BILL ANALYSIS Ó
ACR 131
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
ACR
131 (Patterson) - As Introduced February 2, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Business and Professions |Vote:|16 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This resolution encourages the Department of Consumer Affairs
(DCA) and its licensing entities to create policies that promote
fairness and equity to guarantee that each licensee pays a fair
amount, especially in regards to initial and ongoing license
fees.
ACR 131
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)DCA has identified five programs that issue licenses based on
birth months but do not prorate fees, resulting in some
licensees having an initial licensure period of just over one
year, with others having up to a full two years for the same
fee. Should DCA implement changes likely recommended as a
result of this resolution, the following costs would apply.
a) Reduced fee revenues of $686,000 to the Medical Board of
California (special funds).
b) Unknown reduced fee revenues, likely exceeding $650,000,
to the Board of Registered Nursing (special funds).
c) Unknown reduced fee revenues, likely less than $100,000,
to the Board of Pharmacy (special funds).
d) Reduced fee revenues of approximately $22,000 to the
Dental Hygiene Committee.
e) Minor and absorbable costs to the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners.
1)Absorbable costs of approximately $50,000 to DCA to implement
necessary IT changes.
2)Minor and absorbable costs to the impacted boards to change
business processes, forms, and materials.
ACR 131
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, this resolution "recognizes
the many professionals in the state of California that provide
a variety of services to Californians ranging from barbering
and cosmetology to fields of medicine. Licensed professions
bring valuable services and are also economic drivers within
our state. This resolution expresses that it is the goal and
intent of the Legislature to direct government entities in
establishing policies that make it fairer for newly licensed
Californian's to enter the workforce."
2)Background. Many boards and bureaus under Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA) operate a birth date renewal program.
Instead of basing license renewals on the date of issuance of
the initial license, these boards renew licenses based on
birth date which allows the boards to spread out their
workload throughout the year.
Under the birth date renewal program, the initial license is
valid from the license issuance date until the last day of the
licensee's birth month in the second year of the two-year
license term. Upon renewal of the license, the license will
expire on the last day of the licensee's birth month, every
other year. In practice, this means that the initial licensure
period will vary from person to person, depending on when the
applicant initially applied for licensure and when the
applicant's birth month occurs. Some licensees will have an
initial licensure period of just over one year, whereas others
will have up to a full two years. In effect, a licensing board
is able to collect a two-year license fee for less than two
years of licensure. (On average, this should be about 18
months of licensure.)
ACR 131
Page 4
In all of the cases where the fee is not prorated, the
licensee would be paying the full initial fee amount,
regardless of how long their initial license was in effect.
Renewal periods extend to a full two-year cycle, but some
entities report that licensees find it unfair that those
licensees with a shorter initial license period still pay the
full fee. This resolution encourages DCA to address this
issue.
3)Prior Related Legislation.
a) AB 773 (Baker), Chapter 336, Statutes of 2015, changed
psychology license renewals from a birth month renewal to a
biennial renewal program.
b) AB 483 (Patterson) of 2015 would have required that the
fees for an initial license, an initial temporary or
permanent license, an original license, or a renewal for
specified regulatory entities, be prorated on a monthly
basis. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown who stated
that an equitable licensing fee policy "can be crafted more
carefully and thoughtfully through regulation."
c) AB 1758 (Patterson) of 2014 would have required that the
fee for an initial temporary or permanent license or an
original license be prorated on a monthly basis and
authorized the licensing entities to impose an additional
fee to cover the reasonable costs of issuing an initial or
original license that expires in less than 12 months. This
bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
ACR 131
Page 5
d) SB 1236 (Price), Chapter 332, Statutes of 2012, among
other things, required a pro rata formula for the payment
of renewal fees by physician and surgeon supervisors of
physician assistants (PAs) and required the Board to
establish a pro rata formula for the payment of renewal
fees by PAs.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
ACR 131
Page 6