SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

 

April 25, 2005                                                                                                      Hearing Room 343

1:00 P.M.                                                                                                                  Tapes 119 - 120

Corrected 10/26/05

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:         Sen. Ginny Burdick, Chair

Sen. Charles Starr, Vice-Chair

Sen. Roger Beyer

Sen. Floyd Prozanski

Sen. Charlie Ringo

Sen. Vicki Walker

Sen. Doug Whitsett

 

STAFF PRESENT:                 Joe O'Leary, Counsel

Dale Penn, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:        

HCR 7 – Public Hearing & Work Session

SB 1025 – Public Hearing

SB 333 – Work Session

SB 913 – Work Session

SB 265 – Public Hearing

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 119, A

003

Chair Burdick

Calls the meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. and opens a public hearing on HCR 7.

HCR 7 – PUBLIC HEARING

006

William E. Taylor

Counsel.  Describes HCR 7 relating to declaring May 2 to 8, 2005 as Jury Appreciation Week in Oregon. 

014

Natasha Ernst

Former juror, Chief of Staff, Rep. Avakian.  Testifies in support of Discusses her recent role as a juror and the need to appreciate those serving this vital role.

035

Chair Burdick

Asks when, and where, she was called for jury duty.

037

Ernst

Replies with information on when and where she served jury duty.

041

Marilyn Odell

Oregon State Bar, Judicial Committee.  Testifies in support of HCR 7.

059

Sen. Prozanski

Wonders if we should raise the rates for jurors instead of this bill.

062

Odell

States that the increase of rates would be much appreciated.

073

Chair Burdick

Closes the public hearing and opens a work session on HCR 7.

HCR 7 – WORK SESSION

076

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves HCR 7 be sent to the floor with a BE ADOPTED recommendation.

080

Sen. Prozanski

Offers his support for the resolution, but declares that they should do more for jurors.

 

 

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Ringo, Walker

086

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

093

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on HCR 7 and opens a public hearing on SB 1025.

SB 1025 – PUBLIC HEARING

096

William E. Taylor

Counsel.  Describes SB 1025 relating to modifying the requirements for use, retention, and disclosure of genetic information and DNA samples.  Talks about the -1 amendment (EXHIBIT J).

108

Chair Burdick

Introduces written testimony from Emily L. Harris, Assistant Program Director & Senior Investigator, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Northwest Region (EXHIBIT A).

111

Gwen Dayton

Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Genetic Privacy and Research.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 1025 (EXHIBIT B).  Submits written testimony from Sumeet S. Chugh and Susan J. Hayflick (EXHIBITS E & F).

153

Dayton

Discusses the federal common rule relating to privacy regulations in research.  Addresses the regulations on research from health care providers in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

195

Dayton

Talks about the possible proposed amendments, both technical and substantive, they recommend for the current bill.

227

David Holt

Director, Research Subjects Protection Office, Kaiser Permanente, Northwest Region.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 1025 (EXHIBIT C).  Details the repercussions that result from breaches of privacy occurring during research trials.

265

Holt

Comments on Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) protocol, involving informed consent documentation, before they are able to begin such research.

310

Holt

Talks about the special consent needed for projects relating to genetic research.

335

Taylor

Addresses an exception in the bill concerning a person conducting research possibly departing from existing protocol for consent.

342

Dayton

Details the reasoning behind the need for SB 1025, a bill that changes the criteria for consent in order to perform research.

363

Taylor

Asks for examples when this might be needed.

369

Holt

States that retroactive data research may be impossible to access and perform new studies without tracing back to every person who participated in these projects to get new consent.

382

Chair Burdick

Wonders if there is any way for the data to be traced back to the individual.

388

Mary Durham

Kaiser Permanente.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 1025 (EXHIBIT D).  Gives examples of why this bill needs to be enacted.  Talks about individuals who might give blood samples for their own clinical diagnoses that are later needed by researchers to study a particular disease.

433

Chair Burdick

Inquires if those samples have personal data on them.

439

Durham

Replies that the information can be removed, but there are times when family history, or past genetic history, is needed by the researchers and the data needs to be accessed.

TAPE 120, A

014

Sen. Prozanski

Explains that, in 1995 when the Legislative addressed this issue earlier, it was argued that they could get this information from the samples.

020

Durham

Replies that there are tests where tens of thousands or even millions of individuals are involved, and such methods are not easily employed.

026

Sen. Prozanski

Raises a hypothetical situation involving individuals who give blood or tissue samples and are then made aware of the possibility of future research.

031

Durham

Stresses that the public is very interested in performing, and allowing, medical research.  Continues reading her testimony in support of 1025 (Exhibit D).

070

Durham

States that the majority of samples are taken for clinical reasons: to diagnose a disease, to study the immediate medical concerns of the patient, etc.

091

Chair Burdick

Asks about the minimal risk involved with the criteria the IRB’s must follow.

093

Holt

Replies with the dangers that may occur during the research process.

103

Durham

Addresses the question of risk to the individual.

110

Chair Burdick

Inquires about the effects that may occur when the researchers do not have access to the personal data of the individual.

108

Durham

Stresses that this method is currently employed most of the time.  Talks about the situations where familial history may be needed to research certain medical issues, genetic diseases, etc.

131

Chair Burdick

Brings up issues with the risk involved for the individual.

148

Holt

Talks about the balancing act between minimal risk and the benefit to society.

153

Sen. Prozanski

Discusses a hypothetical involving an individual’s sample being used for a reason that was not initially authorized.

204

Durham

Addresses the scenario that Sen. Prozanski talks about and explains that it is very unlikely.  States that the IRB would determine whether or not to grant access to identifying information on specific medical samples.

243

Sen. Whitsett

Talks about a study he has been part of for around 40 years with a medical group, and the level of consent that has been constant throughout.

262

Holt

Discusses the IRB protocol dealing with consent for medical research.

278

Gary Chiodo

Chair, Oregon Health Sciences University Institutional Review Board.  Testifies in support of SB 1025.  Details how nearly every clinical study completed has an amount of remaining sample.

326

Chiodo

Stresses that the confidentiality risk still exists because an identifier is attached to each sample, which are coded for protection.

365

Chiodo

Talks about a study done on an entity called the Philadelphia chromosome, and how the inventor used coding for each sample used in the research.

398

Chair Burdick

Asks if the researcher required names or identifying information for his study.

402

Chiodo

Replies that the system he was using allowed him to access that information if it was vital to the study itself.

428

Chiodo

Discusses the financial impact resulting from Oregon’s harsh genetic privacy acts.

TAPE 119, B

015

Paul Newton

Chair, Department of Health Services, Public Health Institutional Review Board.  Submits testimony and testifies in support of SB 1025 (EXHIBIT G).

041

Newton

Stresses that the bottle of water the committee members may be drinking actually contains their genetic information.  Draws the comparison that such genetic information is not protected from someone taking the bottle and studying the contents.

073

Newton

Talks about the federal system of privacy laws, and how they are successful in their ability to protect the rights of individuals.

105

Chair Burdick

Asks about the ability of researchers to complete their studies without any access to the records of identification.

116

Chiodo

States that most researchers will be able to do their studies without coding the samples, but there are times and scenarios where further information is needed.  Discusses the situations where science may move on and new information is discovered that warrants the return to previous data and samples.

144

Chair Burdick

Inquires if the lack of information on personal identification would decrease the negative financial impact talked about earlier: would it keep the researchers in Oregon and not force them to matriculate elsewhere.

152

Chiodo

Replies that this would go far in alleviating this problem.

161

Chair Burdick

Stresses the need to reduce the possibility to have personal identification violated.

163

Chiodo

Explains that they need investigators to be able to go to an IRB in order to access that personal information for further study.

174

Sen. Prozanski

Asks how long the samples are kept.

176

Chiodo

Replies that there are methods to indefinitely store most types of samples, but that there are federal guidelines as to how long certain information may be kept.

192

David Fidanque

Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  Testifies on the issue of genetic privacy.

146

Fidanque

Addresses the fact that most research being done today is done with coded samples which allow for a modicum of access to personal information, but in Oregon they must go through certain protocol to access that information.

245

Fidanque

Talks about a possible amendment to the current bill that would address the ACLU’s concerns.

303

Chair Burdick

Inquires about the situation where an individual chooses to opt out of allowing their samples for research.

310

Chiodo

States that the majority of samples needed for study are from clinical studies (where no consent form was needed) and this type of scenario would be difficult.

350

Chair Burdick

Asks for the percentage of patients who choose to opt out.

351

Chiodo

Replies that he isn’t quite sure.

356

Fidanque

Brings up the issue that genetic information, even protected and coded, can still be traced back to the individual.  States that as we move farther with our technology, the ability will become more commonplace and the information easier to gather and analyze.

394

Sen. Whitsett

States that one extra consent form isn’t really the answer to the issue of informed consent.

420

Fidanque

Stresses that more and more research is being done without informed consent and without notice to the individuals from whom the samples were taken.  Talks about the mistakes that the IRB’s have made in the past; they’re not the end-all of protections for individuals.

TAPE 120, B

010

Chair Burdick

Closes the public hearing on SB 1025 and moves SB 99 to Thursday, April 28, 2005.   Opens a work session on SB 333.

SB 333 – WORK SESSION

021

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 333 relating to increasing the maximum amount of damages the plaintiff may claim in certain tort actions for which the court must award attorney fees if the plaintiff prevails.  Introduces the -3 amendment (EXHIBIT H).

041

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 333 in order to allow Sen. Ringo, sponsor of the bill, to return, and opens a work session on SB 913.

SB 913 – WORK SESSION

047

Joe O’Leary

Counsel.  Describes SB 913 relating to directing the Department of Human Services to suspend medical assistance for certain persons while the persons are residing in public institutions.  Introduces and discusses the -3 amendment.

083

Chair Burdick

Inquires if they need the -1 and -2 amendments.

084

O’Leary

Replies that the -3 amendment supersedes the -1.

088

Sen. Beyer

Asks about a fiscal impact.

090

Joe O’Leary

Responds that there isn’t a fiscal impact at the moment.

101

Bob Nikkel

Administrator, Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Department of Human Services.  States that the -3 amendment causes a minor fiscal impact that will be absorbed by the department.

119

O’Leary

Inquires that the individuals who fall under the -3 amendment would already be receiving a level of care that would not increase the cost by any large amount.

122

Nikkel

Replies yes.

126

Sen. Whitsett

Observes that with the number of individuals who are released from the institution with severe mental illness, it seems ludicrous to have a bill for this instead of using common sense.

132

Sen. Prozanski

Responds that there is a six month waiting list for those who go into the Oregon Health Plan.

138

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT SB 913-3 amendments dated 4/21/05.

 

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

141

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

142

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves SB 913 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

144

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

SEN. WHITSETT will lead discussion on the floor.

146

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 913 and re-opens a work session on SB 333.

SB 333 – WORK SESSION

149

Sen. Ringo

Testifies on the -3 amendment and how the defense lawyers support the bill.

177

Chair Burdick

Commends Sen. Ringo for working on this bill.

182

Sen. Star

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT SB 333-3 amendments dated 4/21/05.

 

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

184

Chair Burdick

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

186

Sen. Starr

MOTION:  Moves SB 333 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

188

Sen. Beyer

Stresses his opposition to the bill as amended.

 

Chair Burdick

VOTE:  5-2-0

AYE:               5 - Prozanski, Ringo, Starr C., Walker, Burdick

NAY:               2 - Beyer, Whitsett

202

Chair Burdick

The motion CARRIES.

SEN. RINGO will lead discussion on the floor.

204

Sen. Beyer

Serves notice of intent for a minority report.

217

Chair Burdick

Closes the work session on SB 333 and opens a public hearing on SB 265.

SB 265 – PUBLIC HEARING

218

William E. Taylor

Counsel.  Describes SB 265 relating to requiring that a statement made by a defendant during custodial interrogation, recorded electronically, to be admissible as evidence against defendant.  Introduces the -1 amendment (EXHIBIT K).

231

Lara Smith

Oregon Association of Process Servers.  Testifies in support of SB 265.  Talks about the need for this legislation.

255

Aaron Crowe

President, Oregon Association of Process Services.  Testifies in support of SB 265.

322

Sen. Prozanski

States that this bill doesn’t give extra protection during the serving action.

329

Crowe

Responds that this will give them a legal action to take against any aggravated situations during the act of serving.  Stresses that there are loopholes that could result in the halt of the foreclosure process because of an individual’s inability to serve.

371

Sen. Prozanski

Stresses that this bill may just create more hostility and conflict.

379

Smith

Details the reasons why these cases against process servers are thrown out instead of assault charges being followed through in behalf of the servers.

413

Taylor

Inquires if they believe the bill would give them extra rights to enter property that has posted “no trespassing” signs.

416

Crowe

Replies that they would absolutely not have that idea.

432

Sen. Prozanski

States that in his county, they would follow these types of cases.

443

Crowe

Responds with the different counties that refuse to follow these cases.

450

Sen. Prozanski

Raises the issue of the bill creating hostile situations.

474

Crowe

Stresses that their members do not want conflict.

495

Matt Markee

Oregon Collector’s Association.  Testifies in support of SB 265 and the amendment.

504

Chair Burdick

Closes the public hearing on SB 265 and moves to tomorrow agenda 495, SB 546, SB 568, and SB 947, SB 965.  Adjourns the meeting at 3:05 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

  1. SB 1025, written testimony, Emily Harris, 3 pp
  2. SB 1025, written testimony, Gwen Dayton, 3 pp
  3. SB 1025, written testimony, David Holt, 2 pp
  4. SB 1025, written testimony, Mary Durham, 2 pp
  5. SB 1025, written testimony, Gwen Dayton, 1 p
  6. SB 1025, written testimony, Gwen Dayton, 1 p
  7. SB 1025, written testimony, Paul Newton, 1 p
  8. SB 333, -3 amendment, Sen. Ringo, 1 p
  9. SB 913, -3 amendment, staff, 1 p
  10. SB 1025, -1 amendment, staff, 1 p
  11. SB 265, -1 amendment, staff, 1 p