BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 507
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 507 (Hayashi)
As Amended August 16, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |55-20|(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |27-9 |(August 29, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HEALTH
SUMMARY : Makes technical and conforming changes to existing law
related to severe chronic intractable pain and to the California
Intractable Pain Treatment Act (CIPT Act). Repeals provisions
in existing law which permit the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
employ a physician to interview and examine any patient in
connection with the prescription possession or use of a
controlled substance, required the patient to submit to the
interview and examination, and permits the physician to testify
in prescribed administrative proceedings.
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete provisions that would have removed the requirement that
the Board of Pharmacy (Board) take action against any holder
of a license that is guilty of the "clearly excessive"
furnishing of controlled substances, as specified, and instead
provide that unprofessional conduct includes any furnishing of
controlled substances in violation of specified existing law.
2)Make further technical and conforming changes to existing law
related to severe chronic intractable pain and to the CIPT
Act.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Repealed provisions in existing law which permit the DOJ to
employ a physician to interview and examine any patient in
connection with the prescription possession or use of a
controlled substance, required the patient to submit to the
interview and examination, and permitted the physician to
testify in prescribed administrative proceedings.
2)Removed the requirement that the Board take action against any
AB 507
Page 2
holder of a license that is guilty of the "clearly excessive"
furnishing of controlled substances, as specified, and instead
provided that unprofessional conduct includes any furnishing
of controlled substances in violation of specified existing
law.
3)Made technical and conforming changes to existing law related
to severe chronic intractable pain and to the CIPT Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the author, pain is the most common
reason Americans access the health care system and is a leading
contributor to health care costs. The costs of pain and
suffering, both emotional and financial, are enormous.
Unrelieved pain is the second leading cause of medically-related
work absenteeism and causes over $61 billion dollars in lost
productivity annually. According to the National Center for
Health Statistics, in 2006, 76.2 million people suffered from
pain in the United States. In a recent California HealthCare
Foundation survey, pain topped the list of concerns people face
when they think about dying. The author states that California
has led the nation in making many important legislative and
regulatory changes related to pain management. These previous
reforms made great strides to improve the legal and regulatory
landscape for pain management by promulgating the idea of
balance between the legitimate need to protect public safety and
public health through efforts to reduce drug abuse and
diversion, and the imperative to address the public health
problem of unrelieved pain. However, the author states that
some ambiguities and inconsistencies remain in the law
surrounding pain practice, and that these outdated practice
standards, as identified by the Pain and Policy Studies Group
(PPSG), can unduly restrict healthcare practice and interfere
with patient access to effective pain treatment. The author
states that this bill will remove remaining legal barriers to
optimal pain management for patients with cancer, HIV/AIDs and
other diseases or conditions causing pain by eliminating
ambiguities and inconsistencies in the CIPT Act that negatively
affect appropriate clinical interpretation.
According to the sponsor of this bill, the American Cancer
Society (ACS), the changes to statute that this bill proposes
were identified by PPSG, which reviewed every state's adherence
AB 507
Page 3
to this principle of balance using a peer reviewed evaluation.
PPSG collaborates with organizations such as the Alliance of
State Pain Initiatives, the American Academy of Pain Medicine,
the ACS Cancer Action Network, the American Pain Foundation, the
American Pain Society, the American Society of Addiction
Medicine, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the National
Association of Attorneys General, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration. According to PPSG, its U.S. program is
primarily involved in the collection and evaluation of state
policies that govern pain management, especially prescribing
controlled substances to treat chronic moderate to severe pain.
PPSG identified potential barriers to adequate patient pain
care, as well as language that promotes safe and effective
treatment.
ACS writes that California's policy landscape is fairly good in
looking at this balance, but there are few remaining components
in the codes that are inconsistent with current best practices
in pain management and may impede the appropriate treatment of
pain and that this bill removes or amends the offending
language. ACS states that removing these last remaining
components of policy that could erect barriers to needed pain
treatment will allow the field to focus on other reasons that
pain is under-treated.
Analysis Prepared by : Melanie Moreno / HEALTH / (916)
319-2097
FN: 0002082