BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 610
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 610 (Achadjian) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill establishes responsibility for the payment of
non-treatment costs associated with any hearing for an order
seeking involuntary treatment of psychotropic medication for a
person confined in a state hospital. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the state to pay the non-treatment costs associated
with any hearing for an order seeking involuntary treatment
with psychotropic medication, or other medication that
requires an order, of a person confined in a state hospital
and is the state responsibility.
2)Requires, beginning on January 1, 2014, the county seeking the
continued treatment of a mentally disordered offender (MDO),
known as the county of commitment, to pay the non-treatment
costs associated with any hearing for an order seeking
involuntary treatment with psychotropic medication, or other
medication that requires an order, for a mentally disordered
offender whose commitment in a state hospital has been
extended beyond the expiration of parole.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible state fiscal impact.
The State Controller's Office has been reimbursing counties for
these services for MDOs that are the state's responsibility.
The counties are not obligated to provide the services for state
commitments and if not reimbursed they may refuse to provide the
public defender services, potentially forcing the state to seek
higher cost solutions.
AB 610
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, as a result of a recent
Supreme Court ruling approximately 100 petitions were filed
last year by the state, seeking orders for involuntary
treatment with psychotropic medication for patients housed at
Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), in San Luis Obispo County.
The author states since current law does not designate which
entity is responsible for the payment of non-treatment costs
associated with these hearings, the county engaged in a
dispute with the state over whose responsibility it was to
provide for the cost of public defender services to represent
these 100 mentally disordered offenders at these hearings.
The court has held the responsibility for the non-treatment
costs for these 100 cases would be with the state or the
county of commitment and this bill would ensure and clarify
the decision.
2)Support . The County of San Luis Obispo, the bill's sponsor
argues state law is unclear because it does not address who
should pay for the public defender costs for services provided
to a MDO challenging a hearing for involuntary medication.
The sponsor states their concern is that being a county with a
state mental hospital, the county should not have shoulder the
financial burden of paying for certain costs resulting from
the commitment of persons to Atascedero State Hospital who are
neither residents of San Luis Obispo County, nor were they
committed by the county. The sponsor cites, in addition to
the $25,000 incurred last spring, they expect to spend
approximately $40,000 in the current fiscal year on contract
public defense attorneys for involuntary medication hearings.
3)Background . The mentally disordered offender (MDO) program is a
mechanism to detain and treat severely mentally ill prisoners
who reach the end of a determinate prison term and are
dangerous to others as a result of a severe mental disorder.
The program involves a two-phase commitment. The first phase
is a certification by the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Chief Psychiatrist and a parole
condition imposed by the Board of Parole Hearing. The second
phase is a civil commitment for involuntary treatment after
the parolee is discharged from CDCR. When an MDO's parole
period is about to expire, the district attorney, from the
county of commitment, can file a petition seeking a one-year
AB 610
Page 3
extension of the MDO commitment to the state hospital, for
which the state provides reimbursement to counties for the
non-treatment costs of these hearings for continued treatment.
4)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081