BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1340| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1340 Author: Achadjian (R), et al. Amended: 8/20/14 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/11/14 AYES: Hernandez, Morrell, Beall, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Nielsen, Wolk NO VOTE RECORDED: Monning SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/24/14 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De León, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 8/14/14 AYES: De León, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/30/13 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Enhanced treatment programs SOURCE : SEIU Local 1000 DIGEST : This bill, commencing July 1, 2015, and subject to available funding, authorizes the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) to establish and maintain pilot enhanced treatment programs (ETPs), as defined, for the treatment of patients who are at high risk of most dangerous behavior, as defined, and when safe treatment is not possible in a standard treatment CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 2 environment. This bill authorizes the Department of Public Health (DPH) to approve, on or after July 1, 2015, an ETP, which meets specified requirements and regulations, as a supplemental service for an acute psychiatric hospital. This bill also requires, if the forensic needs assessment team (FNAP) determines that the patient requires continued ETP placement, that the patient's case be referred to a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist outside of DSH for independent review, that a hearing be conducted, and notice given, as specified. This bill requires DSH to monitor the ETPs, evaluate outcomes, and report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1.Establishes DSH as the lead agency charged with overseeing and managing the state's five state hospitals: Atascadero, Coalinga, Metropolitan, Napa, and Patton. 2.Provides for the involuntary commitment of mentally ill persons to a state hospital, such as when the patient is deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST) or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), or the patient is a mentally disordered offender (MDO). 3.Requires DSH, prior to admission of a patient committed as IST or NGI to Metropolitan or Napa, to evaluate each patient for risk. 4.Designates Napa and Metropolitan to only treat low-to-moderate risk patients; requires high-risk patients to only be treated at Atascadero or Patton, a correctional facility, or other secure facility; and, designates Coalinga for mostly sexually violent predators (SVP). 5.Makes a violation of any law or regulation pertaining to health facilities, including acute psychiatric hospitals, a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill: CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 3 1.Makes several legislative findings and declarations related to inpatient mental health treatment and pilot enhanced treatment programs. 2.Defines "patient at high risk of most dangerous behavior" means the individual has a history of physical violence and currently poses a demonstrated danger of inflicting substantial physical harm upon others in an inpatient setting, as determined by an evidence-based, in-depth violence risk assessment conducted by DSH. 3.Requires an ETP to meet all of the following requirements: A. Maintain a staff-to-patient ratio of one to five. B. Limit each room to one patient. C. Each patient room shall allow visual access by staff 24 hours per day. D. Each patient room shall have a toilet and sink in the room. E. Each patient room door shall have the capacity to be locked externally. The door may be locked when clinically indicated and determined to be the least restrictive treatment environment for the patient's care and treatment, as specified, but shall not be considered seclusion, as defined. F. Provide emergency egress for ETP patients. G. Requires all state licensing and regulations to be followed in the event seclusion or restraints are used in an ETP. H. Requires that a full-time independent patient advocate who provides patients' rights advocacy services be assigned to each ETP. 1.Requires the ETP to adopt and implement specified policies and procedures necessary to encourage patient improvement, recovery, and a return to a standard treatment environment. CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 4 2.Requires patients who have been admitted to an ETP to have the same rights guaranteed to patients not in an ETP, as specified. 3.Requires DPH and DSH to jointly develop the regulations governing ETPs. 4.Permits DSH, beginning July 1, 2015, and subject to available funding, to establish and maintain pilot ETPs, as defined, and evaluate the effectiveness of intensive, evidence-based clinical therapy and treatment of patients, as described. 5.Permits a state hospital psychiatrist or psychologist to refer a patient to a pilot ETP program, as defined, for temporary placement and risk assessment upon determining that the patient may be at high risk of most dangerous behavior and when treatment is not possible in a standard treatment environment. Permits the referral may occur after admission to DSH, and after sufficient and documented evaluation of violence risk of the patient, with notice to the patients' rights advocate at the time of the referral. A patient shall not be placed into an ETP as a means of punishment, coercion, convenience, or retaliation. 6.Requires within three business days of placement in an ETP, a dedicated forensic evaluator, who is not on the patient's treatment team, to complete an initial evaluation of the patient that includes an interview of the patient's treatment team, an analysis of diagnosis, past violence, current level of risk, and the need for enhanced treatment. 7.Requires within seven business days of placement in an ETP and with 72-hour notice to the patient and patient's rights advocate, the forensic needs assessment panel (FNAP) to conduct a placement evaluation meeting with the referring psychiatrist or psychologist, the patient and patient's rights advocate, and the dedicated forensic evaluator who performed the initial evaluation. A determination shall be made as to whether the patient clinically requires ETP treatment. 8.Specifies that the threshold standard for treatment in an ETP is met if a psychiatrist or psychologist, utilizing standard forensic methodologies for clinically assessing violence risk, determines that a patient meets the definition of a patient at CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 5 high risk of most dangerous behavior and ETP treatment meets the identified needs of the patient and safe treatment is not possible in a standard treatment environment. 9.Specifies that factors used to determine a patient's high risk of most dangerous behavior may include, but are not limited to, an analysis of past violence, delineation of static and dynamic violence risk factors, and utilization of valid and reliable violence risk assessment testing. 10.Requires the FNAP determination to be in writing and provided to the patient and patient's rights advocate as soon as possible, but no later than three business days after the decision is made. 11.Requires upon admission to an ETP, a forensic needs assessment team (FNAT) psychologist who is not on the patient's treatment team to perform an in-depth violence risk assessment and make an individual treatment plan for the patient based on the assessment. 12.Requires an ETP patient to receive treatment from a multidisciplinary team consisting of a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a nurse, a psychiatric technician, a clinical social worker, a rehabilitation therapist, and any other necessary staff who shall meet as often as necessary, but no less than once a week, to assess the patient's response to treatment. 13.Requires, prior to the expiration of 90 days from the date of placement in the ETP and with 72-hour notice provided to the patient and the patient's rights advocate, the FNAP to convene a treatment placement meeting with a psychologist from the treatment team, a patient's rights advocate, the patient, and the FNAT psychologist who performed the in-depth violence risk assessment, as specified. 14.Specifies that at any point during the ETP placement, if a patient's treatment team determines that the patient no longer clinically requires ETP treatment, a recommendation to transfer the patient out of the ETP shall be made to the FNAT or FNAP. 15.Specifies that prior to or at the time of discharge, CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 6 transfer, or release from an ETP, each patient shall be evaluated concerning the patient's need for aftercare services. 16.Requires DSH to monitor the ETPs, evaluate outcomes, and report on its findings and recommendations, as specified. Background According to DSH, the state hospital patient population has shifted over the past 20 years, from a 20% forensic population in 1994 to the current 96%. Forensic patients are committed for a variety of reasons, including IST, NGI, MDO, and SVP. There are 4,967 patients at Atascadero, Coalinga, Metropolitan, Napa, and Patton state hospitals comprising 1,350 NGI; 1,283 IST; 1,154 MDO; 897 SVP; 258 mentally ill California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation commitments; and 25 mentally disordered sex offenders. DSH states that despite the significant change, there is no current legal, regulatory, or physical infrastructure in place for state hospitals to effectively and safely treat patients who have demonstrated severe psychiatric instability or extremely aggressive behavior. Incidents of violence . According to DSH, in 2013, there were a total of 3,344 patient-on-patient assaults and 2,586 patient-on-staff assaults at state hospitals. Of the total patient population, 62% are non-violent, 36% committed 10 or fewer violent acts, and 2% committed 10 or more violent acts. Of all the violent acts committed, 65% are committed by those with 10 or fewer violent acts, and 35% are committed by those with 10 or more violent acts. A small subset of the population, 116 people, commits the majority of aggressive acts. Assaults for the previous years are as follows: 3,803 patient-on-patient and 3,026 patient-on-staff in 2012; 4,022 patient-on-patient and 2,814 patient-on-staff in 2011; and 4,627 patient-on-patient and 2,703 patient-on-staff in 2010. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, within the Department of Industrial Relations, has had significant and ongoing involvement with DSH as a result of insufficient protections for staff. According to a Los Angeles Times article from March 2, 2012, Cal/OSHA has issued nearly $100,000 in fines against Patton and Atascadero, alleging that they have failed to protect staff and have deficient alarm CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 7 systems. These citations are similar to citations levied in 2011 against Napa and Metropolitan. Cal/OSHA found an average of 20 patient-caused staff injuries per month at Patton from 2006 through 2011 and eight per month at Atascadero from 2007 through 2011, including severe head trauma, fractures, contusions, lacerations, and bites. DSH states they have been working closely with Cal/OSHA to resolve the issues and take all necessary corrective measures to protect staff at all of the state hospital facilities. Prior Legislation AB 2399 (Allen, Chapter 751, Statutes of 2012) required each of the five state hospitals to update its injury and illness prevention plan (IIPP) at least once a year, establish an IIPP committee to provide recommendations for updates to the plan, and develop an incident reporting procedure for assaults on employees. SB 60 (Evans, 2011) would have required the former Department of Mental Health (now DSH) to conduct a security and violence risk assessment, as specified, of each patient upon admission to a state hospital. SB 60 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 391 (Solis, Chapter 294, Statutes of 1997) provided for patient risk assessments for inmates committed to Napa or Metropolitan for certain Penal Code violations and requires patients subject to assessments who are determined to be a high security risk to be treated in the most secure state hospital facilities. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: One-time costs likely in the low hundreds of thousands to develop policies and regulations by DSH (General Fund). One-time costs likely in the tens of millions for the construction of new enhanced treatment program facilities (General Fund). DSH intends to renovate existing units of state hospitals to create units for the new enhanced treatment CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 8 programs, rather than to construct new buildings. Most state hospital facilities are very old and do not meet current building standards. The costs to significantly renovate portions of state hospital facilities are likely to be significant. Increased staffing costs of about $2.5 million per year to comply with the higher staff-to-patient ratio required in the bill (General Fund). Under existing law and practice, state hospitals have a nursing staff-to-patient ratio of one-to-six on acute units (with a lower ratio during the night shift). This bill requires a staff-to-patient ratio of one-to-five at all times. Based on DSH's plan to create four enhanced treatment programs with either eight or twelve patients and the need for 24-hour per day coverage, staff estimates that DSH will need about 16 additional nursing positions at a cost of about $2.5 million per year. Ongoing costs of $800,000 per year for a contracted patient advocate for each enhanced treatment program (General Fund). Minor additional costs for licensing of enhanced treatment programs by DPH (Licensing and Certification Fund). SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/14) SEIU Local 1000 (source) AFSCME California Association of Psychiatric Technicians Department of State Hospitals Police Officers Research Association of California Veterans Caucus of the California Democratic Party OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/20/14) American Civil Liberties Union of California Disability Rights California Legal Services for Prisoners with Children ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsors of the bill argue that ETPs will provide additional individualized care to patients with histories of highly aggressive behavior, until they are deemed safe to return to the general population, in the safest possible treatment environment while upholding patients' rights. CONTINUED AB 1340 Page 9 ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Disability Rights California (DRC) argues that this bill would allow patients to be locked in a room similar to a prison cell without being afforded adequate due process, such as a hearing before a judge with appointed counsel and without the ability to appeal placement in an ETP. DRC also states that many provisions in this bill are vague and overbroad, giving great deference to DSH with little or no oversight or explanation of terms. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/30/13 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Wilk, Vacancy JL:e 8/20/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED