BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 610 (Achadjian) - Mentally disordered offenders:
reimbursement for hearings on involuntary medication.
Amended: June 25, 2013 Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No (See Staff Comments)
Hearing Date: August 30, 2013
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: AB 610 would provide for the reimbursement, as
specified, of the nontreatment costs for involuntary medication
hearings for mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) and other
commitment types confined in state hospitals.
Fiscal Impact (as proposed to be amended):
No net state costs for the reimbursement of the
nontreatment costs of MDO involuntary medication hearings.
As the state is currently mandated to reimburse these
nontreatment costs to the county in which the costs are
incurred, this bill is estimated to result in a shift of
existing state costs to instead reimburse the county seeking
continued treatment of the MDO.
Background: Existing law under Welfare and Institutions Code
(WIC) § 4117 provides that whenever a hearing is conducted on a
petition under Penal Code (PC) §§ 2966 or 2972 (for the
continued involuntary treatment of MDOs), the financial officer
or other designated official of the county in which the hearing
takes place shall make out a statement of all mental health
treatment costs and shall make out a separate statement of all
nontreatment costs incurred by the county for investigation and
other preparation for the hearing, the actual hearing, all costs
of maintaining custody of the patient and transporting him or
her to and from the hospital, and costs of appeal, to be
certified by the judge of the superior court of the county and
be sent to the Controller for approval. Upon approval, the
county shall be reimbursed for all nontreatment related costs
from funds appropriated by the Legislature for this purpose.
The Commission on State Mandates (COSM) previously issued
AB 610 (Achadjian)
Page 1
statements of decision finding that costs incurred by counties
for implementing the civil commitment procedures (nontreatment
costs) for the continued involuntary treatment of persons with
severe mental disorders imposed a state-mandated program subject
to reimbursement by the state.
Proposed Law: This bill would provide that commencing January 1,
2014, the nontreatment costs associated with any hearing for an
order seeking involuntary treatment with psychotropic
medication, or any other medication for which an order is
required, of a person confined in a state hospital pursuant to
PC § 2970, are to be paid by the county seeking continued
treatment of the patient. In addition, this bill:
Provides that whenever a hearing is conducted for an order
seeking involuntary treatment of a person confined in a
state hospital (not exclusive to MDOs) with psychotropic
medication or other medication for which an order is
required, the county in which the hearing is conducted must
make out a statement of all treatment and nontreatment costs
incurred by the count, as specified.
Requires the statement all nontreatment costs to be sent to
the State Controller for approval and payment, out of money
appropriated by the Legislature, to the county treasurer of
the county where the trial or hearing took place.
Prior Legislation: AB 1016 (Achadjian) Chapter 660/2011 required
counties to be reimbursed for specified nontreatment costs
incurred for MDO trials by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, as specified.
Staff Comments: By mandating reimbursement to counties for the
nontreatment costs of involuntary medication hearings for all
DSH commitment types, the provisions of this bill could result
in additional state costs. The DSH has indicated approximately
450 hearings (excluding MDO hearings) per year. Assuming
nontreatment costs per patient of $1,650 (including costs for a
judge, court clerk, court transcriber, and public defender),
additional state costs of about $742,000 per year could be
incurred. Staff notes the bill does not specify which state
entity would be responsible for reimbursing the counties, but
provides that the Controller shall cause the amount of all
nontreatment costs, "to be paid out of the money appropriated by
the Legislature." To the extent there is no appropriation in the
State Controller's budget for this reimbursement, it is assumed
AB 610 (Achadjian)
Page 2
the DSH would be billed by the State Controller for these costs.
With regard to the state-reimbursable mandated costs related to
MDOs previously approved by the COSM, staff notes there is
currently no appropriation provided for nontreatment costs
pursuant to several PC and WIC sections cited within WIC § 4117.
Although mandate claims were previously approved for specified
costs, these mandates have not been funded for several years and
are currently suspended.
This bill specifies that commencing January 1, 2014, the
nontreatment costs associated with any hearing for an order
seeking involuntary medication treatment of an MDO confined in a
state hospital are to be paid by the county seeking continued
treatment of the MDO. Because the COSM determined that the state
must reimburse these nontreatment costs to the county in which
the costs are incurred, this provision is not estimated to
result in increased state costs but rather a shift of existing
state costs that are currently paid to the county that incurred
the costs to the county seeking continued treatment of the MDO.
The proposed author amendments would narrow the provisions of
the bill to reimbursement for the nontreatment costs of
involuntary medication hearings for MDO commitments only,
thereby reducing costs.