BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Gloria Romero, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session BILL NO: AB 2385 AUTHOR: John A. Perez INTRODUCED: June 1, 2010 FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez SUBJECT : California Community College Nursing and Allied Health Pilot Programs KEY POLICY ISSUES Should the California Community Colleges (CCCs) Chancellor administer a pilot program to encourage up to five campuses statewide to develop innovative nursing and allied health programs? Should the CCCs be authorized to charge supplemental fees - an amount in excess of the per-unit amount prescribed in statute -- to students opting to enroll in innovative nursing and allied health programs under the pilot program established by this bill? SUMMARY This bill establishes the Pilot Program for Innovative Nursing and Allied Health Care Profession Education at the California Community Colleges to be administered by the CCC Chancellor's Office. Under this program, up to five campuses would be selected by the CCC Chancellor to offer pilot programs that test innovative delivery models and expand student capacity in health care occupations for which there is a substantial labor market demand. Funding for these pilot programs is intended to come from a combination of sources including state apportionments, student fees including supplemental fees authorized by this bill, federal funds and private funds. This pilot program would sunset on January 1, 2018. BACKGROUND AB 2385 Page 2 The CCCs provide instruction to about 1.5 million students at 109 colleges operated by 72 locally governed districts throughout the state. The system offers academic and occupational programs at the lower division (freshman and sophomore) level, as well as recreational courses and precollegiate basic skills instruction. The CCCs offer a broad range of degrees, certificates, courses and transfer majors including those in nursing and the allied health professions (e.g. dental hygiene, dental assisting, medical assistant, occupational therapy assistant, physical therapy assistant, pharmacy technical, and sonography). In addition, many colleges have established programs intended to promote regional economic development. Current law requires CCCs to charge each student a fee of $26 per unit effective with the fall term of the 2009-10 academic year. (EC 70900; EC 76300) ANALYSIS This bill establishes a seven-year pilot program to be administered by the CCC Chancellor's Office to encourage up to five CCCs to establish innovative programs in areas which prepare students for health occupations for which there is a substantial labor market demand. Specifically, the bill: 1) Requires the CCC Chancellor to: a) Develop, contingent upon obtaining resources, a "request for application" (RFA) for CCCs to apply to participate on or after the 2011-12 academic year in this pilot program. The RFA would be developed in collaboration with representatives from education, labor, business, licensing and credentialing entities and other appropriate entities. b) Select up to five campuses, ideally geographically distributed throughout the state, to participate in the pilot program. Existing innovative programs currently underway that require additional resources "to move to scale" would be eligible to apply. c) Pursue funding to help support the development and delivery of the pilot program including but not AB 2385 Page 3 limited to federal funds, private funds, employer contributions and state and federal workforce funds. d) Collect data, evaluate the program and present findings and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2017. 2) Requires participating campuses to: a) Provide certificated training in health care fields for which there is a demonstrated labor shortage and documented demand from employers. b) Demonstrate limited capacity or the need to sustain or expand existing innovative programs. c) Provide evidence of sufficient clinical sites. d) Include high-quality curriculum delivery models. e) Have flexible delivery models (e.g. on-line or distance learning; and intensive week-end, evening, or summer courses.) f) Enhance student success by providing student support services to students in the pilot program including but not limited to advisers, tutors, mentors, financial assistance and internship assistance. g) Identify funding resources to support the pilot program, as specified. 3) Authorizes participating campuses when selecting students for admission to the pilot program to use the diagnostic assessments and multicriteria screening assessments authorized under current law for admission to CCC nursing programs. (EC 78261 and EC 78261.5) 4) Authorizes participating campuses to collect supplemental student fees from students in the program to support the program. Such fees would have to be based on a fee schedule approved by the CCC Chancellor AB 2385 Page 4 at the time the campus applies to participate in the pilot program. The bill specifies that any such fees could not offset state apportionment funding, and part or all of any CCC supplemental fee may be covered by student financial aid for eligible students. 5) States legislative intent that the pilot program be funded with a combination of state apportionment funding, student fees, federal funds and private funds. 6) Includes a variety of findings and declarations. 7) Becomes inoperative on July 1, 2017, and sunsets on January 1, 2018. STAFF COMMENTS 1) Need for the bill . According to the author, the CCC system offers educational programs in a variety of allied health care professions and prepares approximately 70% of California's registered nurses. These are among the most costly CCC programs, which, in recent years have been subjected to budget cuts. Colleges have thus been forced to limit enrollment and are struggling to keep pace with program demand. 2) Supplemental fee authority. Perhaps the most significant feature of this bill is that it allows up to five CCCs for a limited period of time to charge higher student fees for enrollment in certain programs. Does it make sense to have higher student fees, particularly for higher cost programs and/or those with strong student demand and strong labor market demand? There currently exist a wide variety of differential fees within California's public and private higher education institutions. For example, a student admitted in 2009-10 to a California State University (CSU) School of Nursing to pursue a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Nursing (BSN) would pay student fees of approximately $5,000 per year for each of two years whereas this same student pursuing a BSN at the University of California (UC) would pay an estimated $10,000. An identical student pursing a BSN at Samuel Merritt University in Oakland would pay approximately $35,000 per year. A student pursuing an Associate AB 2385 Page 5 Degree of Nursing at a CCC in 2010-11 is expected to pay $26 per unit. Part-time nursing students at Samuel Merritt University pay $1,504 per unit. UC currently charges special fee rates for 12 professional programs including nursing, medicine and pharmacy. These special fees are substantially higher that the fees paid by students in other programs. In addition, both UC and CSU have accredited extension programs through which students (matriculated and nonmatriculated) may take credit courses; extension course fees are substantially higher than university fees as there is no state subsidy and students must pay the full cost of delivering the course. In one advanced degree nursing program offered by UC, students pay a higher fee for a portion of the program offered through extension, and then have their fees reduced when they transition to the portion of the program offered through the campus (and which is state subsidized.) Students in a nearly identical program at a different UC campus pay the state-subsidized fee level throughout the entire program. Staff notes that the author requests the bill be amended to (1) strike all language authorizing participating CCCs to impose a supplemental fee on students, and (2) expand the ability of a pilot program to be funded in combination with various sources including employer based partnerships. 3) Developing the request for application (RFA) . This bill requires the CCC Chancellor to develop an RFA for the pilot program in collaboration with various entities, including "business." Would it be more appropriate to include other entities with a greater nexus to the provision of health care or health-care related education as part of this collaboration? Staff recommends amendments to strike "business" and include "hospitals and nursing organizations, and health care employers." The author also requests the inclusion of "regional occupational centers and programs." 4) Selection Criteria for a pilot college . Section 2 of the bill [EC 78265 (f))] requires a participating CCC, AB 2385 Page 6 among other things, to "include high quality curriculum delivery models." Though innovation is critical, curriculum standards determined by state licensing entities may be inadvertently modified in order to adhere to requirements of the pilot program approach. Staff recommends amendments to clarify that pilot programs shall not alter clinical units or hours determined by the appropriate state licensing entities that oversee each particular health occupation and that existing approved curriculum is deemed to satisfy this. 5) Evaluation. The bill requires that the CCC Chancellor conduct and submit an evaluation of this pilot to the Legislature by January 1, 2017, (six months prior to the program becoming inoperative). Does it make sense to have the agency charged with administering the program also responsible for conducting its evaluation? Would it make more sense to have the Legislative Analyst's Office rather than the CCC Chancellor report to the Legislature on the efficacy of this program? Staff recommends an amendment that the Chancellor's Office contract with an external evaluator to conduct an independent evaluation. 6) Staff also recommends the following technical/clarifying amendments: Page 6, line 12 [EC 78265 (f) (4)] delete: "Proposals utilizing online and distance learning courses" and, instead, insert: "All courses" Page 6, line 16 [EC 78265 (f) (5)] delete "by" and, instead, insert: "including by not limited to" Page 6, line 26 [EC 78265 (f) (8)] delete: "student financial aid" 1) Policy arguments. Proponents argue that the community colleges educate the majority of nurses in the state and are well positioned to implement changes to attract a diverse pool of candidates and address the state's pressing workforce shortages with a pilot program AB 2385 Page 7 that could be a cost-effective model for other healthcare education programs. Opponents contend that the inclusion authorizing supplemental fees creates a situation where academically qualified students may be discriminated due to not having the means to pay additional expenses. In addition, concerns that existing program and licensure requirements may be compromised in order to reduce time and increase capacity of the allied health care professions. SUPPORT Latino Coalition for a Healthy California California Postsecondary Education Commission OPPOSITION California Nurses Association Faculty Association of California Community Colleges American Nurses Association of California