BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 59
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 21, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
59 (Waldron) - As Amended January 6, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|16 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |7 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT)
Demonstration Project Act ("Laura's Law") for an additional five
years, until January 1, 2022 and removes a duplicative reporting
requirement.
AB 59
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
Negligible state fiscal effect.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The author wishes to extend the sunset on local AOT
programs, pointing to their recent expansion and success at
assisting certain mentally ill individuals to be successfully
treated on an outpatient basis.
2)Background. Laura's Law permits counties to provide
court-ordered outpatient treatment services for people with
serious mental illness. Enacted in 2002, Laura's Law was
named for Laura Wilcox, a 19-year-old college student in
Nevada County who was killed by a severely mentally ill man
who was not adhering to prescribed mental health treatment.
To implement an AOT order, a court must find that a person's
recent history of hospitalizations or violent behavior,
coupled with noncompliance with voluntary treatment, indicates
the person is likely to become dangerous or gravely disabled
without treatment. The intent of Laura's Law is to prevent a
small number of individuals who meet narrow eligibility
criteria from becoming gravely disabled or threatening. A
county board of supervisors must pass a resolution in order to
implement Laura's Law. To date, about nine counties have
implemented Laura's Law in some form; counties have generally
configured the implementation to align with local priorities.
According to the author, additional counties are formally
considering implementation.
3)Appropriation. Existing law authorizes counties to use Mental
Health Services Act (MHSA) and Local Revenue Fund monies to be
used for the AOT program. Because these funds are
AB 59
Page 3
continuously appropriated and the bill extends the
authorization to pay for AOT services with these funds, this
bill is tagged as an appropriation. However, the bill does not
directly appropriate funds nor does it result in increased
costs or funding for AOT.
4)Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by counties and
emergency physicians. Disability Rights California opposes
this bill, citing concern about AOT programs and a preference
for expansion of voluntary services. Additional support and
opposition was expressed to a previous version of this bill.
5)Prior Legislation.
a) AB 1193 (Eggman) of 2015 required counties to hold a
public hearing to consider implementing AOT, allowed
specified judges to file petitions for an AOT order, and
extended the sunset on AOT for five years. AB 1193 was held
on the Suspense File of this committee.
b) AB 2266 (Waldron, 2014) and AB 1265 (Conway, 2013) both
increased the maximum period of imposed outpatient
treatment under the AOT Demonstration Project from six
months to one year. Both failed in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
c) SB 535 (Steinberg and Correa), Chapter 288, Statutes of
2013 specified certain funds may can be used for AOT
services.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
AB 59
Page 4
319-2081