Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll try to keep this brief.…
Speaker NorelliThe question before the House is the committee amendment. The Chair recognizes the member from Haverhill, Representative Ladd.
Rep. Rick Ladd (R - Graf 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll try to keep this brief. SB 48, if you have been looking at the web, there is a lot of consternation on this bill. I think that we need to really qualify what we have here - clarify. The amendment which you have before you is the bill. When this bill came to committee, there were a number of issues in which we looked at in terms of school performance and accountability and if you look through our statutes, presently we have a statute that we measure knowledge and skills. We've done that in our schools for years and years and years. The bill came to us and we are going to measure and promote knowledge, skills and dispositions. The committee really tried to understand what dispositions meant and if you look at the web you are going to find `habits of mind' and basically as an educator, I have no room for that type of psychological mumbo-jumbo and so we went back to the old report cards which we've seen and we took dispositions out and we put in what everybody knows, work study habits. So, on one side we are measuring knowledge and skills and the other side we are promoting work study habits, listening in a classroom, following directions, all of that stuff that your teacher's try to get you to do when you are in grade school. Some learned it, some didn't. Now, how we evaluate our, and measure, our education currently in accordance with No Child Left Behind, which was put into effect in 2001, we have 3 letters we call AYP, annual yearly progress, and by 2014 all students are going to have to be meeting in schools, are going to have to meet annual yearly progress. They are all going to have to be proficient. We know that there are subgroups within our schools, be it those which are socio-economic or special education, title I, English language learners. We have various groups where all students are not going to become proficient and this is a problem throughout our state. The system which we use to measure achievement, measure growth and holds schools accountable is basically broken. It is broken. No Child Left Behind is at the point where we need to replace it. In accordance with ESEA, Elementary Secondary Education Act, put into effect way back in 1965, modified again in 1994, a waiver can be asked for and this state along with a number of other states has asked for a waiver to No Child Left Behind. Currently, 38 states have been approved waivers and those waivers were approved given the fact that several of those states have not bought in to common core standards at all. Alaska hasn't, Texas hasn't, Minnesota went with language-English, but withdrew and didn't want to
do mathematics, Indiana, Virginia. We are now one of 8 states, along with Texas, which have an application that's pending. Texas is another state that didn't buy in to common core. We have by principle. The other thing that this amendment does in terms of getting a background there, it integrates competencies into all levels of education in our schools. We've had those in place for years and years, we just called it different names: performance outcomes, criteria indicators. We should have competencies in place. We are required to do that in our high schools right now. Every course that a student takes in high school, there must be a course and/or measurement to which measures that the student is competent and why do we have that? We have it simply because we are tired of sending our kids on to college, community colleges where 70% that are applying are ending up to take remedial education at a cost which could be anywhere from $500 per credit hour. We are wasting their money when we give a grade saying you are passing in high school in mathematics or English. They pass those competencies. We don't want to fool parents. We don't want to fool kids anymore. So, what we are doing is we are hoping we can move away from AYP and get this waiver in place. It has absolutely nothing to do with common core standards. We are getting the waiver as a result of the ESEA, No Child Left Behind. Common core standards is a different ball game. I myself am not very pleased the way we entered into common core standards in this state, with the state board getting the draft in June 2010, and July 2010 approving them by principle. There is also implementation cost, but this is not that. This is going to save us money. So I encourage you all to support this amendment. It is a good amendment. The committee worked hard on this and it was bipartisan support. Thank you very much.
Speaker NorelliThe question before the House is committee amendment on SB 48. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question before the House is committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on SB 48. The Chair recognizes the member from Nashua, Representative Murotake to speak in opposition to the committee report.
Rep. David Murotake (R - Hills 32)Hello, I am going to make this as quick as possible. I've served on the National Board of Education for the last several years. I may have been one of a very small number of elected officials that actually worked closely with the state board of education trying to understand the common core. I understand that the argument is that this bill has nothing to do with the common core, but I would beg to differ. It turns out that the common core is very complex. Part of the common core deal with curriculum standards. In other words, what content are you teaching? Others will deal with pedagogy, how do you deliver the content that you are teaching. There is another piece called assessment in which you determine basically how much of the information is being absorbed and understood by the students. Finally, following assessment, are the consequences. What do you do with the schools and the classrooms that are not teaching what you would like to have taught? Unfortunately, there are a number of difficulties with the assessment and consequences part. I would just like to read off a few of these things. For example, on the 27th and 30th of March, Hart Research Associates conducted a survey of 800 AFT teachers. Over 74% worry that the assessments will begin before students and teachers are ready to be tested. 39% say their districts will not be ready in time to begin their standardized assessments. The majority believe their districts have not done enough in terms of professional development to learn both content and pedagogy, develop model lesson plans and deploy the computers and network bandwidth needed to run the computerized assessments. On April 30th Education Secretary Arne Duncan admitted to flaws in standardized common core assessments and consequences to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. The assessments and consequences are all high stakes. The future of education reform and the career futures of teachers ride on these assessments and consequences. So rather than abandon standardized assessment, Duncan called for assessment 2.0, a rethink on common core assessments and consequences, essentially a moratorium. On the 30th of April, AFT President, Lisa Weingarten called for a moratorium on common core consequences citing the lack of readiness of standards, the school districts, the students and the teachers. Dennis Van Roekel, President of the NEA, also called for a 2-year moratorium on high stakes consequences. The following month, in May, the National School boards Association, the School Superintendent Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals all supported a moratorium. Their joint memo states that states and districts face very real obstacles to align their curricula with the new standards and administer the required tests. So, basically, having chaired the curriculum and evaluation committee of the Nashua School District for the last several years, I share the concerns of all of these individuals. I happen to like a goodly portion of the common core, but I do not think that this is the right time for SB 48 and I ask all of you here to oppose Ought to Pass on this bill. Thank you.
(Deputy Speaker Kaen in the Chair)
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the Representative from Rochester. The question before the House is the Ought to Pass as Amended motion recommended by the committee on SB 48. The Chair recognizes the member from Rochester, Representative Grassie to speak in favor of the committee report. Rep. Grassie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A little extra we had notwithstanding beforehand. This bill has very little to do with common core standards. This bill has to do with the fact that we are currently using an assessment program in our schools that is broken. AYP is broken. By 2015, every child has to be proficient and we know that can't happen. So, the state department of education has asked the federal government for a waiver for New Hampshire students. This bill aligns our statutes and the language with the waiver request. It's as simple as that. The committee worked on taking out the controversial, questionable statements that were left in it when it came back from the Senate and we took out dispositions. We want teachers to support work study habits for children. It's a bipartisan vote out of the education committee and I would like you to support us and vote yes. Thank you.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The member does not yield to a question. The question before the House is the Ought to Pass as Amended committee recommendation on SB 48. The Chair now recognizes the member from Farmington, Representative Pitre to speak against the motion.
Rep. Joseph Pitre (R - Straf 1)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to SB 48 that effectively puts common core in New Hampshire statute. In 1988, Marc Tucker became the President of the National Center of Education and Economy. He joined up with Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo and Ira Magaziner to get states to move away from local control of their schools and migrate to national standards. The evidence shows that powerful and influential people and organizations have collaborated to create a global education system that will track our children and move them toward a global perspective that takes away states individual sovereignty. Accountable performance standards will force all cities and towns to adopt common core at a tremendous cost. I am a school board member and very familiar with federal government programs and promises not kept. The federal government is barred from creating national standards, General Education Provisions Act and the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, so they allow this orchestration to happen and committed to funding other elements of the takeover. The Pioneer Institute estimated the implementation cost of national common core to be $404 per child. An Education Week article from August 2012 estimated the cost of initial implementation of the program at $289 per student. The state of Texas estimated a cost of $3 billion for 4.85 million students to implement common core or $620 per child. The New Hampshire school population is approximately 189,000 students. The cost to New Hampshire taxpayers would be $54.6 to $117.2 million to implement the total New Hampshire program. Just 1272 students at $280 would be approximately $368,000 or 76 cents on the property tax rate. Manchester would potentially incur cost of $4.1 to $8.9 million. Nationally there are 54.7 million students at $289 each equates to nearly $17 billion up to $33 billion at $620 per child, the potential cost to taxpayers. I am amazed that there is no fiscal note on this bill. I would also question the unfounded mandate that this bill creates and violates the New Hampshire Constitution Amendment 28-a. The cost? The costs incurred by this bill are new books, educational material to transition from an education-based instruction to a training-based instruction. Training-based instruction readies our students for workforce, a dumbing-down of our student population nationwide. The biggest costs will be large amounts of technology required for teaching and assessment of the students the common core program. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is actively advocating this program. The economic impact to the Microsoft Corporation, the Bill Gates goldmine, would be huge. Please help me defeat SB 48, Ought to Pass as Amended, and keep local control of our schools by pressing the red button. Thank you.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Would the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on SB 48. The Chair now recognizes the member from Nashua, Representative Gorman, to speak in favor of the committee report.
Rep. Mary Gorman (D - Hills 31)Thank you, Madam Speaker and honorable colleagues. I rise in support of SB 48, as amended, and I do so for the following reasons. The purpose of SB 48 is to develop an assessment model which measures accurately the skills and knowledge of our high school graduates to ensure their preparedness for a career and college. SB 48 meets this purpose by first identifying schools that are struggling. Priority schools are those among the lowest performing 5% based on the achievement of all students on the statewide assessment tests and demonstrated lack of progress over a 3-year period. Focus schools are low performing schools that have the largest within school gaps between highest achieving groups or sub-groups and the lowest achieving groups or sub-groups. Priority schools and focus schools will be given a year to develop a plan and take action to address their inadequacies. This plan must be approved by the state board of education and if sufficient progress is not made, the department of education will issue a notice and initiate assistance. SB 48 also calls for measurable standards or student learning targets that represent key content specific concepts, skills and knowledge applied within or across content domains. Emphasis on mastery utilization and synthesis of knowledge is prescribed. Lastly, SB 48 promotes the habits which enhance learning and advance a positive work ethic. Examples include, listening, accepting responsibility for one's behavior, time management and working well with others. Please join me in pressing the green button in support of the committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended and I thank you.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Would the member yield to a question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on SB 48. The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Tuftonboro, Representative Cordelli to speak against the committee report.
Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R - Carr 7)Thank you, Madam Speaker and thank you, fellow Representatives. When you sent your children off to elementary school did you know who they would become? How about high school? Or, maybe when they left for college? Let's take a look at SB 48. In a new section it states, "Enable all students to progress toward college and career readiness with clearly defined learning outcomes." Let me repeat that, "clearly defined learning outcomes." Next, let's take a look at a recent article from the Concord Monitor. What is going on is that the department of education is presenting new administrative rules to the board of education that require local school districts to shift away from granting credits for graduation to passing competencies. We will get to that in a moment, but in this article the representative of the department of education is discussing competencies and says that students will still have the choice of which math courses to take to meet those skills or competencies but no matter what courses a student takes, they'll have the same set of knowledge as their peers. Does this bill put New Hampshire on a path for all students to master the same set of academic skills and knowledge? Are we revamping our education system to provide more for the individual needs of the students or are we trying to fit them all in the same little neat box? Now, back to competencies. We know that the department wants to move to a system of assessing competencies and requiring competencies rather than credits for graduation. SB 48 puts those competencies into statute. What are competencies? Competency based education is centered on skills and outcomes of learning. It emphasizes what students are expected to do. In the 1990's it became associated with what graduates would need for a 21st century work place. We see that in SB 48, college and career readiness. Let me quote former IBM CEO Louis Gerstner, "We are not interested in public schools teaching work related skills. We can teach them what they need to run a machine or develop a marketing plan. What is killing us is having to teach them to read, compute and communicate." In addition, SB 48 established the premise that students should advance based on passage of competencies rather than a predetermined amount of seat-time. Are we ready to pass SB 48 and put in place a radical shift to where a bright student can advance well beyond his peers and friends? Do we want an 11 or 12-year old as a junior in high school? Or maybe a 16 or 17-year old in middle school? Please consider there is another bill, SB 82 that establishes a commission to look into competencies. That bill, however, is being retained by the education committee because of multiple concerns, including whether competencies are appropriate for elementary school where we are trying to teach the fundamental basic building blocks of math, English and history. Are we not putting the cart before the horse by passing SB 48 before we can have a commission to look at competencies? If you have questions about what is going on and the impact on our children, please join me in voting no. Thank you.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The question before the House is the Ought to Pass as Amended motion on SB 48. For what reason does the member rise?
Rep. Ralph Boehm (R - Hills 20)I'd like to make a motion to table SB 48 and request a division vote.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The question before the House; it has been moved to table SB 48. Would the members please take their seats? This is a non-debatable motion. Would the Sergeant-at-Arms please have the members take their seats? This will be a division vote. The question before the House is the motion to table SB 48. The question before the House is the tabling motion on SB 48. Would the members please take their seats? Sergeant-at-Arms, thank you. This will be a division vote. The question before the House is the motion to table SB 48. If you are in favor of the motion, you will be pressing the green button. If opposed, you will press the red button. Stations will...Are you ready? The Chair recognizes Rep. Boehm for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Ralph Boehm (R - Hills 20)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if I know that this bill is dependent on SB 82 which was retained by the education committee, which establishes a commission to identify strategies needed for developing and implementing a competency-based public education system. And, Madam Speaker, if I know that this bill assumes a competency-based system that has not been fully developed yet as per SB 82. And, Madam Speaker, if I know that this bill should have a fiscal note and that it will increase cost at the local level and as such is a 28-a issue and is not funded by the state. And, Madam Speaker, if I know that this bill puts the cart before the horse and has multiple problems, will you join me in pressing the green button to table this bill? Thank you.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The question before the House is the motion to table SB 48. The Chair now recognizes Rep. Gile for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Mary Gile (D - Merr 27)Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. If I know that SB 48 is critical to New Hampshire's approval for a waiver and release from the requirements of No Child Left Behind. And, if I also know that 38 states already have waivers, 8 are under review, including New Hampshire. And, if I know that SB 48 has absolutely has nothing to do with the core, the common core standards, would you please now vote red and vote down the motion to table. Thank you very much.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The question before the House is the motion to table SB 48. This will be a division vote. If you are in favor of the motion, you will press the green button. If you are opposed to the tabling motion, you will press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members voted who were here when the question was put? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 135 having voted in the affirmative and 189 in opposition, the motion fails. The question before the House is the Ought to Pass as Amended motion on SB 48. The Chair now recognizes Representative Harris for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Jeffrey Harris (R - Rock 9)Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I know the purpose of this is to move all students to a clearly defined learning outcome. And, if I further know that teachers across this country are saying, we need to slow down. We have to slow down the march of these competencies and this new assessment system. And, if I know these competency-based student assessments will come and create problems for our athletic programs, our student athletes, their parents and also cause problems with scholarships, both athletic and academic. And, if I know, we do not know the cost of this to our state. And, if I know this bill repeals statutes relating to local control measures which focus on the growth of our students, would I now vote no on this Ought to Pass and give us time to review this major shift in education by pressing the red button? Madam Speaker, I ask for a roll call vote.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)A roll call has already been requested by Representative Tucker. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members please take their seats. The question before the House is the Ought to Pass as Amended committee recommendation on SB 48. Would the members please take their seats? The Chair now recognizes Representative Gile for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Mary Gile (D - Merr 27)Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I just said, if I know that SB 48, relative to school performance and accountability is critical to New Hampshire's approval for a waiver and release from the requirements of No Child Left Behind. And, if I also know that identifying schools as focus and priority schools, more clearly defines the specific needs of schools with challenges and the types of technical assistance required to improve student performance. And, if I know that SB 48, while promoting higher expectations for students, has nothing to do with common core and everything to do with the waiver request. And, finally, if I know that the SB 48 subcommittee met 3 times to agree on amendments to specific language and evaluation requirements and that the final amendment approved by the majority of the House Education Committee replaces all of the enacting clause of the original bill, which seems to have caused so much misunderstanding, would I now vote green and support the bipartisan 15-4 vote of the House Education Committee? Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The question before the House is the Ought to Pass as Amended committee recommendation on SB 48. This will be a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members voted who were here when the question was put? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 198 having voted in the affirmative, 134 in the negative, the motion passes. For what purpose does the member rise?
Rep. Neal Kurk (R - Hills 2)I move that the debate on SB 48 be printed in the Permanent Journal and I would ask to speak to my motion.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The member is recognized to speak to his motion.
Rep. Neal Kurk (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Madam Speaker. We just had a debate in which the proponents have asserted, stated, that this bill does not reflect or affect the common core and the opponents have stated the opposite. The proponents have prevailed. Therefore their view of the bill should prevail and in order to make sure in the future that neither the State Board of Education nor the Department of Education use this bill as support for suggesting that the Legislature has supported the introduction of the common core, the debate should be printed to resolve the issue. Thank you.
Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)The question before the House is to have the debate on SB 48 printed in the Permanent Journal. Are you ready for the question? A roll call has been requested by Representative Tamburello. That is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the motion to have the debate on SB 48 printed in the Permanent Journal. This will be a roll call vote on whether to print the debate in the Permanent Journal. Those in favor will press the green button. Those opposed the red button. Stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members voted who were here when the question was put? The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 300 having voted in the affirmative, 32 in the negative, the motion passes.
REGULAR CALENDAR (CONT'D)
SB 135-FN, relative to the regulation of the practice of genetic counseling. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Lucy M. Weber for the Majority of Executive Departments and Administration: The practice of genetic counseling is an emerging specialty. Currently, anyone can identify himself or herself as a genetic counselor, whether he or she has appropriate training or not. This bill was introduced to ensure that medical professionals and members of the public are advised in this most personal aspect of their lives by qualified professionals. The bill, as amended in its entirety by the committee amendment, defines the practice of genetic counseling, adds genetic counselors to the list of allied health professionals, establishes that all genetic counselors must be certified by either the American Board of Genetic Counselors or the American Board of Medical Genetics,
establishes a genetics counseling governing board, and provides for NH state licensure by that board. It sets out requirements for licensure and specific guidelines for rulemaking. The bill establishes strict privacy controls for patients' genetic information. The majority of the committee was persuaded that regulation of this emerging field was necessary to ensure that services in this most personal and private area are delivered by qualified and ethical professionals. Vote 12-5. Rep. Carol M. McGuire for the Minority of Executive Departments and Administration: This bill is an unnecessary overreach of government. The 20 or so genetic counselors in the state work with doctors, clinics, and hospitals, not direct to consumers. Doctors know - or can easily learn - how to find a qualified genetic counselor, and individuals typically approach their doctors first, as with any medical question. All the patient harm the committee heard about was due to doctors and other medical professionals (exempted from licensing and other restrictions by SB 135) acting beyond their knowledge, not from non-qualified people claiming to be genetic counselors, and SB 135 will not fix that. There is no need to license yet another narrow profession.
Majority Amendment (1718h)
Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following: �1 New Chapter; Genetic Counselors. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 326-J the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 326-K Genetic Counselors
326-K:1 Definitions. In this chapter and RSA 328-F: I. "ABGC" means the American Board of Genetic Counseling, its equivalent, or successor. II. "ABMG" means the American Board of Medical Genetics, its equivalent, or successor. III. "Board" means the genetic counselors governing board established in RSA 328-F. IV. "Genetic counselor" means an individual, who is licensed by the board under this chapter, to engage
in the practice of genetic counseling. V. "NSGC" means the National Society of Genetic Counselors, its equivalent, or successor. VI. "Practice of genetic counseling" means, for the purposes of advising an individual client, a client's
family, or other licensed health care professionals: (a) Obtaining and evaluating individual, family, and medical histories to determine genetic risk for
genetic or medical conditions and diseases in a patient, his or her offspring, and other family members; (b) Discussing the features, natural history, means of diagnosis, genetic and environmental factors,
and management of risk for genetic or medical conditions and diseases; (c) Identifying and coordinating genetic laboratory tests and other diagnostic studies as appropriate
for the genetic assessment; (d) Integrating genetic laboratory test results and other diagnostic studies with personal and family
medical history to assess and communicate risk factors for genetic or medical conditions and diseases; (e) Explaining the clinical implications of genetic laboratory tests and other diagnostic studies and
their results; (f) Evaluating the client's or family's responses to the condition or risk of recurrence and provide
client-centered counseling and anticipatory guidance; and (g) Providing written documentation of medical, genetic, and counseling information for families and
health care professionals. 326-K:2 Exemptions from Licensure. Except for the requirements under RSA 326-K:8, the requirements
for licensure under this chapter shall not apply to: I. Any person licensed by the state to practice in a profession other than that of genetic counseling when
acting within the scope of the person's profession and doing work of a nature consistent with the person's training. Such person shall not hold himself or herself out to the public as a genetic counselor.
II. Any person employed as a genetic counselor by the federal government or an agency thereof if such person provides genetic counseling services solely under the direction and control of the organization by which he or she is employed.
III. A student, if the following conditions apply: (a) The student is enrolled in an ABGC accredited genetic counseling educational program; (b) The genetic counseling services performed by the student are an integral part of the student's
course of study; (c) The genetic counseling services are performed under the direct supervision of a licensed genetic
counselor; and (d) The student is designated by the title, "genetic counseling intern."
326-K:3 Eligibility for Initial Licensure. In addition to requirements under RSA 328-F, the board shall require the following as a minimum to qualify for licensure. Each applicant shall:
I. Comply with the NSGC Code of Ethics. II. Provide satisfactory evidence of having fulfilled the following criteria: (a) Genetic counselor currently certified by ABGC or ABMG; or (b) Medical geneticist currently certified by ABMG. III. Be at least 18 years of age. IV. Be of good moral character. V. Demonstrate sufficient evidence of good professional character and reliability to satisfy the board that the applicant shall faithfully and conscientiously avoid professional misconduct and adhere to this chapter, RSA 328-F, and the board's rules. 326-K:4 Provisional License. I. A provisional license may be issued by the board to an applicant who meets all of the requirements for licensure except for the certification component and has been granted active candidate status by ABGC. II. A provisional license shall be valid for the ABGC examination cycle for which active candidate status by the ABGC has been granted. Such provisional license shall expire automatically upon the earliest of the following: (a) Issuance of a full license; (b) Thirty days after the applicant fails to pass the certification examination; or (c) Two years from the issuance of a provisional license. III. A provisional license may only be extended upon approval of the board for good cause shown. IV. A provisional licensed genetic counselor shall work under the general supervision of a licensed genetic counselor or a licensed physician at all times during which the provisional licensed genetic counselor performs genetic counseling. An application for extension of the provisional license shall be signed by the supervising licensed genetic counselor or supervising licensed physician. V. The board is authorized to issue conditional provisional licenses in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to RSA 541-A. 326-K:5 Prohibition on Unlicensed Practice; Professional Identification. I. No person shall practice or represent himself or herself as a genetic counselor in this state without first applying for and receiving a license or provisional license from the board to practice as a licensed genetic counselor. II. A genetic counselor whose license is suspended or revoked or whose surrender of license with or without prejudice has been accepted by the board, shall promptly deliver the original license to the board. III. Individuals holding currently valid licenses issued under this chapter may use the title "genetic counselor" and write the designation "licensed genetic counselor" following his or her written name. IV. No person shall represent himself or herself or the services offered by using the term genetic counselor unless he or she is licensed in accordance with this chapter. No person, who is not so licensed may use in connection with his or her name or place of business, the title "genetic counselor," "licensed genetic counselor," "gene counselor," "genetic consultant," "genetic associate," or any words, letters, abbreviations or insignia indicating or implying a person holds a genetic counseling license, or any similar words if the intent of such use is to imply that the person is licensed. V. Any person who states or implies by word or act that he or she is currently licensed to practice genetic counseling at a time when he or she does not hold a currently valid license shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 326-K:6 Reciprocity. The board may, in its discretion, grant a license under this chapter to an individual certified or licensed in another state if it determines that the requirements or standards for certification or licensure in that state are equivalent to, or greater than, those established by this chapter. 326-K:7 Compensation. Notwithstanding RSA 328-F:6 and RSA 328-F:15, I(g), the members of genetic counselors governing board shall serve without compensation for attendance at meetings and shall not be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in connection with the work of the board. 326-K:8 Privileged Communications. In addition to RSA 328-F:28: I. No person shall disclose any information or results related to a genetic evaluation, assessment, laboratory test, diagnostic study, or written documentation of genetic counseling, to any person other than the client without prior written consent. II. Information and results may be made available to the board for use in an investigation or disciplinary proceeding under RSA 328-F concerning a licensed genetic counselor only if the results are coded to maintain confidentiality of the client. III. A violation of this section shall be subject to a civil action by an aggrieved individual and, if successful, the aggrieved individual shall be awarded special or general damages of not less than $10,000 for each violation, and costs and reasonable legal fees. 326-K:9 Rulemaking. I. In addition to rules adopted pursuant to RSA 328-F:11, the board shall adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A relative to: (a) Eligibility requirements for provisional licenses. (b) Application procedures for provisional licenses. (c) The requirements for direction and supervision of those practicing under provisional licenses. (d) The limitations on practice imposed on those practicing under provisional licenses.
326-K:10 Eligibility for Renewal of Licenses. Licensees are eligible for renewal of their licenses if they: I. Have completed 50 hours of continuing education which meet the requirements established by the
board through rulemaking pursuant to RSA 541-A and at least 50 percent of which are directly related to the practice of genetic counseling.
II. Have not violated this chapter or RSA 328-F nor demonstrated poor professional character. �2 Allied Health Professionals; Definition; Governing Board. Amend RSA 328-F:2, II to read as follows:
II. "Governing boards" means individual licensing boards of athletic trainers, occupational therapy assistants, occupational therapists, recreational therapists, physical therapists, physical therapist assistants, respiratory care practitioners, [and] speech-language pathologists, and genetic counselors. �3 New Paragraph; Allied Health Professionals; Genetic Counseling. Amend RSA 328-F:2 by inserting after paragraph IX the following new paragraph:
X. "Genetic counseling" means genetic counseling as defined in RSA 326-K:1. �4 Governing Board; Establishment. Amend RSA 328-F:3, I to read as follows:
I. There shall be established governing boards of athletic trainers, occupational therapists, recreational therapists, respiratory care practitioners, physical therapists, [and] speech-language pathologists, and genetic counselors. �5 New Paragraph; Genetic Counselors; Governing Board; Appointment. Amend RSA 328-F:4 by inserting after paragraph IX the following new paragraph:
X. The genetic counselors governing board shall consist of 3 licensed genetic counselors, who have actively engaged in the practice of genetic counseling in this state for at least 2 years, one practicing physician with experience in working with genetic counselors, and one public member. Initial appointment of professional members by the governor and council shall be qualified persons practicing genetic counseling in this state. All subsequent appointments or reappointments shall require licensure. �6 Renewals; Reference to Genetic Counselors Added. Amend RSA 328-F:19, I to read as follows:
I. Initial licenses and renewals shall be valid for 2 years, except that timely and complete application for license renewal by eligible applicants shall continue the validity of the licenses being renewed until the governing board has acted on the renewal application. Licenses issued pursuant to RSA 328-A, RSA 326-G, and RSA 326-J shall expire in even-numbered years and licenses issued pursuant to RSA 326-C, RSA 326-E, [and] RSA 326-F, and RSA 326-K shall expire in odd-numbered years. �7 Genetic Testing; Disclosure; Medical Practice or Hospital. Amend RSA 141-H:2, III to read as follows:
III. Except as provided in paragraph II, or authorized by RSA 141-J, no person shall disclose to any other person that an individual has undergone genetic testing, and no person shall disclose the results of such testing to any other person, without the prior written and informed consent of the individual, the parent, guardian, or custodian if the individual is a minor under the age of 18, or the legal guardian or conservator if the individual is an incompetent person. [Discussion and disclosure of genetic testing for a patient, requested of a physician by a patient, by appropriate professionals within a physician's medical practice or hospital shall not be a violation of this chapter.] �8 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2013.