a lot of different stakeholders to make sure that we are creating better parameters, better clarity for what this bill means as it relates to high-risk medications, including mifepristone, which is designated as a high-risk medication by the FDA.

And so under the amendment that was adopted, pharmacists would not be able to prescribe mifepristone. And additionally, since, uh, there are no Alaska pharmacies that meet the federal requirements to dispense mifepristone. In addition to the Attorney General memo from 2023 stating that pharmacists and pharmacies cannot dispense mifepristone, this language, if the intent is to prohibit that, that's already the status quo right now. And adding additional language would create litigious language that we do not want in the bill. Representative Moore.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I'm— so through the chair, one of the complications with using the word dispense in statute language is that these drugs in this amendment aren't exclusively for elective abortions. They are also for managing miscarriages after fetal death, nonviable pregnancies, cervical prep before medical procedures, treatment of Cushing syndrome, Managing endometriosis and other uterine lining issues, um, things I've personally dealt with before. So I think, um, we have to be really careful with language and intent of these amendments when we're talking about this bill, uh, and not to create more barriers for women receiving medically necessary treatment. And I think that Number— Amendment Number 3 covered exactly what we needed to cover when it comes to elective abortions and being able for pharmacists to be able to prescribe abortion, elective abortion medication.

And so with that, I will not be supporting Amendment Number 5. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair, Representative Mena. Do you know with this amendment, because I'm just seeing this now, do you know if this is a— would change the practice that we would see within the hospital setting?

Because I know that the bill's intention is for expanding care in a pharmacy setting. And when we talk about, and we've extensively talked about this, on what a pharmacist can and can't do under existing statute, and abortions isn't one of those. But when we move into an actual hospital setting, hospitals do have pharmacies. And the way that I'm reading this is it's talking about dispense. Would this potentially run afoul of current practice in hospital settings and create a limitation that would likely, in my opinion, be litigated?

Oh, it's going to be litigated. Representative Mena. For the record, Genevieve Mena through Co-Chair Foster to Representative Bynum. My understanding is no, because under the Attorney General's memo on mifepristone from 2023, they clarified that under Alaska state law, um, AS 08, uh, 1610(a)(1), that it is only physicians that are able to perform abortions. And that would also mean that physicians are the only ones that would be able to dispense the mifepristone, not necessarily pharmacy or pharmacists.

And so even if the— this was performed in a hospital setting, I believe the patient would still have to get the mifepristone directly from a physician. Not from the pharmacist or the pharmacy. And I also want to note that the language is also not just pertaining to that drug, as Representative Moore stated. It's pertaining to a lot of broad drugs and also related to selective progesterone receptor modulators. So it's pretty broad.

Representative Bynum. Thank you. Through the chair. Thank you, Representative. The reason I'm asking the question is because it is broad and it does deal with other drugs that may be prescribed by an actual doctor in a hospital setting where the patient then goes down to the hospital pharmacy and then the pharmacist actually dispenses the medication pursuant to the statute under dispense and dispensing, meaning the lawful order of a practitioner.

This seems to me that this would prohibit that from happening in the hospital setting.

Representative Mena. For the record, Genevieve Mena, through Co-Chair Foster, to Representative Bynum.

Since the amendment is specific to pharmacists, I don't think it would. And, and just to be clear again, when— if a physician is prescribing, um, let's say it is mifepristone, it has to be dispensed by the physician. It cannot be dispensed by the pharmacist or pharmacy. You have to meet federal requirements to be able to be a pharmacy to dispense mifepristone and sell that directly to a patient. And there is a separate lawsuit right now that's currently in litigation.

And to, to quote the Attorney General's memo, the direct dispensing of mifepristone to patients in Alaska would still violate Alaska law if that case were to be successful. So it's pharmacies and pharmacists cannot dispense methopressin in the state. Thank you. Further discussion on Amendment Number 5? Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I'm going to support this amendment just because of what the, the sponsor of the bill just said, that the pharmacist may not dispense this. And so I don't understand why we'd, we'd be against any language that just absolutely, you know, clears that up and lays it out as, as the way this amendment does. So if the pharmacist can't do it now, this, this amendment just says that they can't do it in the future. So I, I will be in support of this amendment.

Further discussion? Representative Stout. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I guess through the chair to the bill sponsor, I was under the impression with the adoption of Amendment 3, we basically took care of that issue with the RU486, mifepristone, misoprostol kind of banning from prescribing prescriptions to assign them. Just if you could clarify that for me on the record.

For the record, Genevieve Mina, through Co-Chair Foster, to representative staff. We did create clarifications and restrictions on high-risk drugs including mifepristone. There are these drugs that are designated by the FDA that are designated to be high-risk. They have additional federal requirements called risk evaluation and prevention strategy plans. And so you have to meet additional qualifications or certifications, et cetera.

And so what the third amendment, which was adopted, does as it relates to— if the concern is the mifepristone, the amendment restricts pharmacists from being able to prescribe or administer any drug that has a REMS, which is not just mifepristone. It's pretty broad to a lot of different types of medications, particularly medications medications related to cancer treatment or other, other situations. The amendment also clarifies that in terms of dispensing these types of medications, you have to meet the federal requirements, and the Attorney General of Alaska has said that no pharmacies are federally certified to dispense mifepristone. And so there's a lot of different layers that prevent the ability to prescribe and administer or dispense mifepristone. And I also just want to be clear, pharmacists have not been prescribing or dispensing mifepristone in Alaska.

A follow-up, Representative Stout. Yeah, I think, Co-Chair Foster. So this amendment says it bans selective progesterone receptor remodulators. I don't think I have any of those, but I'm curious, what are the actual uses of this? Obviously, drugs tend to do more than one thing.

Obviously, I'm not a fan of abortion, but if you ban this thing, what else— medication are used for this thing? I would like I don't want to quote ivermectin on the, on the floor of the House Finance Committee, but a lot of times, like banning a generic drug that has multipurpose has other intended effects. I don't know if you know what they are. Through the chair, Representative Mena. For the record, Genevieve Mena, through Co-Chair Foster, to Representative Stapp.

I'm not personally clear of what all drugs the phrase selective progesterone receptor modulator would apply to. I guess my concern is that if it applies to drugs such as misoprostol, as mentioned before, a lot of these different medications— when you, when you use misoprostol in a vacuum and not with mifepristone, that is used— it does not induce an abortion, and it also is used to treat a lot of different conditions. As it relates to stomach ulcers, postpartum bleeding, miscarriages, Cushing syndrome. And so to use this type of language, it creates a lot more limitations that we worry would harm patient, patient care. Last follow-up to amendment maker, Mr. Kocher.

Representative Stout. Yeah, I'm just curious, why don't you just say abortion-inducing drugs as as opposed to this other thing that may have a multipurpose? Through the chair, Representative Mena. No, Representative Ballard. What's the question?

Why not just structure the amendment to ban abortion-inducing drugs? Why include this selective progesterone receptor modulator or abortion-inducing drugs? Through the chair, Representative Ballard. These are all ways that an abortion can happen. And so we made it more broad and not leave out the word.

It's only directed toward abortion Unlike Amendment Number 3, where it was purposely left out the word abortion so that it could still be implemented, this one actually narrows it in and gives it a broader definition of the things that you can't use to include more inducing abortion drugs. Why do you want it to be? I guess the question would be to this committee, why do you want it to be left— the word left out of any amendment or this bill if this HB 195 does not allow abortion, then this amendment should not play any part in stopping the bill from going forward with the word abortion in it. But the bill purposely leaves it out. The Amendment 3 purposely leaves it out so that it would not be the very strict lines of what is allowed and not to be allowed in this bill.

And if you don't agree with it, vote no. Follow-up, Senator Stap. Yeah, I think, Co-Chair Foster, just to clarify, the question was not on including the abortion-inducing drug language. It was including the other thing that I don't know what is the selective progesterone receptor modulators. I would think that you could just achieve the purpose by just including abortion-inducing drugs rather than this.

No, this covers all aspects of it. And I would also say that it would have also achieved it if it was an Amendment 3 with the word abortion. But again, it was purposely left out. This makes sure it doesn't happen. And as far as of progesterone receptor modulator and any other dispense or use of selective or another abortion-inducing drug.

This covers it all. So there is no misconstrued information of what the intent of this amendment was. And that was Representative Allard. Further discussion?

Nothing. Representative Stepp. Okay. Do we have any further discussion on Amendment Number 5? Hearing none, Representative Hannon, do you maintain your objection?

Okay, the objection is maintained. And so with that, Madam Clerk— Representative Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Um, co-chair. I just wanted to also say that I have a legal memo that says here with the comparative physicians, um, agreement that under this HB 195 with the CPA that this abortion medications would be allowed and that the only way that it would not be allowed is with this amendment. And even though the Attorney General's office, not the Attorney General himself— and by the way, I did speak to the Attorney General.

He read parts of the bill, but not all of it. And he depended on his Deputy Attorney General for the, the final determination. They were not given the question about the comparative physicians agreement. That question was not brought to them. That was left out.

He acknowledged that. This actually from Ledge Legal agreeing with me. The CPA was a very specific question that I did ask Ledge Legal and they came back with their answer. So I encourage a yes vote. My ajab.

Thank you. Okay, I think that was wrap up, Representative Bynum, and we probably don't want to get into what we got into the last time here. Did you have just a technical— technical Clarification. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Representative had mentioned a legal memo.

I always wanted clarity on if it's the legal memo that we have in our packet specifically, which legal memo is she referencing? Representative Ballard. Thank you, Co-Chair. This legal memo has been passed out several times. It's also on BASIS.

Anybody could read it at any time. It should be in your packet as of— I have asked the body to pass it out. It's dated April 1st, 2026, and I've spoken to most everybody in the body that the legal memo does exist and that it was passed out. Representative Bynum, is that the date that you have on the memo that you have in your hand? Did I hear, uh, through the chair, is that the date that you have?

It was April 7th, I believe. April 1st. April 1st. Uh, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I have a memo from Legal Services dated April 1st, 2026.

That was to Representative Allard, and it specifically— they don't put other identifiers on there, but it says prescribing authority of pharmacist abortion, CHB 195, Labor and Commerce, work order 34LS0909 backslash I. Is that the memo that was being referenced? Representative Allard. If that's what he's reading, are we going to— I already gave my closing comments. We've had plenty of time to go over everything.

If I'm going to debate here on the floor, let's do this. If not, can we go ahead and be done with this and move forward? And I don't think it was a debate. It was just a question of whether or not we have the right memo in our packet. And does that sound like—.

Pretty sure if it was only April 1st and if it has my name on it, it's the only one that I've ever offered as a legal memo. Okay, thank you. I think that will suffice. And so with that, Madam Clerk, we are on Amendment Number 5. If you could please call the roll.

Representative Hannon. No. Representative Tomaszewski. Yes. Representative Moore.

No. Representative Allard. Yes. Representative Stapp. Pass.

Representative Gelvin. No. Representative Jimmy. No. Representative Bynum?

No.

Representative Stapp?

No. Representative Josephson? No. Representative Schraggy? No.

Representative Foster? No. 2 Yea, 9 nay. So on a vote of 2 yea and 9 nay, Amendment Number 5 has not been adopted. I'd like to also note that we have in the audience with us— I think I mentioned Representative Colom earlier— and we also have Representative Field Ms. Reynolds, thanks for joining us.

And so next that takes us to Amendment Number 6. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment Number 6. Object.

Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Co-Chair. Amendment 6 has everything to do with a subject we are entirely familiar with, and that would be the nurse Licensing Compact.

And the Department of Health and its application for the Rural Health Transformation Program listed 5 compacts that would need to be passed, and Nurse Licensure Compact was one of those 5 compacts. It is currently the only one that is not in the works to be passed this year, and it is a— something that Alaska needs and nurses overwhelmingly support. And I will leave it at that and we can go to debate and questions. Thank you. Very brief, it is.

Very brief, it is.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 10:21 AM on Monday, May 11th. I think debate on this next amendment may be a little longer than the few minutes we have remaining before we have floor session and some meetings before caucus meetings. So we're going to go ahead and adjourn out, and then we'll figure out a time when we come back to both this bill as well as the next bill, which was SB 130, Fish Production Development Tax Credit. That was the second bill that we're supposed to take up this morning. We'll let folks know our next meeting is scheduled for this afternoon at 1:30, and at that meeting we'll have a public testimony for both Senate Bill 24, the tobacco and e-cigarette tax bill, as well as Senate Bill 29, Big Game Commercial Services Board.

And then it is also our intent to return back to House Bill 381, which is the oil and gas property tax bill. So if there's nothing else to come for the committee, we'll be adjourned at 10:22 AM.