►
From YouTube: 4/7/2021 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor, 1pm
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
E
A
A
Welcome
committee
members
and
welcome
audience
tuning
in
over
the
internet.
As
always,
we
will
start
by
going
over
some
housekeeping
items.
I
would
just
like
to
remind
everyone
listening
that
exhibits,
written
testimony
and
amendments
must
be
submitted
by
noon
the
day
prior
to
the
committee
meeting
persons
who
wish
to
provide
testimony
or
attend
the
meeting
virtually
must
pre-register
on
the
legislature's
website.
The
public
is
strongly
encouraged
to
submit
written
testimony
in
advance
of
the
meeting
by
emailing
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
members.
Please
remember
to
keep
your
cameras
on
at
all
time.
A
This
will
help
us
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
quorum
unless
you
are
stepping
away
for
non-committee
related
business.
I
would
also
like
to
remind
members
and
presenters
to
please
keep
yourself
muted,
unmute
yourself
to
speak
and
then
promptly
mute
yourself
when
you
are
done.
Thank
you,
everyone,
and
we
have
an
agenda
today
with
three
bills
that
we
will
be
hearing:
ajr,
10
ab,
ab398
and
ab436.
A
We
will
start
by
opening
the
hearing
on
assembly
joint
resolution
10
of
the
80th
session,
which
proposes
to
amend
the
nevada
constitution
to
prospectively
increase
the
required
minimum
wage
paid
to
employees.
We
have
speaker
fryerson
with
us
today
to
present
the
bill.
Thank
you,
speaker.
Fryerson,.
F
Hello
chairwoman,
howdy
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
jason,
fryerstein
assemblyman
from
district
8,
speaker,
the
nevada
state
assembly,
and
I'm
here
to
present
assembly
joint
resolution
number
10
from
the
2019
session,
which
proposes
to
amend
the
nevada
constitution
to
prospectively
increase
the
required
minimum
wage
paid
employees.
F
F
More
than
than
ever
people
are
working
jobs
that
pay
too
little
and
offer
too
few
benefits.
Last
session,
we
were
committed
to
increasing
minimum
wage
in
nevada
gradually
over
the
next
few
years
to
reach
12
by
2024..
F
Just
this
last
july,
nevada
saw
that
first
increase
eight
dollars
an
hour
for
workers
who
receive
health,
insurance
and
nine
dollars
an
hour
for
workers
who
do
not
receive
health
insurance.
The
bureau
of
labor
statistics
reported
in
2020
that
10
of
our
labor
force
or
about
125
000
workers
made
9.77
cents
an
hour
or
less.
This
increase
was
the
first
statewide
increase
of
our
minimum
wage
in
over
a
decade.
A
minimum
wage
is
just
that
it's
an
hourly
wage
floor,
not
an
hourly
wage
ceiling.
F
This
resolution
will
allow
nevadans
to
decide
how
the
minimum
wage
is
enacted
in
our
state,
which
I
think
is
critical
assembly.
Joint
resolution
10
proposes
to
amend
the
nevada
constitution
to
set
the
minimum
wage
at
12
per
hour,
beginning
july
1
of
2024,
regardless
of
whether
the
employer
offers
health
and
benefits
to
its
employees.
F
Additionally,
ajr10
removes
the
annual
adjustment
to
the
minimum
wage,
as
currently
established
in
the
nevada
constitution,
and
instead
provides
that
if,
at
any
time,
the
federal
minimum
wage
is
greater
than
twelve
dollars
per
hour,
then
the
state
minimum
wage
would
also
be
increased
to
the
amount
established
at
the
federal
minimum
wage.
Finally,
ajr
10
allows
the
legislature
to
establish
a
minimum
wage,
that's
greater
than
the
hourly
rate
set
forth
in
the
nevada
constitution,
again
making
clear
that
that's
the
floor
and
not
the
ceiling.
F
I
urge
your
support
for
what
I
believe
is
critical
legislation,
the
distinction
between
the
minimum
wage,
depending
on
whether
their
health
care
benefits
has
been
included
in
the
nas
in
the
nevada
constitution
and
our
statutory
structure.
For
some
time,
nevada
is
the
only
state
that
has
that
distinction.
F
We've
had
numerous
conversations
in
an
attempt
to
define
what
healthcare
benefits
need
to
be
in
order
to
qualify.
It's
a
new,
it's
an
unusual
way
to
calculate
minimum
wage
and
distinguish
between
minimum
wage
rates,
and
we
believe
it's
time
to
make
a
change
so
that
nevada
can
remain
competitive
with
surrounding
states.
Again.
F
This
effort,
along
with
assembly
bill
456
from
the
2019
session,
which
started
the
incremental
increase
in
minimum
wage,
was
a
compromise
reached
in
the
2019
session
to
minimize
the
impacts
on
businesses,
but
recognize
that
minimum
wage
is
no
longer
a
job
that
folks
have
just
for
the
summer.
You
know
when
they're,
not
in
school,
we
have
nevadans
that
are
fighting
to
pay
to
feed
their
children
based
on
jobs
that
pay
minimum
wage.
F
You
know
this,
you
know
times
are
different
and
also
the
minimum
wage
in
our
surrounding
states
is
changing
to
where
we
need
to
be
more
competitive,
and
I
I
think
ultimately
leaving
this
to
nevada.
Voters
will
be
an
ultimate
indication
of
where
our
state
wants
to
go,
and
I
would
urge
your
support
and
encouragement
to
put
this
before
nevada
and
to
vote
on,
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
so
much
speaker
fryerson
for
bringing
forward
ajr
10
astrich.
I
will
turn
to
the
committee
first
to
see
if
there
are
any
questions,
and
actually
I
will
take
privilege
as
a
chair
and
just
because
this
these
questions
used
to
come
up
during
the
2019
session,
when
I
had
the
privilege
of
chairing
legislative
operations
and
elections.
But
again
this
is
an
assembly
joint
resolution.
So
would
you
walk
the
committee
through
those
listening
through
how
a
joint
resolution
works?
How
if
we
pass
it
today,
it
doesn't
become
law.
It
still
has.
F
Another
jason
fryerson
as
an
assembly
joint
resolution.
In
order
to
amend
our
our
constitution,
it
would
have
to
pass
the
legislature
twice
and
then
it
would
then
go
before
the
people
it
it.
Otherwise
it
could
go
before
the
people
twice
income
for
legislation,
but
with
joint
resolutions
it
would
have
to
be
passed
twice
in
the
legislature
before
being
placed
on
the
ballot
so
you're
right.
F
If
this
body
passes
this
for
the
second
time,
it
would
appear
on
the
next
election
ballot
for
the
voters
to
decide
whether
or
not
they
want
to
change
what
is
currently
a
minimum
wage
and
of
cents
an
hour
if
insurance
is
provided
or
six
dollars
and
fifteen
cents
an
hour
if
insurance
is
not
provided
and
and
again
in
my
remarks,
we
talked
about
health
insurance
and
the
benefits
being
so
varied
that
it
wasn't
a
reliable
way
to
determine
what
what
the
minimum
wage
would
be.
F
You
know
some
people
would
have
a
20
deductible
and
other
insurance
policies
may
have
a
thousand
dollar
deductible,
and
so
I
I
think
very
few
would
would
take
issue
with
a
minimum
wage
of
five
dollars
and
fifteen
cents
simply
not
being
acceptable.
F
It
certainly
doesn't
keep
us
competitive
with
surrounding
states,
but
again
increasing
this
gradually
between
now
or
last
year
and
2024,
I
do
believe,
is
a
responsible
way
forward
and
ultimately,
that
was
passed
in
2019
ajr10
from
2019
simply
changes
the
the
minimum
the
floor
in
the
constitution
to
match
up
with
what
the
minimum
wage
will
be
in
2024,
based
on
the
assembly
before
56.
In
the
last
session.
A
Okay,
seeing
oh
assemblymember
tolls.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
was
a
little
slow
on
the
draw
there.
I
apologize
and
thank
you,
mr
speaker.
G
I
know
we've
had
these
conversations
in
in
the
past,
so
I
won't
go
back
through
previous
questions,
but
I
something
did
just
occur
to
me
in
the
explanation
of
putting
it
at
the
constitutional
level
if,
by
putting
it
in
the
constitutional
level,
let's
say
we
want
to
make
adjustments
in
the
future,
because
we
realize-
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I've
brought
up
before
has
been
concerns
about
how
like
in-home
care
providers,
particularly
when
you
add
that
to
the
eight-hour
overtime
rules
that
we
have
in
our
state
that
can
over-price
us
past
the
medicaid
reimbursement
with
that
which
then
gets
you
know,
pushed
on
to
the
families
and
sometimes
prices
appear.
G
So
if
we
were
to
put
this
at
the
constitutional
level
and
we
decided
in
future
legislative
sessions,
we
wanted
to
come
back
and
make
some
you
know
changes
or
or
adjustments,
because
we've
run
into
those
those.
You
know
the
side
consequences
that
impact
those
families
in
need,
just
by
putting
it
in
the
constitutional
level.
Does
that
make
it
harder
for
us
to
be
able
to
come
back
as
a
legislator
legislature
and
make
those
kinds
of
adjustments.
F
Thank
you
for
the
record
jason
fryerson
to
assemblywoman
holds.
I
remind
folks
that
are
listening.
I
think
the
premise
of
the
question
is
that
we
are
doing
something
by
virtue
of
the
constitution.
F
We
are
allowing
voters
to
do
something,
so
I
I
think
that
to
to
the
extent
that
voters
believe
that
the
floor
is
a
floor
and
that
it's
inconceivable
to
think
about
how
home
prices
are
going
up,
affordable
housing
is
limited
that
we
would
ever
want
to
go
backwards
to
the
extent
that
we,
as
the
legislative
body,
can
change
those
other
legislative
structures
about
eight-hour.
You
know
work
shifts
in
overtime.
F
Those
are
statutory
things
that
we
can
adjust
any
time
we're
in
the
legislature,
but
I
think
that
this
measure
is
asking
the
nevada
voters.
Do
you
believe
that
the
5.15
floor
is
adequate,
or
do
you
believe
that
it
should
be
something
different
than
than
that?
I?
I
will
remind
this
body
that
the
the
original
proposal
was
actually
15
and
this
represented
a
compromise
working
with
various
states,
stakeholder
groups,
and
I
believe
there
was
a
measure
in
2019
that
would
have
or
actually
2017.
F
G
H
And
thank
you,
mr
speaker.
This
kind
of
goes
along
with
assemblywoman
toll's
question,
so
you
know
you're
saying
that
it
would
be
the
people
putting
it
in
the
constitution,
but
a
lot
of
people
don't
exactly
understand
how
it
all
works,
and
so
I
guess
my
question
would
be
sort
of
the
reverse.
If
we
wanted
to
raise
the
minimum
wage
because,
like
you
say
home
prices
and
a
lot
of
things
are
going
up,
how
would
we
do
that.
F
Thank
you
again,
jason
freister
for
the
record
with
something
wanna
dickman.
The
answer
is
no,
it
doesn't
work
that
way.
This
is
the
minimum,
as
I
indicated
at
the
outset,
it
is
the
the
wage
increases
that
would
get
us
to
twelve
dollars
by
2024
are
already
in
statute,
and
that
was
passed
in
assembly
bill
456
from
last
session.
So
we
would
not
have
to
go
to
the
constitution
to
raise
minimum
wage.
We
would
simply
do
it.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
I
am
going
to
move
us
into
the
testimony
portion
of
the
hearing.
I
would
like
to
give
those
listening
in
over
the
internet
and
waiting
on
the
line
to
provide
testimony
for
any
of
the
three
bills
that
we
are
hearing
today:
the
lay
of
the
land,
because
we
are
hearing
three
bills
today
and
I
lose
members
to
a
committee
that
starts
after
us.
We
will
be
limiting
testimony
to
30
minutes
her
support,
30
minutes,
proposition,
30
minutes
in
neutral
for
each
one
of
the
bills.
With
that
broadcasting.
A
I
J
J
nevadans
are,
depending
on
you,
their
legislators
to
start
somewhere
and
bringing
them
some
economic
relief,
especially
at
a
time
like
this.
When
we
started
this
work
on
this
bill
in
2019,
we
had
no
idea
how
important
it
would
become.
Avr
is
critical
because
avr
10
is
critical,
because
businesses
have
been
abusing
the
provision
of
connecting
health
care
with
the
minimum
wage.
J
No
one
should
be
paid
a
dollar
less
because
their
employer
is
taking
advantage
of
a
loophole
to
save
a
dollar
on
hour,
a
dollar
an
hour,
especially
when
people
are
struggling.
We
must
give
voters
the
ability
to
remove
this
provision
that
has
been
taking
it
taken
advantage
of,
and
this
is
our
chance
to
do
so.
Nevadan
should
have
access
to
good,
affordable
health
care
and
get
a
living
wage.
This
should
never
be
an
either
or
another.
Critical
part
of
this
bill
is
tying
the
state
minimum
wage
to
the
federal
minimum
wage.
J
So
if
wages
go
up
faster
than
what
we
approved
in
2019,
nevadans
can
benefit
adr.
10
also
puts
the
legislature
in
a
position
so
that
you,
as
our
elected
officials,
can
continue
to
improve
people's
lives
by
ensuring
that
the
minimum
wage
is
raised
to
continue
meeting
increased
increased
costs
of
living
instead
of
going
through
an
intense
process
to
make
modifications,
the
business
community
continues
to
resist
any
attempts
to
enact
a
raise
to
the
minimum
wage,
claiming
that
it
will
lead
to
mass
layoffs
and
a
crush
of
small
businesses.
J
As
someone
who
runs
a
small
business
myself,
I
can
attest
that
I
am
able
to
manage
a
small
nonprofit
and
ensure
my
staff
is
compensated
properly
and
pay
a
hundred
percent
of
their
health
insurance.
Other
businesses
can
do
it
too.
If
you
prioritize
the
life
and
health
of
your
employees,
then
you
find
a
way
to
pay
them
enough
to
afford
food,
housing,
transportation
and
medical
care,
especially
during
a
global
pandemic.
J
Many
of
us
been
fighting
to
raise
the
wage
for
years
and
now
is
our
chance
to
finally
do
something
about
it.
Nevada
is
a
place
of
second
chances
for
many
workers,
a
land
of
opportunity
where
hard
work
pays
off
for
many,
but
not
for
our
minimum
wage
workers,
and
we
need
to
do
right
by
them
by
passing
ajr
10..
We
want
to
thank
speaker
fryerson
again
for
working
with
us
on
this
critical
issue.
Please
support
this
bill.
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christine
saunders,
that's
c-h-r-I-s-t-I-n-e
s-a-u-n-d-e-r-s
and
I'm
the
policy
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada
here
in
support
of
assembly
joint
resolution
10
from
the
80th
legislative
session
for
our
communities
and
economy
to
thrive.
Jobs
need
to
pay
at
least
enough
to
get
by
with
basics.
When
people
cannot
afford
to
go
to
the
doctor
or
to
make
basic
home
repairs,
all
of
us
are
hurt.
J
Additionally,
the
economy
slows
down
when
people
cannot
afford
even
the
basics.
Increasing
the
minimum
wage
boosts
not
only
individual
households,
but
the
communities
workers
live
and
spend
in
this
bill
would
solidify
the
statutory
changes
of
ab-456
from
last
session
and
eliminate
the
health
care
carve-out
that
has
been
taken
advantage
of
by
employers.
J
D
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
quentin
savoie,
q-u-e-n-t-I-n
savoir,
it's
like
sam,
a
like
apple,
be
like
victor
w-o-I-r,
I'm
the
deputy
director
at
make
it
work
nevada.
We
work
alongside
black
women
and
black
families
to
fight
for
economic,
racial
and
reproductive
justice
in
2019.
We
also
worked
in
coalition
to
pass
assembly
bill
456
to
ensure
that
nevada's
labor
force
got
a
minimum
wage
increase.
Black
women
and
black
families
still
earn
less
than
their
white
counterparts
and
considerably
less
than
their
white
male
counterparts.
D
D
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
am
lalo
montoya
l-a-l-o
m-o-n-t-o-y-a
housing
and
unemployment
organizer
at
maker
nevada.
We
are
a
non-profit
organization
fighting
to
improve
the
quality
of
life
of
immigrants
and
working
families
here
in
nevada.
Again,
we
also
want
to
thank
speaker
fyerson
for
presenting
the
bill
and
ensuring
that
our
state
will
keep
up
with
surrounding
states
and
whatever
is
set
in
federal
law
to
ensure
that
the
communities
that
have
been
the
hardest
hit
during
the
pandemic
will
have
a
voice
in
fighting
against
sub-minimum
wages.
I
E
B-E-N-J-A-M-I-N-C-H-A-L-L-I-N-O-R,
I
am
the
policy
director
for
faith
in
action
nevada.
We
are
a
non-partisan,
multi-faith
organization
that
organizes
and
advocates
for
racial,
economic
and
social
justice,
as
well
as
an
inclusive
democracy
and
fighting
for
a
a
living
wage
is
part
of
fighting
for
an
economy
in
fighting
for
economic
justice,
as
well
as
racial
justice.
E
Taking
out
the
health
care
carve
out
from
the
constitution
is
important
and
making
sure
that
if,
at
any
point,
the
federal
government
looks
to
raise
the
minimum
wage
higher
than
our
floor
of
12,
we
are
able
to
provide
that
here
in
the
state
we
urge
the
community
for
for
their
support
and
thank
speaker
faris
for
his
continued
work
on
raising
the
minimum
wage.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony
broadcasting
next
caller.
Please.
I
I
A
Okay,
could
we
try
them
one
more
time
and
call
her?
I
don't
see
you
registered
in
support,
or
else
I
would
announce
who
it
was,
but
you
can
also
feel
free
to.
Please
submit
your
testimony
in
support
of
ajr10
from
2019
to
our
committee,
our
committee
manager
and
she
will
include
it
in
the
record,
but
if
we
could
broadcasting
try
them
one
more
time
and
if
not,
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
and
opposition.
I
A
I
D
However,
we
continue
to
be
opposed
to
the
bill
at
this
time,
but
we
recognized
efforts
that
were
put
in
in
regards
to
timeline
and
incremental
amounts,
as
would
be
proposed
through
the
resolution
again,
do
want
to
thank
the
speaker
for
reaching
out
and
working
with
stakeholders.
Thank
you,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
your
time.
I
K
K
However,
the
evidence
shows
that
as
well-meaning
as
they
may
be,
they
do
not
benefit
the
economy
nor
the
people
they
are
intended
to
help
an
article
from
february
2021
in
the
american
specter
entitled
don't
overlook
minimum
wages,
negative
negative
effects.
States
quote
the
late
economist.
Walter
williams
in
his
by
autobiography
up
from
the
projects,
explained
his
move
away
from
the
belief
that
minimum
wages
help
the
poor.
K
K
While
there
is
a
debate
over
the
magnitude
of
the
effects
of
the
minimum
wage,
the
weight
of
research
by
academic
scholars
points
to
the
conclusion
that
unemployment
for
some
population
groups
is
directly
related
to
legal
minimum
wages.
The
unemployment
effects
of
the
minimum
wage
law
are
felt
disproportionately
by
non-whites
end
of
quote.
K
According
to
the
above
article,
economists
at
the
university
of
washington
studied
the
employment
effects
of
seattle's
move
to
gradually
increase
its
minimum
wage
to
15
an
hour
it
raised
at
the
13
in
2016
and
to
15
this
year.
The
findings
showed
that
it
led
to
a
nine
percent
reduction
in
low-wage
jobs
for
your
testimony
generated.
I
H
Good
afternoon
this
is
janine
hanson
j-a-n-I-n-e-h-a-n-s-e-n,
president
of
nevada
families
for
freedom.
Ajr
10
does
not
belong
in
the
nevada
constitution.
It
makes
it
totally
inflexible.
We
oppose
agr
10
the
constitutional
amendment
to
raise
the
minimum
wage
to
12
an
hour
unless
the
federal
government
raises
it
higher.
Recently,
the
u.s
house
of
representatives
voted
for
a
15
minimum
wage
which
did
not
pass
the
u.s
senate
a
new
report
from
the
congressional
budget
office
estimates.
H
The
democrat
proposal
would
kill
1.4
million
jobs
while
meanwhile,
this
month,
cnbc
and
a
survey,
monkey
poll
of
small
businesses
showed
that
one-third
said
they
would
lay
off
workers.
If
the
minimum
wage
went
to
fifteen
dollars
an
hour.
The
minimum
wage
is
designed
for
entry-level
jobs,
which
will
be
eliminated
by
depriving
young
people
of
work,
experience
and
opportunities.
Higher
minimum
wage
laws
hurt
the
very
people
they
are
supposed
to
help,
including
minorities.
Low-Skilled
workers
and
teenagers,
however,
increases
in
the
minimum
wage
do
benefit
unions.
H
The
national
bureau
of
economic
research,
authors,
jeffrey
clemens
and
michael
weiner
find
that
significant
minimum
wage
increases
can
negatively
affect
employment,
average
income
and
economic
mobility
of
low-skilled
workers.
They
find
that
significantly
minimum
wage
increases
reduced
the
employment
average
income
and
income
growth
of
low-skilled
workers
over
short
and
medium
horizons.
H
Most
troubling
was
that
these
low-skilled
workers
saw
significant
declines
in
economic
mobility.
In
an
article
by
walter
williams,
elitist
arrogance
on
minimum
wage
hurts
minorities.
He
says
supporters
of
a
15
minimum
wage
are
now
admitting
that
there
will
be
job
losses.
Why
shouldn't
we
in
fact
accept
job
job
losses.
Ask
the
new
school
economics,
professor
david
howell,
adding
what's
so
bad
about
getting
rid
of
crappy
jobs.
Williams
continues
by
saying,
what's
a
crappy
job.
H
I
L
L-Y-N-N-C-H-A-P-M-A-N,
please
oppose
ajr10
asterisk
james
shirk
research.
Fellow
and
labor
economist
test
testified
before
united
states
senate.
He
said,
quote
supporters
of
the
minimum
wage
intended
to
lift
low
income
families
out
of
poverty.
Unfortunately,
despite
good
intentions,
the
minimum
wage
has
proved
ineffective
of
doing
so.
Minimum
wage
positions
are
typically
learning
wage
positions.
They
enable
workers
to
gain
the
skills
necessary
to
become
more
productive
on
the
job
rising.
The
minimum
wage
makes
such
an
entry
level
position
less
available.
This
hurts
these
workers,
even
if
minimum
wage
workers
do
not
lose
their
job.
L
The
overlapping
and
uncoordinated
design
of
the
us
welfare
programs
prevents
those
in
need
from
benefiting
from
higher
wages
as
their
income
rises.
They
lose
federal
tax
credits
and
assistance.
These
benefit
losses
offset
most
of
the
wage
increases.
A
single
mother
with
one
child
faces
an
effective,
marginal
tax
rate
of
91
percent
when
her
pay
rises
from
7.25
to
10
10
an
hour
studies
also
find
higher
minimum
wages
do
not
reduce
property
rates.
Despite
the
best
of
intentions,
the
minimum
wage
has
proved
an
ineffective
and
often
counterproductive
policy
in
the
war
on
poverty.
L
One
of
the
central
premises
of
economics
is
the
demand
curve
slope
downwards:
when
prices
rise,
people
buy
less
of
goods
or
services
when
cash
prices
rise,
we
drive
less,
but
when
it
goes
down,
we
drive
more.
The
same
applies
to
business
owners
when
the
price
of
goods
or
services
they
use
in
production
rises,
they
buy
less
of
them.
This
includes
labor
costs
when
wages
rise,
employers
hire
fewer
workers.
A
I
J
M
I
I
A
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
again
for
the
record
jason
fryerson.
Thank
you
and
the
committee
for
your
time
and
attention.
I
certainly
appreciate,
in
particular
the
folks
from
the
business
community's
concern
that
was
taken
into
account
with
ab456
as
a
compromise
from
2019,
but
I'm
also
confident
that
nevadans
know
how
to
speak
for
themselves,
and
if
this
is
something
that
nevada
voters
do
not
want,
then
nevada
voters
will
vote
it
down.
F
We
are
simply
giving
nevada
voters
an
opportunity
to
make
this
call,
and
I
well
look
forward
to
getting
that
opportunity.
A
Thank
you,
speaker
ryerson.
At
this
time
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
ajr
10
of
the
80th
session
members
and
those
listening
over
the
internet.
I
have
lost
my
vice
chair
to
health
and
human
services,
so
at
this
time
I
will
be
taking
bills
out
of
order.
Due
to
that,
I
will
wait
for
her
to
get
back
so
that
we
can
do
assembly
bill
398,
so
she
can
take
over
as
chair.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
assembly,
woman,
elaine
marzola,
representing
assembly
district
21..
Today,
I'm
introducing
assembly
bill
436
on
behalf
of
commerce
and
labor
committee,
even
though
I
did
not
get
to
work
on
this
bill.
When
madam
chair
asked
me
if
I
wanted
to
introduce
ab436,
I
immediately
said
yes,
because
I
knew
it
would
give
me
a
chance
to
learn
about
the
boards
and
help
me
become
even
a
better
member
of
this
committee
assembly
bill,
436
known
as
the
nevada,
eyewear
and
eye
care.
B
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
michael
hillerby,
h-I-l-l-e-r-b-y,
representing
the
nevada,
optometric
association.
We
appreciate
your
time
today
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
bring
the
bill
before
you
some
200.
Let
me
give
a
little
background
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
walk
through
the
provisions.
Some
200
million
americans
enjoy
some
type
of
vision,
care
plan
coverage
that
helps
with
eye
exams
and
helps
to
cover
eyewear
and
other
materials.
They
may
need.
N
Two-Thirds
of
those
americans
who
have
those
plans
are
covered
by
just
two
major
carriers
of
vision,
care
insurance.
Those
major
carriers
have
become
more
and
more
vertically
integrated
and
created
a
really
lopsided
market.
As
for
both
patients
and
our
eye
care
providers,
optometrists
and
ophthalmologists
to
deal
with
the
largest
one
of
the
largest
plans
is
actually
owned
by
the
world's
largest
manufacturer
of
frames
and
lenses.
That
same
company
also
owns
more
than
9
000
retail
locations
around
the
world
in
the
united
states,
that
includes
lens
crafters,
pearl
vision
and
others
they
own
their
own
laboratories.
N
One
of
the
other
major
plans
owns
its
own
brands
of
frames
and
lenses
and
owns
laboratories
as
well.
So
it's
created
something
of
an
imbalance
in
that
market.
Nevada
has
for
a
number
of
years,
regulated
dental
plans.
Dental
plans
are
very
similar
to
vision
plans
and
that
they
are
a
supplemental
benefit
to
your
health
insurance
and
are
typically
prepaid
discount
plans,
not
ensuring
risk
the
same
way
that
health
insurance
does.
It
works
differently.
Most
of
you
have
used
either
vision
or
dental
plans
and
know.
N
When
you
go
to
that
provider,
you
receive
you
know
a
discount
or
a
free
teeth.
Cleaning
once
a
year
you
receive
a
discount
or
free
eye.
Exam
periodically
would
be
eligible
for
new
frames
and
lenses,
maybe
every
two
years
from
your
provider.
These
are
in
the
vision
plan
relatively
inexpensive
add-ons
in
our
firm,
which
is
a
small
law
firm
here
in
nevada,
family
coverage
costs
a
total
of
just
about
fourteen
dollars
a
month.
The
individual
coverage
is
about
five
dollars
for
the
vision
plan.
N
That's
the
total
coverage
and
you
pay
less
than
that
if
your
employer,
as
we
do,
provides
some
degree
of
benefit
for
that
so
again,
for
that
you
receive
this,
you
receive
the
ability
to
get
some
access
to
very
important
preventative
eye
care
as
well
as
lenses
and
frames
when
you
need
those
the
what
we
have
seen
in
particularly
recent
years
with
the
growth
and
the
size
of
those
plans,
is
just
putting
more
and
more
pressure
on
both
patients
and
doctors
and
how
they
access
care
and
the
choices
that
are
available
to
them.
N
For
example,
the
plans
will
mandate
that
you
use
certain
laboratories
to
make
the
glasses
they
may
own
those
laboratories
or
just
have
financial
arrangements
with
them.
What
our
members
see-
and
we
have
some
of
our
doctors
on
the
line
today
to
be
able
to
talk
about
that
is
long,
delays
for
patients
relatively
high
error
rates,
real
patient
satisfaction
and,
ultimately
higher
costs.
Those
plans
have
also
done
things
which
we
prohibit
in
the
state
dental
chapter.
N
N
We
are
not
asking
in
this
in
this
bill
to
create
an
entire
chapter
of
nrs,
as
we
have
done
as
we
did
in
dental
plans
back
and
I
believe
1983
are
not
asking
for
additional
mandated
benefits
or
changes
in
reimbursement
rates
to
providers.
We
want
to
find
ways
to
make
sure
that
there
is
some
degree
of
regulation
in
nevada,
so
the
insurance
commissioner
has
clear
authority
that
there
is
an
opportunity
for
both
patients
and
nevada's
doctors
to
reach
out
and
and
have
ways
to
deal
with
some
of
the
abuses
or
solve
disagreements.
N
That
may
happen
as
a
part
of
that
we
don't
directly
regulate
vision,
plans
in
law,
there's
general
coverage
for
those
as
part
of
health
insurance
plans
and
that's
something.
The
division
of
insurance
could
speak
to
more
in
more
detail.
Should
you
need
it,
but
we
do
think
it's
important
to
put
some
pieces
in
here
and
deal
with
some
of
the
challenges
that
we've
seen
start
walking
through
the
bill.
At
this
point,
we
have
submitted
an
amendment
that
you
have
on
nellis
and
should
be
in
front
of
you.
N
The
operative
section
of
the
bill
is,
is
section
one,
that's
the
new
language
that
provides
some
oversight
of
these
plans
and
provides
some
limitations
on
some
of
the
practices
and
I'll
start
with
the
amendment
to
go
through
section
1,
so
that
you
see
some
of
the
clarifying
language
we
are
proposing
to
add
section.
1
subsection
1a
prohibits
an
insurer
from
setting
limiting
or
otherwise
discounting
the
amount,
the
provider
of
vision
care
may
charge
for
vision,
care
that
is
not
reimbursed
under
the
contract.
N
Again,
the
idea
of
mandating
discounts
on
services
they
do
not
cover
what
you
would
typically
see,
for
example,
is:
if
you
go
to
your
local
eye
doctor
get
an
exam
need
classes,
they
would
advertise.
You
could
get
a
second
pair
for
40
off.
Let's
say
they
don't
provide
any
coverage
for
that
second
pair
and
this
law.
Much
as
we
already
have
in
the
dental
chapter
would
prohibit
an
insurer
from
mandating
setting
prices
or
discount
levels
on
services
or
materials.
They
don't
cover
subsection
b.
N
Moving
on
cannot
require
the
provider
of
vision,
care
to
participate
in
the
network
of
vision,
care
or
contract
with
the
insurer
as
a
condition
of
participating
in
the
medical
services.
There's
a
great
deal
of
overlap,
and
again
some
of
our
doctors
can
talk
about
this.
In
the
question
and
answer
section
after
the
presentation,
it's
a
lot
of
overlap
between
the
medical
benefit
and
the
vision
benefit
some
of
the
services
that
you
would
receive
at
your
ophthalmologist
or
optometrist.
Maybe
medical
services,
some
would
be
vision,
there's
overlap
in
those
plans.
N
What
our
members
see
is
that,
in
order
to
participate
in
the
medical
portion
of
that
plan
and
provide
those
services,
often
there's
a
requirement
that
they
must
enroll
in
a
vision
care
plan
that
they
may
not
wish
to
enroll
in
may
not
provide
the
kind
of
benefits
they'd
like
to
see
may
not
be
popular
with
their
patients.
We
would
like
to
keep
those
two
negotiations
separate
from
the
medical
envision
plan.
N
Again
what
we
see,
particularly
with
the
large
plans
they
either
own,
or
have
contracts
with
labs
located
in
different
places
around
the
united
states,
and
they
will
tell
you
today
when
they
testify,
and
we
don't
disagree,
that
there
may
be
a
monetary
benefit
to
them
and
maybe
competitive
pricing
with
the
volume
that
they
send,
what
nevada's
patients
experience
and
your
local
nevada
eye.
Doctors
is
real
challenges
with
that.
N
That's
entirely
covered
by
the
vision
care
plan,
you've
taken
that
decision
out
of
the
hands
they
have
taken,
that
decision
out
of
the
hands
of
patients
and
doctors
in
nevada,
and
particularly
when
they
have
an
ownership
interest
in
that
that
lab
those
are
typically
out
of
state
delays
in
receiving
that
issues
of
quality
control
having
to
send
glasses
back
having
patients
to
wait
for
weeks,
sometimes
and
longer
again,
some
of
our
members
can
talk
about
that
and
those
glasses
may
be
really
important.
I
I
wear
mine
because
it
helps
me
read
a
little
better.
N
N
Subsection
d
is
something
we've
seen
somewhat
recently,
proposals
by
at
least
one
of
the
plans
that
would
condition
the
reimbursement
for
the
exam
for
the
medical
care
part.
The
eye
care
part
of
the
visit
on
whether
or
not
the
provider
prescribed
eyewear
brands
owned
by
that
vision.
Care
plan
we
think
that
is
frankly,
fairly
unconscionable,
and
this
would
ban
that
practice.
N
Negotiate
a
contract
with
the
providers
and
the
providers
with
the
vision
care
plans
that
has
a
reimbursement
rate
established
and
stick
with
that.
The
decision
about
the
right
frames,
the
right
lenses,
the
right
contact
lenses,
the
right
treatment
for
that
patient
should
be
between
the
patient
and
that
doctor
and
not
have
something
behind
the
scenes
that
would
tend
to
try
to
influence
that
doctor's
decision.
We
have
language
in
nrs636
regulating
optometry
that
requires
that
optometrists
do
not
enter
into
any
financial
arrangement,
which
would
tend
to
jeopardize
that
independent
judgment.
N
We
think
it's
appropriate
to
include
that
in
this
language,
subsection
e
of
section,
1,
sub
1,
says,
can't
provide
for
unreasonably
low
or
nominal
rates
of
reimbursement
for
vision
care.
N
What
we
have
seen
reports
from
other
states
that
have
tried
to
enact
some
of
these
provisions,
particularly
the
mandated
discounts
on
non-covered
services,
is
then
some
plans
may
advertise
that
they
pro
they
provide
that
discount
on
the
second
pair
for
a
co-pay
of
five
dollars,
which
is
before
or
for
a
fee
that
they
would
reimburse
of
something
very
nominal
like
five
dollars
to
the
eye
care
provider,
then
forcing
that
discount
on
that
additional
service
or
product.
Again,
we
think,
if
you're
going
to
cover
it,
it
should
be
covered.
N
N
We
think
it's
important
that
patients
that
employers
who
provide
the
plans
know
that
in
the
policy
documents
and
understand
as
they
make
their
decisions,
subsection
4
is
very
related
to
subsection
1a
and
that's
the
mandatory
discount
on
non-covered
services,
one
of
the
other
things
we've
seen
in
some
of
the
other
states
again
that
enacted
this
is
some
of
the
plans
may
advertise
that
they
provide
coverage,
that
there
are
additional
things
available
at
additional,
co-pays
or
discounts
again.
This
would
make
it
clear
you
can't
do
that.
N
It
needs
to
be
a
part
of
the
standard
process
you
need
to
do.
It
needs
to
be
part
of
the
same
co-payment
or
deductible
or
co-pay,
as
I
said
that
that
the
insured
would
enjoy
otherwise
number
five
involves
the
provider
directories
again
with
some
of
the
plans
we
have
seen
attempts
to
list
doctors
as
premier
or
using
other
terminology
based
on
how
much
they
prescribe
or
sell
of
brands
owned
or
without
the
financial
interest
of
the
insurer.
N
This
would
prohibit
the
insurance
plan
from
differentiating
among
providers
in
the
provider
directory
based
on
these
kind
of
criteria.
We
again
don't
think
that's
appropriate
in
chapter
636
regulating
the
practice
of
optometry
optometrists
are
barred
from
adding
any
titles
or
doing
any
kind
of
advertising
or
marketing.
That
would
tend
to
say
that
they
are
more
qualified
or
a
competitor
is
less
qualified.
N
Again,
as
I
said
earlier
in
the
testimony
when
you
go
see
your
eye
care,
professional,
ophthalmologist
or
optometrist
because
of
the
different
types
of
coverage,
some
services
are
vision,
care
and
coded.
One
way
some
services
are
medical
care
and
coded
another.
So
that's
the
differentiation
in
that
definition,
because
for
the
purposes
of
this
bill
the
vision
care
deals
specifically
with
division
care
plans
and
then
the
definition
on
sub
b2,
ophthalmic
devices
or
materials,
including
without
limitation,
lenses,
frames,
mountings
or
other
specially
fabricated
ophthalmic
devices.
N
So
those
provide
the
definitions
for
the
build
quickly
run
through
the
other
sections
section,
5
6,
7,
eight
and
nine
reference.
The
specific
types
of
insurance,
section,
five
repeats
the
provisions
provided
in
section
one
makes
them
applicable
to
non-profit
corporations
for
hospital,
medical
and
dental
service
and
nrs695b
section
6
is
nrs
695c
health
maintenance
organizations,
section
7,
is
695f
prepaid,
limited
health
service
organizations
in
section
8
and
9
is
nrs,
287
insurance
programs
for
public
employees.
N
The
remainder
part
of
the
amendment,
references
section,
10,
11
and
12..
In
the
original
language
we
submitted,
we
were
looking
for
language
that
made
it
clear
that
if
a
patient
is
covered
by
a
vision,
care
plan
and
they
are
seeking
and
need
services
or
materials
not
covered
by
the
vision
care
plan
that
the
eye
care
provider
would
not
charge
any
more
than
the
usual
and
customary
rate.
The
way
this
came
out
in
drafting
placed
that
language
within
the
three
chapters
I
mentioned
that
license
those
professionals,
chapter
630,
633
and
636.
N
That
is
not
a
role
who
historically
have
ever
asked
nevada
to
have
their
licensing
boards
played,
is
getting
involved
in
potential
financial
disagreements.
That
is
not
something
the
boards
were
prepared
to
do
and
is
a
big
departure
from
their
core
mission
of
making
sure
that
a
professional
competency,
licensure
and
a
process
for
public
complaints
and
discipline
for
professions
in
title
54..
N
So
we
recommend
it-
and
I
know,
there's
a
letter
on
nellis
from
the
osteopathic
medical
board,
suggesting
just
that
and
agreeing
with
the
amendment
to
take
it
out
again
after
seeing
the
bill
and
reaching
out
to
the
boards
and
getting
some
feedback,
it
was
clearly
not
appropriate
to
include
that
language
there,
and
then
we
have
the
effective
date
of
the
bill
which
would
make
the
bill
effective
and
for
new
contracts
or
contacts
renewed
after
october
31st
2021.,
madam
chair,
we
do
have
some
of
our
nevada
optometric
association,
our
optometrists
online,
which
would
be
happy
to
talk
and
share
some
of
their
testimony.
N
O
Hi
mike,
if
I
may
go
first,
I'm
happy
to
do
so.
My
name
is
dr
ken
coppolo
k-e-n-k-o-p-o-l-o-w
nevada
and
las
vegas
optometrist
been
practicing
here
for
about
30
years.
Michael,
thank
you
for
that
presentation.
It
was
really
clear
and
concise.
O
But
what
what
we
see
as
practitioners
in
this
state
with
regards
to
our
patients
is
a
lack
of
a
lack
of
understanding,
a
lack
of
transparency,
and
it
creates
a
lot
of
confusion,
and
so
I
think
the
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
this
bill
or
this
amendment
to
the
bill
will
help
is
create,
will
remove
a
lot
of
the
confusion
and
also
there
is.
O
There
is
definitely
some
anti-competitive
type
of
behavior
which
which
tends
to
drive
prices
up,
and
so
those
are
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
to
address
with
this
bill,
and
these
are
based
on
day-to-day
every
single
day.
You
know
80
percent
of
our
patients
come
in
and
really
fully
don't
understand
what
their
contract
is.
What's
covered,
what's
not
covered,
who
are
they
actually
dealing
with?
Are
they
dealing
with
a
doctor?
Are
they
dealing
with
a
big
company?
So
there
needs
to
be
some
more
clarity.
O
I
think
other
states
have
have
provided
this
there's
a
federal
bill.
That's
that's
being
worked
on
as
well,
and-
and
that's
really,
I
think,
if
the
other,
my
colleagues
want
to
make
some
comments
and
we'll
be
happy
to
you
know,
take
some
questions
afterwards,
but
thank
you,
michael
and
thank
you
to
this
committee
for
listening
to
us.
P
Hello,
my
name
is
dr
steve.
Gershkin
last
name
is
g-I-r-I-s-g-e-n,
I'm
a
optometrist
here
in
southern
nevada
and
also
an
executive
board,
member
of
the
nevada,
optometric
association.
I'm
going
to
just
provide
a
statement
here
and,
of
course,
be
available
to
answer
questions
regarding
the
bill.
The
ab-436
is
very
critical
to
maintaining
access
to
care
by
nevadans.
P
Q
Hello
good
afternoon,
thank
you,
members
of
the
committee
and
chair.
We
we
are
representing
the
nevada
american
association.
My
name
is
spencer
quinton.
I
live
in
las
vegas.
I
practice
optometry
in
henderson
for
the
last
21
years,
and
I
am
the
president-elect
of
nevada,
optometric
association.
We
represent
over
200
nevada
optometrists,
and
we
advocate
for
that
that
patient
doctor
relationship
and
for
the
continuity
of
quality
care
for
our
patients.
Q
I
do
support
ab436
I'd
like
to
share
just
a
few
examples
from
my
everyday
practice
that
that
kind
of
show
why
these
common
sense
revisions
would
be
necessary
and
really
help
everyday
americans.
Q
One
of
the
key
provisions
deals
with
provider
non-discrimination,
in
other
words,
the
provider,
couldn't
be
forced
to
be
on
a
vision
plan,
a
often
a
very
discounted,
undesirable,
sometimes
frankly,
vision
plan
in
order
to
participate
on
a
medical
plan
access
this
limits,
access
which,
which
is
restricted,
often
to
only
to
the
doctors
that
can
participate
on
on
a
given
discount
program,
rather
than
focusing
on
doctors
who
can
provide
more
efficient,
high
quality,
cost-effective
care.
Q
Because
of
this,
I
have
many
patients
who
who
are
forced
to
or
choose
to
pay
out
of
pocket,
rather
than
need
to
change
vision,
cl
plan
providers
every
time
that
their
plan
changes
when
the
hr
department
might
change
to
a
different
discount
plan,
which
obviously
disrupts
continuity
of
care.
Q
Another
key
part
of
ab436
would
allow
patients
and
doctors
the
freedom
to
choose
which
labs
and
suppliers
and
materials
are
best
in
their
best
interest
and
that
wouldn't
be
conditioned
where
reimbursement
wouldn't
be
conditioned
upon
buying
materials
from
a
lab
owned
by
the
self-serving
vision
plan.
And
so
we
really
think
that
this
is
a
way
to
protect.
Q
Our
patients
is
to
separate
that
and
allow
freedom
of
choice
in
this
in
this
way,
because
that
that
restriction
is
is
very
anti-competitive
and
anti-patient
and
it
costs
more
importantly,
it
costs
our
patients,
time
money
and
quality
eye
care.
Many
people,
of
course,
are
very
dependent
on
on
glasses.
Q
Just
to
see,
you
know
very
just
as
mike
said
just
to
build
a
drive
to
build
a
walk,
let
alone
to
be
able
to
really
learn
and
work
and
do
the
things
you
know
that
we
use
our
eyes,
for
it's
obvious
that
we
need
them
and
people
that
are
very
dependent
on
on
eyewear
on
vision.
Correction
to
see
often
cannot
wait
the
days
and
often
weeks
and
months
even
months.
I've
had
patients
with
some
of
the
discount
plans
have
to
wait
a
couple
of
months,
two
months
to
wait
for
their
glasses.
Q
It's
totally
unacceptable
and
patients,
if
they
can,
obviously
they
pay
out
of
pocket.
Well,
why
should
they
pay
out
of
pocket
when
they're
paying
premium,
so
their
businesses
are
paid
premiums
for,
for
the
benefit?
Having
lab
choice
would
let
us
use
labs
that
are
local?
Often
we
can
get
glasses
back
within
a
day
or
two
many
times
we
have
in-house
off
labs,
where
we
could,
within
an
hour
or
two
we
could
get
get
the
patients
taken
care
of
get
them
back
on
the
road.
I
had
a
patient
last
week,
a
young
lady,
20
years
old.
Q
She
can't
see
the
big
e
on
the
chart
without
her
glasses.
You
do
not
want
her
driving.
She
can't,
and
here
she
is
in
a
car
accident,
can't
see
now
without
her
glasses
broke.
We
were
able
to
get
her
glasses
made
within
an
hour
and
she's
back
on
the
road.
If
she
had
to
wait
even
a
week
or
two
for
her
classes,
she'd
be
she'd,
be
stuck
she'd,
I
mean
she
could
find
some
other
way.
She
could
get
a
ride.
Q
She'd
do
things,
but
it's
really
not
a
practical
thing
for
people
to
have
to
do
without
the
basic
gift
of
sight
when,
when
it's
unnecessary,
and
so
we,
we
think
that
the
vision
plans
would
they
would
reimburse,
I
think
they
reimbursed
similar
amount.
They
don't
have
to
reimburse
a
different
amount.
They
simply
need
to
be
able
to
reverse
to
whichever
lab
the
patients
want
to
use.
We
think
vision
plans.
Q
A
Thank
you,
dr
quinton,
dr
hillerby.
Do
we
have
anyone
else
or
are
we
ready
for
questions?
Mr
hillerby.
N
Thank
you
I
think
dr
mather
may
be
on.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
say
anything
or
he
may
be
here
to
just
answer
questions
if
he's
still
on.
R
O
O
So
what
I
was
saying
is,
you
know,
the
doctor-patient
relationship
is
extremely
important
to
me
and
I
think
to
any
doctor,
as
that's
kind
of
why
we
get
into
this
business
because
we
care
about
people
we
want
to
do
what's
best
for
them
and
we
take
years
of
training
and
years
of
education
and
our
patients
expect
that
to
turn
that
into
you
know,
in
a
short
time,
a
treatment
for
them.
So
if
they
come
in
with
blurry
vision,
if
they
come
in
with
light
sensitivity,
they
come
in
with
pain
in
their
eyes.
O
They
don't
want
just
what
the
insurance
says
they
can
have.
They
want
what's
going
to
work
the
best
and
the
example
that
I
have
for.
You
is
right
along
those
lines.
You
know
we
have
a
patient
come
in
and
they
have
light
sensitivity
all
the
time
they
go
in
the
store
they
go
into.
Walmart
and
their
eyes
hurt,
because
things
are
right,
and
this
is
an
issue
that
people
deal
with
every
day.
So
obviously
we
have
ways
to
treat
that
through
transition
lenses
that
get
darker
when
you
go
outside
through
tenting
lenses.
O
Things
like
that,
but
the
problem
is
the
insurance
companies
have
decided
to
insert
themselves
into
that
relationship
and
say
they
can
only
get
this
transition,
the
transition
that
we
own
and
that
we
make
where
they
can
only
get
a
tint
of
a
certain
percentage.
Instead
of
you
know,
90
dark,
like
sunglasses.
Well,
you
can't
wear
sunglasses
inside
an
office
and
expect
to
be
able
to
see
they
need
a
partial
tent.
O
So
what
they've
done
is
decided
that
they
know
what's
best
for
the
patient
by
providing
benefits
only
for
those
particular
items
instead
of
allowing
the
doctor
to
say
this
is
what
you
need
and
then
the
insurance
companies
say:
okay,
well,
here's
what
we'll
cover
for
that
and
really
the
idea
behind
this
bill
is
to
address
that
issue.
We
don't
want
insurance
companies,
their
determinations
of
benefits,
to
interfere
with
our
ability
to
provide
what
we
feel
and
what
we
know
and
have
been
trained
is
the
best
treatment
for
our
patients.
O
The
other
way
this
comes
into
play
on
a
daily
basis
is
when
patients
have
problems,
just
as
mike
and
spencer
have
pointed
out.
If
a
lens
is
taking
too
long.
If
they've
been
waiting
more
than
a
week
or
two
for
their
glasses,
what
does
the
patient
do?
They
don't
call
the
insurance
company
and
say
hey?
Where
are
my
glasses?
Didn't
you
guys
pay
for
this?
Why
don't
they
have
them?
O
They
call
the
doctor,
and
now
the
doctor
is
the
responsible
party,
even
though
we're
just
representing
the
insurance
company
for
their
products,
which
they
expect
us
to
sell
on
their
behalf
or
their
delays
for
their
manufacturers
for
their
laboratories,
and
we
don't
have
any
interest
in
them.
You
know
we
take
the
vision
plans
because
we
want
to
take
care
of
patients,
because
we
want
to
care
for
people
not
because
we
want
to
sell
somebody's
product
or
because
we
want
to
make
the
most
money
that
we
can
offer
each
person
that
walks
the
door.
A
A
I
H
N
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
michael
hillerby,
again
for
the
record
assemblywoman
dickman
we
are,
and
in
fact
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
thank
my
colleagues
representing
some
of
the
health
plans
that
they
are.
My
friends.
We
work
together
regularly.
We
have
been
in
communication
we've.
Let
them
know
about
the
bill
shared
the
amendment
with
them.
They've
talked
to
me
about
some
of
their
concerns.
N
We've
had
some
additional
show
up
since
the
amendment
and
the
bill
have
dropped
and
I've
been
able
to
talk
to
most
of
them
in
the
last
several
hours
or
day.
I
would
absolutely
understand
the
concerns
and
I
appreciate
again
their
professionalism
and
the
opportunity
to
work
together
on
them.
N
There
is
some
genuine
disagreement
about
how
this
ought
to
work
again.
We
understand
from
the
insurer
side,
particularly
on
the
laboratory
piece.
They
view
that
as
an
important
cost
control
and
they
are
able
to
get
a
certain
level
of
discount
and
pricing
from
labs
again
that
they
may
own
or
that
they
have
financial
arrangements
with.
But
the
impact
on
the
nevada
consumer
on
our
patients
is
the
bigger
issue
and
what
is
the?
What
is
the
real
out-of-pocket
cost,
while
they
may
save
pennies
and
the
ultimate
cost
of
the
premium?
Based
on
that
lab
arrangement?
N
They
may
end
up
spending
a
lot
more
money.
If
they're
not
able
to
get
the
materials
the
glasses,
they
need
the
tint
they
need,
depending
on
their
eye
condition
to
allow
them
to
work
in
an
environment.
As
dr
mather
said,
some
of
these
lights
can
cause
real
challenges
to
people
with
other
different
health
conditions
and
eye
conditions,
so
we're
not
sure
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
that
ultimately
saves
the
patient
much
money.
We
don't
know
that
that
really
is
translating
into
money
from
the
patients.
N
You
know
they
view
the
the
mandated
discount
on
non-covered
services
as
a
way
to
potentially
lower
costs
for
patients,
and
we
understand
why
they
do
that
again.
In
practice,
we
don't
know
that.
That's
really
what
happens
by
federal
law,
our
optometrist
ophthalmologists
are
required
to
give
the
prescription
for
glasses
or
contact
lenses
to
the
patient,
and
patients
can
and
regularly
do
go
other
places
to
shop.
They
may
go
online
and
look
for
an
online
retailer
of
contact,
lenses
or
glasses.
They
may
go
to
one
of
the
large
retailers
or
costco
or
walmart
or
lens.
N
There
are
a
number
of
options
now
out
there.
Our
members
will
tell
you
and
I'll,
be
quiet
and
see
if
any
of
them
want
to
jump
in
that
they
know
if
they,
if
they
do
have
optical
shops,
and
some
do
and
some
do
not
anymore,
because
that
market's
very
competitive,
it's
their
job
to
make
that
value
proposition
a
good
one
for
the
patient
that
the
level
of
service,
local
doctor
and
opticians
there
in
the
shop
being
able
to
properly
fit
those
glasses
and
contact
lenses.
N
N
We
know
that
division
care
plans
provide
a
very
important
benefit
and
we're
not
opposed
to
them
per
se,
we're
not
asking
that
they
be
banned,
we're
not
asking
for
an
increase
in
the
reimbursement
rates.
What
we're
seeing
is
we
think
that
some
reasonable
controls
on
that
contractual
relationship
that
affect
nevada's
doctors
and
then,
ultimately,
the
patients
is
appropriate,
and
that
was
therefore
why
we
brought
the
bill.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
more
specific
questions
and
see
if
any
of
the
doctors
want
to
jump
in.
N
O
Have
an
additional
comment:
you
know,
there's
something
to
be
said
about
ken
conflict
for
the
record,
dr
ken
kaplow,
there's
something
to
be
said
about
the
insurance
company,
controlling
both
the
reimbursement,
as
well
as
the
costs
so
we're.
You
know
the
provider
becomes,
you
know,
kind
of
hostage
to
the
reimbursements
and
to
the
costs,
so
it
doesn't
seem
quite
fair
or
transparent.
O
It
certainly
puts
us
in
a
position
where
we're
forced
to
see
more
patients,
possibly
provide
lesser
quality
care
when
they're,
when
they're
dictating
all
areas
of
our
of
our
ability
to
to
pay
and
reinvest
into
our
practice.
So
it's
just
it's
just
interesting
that
that
the
insurance
company
who's
really
providing
really
only
a
service
of
aggregating
patients
for
us,
yet
they're
they're
dictating
our
reimbursements
and
they're
dictating
our
costs.
So
those
are
the
kind
of
that's
something.
The
perspective
that
I
would
that
I
would.
I
have
a
kind
of
an
issue
with.
H
A
An
assembly
member
dickman:
we
do
have
people
signed
in
for
opposition,
so
we
can.
We
hear
them
too,
and
then
we
give
the
sponsors
an
opportunity
to
close
out
with
closing
remarks
where
they
can
address
the
concerns
once
they
hear
it
from
the
opposition.
B
Thank
you
I'm
sure,
so
in
listening
to
this,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
this
correctly.
So
I
think
one
of
the
doctors
made
a
comment
that
you're
not
saying
the
reimbursement
rates
need
to
be
any
different
say
for
using
a
lab
you're
just
saying
if,
depending
on
it
should
be
the
doctor
and
the
patient's
choice,
if
they
want
to
use
a
lab,
that's
local
or
to
get
something
faster.
You
just
want
them
to
have
the
choice:
you're,
not
asking
for
any
difference
in
a
reimbursement
rate.
P
If
I
may
answer
that
my
name
is
steve
gershkin.
If
I
may
answer
that
question,
that's
a
that's
an
excellent
question:
we're
not
asking
for
any
change
in
the
reimbursement
rate.
What
we're
really
asking
for
what
we
call!
Let
me
start
my
video,
I'm
sorry.
What
we're
asking
for
is
really
more
of
a
as
really
my
killer.
We
put
reasonable
controls
which
would
really
allow
for
a
free
market
approach
with
pre-current
procurement
of
the
lab.
P
So,
for
example,
as
dr
ken
kaplow
had
mentioned,
the
insurers
are
mandating
the
labs
that
we
select
and
also
along
with
that,
mandating
the
costs
that
we
are
to
pay
well,
that
immediately
eliminates
a
free
market
approach
of
our
ability
to
procure
other
laboratories
negotiate
better
rates.
I've
been
practicing
long
enough
now,
where
I've
lived
in
both
worlds,
where
I
had
the
ability
to
negotiate
better
rates
and
indeed
did
negotiate
better
rates
and
pass
along
lower
costs
to
our
consumers.
P
As
a
result
of
that,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
that
we're
not
asking
for
higher
reimbursement
rates.
That's
a
that's
an
individual
negotiation
by
each
provider
in
the
insurance
plan.
What
we're
asking
for
is
the
freedom
and
and
not
only
the
freedom,
but
the
ability
to
procure
own
lab,
and
by
doing
so,
it
allows
better
quality
for
our
patients.
P
Better
timely
returns
for
our
patients,
as
as
the
glasses,
can
be
returned
quicker
by
keeping
the
work
in
the
state
of
nevada
as
opposed
to
farming
it
out
to
texas,
with
certain
vision,
plans
or
to
ohio
or
to
other
states,
with
other
vision
plans
which
could
take
up
to
two
weeks
or
longer
to
have
these
glasses
returned.
So
it's
better
quality,
better
service,
lower
costs.
A
Thank
you,
dr
gershkin,
for
your
answer
for
participating
assemblymember
hardy.
Did
you
have
a
follow-up.
B
Thank
you
that
that's
very
helpful,
because
I
was
actually
in
that
situation
when
I
went
to
get
my
glasses
this
year
and
I
was
going
to
have
to
drive
up
to
carson
city,
and
you
know
I
was
like
I
hope
they
get
them
by
a
few
days,
because
I
need
them
to
drive.
So
that's
a
practical
explanation
that
is
helpful,
and
so
just
one
more
follow-up.
Is
that
allowed?
B
P
Well
I'll
answer
that
question
again.
This
is
steve
gershkin
when
it
comes
to
the
actual
lenses,
the
ophthalmic
lenses
that
are
prescribed
for
you,
there's
just
a
set
allotment
and
there's
a
set
copay.
So
there's
a
copay
that
you
pay
and
that's
pre-defined
and
that's
that's
already
pre-defined
in
the
plan.
B
P
So
what
happens
is
when
you
have
to
utilize
the
laboratory
of
the
insurance
company?
There
is
a
cost
associated
with
those
lenses.
It's
called.
They
call
that
a
chargeback
fee
in
our
in
our
lingo,
so
with
that
fee
that
cost
is
assessed
to
the
provider.
So
now
there's
a
dictated
reimbursement
and
there's
a
dictated
cost
to
procuring
those
materials.
P
Well,
they
have
the
liberty
to
to
dictate
both
sides
of
it
and
what
they're
essentially
doing
is
they're
moving
margin
from
the
provider
to
the
insurance
company.
Therefore,
overall
increasing
the
cost,
because
there
is
a
cost
of
doing
business
in
general.
The
providers
have
to
do
for
the
general
public
and
that's
how
it
really
drives
up
the
cost
for
the
general
public
to
be
able
to
cover
your
operating
expenses.
B
A
Okay,
perfect.
Thank
you.
I
apologize
for
that.
I
think
and
of
course
I
was
saying
for
our
secretary.
That
was
dr
gershkin
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
for
walking
me
through
that
broadcasting.
I'm
not
sure
what
just
happened
with
my
technology,
but
committee
members.
I
believe
assembly,
member
o'neill
had
a
question
next.
B
A
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
move
into
the
testimony
portion
of
the
hearing
broadcasting
if
we
could
check
the
telephone
lines
for
anyone
wishing
to
testify
in
support.
B
B
B
J
T-E-R-R-I-O-G-D-E-N
for
the
record-
and
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
optometric
association
ab436,
helps
protect
consumer
choice
and
vision
care
and
is
critical
to
stop
vision.
Compliance
abuses
here
in
nevada
mission
plans
are
reducing
access
to
care
by
nevadans,
increasing
costs
and
eroding
the
quality
of
care
and
services.
Nevadans
deserve
vision.
J
Plans
in
the
vertically
oriented
business
model
are
making
decisions
in
the
best
interest
of
their
business
model,
instead
of
the
fulfilling
the
fiduciary
obligations
to
their
members
best
into
interest
by
mandating
transparency
with
our
affiliations,
allowing
insurance,
commission
oversight,
removing
tiered
provider
listings
based
on
economic
measures
and
allowing
a
free
market
approach
to
lab
procurement.
Ab436
will
allow
nevadans
to
enjoy
the
best
quality
of
eye
care
with
open
access
at
the
lowest
cost.
Nevadans
divert
deserve
to
have
a
choice
in
their
risk
care.
B
B
E
Madam
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
good
afternoon,
my
name
is
robert
holden
r-o-b-e-r-t
h-o-l-d-e-n,
on
behalf
of
the
national
association
of
vision
care
plans.
We
are
in
opposition
to
assembly
goal
436
more
than
10
of
our
members
are
operating
in
nevada,
covering
almost
2
million
lives
in
commercial
plans,
as
well
as
through
medicaid
and
medicare
advantage
plans.
E
E
This
bill
is
focused
on
prohibiting
a
vision,
care
plan
from
negotiating
pricing
or
otherwise
limiting
the
cost
of
eyewear.
Whether
it's
fully
covered
or
not,
the
american
optometric
association's
own
study
showed
that
legislation
like
this
can
add.
168
dollars
to
the
cost
of
eyewear
for
enrollees
optometrists
are
exempt
from
restrictions
on
self-referral
and
frequently
refer
patients
to
their
own
dispensaries
for
eyewear.
It's
at
the
final
retail
pricing
for
the
items
sold.
Accordingly,
our
plans
negotiate
a
maximum
amount
that
optometrists
can
charge
our
enrollees
for
options
on
an
otherwise
covered
lens.
E
E
I'd
be
pleased
to
answer
questions
that
the
board
may
have
on
or
that
the
that
the
committee
may
have
on
on
for
our
industry.
I
realize
time
is
limited,
so
I'll
just
complete.
My
statement
here.
B
E
Madam
chair,
we
testified
opposition
to
this
bill
today,
prohibiting
insurers
from
contracting
from
contracting
with
vision,
care
providers
for
discounts
on
non-covered
services,
disadvantages
consumers
by
causing
them
to
pay
more
for
vision,
care
to
help,
keep
vision,
care,
affordable
vision,
coverage
plan
contracts
typically
include
provisions
to
provide
plan
members
discounts
on
non-covered
services.
These
discounts
for
non-covered
vision,
care
services,
reduce
plan
member
out-of-pocket
spending.
They
also
make
the
vision,
coverage
plan
and
vision
care
providers
in
the
plan
network.
E
A
better
deal
for
consumers
prohibiting
vision
coverage
contracts
from
excuse
me
prohibiting
contracts
from
including
discounted
prices
for
non-covered
products
would
raise
consumer
out-of-pocket
costs
and
limit
consumer
choice.
Mr
holden
mentioned
that
the
study
by
the
american
optometric
association
shows
consumer
cost
increases
on
the
order
of
30
to
60
in
states
that
have
enacted
legislation
similar
to
this.
It's
important
to
point
out
that
payment
rates
for
materials
are
negotiated,
negotiated
vision,
product
discounts
are
good
for
in-network
providers
because
vision
care
plan
coverage
provides
in-network
optometrists
with
an
increased
volume
of
patients
and
customers.
E
Discounts
on
vision,
care
products
helped
to
build
plan,
enroll,
enrollees
loyalty
to
their
in-network
provider,
prohibiting
vision,
care
plan,
discounts
on
non-covered
services
can
drive
consumers
away
from
local
vision
care
professionals
without
access
to
discounts,
consumers
are
more
likely
to
seek
to
obtain
materials
from
online
sources,
bypassing
their
local
eye
care
professional.
All
together.
This
bill
might
be
good
for
doctors,
but
it
is
not
good
for
patients
and
consumers.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
B
B
J
J
We
want
to
better
understand
how
providers
and
patients
are
being
impacted.
We
have
concerns
with
some
of
the
specific
language
and
its
restrictions
on
insurers.
The
sponsors
have
reached
out
to
the
health
services
coalition,
which
we
are
members
of,
and
we
want
to
continue
those
discussions
to
work
with
the
sponsors
on
the
language.
Thank
you.
B
J
Thank
you
to
mr
hillerby
for
his
work
on
the
bill
and
in
particular
the
amendment
presented
as
that
is
what
brought
us
to
the
neutral
position
today.
The
amendment
removed
section
11
concerning
our
role
in
the
process
and
clarifies
the
intent,
as
mr
hillerby
explained.
So
with
that
change
we
are
happily
in
neutral.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
michael
hillerby,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada,
optometric
association
and
first
I
want
to
thank
you
in
the
committee
for
your
time
and
the
excellent
questions.
I
want
to
thank
marzola
for
the
opportunity
to
work
together,
introducing
the
bill
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
her
on
this
again.
We
appreciate
the
committee
considering
this
considering
what's
best
for
nevada's
patients
and
doctors
and
to
the
concern
raised
by
the
the
opposition
about
the
cost
of
of
glasses
and
materials
that
they
don't
cover.
N
We
share
those
same
concerns
and
we
want
good
outcomes
for
our
patients
that
our
members
see
and
again
reminder
that
we
by
federal
law,
required
to
give
that
prescription.
They
can
go
other
places
and
do
that
if
ultimately,
the
combination
of
cost
quality
service,
getting
that
from
a
local
provider
doesn't
make
sense.
If
that
value
proposition
can't
be
made
for
the
local
eye,
doctor,
optometrist
or
ophthalmologist.
That
patient
won't
do
that,
and
that
is
their
choice
again.
N
Many
optometrists
and
ophthalmologists
don't
necessarily
have
optical
shops
anymore
because
of
the
level
of
competition
out
there
and
for
the
opposition.
I
would
say
if
the
concern
is
to
make
sure
that
an
additional
pair
of
glasses,
some
additional
service
or
equipment
they
don't
cover,
is
provided
at
an
appropriate
discount
as
good
coverage
for
the
patient.
They
should
cover
that
that's
an
option
they
have
covered
and
provide
a
limited
copay
on
additional
equipment.
N
That
would
be
perhaps
a
better
way
to
do
that
than
to
artificially
try
to
change
that
market,
as
they
have
been
doing
through
the
contracts
we'll
in
there
and
again
look
forward
to
working
with
the
committee
and
continuing
the
conversations
we've
had
with
the
folks
in
opposition
and
again
I
do
want
to
express
my
appreciation
for
their
professionalism,
as
always,
my
colleagues
to
be
able
to
talk
and
work
through
these
things.
We
thank
you.
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
believe
the
last
bill
on
our
agenda
today
that
needed
to
be
addressed
is
ab398.
So
with
that
we
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
ab398,
and
I
will
invite
the
chair
to
the
virtual
testimony
table
for
opening
comments
and
remarks
on
the
bill.
A
A
A
When
we
identified
language
in
the
nrs
that
needed
to
be
cleaned
up
to
ensure
that
realtors
know
the
srpd
must
be
completed
by
the
seller
and
not
the
realtor
to
protect
everyone
in
the
transaction.
I
was
happy
to
lend
a
vehicle
to
help.
Madam
vice
chair,
with
your
permission,
I
would
now
like
to
turn
it
over
to
ms
tiffany
banks,
with
the
nevada
realtors
to
walk
through
the
bill
and
give
remarks
followed
by
mr
noah
herrera.
M
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
carlton
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
tiffany
banks
and
I'm
general
counsel
for
the
nevada
realtors.
We
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
haudegee
for
bringing
this
important
piece
of
legislation
forward.
Before
I
walk
you
through
the
proposed
statutory
changes,
I
will
touch
on
what
assemblywoman
howdy
ghee
just
went
over
on
the
background
of
what
the
srpd
is
under
existing
law
at
least
10
days
before
the
property
is
conveyed
to
a
purchaser.
The
seller
is
required
to
complete
and
serve
upon
the
buyer.
A
disclosure
called
that
srpd.
M
This
form
is
important
in
ensuring
the
buyer
is
aware
of
what
the
seller
knows
about
their
property.
The
majority
of
buyer's
agents
require
the
seller
to
provide
this
srpd
within
a
set
time
frame
after
signing
the
purchase
agreement,
so
the
buyer
has
adequate
time
to
review
and
conduct
inspections,
often
times
far
beyond
the
10
days,
before
the
conveyance
of
the
property
section.
1
of
this
bill
lines,
9
and
10
explicitly
state
that
the
seller's
agent
must
not
complete
the
disclosure
form
on
behalf
of
the
seller.
M
Lastly,
lines
38
through
41
state
that
the
seller's
agent
must
still
comply
with
nrs
645.252
paragraph,
a
of
subsection
one
that
a
licensee
who
acts
as
an
agent
in
a
real
estate
transaction
shall
disclose
to
each
party
to
the
real
estate
transaction
as
soon
as
as
is
practicable
any
material
and
relevant
facts.
Data
or
information
which
the
licensee
knows
or
which,
by
the
exercise
of
reasonable
care
and
diligence,
should
have
known
relating
to
the
property
which
is
the
subject
of
the
transaction.
M
There
has
been
a
long-standing
and
clear
understanding
in
the
real
estate
community
that
the
agent
never
fills
out
the
srpd
on
behalf
of
their
client,
and
this
will
now
be
codified
in
statute
under
existing
law.
Nrs
113.120
paragraph
2
explicitly
states
that
the
disclosures
set
forth
in
the
form
are
made
by
the
seller
and
not
by
their
agent.
However,
we
have
seen
a
growing
number
of
lawsuits
naming
licensees
as
defendants,
citing
issues
that
the
seller
failed
to
disclose
on
the
srpd,
and
we
have
growing
concerns
that
this
is
impacting
both
consumers
and
real
estate
professionals.
M
Finally,
madam
vice
chair
posted
on
nellis
by
mr
fensiv
and
ms
reese,
you
will
find
a
conceptual
amendment
proposed
by
the
association
which
further
clarifies
that
the
agent
shall
not
fill
out
the
srpd
once
again.
On
behalf
of
the
association,
we
would
like
to
thank
chairwoman
haudegee
for
bringing
this
piece
of
legislation
on
the
association's
behalf,
and
thank
you
vice
chair
carlton,
for
allowing
us
to
present
ab398
this
afternoon.
M
I
would
now
like
to
turn
the
remainder
of
the
presentation
over
to
mr
noah
herrera,
a
real
estate
practitioner,
to
discuss
the
implications
these
issues
have
had
from
a
real
estate
practitioner's
perspective.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
After
his.
P
S
N
S
Wonderful
good
afternoon
vice
chair
carlton
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
noah
herrera
n-o-a-h-h-e-r-r-e-r-a
I've
been
a
realtor
in
las
vegas
for
over
27
years,
we'd
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
haudegee
for
bringing
this
legislation
forward
today.
This
bill
takes
a
huge
step
in
the
right
direction,
codifying
and
statute
what
we've
practiced
for
a
very
long
time.
Our
clients
turn
to
us
as
our
trusted
advisors
in
real
estate.
When
it
comes
to
the
srpd.
S
This
is
a
form
we
cannot
help
them
complete
under
any
circumstance.
Every
property
is
unique
in
its
own
way.
The
seller
has
to
think
through
everything
that
has
ever
happened
at
their
home
and
for
some
sellers
they've
lived
in
the
property
for
over
50
years.
This
may
take
some
time.
We
always
encourage
them
to
fill
it
out
thoroughly
honestly
and
full
disclose.
S
All
in
full
disclosure
allows
a
buyer
to
know
the
condition
of
the
property
before
the
sale
is
complete.
Items
that
must
be
disclosed
on.
The
srpd
include
electrical
heating,
cooling,
plumbing
and
sewer,
as
well
as
the
condition
of
any
other
aspect
of
the
property
which
his
seller
is
aware
of.
As
a
realtor,
we
have
no
actual
knowledge
of
any
condition
of
the
property
unless
the
seller
tells
us.
S
Should
a
seller
refuse
to
disclose
a
relevant
item
that
a
licensee
should
and
does
inform
the
seller
that,
under
the
law,
the
licensee
is
required
to
disclose
to
all
parties
all
material
and
relevant
property
facts.
In
addition,
the
srpd
is
an
important
tool
for
the
buyers
of
property
to
understand
the
challenges
and
issues
of
a
home
in
which
they're
making
the
largest
investments
of
their
lives.
Buyers
have
a
particular
period
of
time
to
review.
S
The
information
in
the
srp
ask
questions:
do
their
own
due
diligence
and
ultimately
decide
if
they
want
to
move
forward
with
their
purchase
or
opt
out
of
the
purchase
so
to
disclose.
So
the
disclosure
of
information
by
the
seller
to
the
buyer
in
many
ways
is
one
of
the
most
critical
step
points
in
any
real
estate
transaction
occasionally,
and
why
this
bill
is
so
important.
Is
that
periodically
lawsuits
name
realtors
as
part?
S
You
know,
as
a
party
for
the
seller's
failure
to
disclose
an
item
on
the
srpd
that
later
becomes
a
problem
for
a
buyer
are
becoming
more
commonplace
again.
I
would
reiterate
that
the
seller
of
the
property
is
filling
out
these
forms,
not
the
agent,
not
the
buyer's
agents.
They
have
nothing
to
do
with
these
actual
forms.
S
The
insulin
litigation
forces
realtors
like
myself
to
use
their
eno
insurance
for
unwarded
claims
that
have
become
problematic,
as
ms
banks
testified
already
has
already
covered
this
bill,
does
nothing
to
alter
the
liability,
the
real
estate
professionals
to
disclose
what
they
know
or
should
have
known
about
a
property
contained
in
nrs645
252.
That
standard
remains
in
place
and
is
important
for
a
consumer
protection
and
industry.
Point
of
view
with
that.
Thank
you
for
for
taking
time
to
address
this
bill
that
clarifies
for
both
consumers
and
practitioners.
S
C
R
Okay,
just
a
strange
thing
popped
up,
I
just
have.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
the
main
one
is
that
I'm
a
little
confused
between
the
existing
language
and
section
one
one
b
that
does
include
that
a
seller
or
the
seller's
agent.
R
If
they
discover
a
defect,
then
the
seller
or
the
seller's
agent
shall
inform
the
purchaser
or
the
purchaser's
agent,
which
seems
to
me
like
there
is
some
level
of
responsibility
in
that
portion,
but
then
moving
down
to
the
new
language
going
down
to
line
30
that
subsection
two
then
it
seems
like
that
is
very
much
the
same
type
of
language,
except
now
it's
only
on
the
seller.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I'm
vice
chair
through
you
to
assemblywoman,
so
the
way
that
it's
drafted
in
section
b
that
specifically
has
to
do
with
the
completed
disclosure,
the
service
to
the
buyer,
so
how
it's
drafted
section
so
you're
reading
lines
16
through
17.
So
it
says
if
the
disclosure
form
if
the
defect
identified
has
become
worse
than
indicated
on
the
form
the
seller
or
the
seller's
agent,
shall
inform
the
purchaser
or
the
purchaser's
agent
of
that
fact.
M
So
in
that
case,
they're
acting
as
the
agent
in
that
disclosure,
so
they're
saying
this
conditions
worsen
either
through
an
inspection
that
something's
been
discovered.
So
they're
relaying
the
message
moving
further
down
that
the
section,
the
new
language
that
specifically
has
to
do
with,
if
they
fill
out
the
form
or
and
fail
to
disclose
something
that
they
would
not
be
held
personally
liable
for
something
that
the
agent
truly
didn't
know.
R
M
So,
thank
you
for
the
question
through
you
vice
chair
to
the
assembly
woman.
So
yes,
so
if
so,
that
is
exactly
the
scenario
that
I
used.
If,
through
home
inspection,
an
issue
is
discovered
such
as
there's
an
issue
with
plumbing,
then
the
seller
or
seller's
agent
would
disclose
that
issue
and
again
the
the
new
language
specifically
has
to
do
with
if
the
seller
did
not
fill
something
out
on
the
srpd
that
they
did
have
knowledge
of
again,
the
agent
isn't
liable.
In
that
case,
okay,.
R
Well,
thank
you.
I
was
just
confused
because
having
it
in
there,
if
the
seller's
agent,
just
you
know,
discovers
to
me
kind
of
negated.
What
you
were
talking
about
at
this,
the
seller's
agent
has
nothing
to
do
with
discovering
anything.
But
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
then
my
next
question
is
so
then
reading
through
all
of
this,
then
in
this
situation,
does
that
mean
that
the
seller
is
liable
still
or
is
no
one
liable
at
that
point,.
M
M
We
we
specifically
kept
in
the
language
that
us
that
licensee
is
still
liable
under
chapter
645,
section
252,
when
I
went
through
that
definition
earlier,
because
we
didn't
want
to
say
that
that
licensee
is
totally
negated
of
of
all
duties,
but
we
wanted
to
be
clear
that
if
that's
something
that,
through
the
srpd,
the
seller
knew
about
and
failed
to
disclose
by
no
fault
of
the
agent
that
they
weren't
pulled
in
through
their
eno.
In
that
specific
instance,
thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
miss
considine
questions
from
other
committee
members
at
this
time.
Assemblywoman
because
sama
should
I
see
a
hand?
Yes,.
M
C
J
Tiffany
banks-
I
just
wanted
to
put
on
the
record
when
you
talk
about.
Should
you
discover
something
after
the
srpd?
It
doesn't
mean
that
a
new
srpd
has
to
be
completed.
It
means
you
could
send
them
an
email,
a
letter,
even
phone,
so
you
just
have
to
notify
them
of
a
change
that
you've
become
aware
of.
Is
that
correct.
M
Thank
you
through
you,
vice
chair
to
assemblywoman
kasama.
Yes,
that
is
correct.
You
just
have
to
notify
them
update
them
of
anything
that
was
not
previously
disclosed
that
they,
the
seller
now
has
knowledge
of
or
through
the
inspections
is
the
most
common
way
that
they've
gained.
That
knowledge
has
has
notice
of
something
that
could
materially
affect
the
value
of
the
property.
So
yes,
thank
you
for
that.
C
C
So
that's
a
very
long
time.
We've
actually
reached
the
point
to
where
the
windows
we
originally
replaced.
When
we
bought
the
house,
don't
tell
former
assemblywoman
swank,
I
replaced
my
windows,
we're
not
going
to
have
to
replace
again
because
we've
been
there
for
so
long.
So
I
want
to
understand
now
that
this
total
burden
is
going
and
going
to
be
on
the
stellar,
I'm
just
the
homeowner.
C
How
do
I
know
what
I'm
supposed
to
put
on
that
form,
because,
under
with
this
I'm
now,
if
I
miss
something
and
I'm
not
a
professional,
how
do
I
make
sure
that
I
fill
this
form
out
correctly
and
don't
put
myself
in
harm's
way
to
where
the
buyer
could
come
back?
I
mean
I've
been
in
the
house
for
30
years.
M
Thank
you
vice
chair,
so
I'll
I'll
take
a
stab
at
it
first
and
then
know
if
you
want
to
jump
in
from
your
perspective
of
how
you'd
guide
your
client
through
that,
so
you're
really
not
doing
anything
different
here
than
you've
always
done.
M
You
are
filling
out
the
srpd
exactly
how
this
has
been
intended
from
day
one
the
seller
has
to
fill
it
out
to
their
knowledge.
It
is
very,
very
clear
on
the
srpd
that
the
seller
has
to
think
back
of
any
instance
that
they
think
that
could
have
affected
the
value
of
their
house
and
sometimes
and
again,
I'd
like
noah
to
go
into
this
a
little
bit
more.
Sometimes
your
agent
has
to
prompt
you
on
what
you
remember.
M
The
the
difference
is
that
the
listing
agent
doesn't
know
what
you
know
or
what
you
don't
know,
and
so
it's
your
job
the
same
way.
It's
been
your
job,
this
entire
time
to
fill
out
that
form.
The
only
difference
is
we're
now
codifying
it
in
statute
that
the
agent's
not
touching
the
form
which
they've
never
supposed
to
touch
the
form
from
the
beginning
anyway,
and
so
with
that
I'd
love
to
turn
it
over
to
noah.
How
you
would
guide
her
through
on
something
like
that.
M
C
M
I
think
thank
you
vice
chair
carlton
for
the
question.
I
don't
know
how
long
this
has
actually
been
in
existence.
I
just
know
for
as
long
as
anyone
can
remember,
it's
always
been
that
the
sellers
filled
out
the
srpd
again
we're
not
asking
to
change
how
anything
is
done.
We're
just
asking
to
have
it
clearly
drafted
in
statute
under
chapter
113,
section
120,
the
current
law
specifically
says,
and
let
me
pull
it
up
for
you.
M
Current
law
specifically
says
that
that
once
the
seller
provides
notice
that
the
seller's
agent
and
the
agent
of
the
purchaser
of
the
potential
purchaser
of
the
property
may
reveal
the
completed
form
as
well
as
they
are.
Not
the
disclosures
set
forth
in
the
form
are
made
by
the
seller
and
not
by
the
seller's
agent.
So
that's
been
in
statute
since
1995.
C
Since
1995.,
okay,
that
gives
me
the
historical
perspective
of
knowing
where
this
originally
came
from,
and
I
I
can
pictures
the
guys
at
the
table
right
now
testifying
on
it.
So,
mr
herrera,
if
you
could
just
enlighten
me
a
little
bit
just
for
folks,
I
know
it
doesn't
have
a
whole
lot
to
do
with
this
bill,
but
I
think
now
that
a
burden
is
being
shifted
or
codified,
that
sellers
are
now
going
to
be
held
to
a
standard,
I'm
not
sure
they're
going
to
be
prepared
to
fulfill.
S
Well,
you
know
vice
chair
carlton.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question.
You
know
this
is
no
different
when
and
when
there
was
a
lot
of
reos
and
the
banks
were
filling
these
out
or
they
wanted
agents
to
fill
out,
and
we
were
like
to
the
point:
hey.
We
can't
fill
these
out.
So
what
we
do.
Let's
say
that
you
have
a
house.
You
have
one
of
your
rental
houses.
You
haven't
been
in
that
house
for
10
years.
S
What
we
would
tell
our
clients
and
advise
our
clients
is
fill
it
out
to
your
best
of
your
ability
and
the
best
of
your
knowledge.
You
know
a
lot
of
times
you
have
to
go
with
them
to
through
the
house,
not
filling
them
out.
You
know
what
happened
here.
Okay,
you
got
a
new
air
conditioner,
you
know
what
is
a
problem.
What
is
a
concern?
You
actually
just
help
them
and
walk
them
through
the
whole
process
of
how
it
happens.
C
And
okay,
we'll
we'll
we'll
just
let
it
go
that
that's
fine
deeper
into
this,
then
I
need
to
someone
else
would
want
to
be
recognized
and
if
I.
A
Cut
vice
chair
carlton,
this
is
assembly,
woman
howdy
again.
This
is
really
just
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
are
protecting.
Everyone
in
the
party
sellers
are
going
to
have
knowledge
about
things
that
are
defects
in
the
home
that
an
agent
would
never
know
about,
and
so
this
is
just
really
to
encourage
them
that
they
are
disclosing
to
protect
everyone
and
also
the
buyer,
the
buyer
who's
buying
the
property
that
there
is
nothing
that
they
aren't
made.
A
Aware
of,
especially
mr
herrera
made
a
perfect
example
of
you
know
the
reo
market,
where
sometimes
you
know
this
will
cover
everyone,
because,
if
you're
feeling
it
out
to
the
things
you
are
aware
of,
then
this
will
protect
you
for
not
disclosing
something
that
you
haven't
been
made
aware
of
as
the
seller.
So
it
just
protects
everyone
in
the
party.
M
Thank
you
assembly
women
how
to
get
just
if
I
could
vice
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
for
the
record:
there's
no
shift
of
any
burden
here
again.
How
how
the
law
has
always
been
is
that
the
seller
fills
it
out.
So
there's
no
shifting
of
a
burden
you're
just
taking
out
the
licensee
from
again,
it's
really
important
for
the
consumer
to
not
think
that
their
licensee
realtor
can
ever
actually
fill
out
that
form
because
they
can't-
and
so
this
is
just
clarifying
that
in
statute
there's
been
no
burden
shift
here.
C
I'll
I'll
just
respectfully
disagree
was
there
other
questions,
assemblywoman
kasama.
Is
it
a
question.
J
C
No,
no
we're
that's.
I
think
we're
good
we're
just
gonna
we're
we're
bumping
up
against
our
time.
So
we'll
just
just
stick
with
questions
and
that
way
we
can
get
to
support
opposition
and
neutral.
Also,
so
thank
but
thank
you
for
the
offer
we
do
appreciate
it
under.
So
are
there
any
other
questions.
C
Begum
vice
chair,
I'm
sorry
did
I
hear
someone.
This
is
assembly,
assemblywoman,
duran,
sorry,
I
lost
my
gal
review.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
I'm
just
a
little
confused
so
if
and
I'm
not
sure
how
this
works,
I'm
not
really
into
real
estate.
So
if
they
fill
out
this
this
form
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
there's
something
that
is
made
available
can
can
I
request,
if
I'm
a
buyer,
request
an
inspection
at
that
point
or
to
make
sure
there's
nothing
else
wrong
or
how
does
that
work?
You
know.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I'm
through
you
vice
chair
to
the
assemblywoman.
So
typically
during
a
real
estate
transaction,
you
have
what's
called
a
due
diligence
period,
and
so
typically
the
srpd
is
provided
at
the
onset
as
soon
as
escrow
is
open,
so
that
the
buyer
has
time
to
review
what
the
seller
has
has
disclosed
in
their
srpd.
M
We
always
encourage
buyers
to
do
due
diligence
to
do
inspections,
to
do
everything
that
they
want
to
to
be
sure
that
the
property
is
how
they
want
it
to
be
on.
The
srpd
is
just
one
of
those
tools
that
says
maybe
look
a
little
bit
closer
at
the
plumbing
or
look
a
little
bit
closer
at
the
electrical,
but
we
still
highly
encourage
you
whether
or
not
anything
is
disclosed
on
the
srpd
or
not
to
do
your
due
diligence
and
do
inspections
if
something
pops
up.
Absolutely.
M
C
Thank
you.
Can
you
follow
up,
please
follow
up
assemblyman,
please
go
ahead.
Do
I
pay
for
that
inspection
at
that
point,
or
is
it
already
or
is
that
mutual
agreed
upon
between
the
seller
and
the
buyer,
or
is
that
just
the
cost
for
myself.
M
C
B
B
B
E
E
E
We
want
the
property
to
be
sold
with
as
much
information
as
possible,
so
the
buyer
can
make
a
purchase
based
on
the
best
and
most
accurate
information
provided
pulling
realtors
into
litigation
because
we
have
eno
insurance
is
unfair
and
not
right.
We
need
this
clarification
in
the
law
proposed
here
to
stop
predatory
land
lawsuits.
E
B
K
Good
afternoon
vice
chair,
carlton
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
trevor
smith,
spelled
t-r-e-v-o-r
s-m-I-t-h
and
I'm
a
real
estate
broker
in
incline
village.
I'm
testifying
today
in
support
of
ab398
as
realtors.
We
act
as
facilitators
in
transactions
to
help
our
clients
comply
with
the
law,
and
that
shouldn't
mean
that
we
become
liable,
we're
there
to
make
sure
they
do
it
right,
but
that
shouldn't
put
us
in
harm's
way.
We
are
a
conduit
here.
K
In
this
case,
we
are
doing
our
best
to
be
sure
that
our
clients
make
full
disclosures
in
their
srpd
a
lot
of
sellers.
I
work
with
get
srpd
amnesia
at
first
and
forget
all
sorts
of
things.
They
should
be
disclosing
and
isn't
good
for
anyone
as
a
realtor,
I
tell
my
clients
stories
about
my
property.
For
example,
five
years
ago
we
had
mice
in
the
basement
or
a
plumbing
leak,
and
this
is
what
we
did.
K
B
E
A
C
A
Vice
chair
and
thank
you
so
much
for
taking
the
reins.
While
I
presented
assembly
bill
398.
members,
we
have
one
other
item
on
our
agenda
today
and
that
is
public
comment.
While
we
give
those
listening
over
the
internet
time
to
call
in
for
public
comment,
I
will
read
through
our
public
comment
housekeeping,
so
the
public
has
already
been
given
time
to
support
and
oppose
specific
legislation.
We
open
and
close
hearings
on
bills
so
that
we
establish
a
public
record
of
testimony
on
a
bill.
A
Therefore,
public
comment
is
not
intended
to
be
a
continuation
of
a
bill
hearing
them.
I
would
like
to
remind
everyone
that
we
limit
public
comment
to
two
minutes.
Please
address
your
remarks
to
items
that
fall
within
the
jurisdiction,
jurisdiction
and
purview
of
the
commerce
and
labor
committee.
If
you
start
speaking
about
matters
outside
of
that
jurisdiction,
I
will
ask
you
to
redirect
your
remarks
or
terminate
them.
I
do
ask
that
everyone
be
respectful
of
committee
members
and
other
witnesses.
Do
not
comment
on
testimony
provided
by
other
speakers
and
do
not
make
personal
attacks.
A
B
E
Before
I
begin
so
we
cannot
talk
about
the
minimum
wage
bill
because
I
didn't,
I
think
I
missed
out.
I'm
sorry.
A
E
Okay,
so
just
I'll
just
talk
about
wages
in
general,
my
apologies,
you
know,
minimum
wage
increases
have
its
benefits.
The
issue
is
that
it
doesn't
really
work
too.
Well
if
it's
adjusted
for
inflation,
I
believe
washington
state
does
that
and
the
other
issue
is
that
it
doesn't
solve
the
heart
of
the
problem,
which
is
of
course,
number
one.
The
growing
level
of
income
inequality
and
the
growing
level
of
cost
of
living
cost
of
living
is
rising.
Rents
and
housing
prices
are
rising
faster
than
inflation.
E
If
we
keep
raising
the
minimum
wage,
but
they
fail
to
keep
up,
it's
not
going
to
do
a
lot,
and
it's
not
going
to
solve
the
heart
of
the
problem
again
we're
going
after
the
bones
of
the
structure,
we're
not
going
after
the
foundation.
The
other
concern
is
income
inequality
right
now.
Typically,
a
ceo
makes
500
of
one
in
terms
of
worker
pay
ratio
to
ceo
and,
as
a
result,
minimum
wage
has
not
kept
up
in
terms
of
that
component.
E
E
Many
meanwhile
many
of
his
employees
perhaps
are
still
struggling
to
make
ends
meet
I'd
like
there
to
be
a
one
ratio
to
one
to
50
for
also
companies
like
walmart
and
amazon,
and
I
wonder
why,
by
very
few
of
the
organizations
in
nevada,
left
or
right
or
even
talking
about
this.
In
fact,
our
current
administration
is
not
talking
about
this.
This
is
the
number
one
problem
with
our
economy
and.
A
Mr
johnson,
thank
you
so
much
for
calling.
We
appreciate
your
testimony
or
your
public
comment.
Always
and
again.
If
you
had
information
you
wanted
to
send
over
for
inclusion
in
the
meeting
record,
please
email,
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
Thank
you
telephone
line
for
anyone
else
wishing
to
give
public
comment.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Committee
members.
I
know
we
have
been
having
long
days
and
many
of
you
have
went
in
from
one
morning
long
hearing
straight
into
this
hearing,
so
I
appreciate
your
attention
to
all
of
the
bills
that
we've
heard
in
this
committee
today
and
thank
you
again
for
being
here
at
6
00
p.m,
because
our
next
meeting
is
scheduled
for
6
p.m.
This
evening,
it'll
be
a
work
session.
We
will
send
out
an
email
dinner
will
be
provided.
Thank
you.
Our
meeting
is.