BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair BILL NO: AB 170 --------------------------------------------------------------- |AUTHOR: |Gatto | |---------------+-----------------------------------------------| |VERSION: |July 8, 2015 | --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- |HEARING DATE: |July 15, 2015 | | | --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- |CONSULTANT: |Reyes Diaz | --------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT : Newborn screening: genetic diseases: blood samples collected. SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Public Health to provide information about genetic testing and to obtain a signed form, as specified, from a parent or guardian of a newborn child regarding the collection of blood samples, as specified. Allows parents and guardians, and individuals at least 18 years of age, to request, as specified, that blood samples not be used for medical research, or to be destroyed, or both, as specified. Existing law: 1)Requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to establish a genetic disease unit to coordinate all DPH programs in the area of genetic disease that will promote a statewide program of information, testing, and counseling services and to have the responsibility of designating tests and regulations to be used in executing this program and to have the responsibility of designating tests and regulations to be used in executing the California Newborn Screening Program (CNSP). 2)Requires DPH to provide genetic screening and follow-up services. Allows DPH to provide laboratory (lab) testing facilities or work with qualified outside labs to conduct testing. 3)Requires DPH to charge a fee for newborn screening and follow-up services, and requires the amount of the fee to be periodically adjusted in order to meet the costs of the CNSP. 4)Requires DPH to evaluate and prepare recommendations on the implementation of tests for the detection of hereditary and congenital diseases, including, but not limited to, AB 170 (Gatto) Page 2 of ? biotinidase deficiency and cystic fibrosis. Requires DPH to also evaluate and prepare recommendations on the availability and effectiveness of preventative follow-up interventions, including the use of specialized medically necessary dietary products. 5)Requires statewide screening of newborns to include tandem mass spectrometry screening for fatty acid oxidation, amino acid, and organic acid disorders and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and to include screening for severe combined immunodeficiency, as soon as possible. 6)Requires specified entities to provide parents and guardians information about the genetic screening program and blood spot collection, including one's right to opt out, prior to the estimated date of delivery or at the pregnancy clinic prior to birth and collection of the blood sample. 7)Allows for parents and guardians to decline genetic testing and to request a child's blood spot not be used for research purposes or to be destroyed by the lab if the request it submitted in writing, as specified. This bill: 1)Requires DPH to provide information about genetic disease tests and to obtain a signed informational acknowledgement form for the receipt of information by the parent or guardian of a newborn child regarding the storage, retention, and use of the newborn child's blood sample for medical research. 2)Requires DPH to prepare informational material, confined to a single page, that provides information regarding the newborn blood sample collection to include, but not be limited to: a) A brief, plain language explanation of, and the purpose for, the newborn child screening test and the storage, retention, and use of newborn child blood samples; b) A description of the benefits of both early newborn child screening and the associated research undertaken regarding preventable heritable or congenital disorders; c) A description of the California Biobank Program (CBP), specifically pertaining to the Genetic AB 170 (Gatto) Page 3 of ? Disease Screening Program (GDSP), and subsequent storage, retention, and use of the blood sample for medical research; and, d) An explanation of the parent's or legal guardian's right, and a statement of an individual at least 18 years of age having the right, to request that the blood sample be destroyed or not used for research purposes, or both, and the information necessary to make that request. 3)Requires DPH to prepare a standard informational acceptance form, confined to a single page and presented on a separate document from the informational material required in 2) above, that includes the following: a) A brief, plan language explanation of, and the purpose for, the newborn child screening test and retention of blood samples collected; b) An explanation of the parent's or legal guardian's right to request that a child's blood sample be destroyed or not used for research purposes, or both, and the information necessary to make that request; c) A space for the parent or legal guardian to acknowledge receipt of informational materials regarding the storage, retention, and use of the blood sample for medical research; and, d) A space for the parent or legal guardian to sign and date the form. 4)Requires DPH to distribute to a parent or legal guardian the two separate informational materials, each confined to one page, as follows: a) A birth attendant engaged in providing prenatal care is required to provide a pregnant woman, prior to the estimated delivery date, with a copy of both required materials; b) If not provided as required in a) above, a perinatal licensed health facility is required to provide each pregnant woman admitted for delivery with both required materials; and, c) The local registrar of births and deaths is required to provide both required materials to each person registering the birth of a newborn that AB 170 (Gatto) Page 4 of ? occurred outside of a perinatal licensed health facility when the newborn was not admitted to a perinatal licensed facility within the first 30 days of age. Requires the local registrar to notify the local health officer and DPH of each of these types of registrations. 5)Requires the acceptance form to be maintained in the medical record of the mother of the newborn child. 6)Specifies that if there is no signed standard informational acceptance form in the mother's medical record, the newborn child will be administered the genetic screening test and the blood sample will be stored and retained for medical research. 7)Allows a parent or legal guardian of a minor, or an individual who is at least 18 years of age, to request that DPH destroy the blood sample of the minor or of the individual collected as a newborn, or not use it for research purposes, or both. Requires DPH to comply with the requests. 8)Requires, if a parent or legal guardian or individual at least 18 years of age provides his or her email address, DPH to send an email acknowledging receipt of the request. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)One-time costs of $120,000 to promulgate regulations (Genetic Disease Testing Fund). 2)Annual costs of $550,000 (Genetic Disease Testing Fund) for printing, storage, and distribution of forms, and staff to provide technical support and enforce collection and submittal of forms. If an increased number of requests to destroy specimens is received, minor potential increased laboratory staff costs would be incurred. PRIOR VOTES : ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Assembly Floor: |66 - 11 | |------------------------------------+----------------------------| |Assembly Appropriations Committee: |17 - 0 | AB 170 (Gatto) Page 5 of ? |------------------------------------+----------------------------| |Assembly Health Committee: |17 - 0 | |Assembly Privacy and Consumer | | |Protection Committee: |9 - 2 | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENTS : 1)Author's statement. According to the author, newborn screening is one of the great public health success stories in this country, but what happens to the samples after the screening process is completed raises serious and troubling questions of consent and privacy. In the case of California and a handful of other states, these samples are indefinitely stored in state repositories and made available to researchers for a fee. Most parents are poorly informed, if at all, about the storage and medical research of these samples. Nevertheless, parents are assumed to have consented to long-term storage and third-party use of their child's biological sample unless they explicitly refuse in writing. California must revise its approach to long-term storage and use of newborn DNA samples, and include parents in the decision-making process. It is imperative for both the health of this program and Californians' continued trust in their government that parents be fully informed of the CBP and the intended future use of their child's DNA. AB 170 will ensure that parents have the right to protect their children's genetic privacy. Parents, understandably, want to be actively involved in decision-making regarding their children's personal health information. That choice is currently being denied. 2)CNSP. In 1966, California began its CNSP with the testing of phenylketonuria. Since its creation, the CNSP has been expanded several times as new discoveries are made and tests developed, and now screens for more than 70 disorders. Diseases have been continually added through regulation and legislation. Prior to leaving the hospital, a few drops of blood from a newborn's heel are collected on filter paper. The newborn screening test should be done when the baby is at least 12 hours of age but before six days of age. The ideal time to do the test is when the baby is between 24 and 48 hours of age. AB 170 (Gatto) Page 6 of ? Blood collected before 12 hours of age is not always reliable for some metabolic diseases. The sample is sent to one of eight regional labs that contract with DPH for testing. The results are sent to DPH for data collection and quality control. Parents obtain the test results from the baby's doctor or clinic. It takes about two weeks for the doctor to receive the written results. If the baby needs more tests, parents get a letter or a phone call a few days after discharge from the hospital. Positive test results are immediately telephoned to a follow-up coordinator at one of the Newborn Screening Area Service Centers throughout the state. The coordinator contacts the newborn's physician to arrange for repeat testing. If repeat testing determines that the baby has a disorder, the coordinator will supply the latest clinical information on diagnosis and treatment and assist with referrals to special care. In 2009-10, approximately 520,000 newborns were screened for 75 genetic disorders. Approximately 9,200, or under 2%, were classified as positive or questionable and were referred for follow-up testing or services. Current regulations permit a parent to decline the test. A parent must then sign a special form that states that not having the test done can result in serious illness or permanent damage to their child. It also states that the parent must accept responsibility should this occur. 3)CBP. The CBP, a large and diverse biobank maintained by DPH, houses over 17.5 million prenatal serum samples and newborn leftover blood spots. These samples were collected for testing by the Prenatal and Screening Program and CNSP, which are linked to GDSP data and California Birth Defects Monitoring Program (CBDMP) registry data. The samples and data are also linked to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics databases that include fetal death, live birth, and death data. According to DPH, information is currently given to pregnant women in DPH's booklet, Important Information for Parents about the Newborn Screening Test, which is available in English, Spanish, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese, Farsi, Hmong, Korean, Laotian, Russian, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. The booklet is required to be provided to women, free of charge, prior to the estimated date of delivery or at the maternal hospital where she is going to give birth. The booklet, which is about 15 pages long, provides an address for parents to request that AB 170 (Gatto) Page 7 of ? GDSP not use a child's blood spot for research purposes and/or to be destroyed by the lab. 4)Prior legislation. AB 1559 (Pan, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2014), expands DPH statewide screening of newborns to include screening for adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) as soon the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel approve the addition of ALD. SB 222 (Padilla), of 2014, would have enacted the Genetic Information Privacy Act, which would have required an individual's written authorization prior to the collection of genetic information for testing, analysis, retention, or disclosure. SB 222 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. SB 1267 (Padilla), of 2012, would have required an individual's written authorization prior to the collection of genetic information for testing, analysis, retention or disclosure. Would have required destruction of the genetic information upon completion of the purpose authorization was obtained. SB 1267 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 395 (Pan, Chapter 461, Statutes of 201), expands statewide screening of newborns to include screening for severe combined immunodeficiency. SB 1103 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 228, Statutes of 2004), expands statewide screening of newborns to include tandem mass spectrometry screening for fatty acid oxidation, amino acid, organic acid disorders, and congenital adrenal hyperplasia. AB 170 (Gatto) Page 8 of ? SB 537 (Greene, Chapter 1011, Statutes of 1998), required DPH to establish a program to provide extended newborn genetic screening services for persons who elect to have, and pay for, the additional screening. 5)Support. Supporters of this bill argue that parents should have a truly informed choice about whether the state should permanently retain and use their child's personal genetic information. Supporters state that newborn screening itself is an important public health program but that there are troubling consent and privacy issues raised by the storage and use of samples long after the screening process has concluded. Supporters further argue that studies have shown that parents want to be actively involved in the decision making regarding their child's personal health information and whether the state should maintain a sample after screening is complete. 6)Opposition. The California Hospital Association (CHA) argues that this bill requires obstetricians and hospitals to give pregnant women four handouts related to genetic screening and blood spot collection instead of the currently required two handouts. CHA states that revising the process for genetic screening this year is premature as the federal government is currently developing new requirements regarding consent for blood spot research. CHA argues that it is inevitable that some health personnel and some parents will confuse the "opt-out" process of the GDSP with DPH's current process to opt-out of screening the baby for genetic diseases, which could result in more seriously and permanently disabled babies, and deaths. 7)Policy comment. DPH requires specified entities to provide parents and guardians information about the GDSP and blood spot collection (including one's right to have a child's blood spot not used for medical research or to have it destroyed) prior to the estimated date of delivery or at the pregnancy clinic prior to birth and collection of the blood sample. The author has stated that the intent of this bill is to provide AB 170 (Gatto) Page 9 of ? clearer information to women during a hectic time. However, nothing in this bill ensures that providing an additional two forms to women, in addition to other required forms, would actually more effectively inform them about the GDSP and blood spot collection. In the opinion of staff, the need for this bill is unclear. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION : Support: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Council for Responsible Genetics Oppose: California Hospital Association -- END -