BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 610|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 610
Author: Achadjian (R)
Amended: 9/3/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/18/13
AYES: Hancock, Block, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 8/30/13
AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : State hospitals: involuntary treatment
SOURCE : San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
DIGEST : This bill provides 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.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides that a prisoner found to be an MDO can be required to
receive mental treatment as a condition of parole. At the end
CONTINUED
AB 610
Page
2
of the parole period, if the person still meets the definition
of an MDO, he/she may be committed for treatment annually.
2.Provides that at the end of an MDO's parole, the state may
petition to extend the MDO commitment annually. Annual
commitments must meet the same standards and include the same
trial procedures as an initial commitment during parole.
3.Provides that where an inmate who refused MDO treatment as a
condition of parole is due for release from prison without
parole, the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation shall request the district attorney in the
county from which the inmate was sentenced to prison to seek
involuntary MDO commitment of the inmate. The commitment is
for one year, which can be renewed annually under the same
procedures as the initial commitment.
4.Provides, under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), that a
patient involuntarily confined for mental illness (as gravely
disabled or a danger to self or others) may refuse medication
unless (1) the person is unable to make rational decisions
about his/her medical treatment; (2) medication is
administered in an emergency; (3) the person is a demonstrated
danger (through prior conduct) and was recently dangerous.
5.Entitles a city, county or superior court to reimbursement for
reasonable and necessary costs connected with state prisons or
prisoners, as specified.
6.States that no city, county, or other jurisdiction may file
for reimbursement more than six months after the close of the
month in which the costs were incurred.
7.States that a financial officer or other designate official of
a county shall make statement of non-treatment and treatment
costs related to a hearing for specified prison or state
hospital related offenses, to be certified by the judge of the
superior court of that county, and sent to the controller for
approval. Upon approval, the county shall be reimbursed for
all non-treatment related costs from a fund appropriated by
the Legislature.
8.Provides that the state shall reimburse counties for
non-treatment (trial and hearing) costs for MDOs, as
CONTINUED
AB 610
Page
3
specified.
9.Requires, prior to the termination of parole or release from
prison, as specified, of a parolee or prisoner with a severe
mental disorder that is not in remission or cannot be kept in
remission without treatment, that a written evaluation on
remission be submitted to the district attorney of the county
in which the parolee is receiving outpatient treatment, or for
those in prison or in a state mental hospital, the district
attorney of the county of commitment.
This bill:
1.Requires 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.
2.Defines "county of commitment" to mean the county seeking the
continued treatment of an MDO pursuant to existing law.
3.Specifies that, in the case of a person who is in a prison or
in a state mental hospital, that the written evaluation on
remission be submitted to the district attorney of the county
of commitment to prison.
4.Specifies that the appropriate financial officer or other
designated official of the county in which the proceeding is
held will make out a statement of all the costs incurred by
the county for the investigation, preparation, and conduct of
the proceedings, and the costs of appeal, if any. The
statement will be certified by a judge of the superior court
of the county. The statement will then be sent to the county
of commitment, which will reimburse the county providing the
services.
Comments
According to the author, "Under existing law, where a court
finds that an inmate pending parole has a severe mental
disorder, the State may commit him or her to a state hospital.
The county where the individual committed the crime may also
CONTINUED
AB 610
Page
4
request that the person be kept as patient in a state hospital
beyond parole.
"Many patients treated in state hospitals must take medication.
However, in a case involving Kanuri Surgery Qawi, the California
Supreme Court ruled that a court must rule that patients are
incompetent to make medical decisions or are dangerous to
themselves or others, within the meaning of Welfare and
Institutions Code §5300 before being involuntarily medicated.
"Last year, the then Department of Mental Health filed
approximately 100 petitions seeking orders for involuntary
treatment with psychotropic medication for patients housed at
Atascadero State Hospital. Although the counties with a state
hospital are not statutorily required to carry out these
hearings for involuntary treatment cases, it was determined that
it is in the best interest of the patient to hold the hearings
in the hospital because it minimizes disruption to the patient's
routine and reduces security and transportation issues.
"While patients are guaranteed an attorney for these hearings,
there are no provisions in state law that make clear which
government entity is responsible for non-treatment costs when
the host county provides the services. This lack of clarity
creates an unfair financial burden on counties with state
hospitals."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, 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.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/13)
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors (source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
CONTINUED
AB 610
Page
5
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia,
Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hagman, Hall, Harkey,
Roger Hernández, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue,
Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea,
V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner,
Ting, Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,
Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Buchanan, Eggman, Beth Gaines, Grove,
Holden, Melendez, Morrell, Stone, Vacancy
JG:nl 9/3/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED