BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
9
1
SB 191 (Padilla)
As Introduced February 7, 2013
Hearing date: April 30, 2013
Government and Health and Safety Codes
MK:mc
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
HISTORY
Source: California Chapter, American College of Emergency
Physicians
Prior Legislation: AB 1475 (Solorio) - Chapter 537, Stats. 2009
SB 1236 (Padilla) - Chapter 60, Stats. 2008
SB 1773 (Alarcon) - Chapter 841, Stats. 2006
SB 57 (Alarcon) - 2005, vetoed
SB 635 (Dunn) - Chapter 524, Stats. 2004
SB 807 (Dunn) - vetoed, 2002
AB 1398 (Florez) - not heard Senate
Public Safety, 2002
AB 1685 (Thomson) - failed Senate Public
Safety, 8-6-02
SB 1489 (Perata) - to the Governor, 2002
SB 776 (Torlakson) - Chapter 857, Stats. 2001
(increase in DUI fines removed in Senate Public
Safety)
AB 2592 (Maddox) - failed Senate Public
Safety, 6-4-02
AB 2288 (Aguiar) - Chapter 884, Stats.
1996
SB 833 - Chapter 922, Stats. 1995
SB 1738 - Chapter 1221, Stats. 1994
(More)
SB 191 (Padilla)
Page 2
AB 5 - Chapter 3, Stats. 1959
Support: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; Health
Officers Association of California; Rural County
Representatives of California; California Academy of
Physician Assistants; Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors; California Nurses Association; League of
California Cities; Urban Counties Caucus; California
Hospital Association; Paramedics Plus; Ventura County
Board of Supervisors; Emergency Medical Services
Administrators Association
Opposition:Automobile Club of Southern California
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE SUNSET DATE BE DELETED ON THE LAW THAT ESTABLISHES THE
MADDY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUND?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to delete the sunset date on the
Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund.
Existing law provides that for the purpose of supporting
emergency medical services, a county board of supervisors may
elect to levy an additional penalty of $2 on every $10, or
fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed
and collected by the courts for criminal offenses including
Vehicle Code offenses, violations of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act and local ordinances but not including parking
violations. (Government Code � 76000.5.)
Existing law provides the assessment sunsets on January 1, 2014.
(Government Code � 7600.5.)
This bill deletes that sunset.
(More)
SB 191 (Padilla)
Page 3
Existing law authorizes a county to establish a Maddy Emergency
Medical Services Fund (EMS Fund) to be used to reimburse
physicians and hospitals for patients who do not make payment
for emergency medical services and for other emergency medical
services purposes as determined by each county. Existing law
requires each county establishing the fund to report to the
Legislature annually on the implementation and status of the
fund. (Health and Safety Code � 1797.98a et seq.; Government
Code � 76104.)
Existing law , as part of the Maddy Emergency Medical Services
Fund, provides that of the money deposited into the EMS Fund
pursuant to this section, 15% shall be utilized to provide
funding for pediatric trauma centers. (Health and Safety Code �
1797.98a(e).)
Existing law further provides that expenditure of money
deposited in a Maddy Fund pursuant to Government Code Section
7600.5 shall be limited to reimbursement to physicians and
surgeons, and hospitals for patients who do not make payment for
services, or to hospitals for expanding the services provided at
pediatric trauma centers, including the purchase of equipment.
(Health and Safety Code � 1797.98a(e).)
Existing law provides that counties that do not maintain a
pediatric trauma center shall utilize the money deposited under
Government Code Section 7600.5 to improve access to pediatric
trauma emergency services in the county with a preference for
funding given to hospitals that specialize in services to
children, and physicians and surgeons who provide care for
children. (Health and Safety Code � 1797.98a(e).)
Existing law has a sunset of January 1, 2014, for the provisions
regarding the use of money deposited pursuant to Government Code
section 7600.5.
This bill removes the sunset.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
SB 191 (Padilla)
Page 4
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
(More)
SB 191 (Padilla)
Page 5
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Existing Penalty Assessments
Until budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine. Current penalty
assessments are approximately 310% plus $79 in additional
flat assessments. In addition to the $2 for every $10 that
(More)
SB 191 (Padilla)
Page 6
will be continued by this bill, the existing penalty
assessments are:
Existing law provides for an additional "state
penalty" of $10 for every $10 or fraction thereof, upon
every fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed and collected
by the courts for criminal offenses including all
offenses, except parking offenses, involving the
Vehicle Code. Of the money collected, 70 percent is
transmitted to the state and 30 percent remains with
the county. The state portion of the money collected
from the penalty is distributed in specified
percentages among: the Fish and Game Preservation Fund
(0.33 percent); the Restitution Fund (32.02 percent);
the Peace Officers Training Fund (23.99 percent); the
Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund (25.70
percent); the Corrections Training Fund (7.88 percent);
the Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund
(0.78 percent, not to exceed $850,000 per year); the
Victim-Witness Assistance Fund (8.64 percent); and the
Traumatic Brain Injury Fund (0.66 percent). (Penal
Code � 1464.)
Existing law provides for an additional county
penalty assessment of $7 for every $10 or fraction
thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture
imposed and collected by the courts for criminal
offenses, including all offenses involving a violation
of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted
pursuant to the Vehicle Code except parking offenses.
The money collected shall be placed in any of the
following funds if established by a County Board of
Supervisors: Courthouse Construction Fund; a Criminal
Justice Facilities Construction Fund; Automated
Fingerprint Identification Fund; Emergency Medical
Services Fund; DNA Identification Fund. (Government
Code � 76000 et seq.)
(More)
Existing law, as a part of the 2002-03 Budget Act,
the Legislature imposed what was to be a temporary
state surcharge of 20 percent on every base fine
collected by the court. All money collected shall be
deposited in the General Fund. This section was made
permanent in the 2007 Budget. (Penal Code � 1465.7.)
Existing law established the "State Court Facilities
Construction Fund" and added a state court construction
penalty assessment in an amount up to $5 for every $10
or fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or
forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for
criminal offenses. The variation in the amount is
dependent on the amount collected by the county for
deposit into the local Courthouse Construction Fund
established pursuant to Government Code Section 76100.
As a result, the penalty assessment ranges from $0.00
for every $10 in two counties, to the full $5 for every
$10 in nine counties. This provision took effect on
January 1, 2003. (Government Code � 70372.)
Existing law, established by Prop 69, Nov. 2004,
levies a $1 penalty assessment on every $10 in fines
and forfeitures resulting from criminal and traffic
offenses and dedicates these revenues to state and
local governments for DNA databank implementation
purposes - the state will receive 70% of these funds in
the first two years, 50% in the third year and 25%
annually thereafter. The remainder will go to local
governments. (Government Code � 76104.6)
Existing law provides that in addition to the amount
in Government Code Section 76104.6, there shall be an
additional state-only penalty of $4 for every $10 on
every fine penalty or forfeiture imposed by the courts
for all criminal offenses, including all offences
involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local
ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
(Government Code 76104.7.)
(More)
SB 191 (Padilla)
Page 8
Existing law provides for an additional $4 on every
Vehicle Code violation or local ordinance for the Emergency
Medical Air Transportation Act Fund. (Government Code �
76000.10)
Existing law provides for a flat fee of $40 on every
conviction for a criminal offense to ensure adequate
funding for court security. (Penal Code � 1465.8.)
Existing law imposes a $35 court facilities assessment
on every conviction for a criminal offense including a
traffic offense, excluding parking offenses, and on any
local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
(Government Code � 70373.)
2. The Maddy EMS Fund
The Emergency Medical Services fund was created (SB 12 (Maddy)
1987) to provide supplemental financing for local emergency
services. The law permits, but does not require, each county to
levy a $2 penalty assessment to each $10 of traffic fines, with
the sums raised to be deposited in the EMS fund. Ten percent of
the total revenue is annually deducted for administration; and
the remaining EMS revenues are divided 58% to physicians for
uncompensated ER costs, 25% to trauma centers and hospitals, and
17% for county emergency medical services.
SB 623 (Speier) Chapter 679, Statutes of 1999, additionally
requires that in those counties that have established a Maddy
Fund, an amount equal to a specified sum is to be deposited by
the county treasurer in the Maddy Fund.
3. Additional 20% Assessment
Existing law, which sunsets on January 1, 2014, provides that a
SB 191 (Padilla)
Page 9
county board of supervisors may elect to levy an additional
penalty of $2 for every $10 on every fine, penalty, forfeiture
for criminal offenses including those relating to the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act and all offenses dealing with the Vehicle
Code except parking offenses. The additional assessment for
"the purposes of supporting emergency medical services" is in
addition to the existing 20% penalty assessment for these
purposes.
Money collected under the statute to be continued under this
bill shall be deposited with the County Treasurer. Of the money
deposited into the EMS fund under this statute, 15% shall be
utilized to provide funding for pediatric trauma centers,
although in another section of the bill it refers to trauma care
facilities providing trauma care. The statute provides that
expenditures shall be limited to reimbursement to physicians,
and surgeons, and hospitals for patients who do not make payment
for services, or for expanding the services provided at
pediatric trauma centers, including the purchase of equipment.
Counties that do not maintain a pediatric trauma center shall
utilize the money deposited pursuant to this provision to
improve access to pediatric trauma centers with a preference for
funding given to hospitals that specialize in services to
children, and physicians and surgeons who provide care to
children.
SHOULD THE SUNSET BE REMOVED FROM THE PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS
COUNTIES TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL 20% PENALTY ON ALL CRIMINAL
VIOLATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES?
***************