BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 345|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 345
Author: Wolk (D)
Amended: 1/12/12
Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE : 4-2, 1/10/12
AYES: Liu, Hancock, Wright, Yee
NOES: Emmerson, Berryhill
NO VOTE RECORDED: Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-2, 1/17/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Emmerson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
SUBJECT : Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman
SOURCE : Committee for an Independent State Ombudsman
DIGEST : This bill makes several changes to the statutes
governing the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman,
including requiring an annual advocacy plan.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Establishes the Long-Term Care Ombudsman program as a
result of the federal Older Americans Act and places it
within the California Department of Aging in order to
encourage community contact and involvement with elderly
patients or residents of long-term care facilities or
CONTINUED
SB 345
Page
2
residential facilities through the use of volunteers and
volunteer programs. Federal law generally prohibits
ombudsman from making a disclosure of personal
information pertaining to an ombudsman program client,
unless the client provides written consent.
2.Allocates funds to local ombudsman programs to assist
elderly persons in long-term health care facilities and
residential care facilities by, among other things,
investigating and seeking to resolve complaints against
these facilities.
3.Provides for the appointment of a state ombudsman and
specifies certain requirements of the person filling that
position.
4.Requires the department to establish an 11-member
advisory council for the office to provide advice and
consultation on issues affecting the provision of
ombudsman services.
This bill makes several changes to the statutes governing
the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The bill
requires the Office to solicit funds to support the
operations of the office (currently the Office is
authorized to solicit such funds). The bill requires the
Office to submit an annual advocacy plan to the
Legislature. The plan must be developed in consultation
with local ombudsman programs and must include information
on outcomes of previous advocacy efforts by the Office.
The bill clarifies that, pursuant to federal law, the
Office shall represent the interests of long-term care
facility residents without interference by the Department
or other state agencies. The bill requires the Office to
maintain an internet web site with information for
consumers on long-term care issues. The bill requires the
Office to reestablish an inactive advisory council by June
30, 2013 and requires that the council include two
representatives of local ombudsman programs.
Most of the provisions of the bill clarify existing state
and/or federal law. However, because the bill requires the
Office to develop an annual advocacy plan including
information on outcomes of prior advocacy efforts, staff
SB 345
Page
3
believes that the bill will impose new costs on the Office.
Staff estimates that the costs to prepare reports, consult
with local ombudsman programs, and review past activities
may be up to $50,000 per year.
Background
California's Ombudsman program began in 1979 in response to
federal efforts to improve conditions for residents of
nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. Shoddy
conditions and poor care had prompted Congressional
interest, and a 1978 amendment to the federal Older
Americans Act requiring states to create ombudsman programs
that could investigate and resolve complaints at nursing
homes and advocate for residents by commenting on laws and
policies, and identifying widespread problems.
Senate review of the state ombudsman. In November 2009,
the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, which is part
of the Office of the President pro Tempore, prepared a
report for the Rules Committee, at the request of the
Health Committee's Subcommittee on Aging and Long-Term
Care. The report's title provides its own executive
summary: California's Elder Abuse Investigators:
Ombudsmen Shackled by Conflicting Laws and Duties .
Among the findings of the report: "Local coordinators in
California say that having a political appointee running
the state office makes it hard for the program to speak out
on issues concerning long-term care residents, one of the
original intents of the federal ombudsman program.
California's state ombudsman (in talking with the Oversight
office) said he supported steps that would give him more
flexibility and independence."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2012-13 2013-14
2014-15 Fund
SB 345
Page
4
Developing annual plans Up to $50 per
year General
SUPPORT : (Verified 1/18/12)
Committee for an Independent State Ombudsman (source)
AARP
Long Term Care Services of Ventura County
Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County
Wise & Healthy Aging
OPPOSITION : (Verified 1/18/12)
Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
under its present structure, the state's ombudsman program
is not advocating effectively for residents. Community
activists have informed the author that California's office
is ineffective, citing the state ombudsman's lack of public
support on legislative issues pertaining to long-term care.
As an appointee of the director of the Department on
Aging, the state ombudsman, says the author, is expected to
take the same position on legislation and other public
policy matters as the Department of Aging takes.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Office of the State Long
Term Care Ombudsman opposes this bill and writes, "I am
writing to express my concerns and opposition to SB 345,
which as currently amended, would require an additional
unworkable overlay to the appointment process for the State
Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Existing law already provides
for widespread notification of a vacancy in the position of
State Ombudsman. In addition, certain educational
standards and experience are required for this position.
The creation of a hiring panel made up of local
representatives of the Office, would create a conflict of
interest and establish an overly bureaucratic process that
would be impossible to complete over the short time frame
established in law."
CTW:nl 1/18/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SB 345
Page
5
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****