BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 664|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 664
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: 4/11/13
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE : 7-2, 4/24/13
AYES: Hernandez, Beall, De León, DeSaulnier, Monning, Pavley,
Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Nielsen
SUBJECT : Mental health: Laura's Law
SOURCE : California Psychiatric Association
DIGEST : This bill deletes the requirement under the Assisted
Outpatient Treatment Demonstration Project Act of 2002 (AOT Act,
which is also known as "Laura's Law") that county Boards of
Supervisors must pass a resolution authorizing the AOT Act and
make a finding that no voluntary mental health programs may be
reduced as a result of the AOT Act's implementation. Allows
counties to place a cap on the number of persons to whom it
provides AOT services under the AOT Act.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Allows county Boards of Supervisors, by resolution, to
authorize the AOT Act whereby a county mental health director
can petition for a court to order a person over age 18 with a
CONTINUED
SB 664
Page
2
mental illness to receive AOT if the court finds the
individual meets specified criteria.
2.Requires counties implementing the AOT Act to make a finding
that no voluntary mental health program serving adults, and no
children's mental health program, may be reduced as a result
of the implementation.
3.Requires a county that provides court-ordered AOT services to
also offer the same services on a voluntary basis.
4.Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to
submit a report and evaluation of all counties implementing
any component of the AOT Act to the Governor and the
Legislature by July 1, 2015.
5.Sunsets the AOT Act on January 1, 2017.
6.Establishes the Lanterman-Petris Short Act (LPS Act), which
authorizes a person to be involuntarily detained for inpatient
mental health treatment when, as a result of a mental
disorder, the person is a danger to himself/herself or to
others, or is gravely disabled.
7.Specifies who is authorized upon probable cause, to take a
person with a mental disorder who is a danger to
himself/herself, a danger to others, or who is gravely
disabled, into custody and place him/her in a facility
designated by the county and approved by Department of Social
Services as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation
(referred to as a 72-hour hold).
This bill:
1.Deletes the requirement under the AOT Act that county Board of
Supervisors must pass a resolution authorizing the program and
make a finding that no voluntary mental health programs may be
reduced as a result of the AOT Act's implementation; and
2.Permits counties to place a cap on the number of persons to
whom it provides AOT services under the AOT Act.
Background
SB 664
Page
3
The AOT Act. AB 1421 (Thompson, Chapter 1017, Statutes of
2002), the AOT Act, established a new court-ordered outpatient
treatment statute aimed at individuals with mental illness who
meet specified criteria but who do not meet the criteria (danger
to self/others or gravely disabled) for commitment to an
inpatient facility. Also known as Laura's Law, the law is named
in memory of Laura Wilcox, a 19-year-old college student who was
killed by a severely mentally ill man who was not adhering to
prescribed mental health treatment. The AOT Act provides
counties with the option to implement intensive AOT programs for
individuals who have difficulty maintaining their mental health
stability in the community and have frequent hospitalizations
and contact with law enforcement related to untreated or
undertreated mental illness.
Implementation of the AOT Act is at the discretion of the
county. A county Board of Supervisors must authorize
implementation by resolution and make a finding that access to
voluntary mental health programs serving adults and children
would not be reduced as a result of implementation. The
implementing county must submit specified documentation to DHCS
prior to the AOT Act implementation that includes: a copy of
the county Board of Supervisor's resolution verifying that
voluntary services will not be reduced as a result of
implementation; documentation of the local mental health board's
review of the county's AOT Act implementation plan; a detailed
AOT program narrative; a proposed budget and budget narrative
for AOT program expenditures; a description of methods for data
collection; and, a plan for development of an AOT training and
education program.
Prior Legislation
AB 1569 (Allen, Chapter 441, Statutes of 2012), extends the
sunset date of AOT Act from January 1, 2013 until January 1,
2017. Requires DHCS to submit a report and evaluation of all
counties implementing any component of the AOT Act to the
Governor and the Legislature by July 31, 2015.
AB 2134 (Chesbro, 2012) would have required a county that elects
to provide AOT services to develop best practices for the
purposes of responding to a mental health crisis, and would have
required these best practices to include the utilization of
crisis intervention teams, mobile crisis teams, or psychiatric
SB 664
Page
4
emergency response teams, with an emphasis on peer support.
This bill failed passage in the Senate Health Committee.
AB 2357 (Karnette and Yee, Chapter 774, Statutes of 2006),
extended the AOT Act sunset date to January 1, 2013, and
required the former Department of Mental Health to submit a
progress report to the Governor and Legislature in 2011.
AB 1421 (Thompson, Chapter 1017, Statutes of 2002), enacted the
AOT Act with a January 1, 2008 sunset date.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/26/13)
California Psychiatric Association (source)
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Treatment Advocacy Coalition
National Alliance on Mental Illness, Orange County
Treatment Advocacy Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/26/13)
California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies
California Psychological Association
Mental Health of America of California
The California Mental Health Directors Association
The California State Association of Counties
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office asserts this bill
is attempting to remove an unnecessary and politicized barrier
to implementation of the AOT Act for counties. By removing as a
requirement that county Board of Supervisors must pass a
resolution authorizing the program and making a finding that no
voluntary mental health programs may be reduced as a result of
the AOT Act's implementation, the decision to initiate a process
for implementation of the AOT Act would be in the hands of the
county mental health director who may be better equipped to
understand the needs of community and the impacts of such a
program. The author's office maintains, the mental health
director would still be required to submit a budget proposal to
the Board of Supervisors, which the Board of Supervisors would
have to approve, effectively making the current resolution
SB 664
Page
5
process unnecessary and duplicative. This bill also allows
counties to place a cap on the number of persons to whom it
provides AOT services to address concerns expressed by counties
that may not be able to meet the financial obligations of
serving the entire eligible population, but want to implement
the AOT Act to the extent resources are available. The author's
office maintains that this bill does not remove local control or
diminish the amount of mental health services that a county may
provide, but rather removes unnecessary barriers to
implementation for counties that deem the AOT Act beneficial for
their communities.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Psychological
Association writes in opposition that local control is important
in the public mental health system and that counties are in the
best position to determine whether their region wants and can
successfully implement a program while keeping their current
programs and priorities funded. The Mental Health America of
California (MHA) writes in opposition that there are so many
people who need services and can't get them and for whom a court
order is not necessary that this program should be appropriately
targeted to only those whose needs are greater than others. MHA
maintains that provisions in current law ensure that services
will not be reduced.
The California Mental Health Directors Association (CMHDA) and
the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) both write
that they are opposed unless amended. CMHDA and CSAC both write
in opposition to the provisions of this bill that would remove
the authority of county Boards of Supervisors to determine
whether the implementation of the AOT Act is appropriate in
their communities. CMHDA and CSAC maintain that the AOT Act was
specifically constructed to allow county Boards of Supervisors
to consider the needs and priorities of their local communities,
as well as the fiscal ramifications, of implementing AOT
services. CMHDA is also opposed to the provisions in this bill
that make a finding that voluntary mental health programs would
not be reduced as a result of AOT Act implementation.
JL:ej 4/30/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
SB 664
Page
6
**** END ****