BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 355
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 355 (Cooley)
As Amended May 24, 2013
2/3 vote
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 16-1 APPROPRIATIONS 14-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hall, Nestande, Bigelow, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Chesbro, Cooley, Gray, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Hagman, | |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |
| |Roger Hern�ndez, Jones, | |Gomez, Hall, Ammiano, |
| |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, | |Linder, Pan, Quirk, Weber |
| |Medina, Perea, V. Manuel | | |
| |P�rez, Salas, Torres | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Waldron | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Appropriates $1 million from the General Fund to the
Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) to continue the
Mobile Field Hospital (MFH) Program and makes legislative
findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the California EMSA, which is responsible for the
coordination and integration of all state agencies concerning
emergency medical services, including the MFH program.
2)Creates the Office of Emergency Services (OES) and requires it
to perform a variety of duties with respect to specified
emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response activities in
the state, including emergency medical services.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, the bill contains a $1 million General Fund
appropriation for EMSA.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill : According to the author California has a
history of devastating disasters including, but not limited to,
AB 355
Page 2
floods and earthquakes. Based on the Uniform Earthquake Rupture
Forecast model, California has over a 99% chance of experiencing
a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30 years.
The author states that this bill will strengthen California's
preparedness for natural disasters and catastrophic emergencies
by restoring $1.7 million of funding to continue to maintain
three rapid deployment mobile field hospitals. In addition, if
funding for the program is not restored, the State of California
will be forced to sell the MFHs and related equipment at a
fraction of the cost of their initial investment.
Background : The MFH Program was established in 2006 with the
majority of funds, $18.3 million, provided by the State General
Fund. Federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security
and the Hospital Preparedness Program were provided for hospital
equipment and program development to ensure disaster medical
preparedness for California's hospital surge needs during
catastrophic emergencies. The three hospitals, capable of
deploying 200-beds each, were strategically located in
Sacramento, the Bay Area, and Southern California to allow for
transportation, set-up and patient treatment within 72 hours or
less anywhere in the state after a disaster.
The MFHs serve as full General Acute Care Hospitals that can be
transported by ground, sea, or air. MPHs have been deployed
twice for exercises and have been placed on alert four times for
potential deployments in California in response to wildfires and
H1N1. They have not been deployed for a real world medical
mission as California has not had a catastrophic disaster that
exceeded available hospital bed capacity in the past four years.
The MFHs were fully maintained until the 2011-12 budget year,
when Governor Brown eliminated the MFH program's funding due to
budget constraints. Faced with the elimination, the EMSA struck
a one-year deal with manufacturer Blu-Med, which the state
previously paid $1 million a year to handle maintenance and
subcontractors. Blu-Med agreed to waive its annual fee in
exchange for being able to lease out two of California's three
MFHs to other governments. The EMSA found other agency funds to
pay the remaining costs for storage. It is unclear if the deal
with Blu-med, which expires in June 2013, will again forgo its
$1 million annual fee.
AB 355
Page 3
Arguments in support : The American Medical Response (AMR)
states, "With the passage of AB 355, the citizens of California
will not lose a critical tool, in our all-risk disaster
preparedness/response plans for the State of California in our
three MFHs. While we can't predict the next California
catastrophic disaster it is only a matter of time."
The AMR also points out that they, as the nation's leading
medical transportation company, have firsthand experience of
just how valuable these MFHs assets are in restoring services
throughout a community during the response and recovery during a
disaster. While MFHs were not available during the 1971 Sylmar
Earthquake or the 2003 Wild land fires in San Diego, MFHs would
have been a great benefit during these disasters as hospitals
needed to be evacuated and relocated.
Furthermore, Scripps Health argues that the mobile field
hospital program is a low cost-high consequence public safety
program that should be continued. The mobile field hospitals
provide immediate options to emergency responders for the
provision of medical care, evacuation centers, senior centers,
hospital replacement, surge capacity and care continuity. The
program is beneficial and effective. It has been placed on
alert an average of twice per year since its inception and
deployment guidelines are in every county and state emergency
plan. The state has no ability or plan to fill the public
safety void if this program is unfunded. It is a critical asset
for the State of California. The State of California will be
hit by a natural disaster in the future. It is not "if" but
"when".
Analysis Prepared by : Felipe Lopez / G. O. / (916) 319-2531
FN: 0000897