BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 364 (Steinberg) - Mental health.
Amended: May 7, 2013 Policy Vote: Health 7-1, Judic.
6-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 20, 2013 Consultant: Brendan McCarthy
This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 364 would broaden the types of facilities that
may be designated by a county for 72-hour evaluation and
treatment functions. The bill would authorize county mental
health directors to develop procedures for the designation and
training of professionals who will be authorized to perform
certain functions relating to 72-hour evaluation and treatment.
Fiscal Impact:
Minor local costs, not likely to be reimbursed (local
funds/General Fund). See below.
Minor cost savings to the Department of Social Services, as
the Department will no longer be required to approve county
facilities for use as a 72-hour evaluation and treatment
facility (General Fund).
Background: Under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, certain local
officials (such as peace officers or other individuals
designated by a county) are authorized to involuntarily
committee an individual for a 72-hour for evaluation and
treatment (sometimes referred to as a "72-hour hold" or a "5150
hold"). A 72-hour hold is authorized if the individual is a
danger to him or herself, a danger to others, or gravely
disabled.
Individuals placed on a 72-hour hold have specified rights under
current law and officials placing an individual on a 72-hour
hold have specified responsibilities.
Current law authorizes a county to designate persons (for
example, staff at county medical facilities) to make a
SB 364 (Steinberg)
Page 1
determination whether a 72-hour hold is warranted. Current law
authorizes a county to designate a facility for 72-hour holds,
provided the facility is approved by the Department of Social
Services for that purpose.
Proposed Law: SB 364 would make a variety of changes to the
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Some of these changes reorganize and
clarify the provisions of the Act, while others make more
substantive changes.
Substantive changes in the bill would:
Authorize a county mental health director to develop
procedures for the designation and training of individuals
who are authorized to order a 72-hour hold;
Authorize a person taken into custody under the Act to be
either placed in a facility or taken into custody for
evaluation (instead of the only option being placement in a
facility);
Authorize a county to designate a facility for 72-hour
holds (provided the facility is licensed by the state) and
delete the requirement that the Department of Social
Services must approve the facility for that purpose;
Require that if the probable cause for detaining a person
is based on the statement of another person, that person's
name and the statement be documented and provided to the
person being detained;
Require certain advisements that must be provided to a
person taken into custody be provided in a language or
modality accessible to the person;
Make other clarifying and technical changes.
Staff Comments: Most of the changes to the
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in the bill either make clarifying
changes or broaden the authority of local governments to make
use of the Act, when necessary.
Most of the requirements on local governments included in the
bill are already required under current state or federal law.
For example, federal law and regulation and existing state law
generally require government agencies and health care providers
to communicate with patients in a manner and language that is
accessible to the patient.
SB 364 (Steinberg)
Page 2
When the statement of a third party is used as probable cause to
detain a person under the Act, the bill would require that
statement to be documented and provided to the detained person.
Because the Act already requires certain documentation when a
person is detained, the additional requirement to include
information on third-party statements and the requirement to
provide that information to the detained person is not likely to
significantly increase local government costs. Thus, the state
is not likely to be required to reimburse costs incurred by
local governments under the bill.