March 13, 2001

For more information contact:

Stanley S. Jones, Jr.

404-817-6133

           The days are dwindling in number for the 2001 Session.  Today, the Senate worked late in order to complete its lengthy calendar of 25 bills.  Tomorrow will also be a very busy day – some of the day’s events will include the Senate’s hearing of 30 bills on the Floor and the FY 2002 Budget.  

Floor Activity 

          Today, both the House and Senate had a number of bills up for debate.  The following will describe some of the events of the day: 

          The House took up SB 1, the teen driving bill, which passed by a vote of 170 to 1.  The bill traversed a long road to get to the House Floor.  Numerous amendments have been made to the bill.  It now deals with teen drivers' training, testing (which now requires an ‘on the road test’) and restriction (this basically prohibits a teen from operating a vehicle from midnight to 6:00 o’clock a.m.).  There are three training options available:  1) completion of an approved driver’s education course at a driver training school with the completion of 20 hours of supervised driving (6 of those hours must be done at  night); 2) completion of an approved driver’s education course via mail or the Internet with  completion of 30 hours of supervised driving (again with at least 6 hours of that training at night); or 3) completion of 40 hours of supervised driving ( 6 hours at night) which must be verified by the signed oath of a parent of guardian. 

          In addition, the House took up SB 14, the minimum wage bill, which brings the hourly wage to $5.15 from $3.25.  This bill, which brings the state law in line with the federal law’s provisions, passed out by a vote of 144 to 21. 

          The Senate took up HB 248, which would not require a seat belt for children ages four and under “when the child's parent or guardian obtains a physician's written statement that a physical or medical condition of the child prevents placing or restraining him or her in any such child passenger restraining system.”  In addition, the Senate passed out HB 263 which requires that nursing homes conduct employee criminal record checks prior to the employment of persons.  It also passed out HB 264 concerning monetary penalties for nursing homes.  This bill provides in part that “when any civil monetary penalty is recommended and imposed against such facility, and the department does not resurvey the facility within 48 hours after the date by which all items on a plan of correction submitted by the facility are to be completed, the accrual of any resulting civil monetary penalties shall be suspended until the facility is resurveyed by the department.”  Further, it states that “if the department resurveys such facility beyond 48 hours after the final date for completion of all items on the plan of correction submitted by the facility, and the facility is not in substantial compliance with the applicable standards, any civil monetary penalties imposed shall relate back to the date on which such penalties were suspended.”

Committee Activity 

          Numerous committees from both chambers held meetings today in an effort to get bills through the process. 

House Judiciary Committee 

          The House Judiciary Committee passed out substitutes of SB 205 and SB 210.  SB 205, the Governor’s bill relating to when public disclosure shall not be required under Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50, was again before the Committee in another version.  In discussing the bill, Rep. Richardson strongly opposed the use of the word “shall” in the redaction of the information including the individual’s social security number, mother’s birth name, credit card information, debit card information, bank account information, financial data or information, and insurance or medical information in all records, and if technically feasible at reasonable cost, day and month of birth before any disclosure occurs.  There was some discussion that in the current law, if an agency has received the request for production of records and does not respond within three business days, then that agency must produce those records without redacting any information.  The bill also was amended by making the provisions or obtaining the information protected by the provisions in violation to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(11.1)(C) and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor and shall give rise to a cause of action for invasion of privacy by an injured party.  The prosecution of such would be pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-18-7(4)(b).  Further, in the Substitute of SB 205, it lists six disclosures which this bill would not apply: 

1)      disclosure of information contained in the records or papers of any court or derived therefrom;

2)      disclosure of information to a court, prosecutor, or publicly employed law enforcement officer seeking records in an official capacity;

3)      disclosure of information to a public employee of Georgia, its political subdivisions, or the United States who is obtaining such information for administrative purposes, in which case, subject to applicable laws of the United States, further access to such information shall continue to be subject to the provisions of this paragraph;

4)      disclosure of information as authorized by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction upon good cause shown to have access to any or all of such information upon such conditions as may be set forth in that court order;

5)      disclosure of information to the individual in respect of whom such information is maintained, with the authorization thereof, or to an authorized agent thereof; provided, however, that the agency maintaining that information shall require proper identification of the individual, or individual’s agent, or proof of authorization as determined by that agency; and

6)      disclosure of the day and month of birth and mother’s birth name of a deceased individual. 

The Committee also took up SB 210 concerning the production and release of medical records.  This bill is a result of the Georgia Supreme Court decision in King v. State.  In its decision, the Court determined that there is a constitutional right of privacy in medical records that is qualified – by three exceptions: 

1)      The patient has consented to the release of his or her medical records or has placed his or her medical condition in controversy;

2)      The patient has received notice of a person’s efforts to gain access to the medical records and the patient fails to object; or

3)      The state has shown a compelling interest for obtaining the medical records without the patient’s consent. 

The bill also defines “provider” to mean “all hospitals, including public, private, osteopathic, and tuberculosis hospitals; other special care units, including podiatric facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and kidney disease treatment centers, including freestanding hemodialysis units; intermediate care facilities; ambulatory surgical or obstetrical facilities; health maintenance organizations; and home health agencies.  It shall also mean any person licensed to practice under Chapter 9, 11, 26, 34, 35, or 39 of Title 43 or under Chapter 4 of Title 26 and shall include the state, state agencies, and subdivisions of the state.  The bill now states at O.C.G.A. § 24-9-40(c) that this shall not apply to and a provider shall be authorized to release medical records in the following situations: 

1)                 A subpoena issued under authority of law by a coroner, chief medical examiner, or medical examiner or subpoena issued by the Division Director of the Professional Licensing Boards Division of the Office of the Secretary of State pursuant to Code Section 43-1-19 or the Composite Board of Medical Examiners pursuant to Code Section 43-34-37;

2)                 A request for production of documents under subsection (c) of Code Section 9-11-34; or

3)                 A subpoena issued by the commissioner of community health pursuant to Code Section 49-4-151 or a subpoena issued by the Attorney General pursuant to Code Section 45-15-17. 

The bill now defines “personal representative” as “any person appointed as the administrator or executor of a decedent’s estate, any person appointed as the guardian or temporary guardian of the person of a patient, any administrator or temporary administrator, or any person appointed as an attorney in fact by the patient.”  Further, the bill places the definition of ‘survivor’ as “any person entitled to bring an action for wrongful death of a decedent under Code Section 51-4-2, 51-4-4, or 51-4-5.”  

In addition SB 210 now states:  “Any provider shall not be required to release records to any personal representative of the patient or any survivor of the patient under this Code section unless and until the requesting person has furnished the provider with a signed written authorization indicating that he or she is either a personal representative or a survivor as defined in Code Section 31-33-1.  Any provider shall be justified in relying on such written authorization.  Any provider or person who in good faith releases copies of any medical records pursuant to this Code section shall not be found to have violated any criminal law or to be civilly liable to the patient, the deceased patient’s estate, or to any other person.” 

House Insurance Committee 

          SB 98, Sen. Steve Thompson’s bill requiring that health benefit plans pay for surveillance tests for women ages 35 and older who are at high risk for ovarian cancer, passed out of the House Insurance Committee.  Sen. Thompson’s mother-in-law made a passionate speech to the Committee as a victim of ovarian cancer.  Also, St. Joseph’s Hospital had a representative to speak in favor of the bill – basically testifying that even if some women were screened that there would be a higher rate of catching the cancer in an earlier stage than at present.  This new language requiring this coverage is included at O.C.G.A. § 33-24-56.2. 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

          The Speaker’s bill, HB 478, also passed out Committee today and now proceeds to the Senate Rules Committee.  In getting the bill to this stage, a compromise agreement took place with numerous groups including the Consumer’s Insurance Advocate, property and casualty insurance industry personnel, the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, etc.  The bill addresses the provisions relating to an insurer's liability for a bad faith refusal to pay for a loss covered by insurance and provides for a private cause of action for unfair claims settlement practices in certain circumstances and to provide for damages and procedures. 

          HB 538, the bill with nine lives which deals with ‘ticket scalping’, has now made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and proceeds to the Senate Rules Committee.  Rep. Alan Powell presented his bill to the Committee and the Committee went through the various portions of the bill.  There were some amendments made such as the addition of definitions for “charitable organization” and “unarmed combat” which is prohibited.  Work was done on the bill to provide that such ticket brokers could only sell tickets at their offices and they could not establish offices within 1,500 feet of a venue.  In some instances those distances could be extended to 2,700 feet (or the distance between the Georgia Dome and through Centennial Park).  There were some exceptions to distance requirements for selling tickets – these were done at the request of the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech so that people could sell tickets on campus.

Senate Insurance and Labor Committee 

          This Committee passed out three bills and killed another.  Also, Chairman Robert Brown assigned two bills to Subcommittees to be studied between now and the beginning of next Session.  

SB 148, concerning Northside Hospital’s exclusive contracting issue and the inability of North Fulton Hospital to participate in managed care contracts, was assigned to a subcommittee with members including Sens. Cable, Lamutt, Hecht, Stokes and Harbison.  SB 148 states that “any contract for health care services executed on or after July 1, 2001, including any contract for health care services renewed or amended on or after that date, entered into between an insurer and any hospital which is a provider of obstetric services located in a county in which more than five acute care hospitals are located and with the distance between the contracting hospital and any other hospital in the county being more than:
(A) Ten miles; and (B) Thirty minutes driving time at any time of the day is against public policy and is void and unenforceable when said contract, renewal, or amendment has the effect of interfering with a patient’s ability to receive or obtain health care services from another hospital also located within said county that is agreeable to accept such patient under the same terms and conditions as the contracting hospital agreed with the insurer to provide such services.” 

          In addition, SB 63 was assigned to a Subcommittee consisting of Sens. Golden, Dean, Seabaugh, and Stephens.  This bill would provide for the Georgia Consumer Choice Negotiated Health Plan Act.  Basically, an employer could contract with an insurer and exclude certain insurance mandates which have been passed by the General Assembly. 

The Committee passed out HB 724 (which would allow school board officials to participate in the State’s health plan), HB 491 (which relates to continuing health insurance coverage for elementary and secondary education teachers with 8 or more years of creditable service to be offered such coverage – it reduces the number of years from 20 to 8), and HR 342 (which proposes to create the Blue Ribbon Commission on Individual Health Insurance Availability and its Effect on the Employer Based Health Insurance Market).  It held HR 484 concerning the State’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund study. 

Senate Finance and Public Utilities Committee 

          Sen. Nathan Dean’s Committee had a number of bills on its agenda.  The bills which passed are as follows: 

HB 460 – relating to income tax credits for qualified low-income buildings, in order to require recapture only in the event of reduction of the qualified basis of a qualified project; 

          HB 509 – which also relates to tax credits for low-income housing so as to specify criteria which a tax assessor shall not consider in determining the fair market value of property for ad valorem tax purposes;

          HB 780 – relating to hotel/motel taxes which may be increased from 5 to 6% (this primarily impacts Clayton County); 

          HB 610 – relating to the provision for an exemption with respect to the sale or use of certain film production equipment or services (this would be a one-time deal – therefore, no replacement equipment or parts could qualify for this exemption); 

HB 558 – relating to a sales tax exemption for non-profit companies who serve the mentally retarded; 

HB 472 – also relating to a sales tax exemption for food and beverages for the Camp Fire Boys and Girls (this is already done for the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts); and 

HB 456 – relating to the creation of county boards of equalization and review and appeal of ad valorem tax assessments, in order to change certain provisions regarding qualifications of membership. 

Other News 

          The Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee was scheduled to take up HB 455, concerning the enactment of provisions of the federal law of Gramm-Leach-Bliley relating to privacy issues and financial disclosures.  This bill was held as a number of entities were expressing concern over the bill.  

          On the Senate Floor tomorrow will be HB 565 concerning insurance coverage for persons with autism. 

          Also, the Department of Community Health Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held a meeting this afternoon on how to deal with the Mercer University State funding issues.  At the time of this Report, no information was available on that meeting.