BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 483 Hearing Date: June 29,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Patterson |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 22, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Sarah Huchel |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Healing arts: initial license fees: proration.
SUMMARY: Prorates the initial license fee on a monthly basis for a
dentist, registered dental hygienist, registered dental
hygienist in alternative practice, registered dental hygienist
in extended functions, osteopathic physician and surgeon,
occupational therapist, physical therapist, registered
veterinary technician, veterinarian, acupuncturist, and
architect.
Existing law:
1)Provides for the regulation and licensure of various
professions and vocations by boards within the Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA). (Business and Professions Code (BPC)
§§ 100-11506)
2)Requires the Dental Board of California (DBC) to establish the
charges and fees for dentists and prohibits the initial
license fee and the renewal fee from exceeding $525. (BPC
§1724)
3)Specifies that dental licenses expire at 12 midnight on the
legal birth date of a licentiate of the DBC during the second
year of a two-year term if not renewed. (BPC § 1715)
4)Requires the DBC to establish procedures for the
administration of the birth date renewal program, including,
AB 483 (Patterson) Page 2
of ?
but not limited to, the establishment of a pro rata formula
for the payment of fees by licentiates affected by the
implementation of such program and the establishment of a
system of staggered license expiration dates such that a
relatively equal number of licenses expire annually. (BPC §
1715)
5)Prorates the initial license fee for a dentist. (Title 16
California Code of Regulations § 1021)
6)Requires the Dental Hygiene Committee of California (DHCC) to
establish licensing fees for dental hygienists, prohibits the
initial license fee from exceeding $250, and provides that a
dental hygienist license, unless specifically excepted,
expires at 12 midnight on the last day of the month of the
legal birth date of the licensee during the second year of a
two-year term, if not renewed. (BPC §§ 1935, 1944)
7)Requires the Osteopathic Medical Board of California (OMBC) to
establish fees for a biennial license fee to not exceed $400,
and requires the OMBC to set a biennial license fee in an
amount less than the full amount for applicants who indicate
in writing that he or she does not intend to practice during
the renewal period.
(BPC § 2455)
8)States that all osteopathic physician's and surgeon's
certificates expire at midnight on the last day of the birth
month of the licensee during the second year of a two-year
term if not renewed on or before that day. (BPC § 2456.1)
9)Requires the California Board of Occupational Therapy (BOT) to
establish the initial license and renewal fee for an
occupational therapist and limits the fee to $150 per year,
and provides that any license is subject to renewal as
prescribed by the BOT. (BPC §§ 2570.10, 2570.16)
10)Provides that licenses for physical therapists expire at 12
midnight on the last date of the birth month of the licensee
during the second year of a two-year term if not renewed, and
prohibits the Physical Therapy Board of California (PTB) from
establishing a license fee that exceeds $150. (BPC §§ 2644,
2688)
AB 483 (Patterson) Page 3
of ?
11)Requires the California Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) to set
an initial license fee for veterinarians not to exceed $500,
and to set the initial fee for veterinary technicians not to
exceed $350; if a license is issued less than one year before
the date on which it will expire, the fee is half of the
original amount. (BPC §§ 4842.5, 4905)
12)Requires the VMB to establish procedures for the
administration of the birth date renewal program, including
the establishment of a pro rata formula for the payments of
fees, and provides that all licenses and registrations expire
at 12 midnight on the last date of the birth month of the
registrant during the second year of a two-year term, if not
renewed. (BPC § 4900)
13)Provides that the initial license fee for an acupuncturist
not exceed $325; provides that licenses shall expire on the
last day of the birth month of the licensee during the second
year of a two-year term, if not renewed, and requires the
California Acupuncture Board (CAB) to establish and administer
a birth date renewal program. (BPC §§ 4965, 4970)
14)Requires the CAB to fix the initial license fee for an
architect that is equal to the renewal fee in effect at the
time the license is issued, and provides that license shall
expire at 12 midnight on the last day of the birth month of
the license holder in each odd-numbered year following the
issuance or renewal of the license. (BPC §§ 5600, 5604)
This bill prorates the initial license or registration fee on a
monthly basis for a dentist, registered dental hygienist,
registered dental hygienist in alternative practice, registered
dental hygienist in extended functions, osteopathic physician
and surgeon, occupational therapist, physical therapist,
registered veterinary technician, veterinarian, acupuncturist,
and architect.
FISCAL
EFFECT: This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by the Legislative
Counsel. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee
analysis dated April 29, 2015, this bill will have the following
fiscal impacts:
1)Revenue loss to affected boards attributable to lower average
AB 483 (Patterson) Page 4
of ?
initial licensure fees of at least several hundred thousand
dollars annually (various special funds). This may increase
pressure on boards to raise fees. However, in some cases,
fees are already set at their statutory maximums.
2)Minor and absorbable costs to affected licensing boards
associated with changing cashiering procedures, forms and
materials (various special funds).
3)$140,000 in Information Technology expenditures due to
licensing system modifications. (various special funds).
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the Author. According to
the Author's office,
"AB 483 prorates the initial license fee for various professions
(specifically, dentists, dental hygienists, osteopathic
physicians and surgeons, occupational therapists, occupational
therapist assistants, physical therapists, veterinary
technicians, veterinarians, acupuncturists, and architects) on
a monthly basis to ensure that licensees are not overcharged
for their licenses, as is the case currently.
"By basing license expiration and renewal on a licensee's
birth month, California law requires certain licensees to
renew their license based on their date of birth rather than
when they were first issued the license.
"While this policy was put in place to expedite license
issuance, it can have an adverse financial effect on licensees
who may have to pay the complete license issuance fee and then
pay a full renewal fee once their birth month occurs after
they are first licensed, even if only a few months have
elapsed in between issuance and renewal. Because of this
renewal policy, some licenses may last almost a full 2-year
licensing term, while others may only last for a couple of
months, yet the licensees in each case would pay the same
initial license fee."
4.Birthdate Renewal System. This bill is designed to
rationalize the fees paid through the birthdate renewal
system, a renewal cycle employed by many DCA boards.
AB 483 (Patterson) Page 5
of ?
The birth date renewal system issues licenses for a period of
time ranging between 12 and 24 months depending on the
licensee's birth month. If, for example, a licensee has a
February birth date and his or her license is issued in March
2014, the license will expire at midnight on February 28,
2016. If, however, a licensee has a March birthday and his or
her license is issued in March 2014, the license will expire
at midnight on March 31, 2015.
In these examples, the license in the first scenario will
expire after nearly 2 years, but in the second scenario, the
license will expire after 12 months and 5 days. Despite the
varying expiration dates, both licensees pay the same initial
license fee.
This bill will require DCA boards to prorate the initial
license fee on a monthly basis so that licensees do not pay
the full fee amount if they are not receiving a full two years
of licensure.
5.Related Legislation This Year. AB 773 (Baker) of 2015 recasts
the expiration dates for certain licenses, certificates, and
registrations issued by the MBC and the Board of Psychology
based on the date of issuance instead of a licensee's
birthdate. ( Status : This bill is pending in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.)
6.Prior Related Legislation. AB 1758 (Patterson) of 2014 would
have required the initial license fee for the following
licensing categories to be prorated on a monthly basis:
dentists; dental hygienists; physicians and surgeons; hearing
aid dispensers; occupational therapists; physical therapists;
psychologists; veterinary technicians; veterinarians;
acupuncturists; and architects. ( Status : This bill was held
in the Senate Appropriations Committee.)
SB 2014 (Machado) of 2002 would have directed the MBC to
prorate its annual licensing fees in cases where the initial
licensure period is less than two years, and deleted an
obsolete oral examination fee authority. ( Status : This bill
was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.)
7.Arguments in Support. The California Veterinary Medical
AB 483 (Patterson) Page 6
of ?
Association writes,
"AB 483 allows for relief from compounding costs associated with
licensing fees when an applicant finds that they will be
required to pay a renewal fee soon after their initial
licensing, due only to the unique timing of their birth date.
This common sense measure is of particular benefit to the
students graduating from our two veterinary colleges in
California, who are already burdened with an average of
$100,000 of veterinary school debt. By allowing these
applicants to pro-rate their licensing fees, [this bill] gives
those who are starting out in the profession a bit more time
to get their financial footing."
The California Association for Health Services at Home , the
Fresno Chamber of Commerce , and the California Physical
Therapy Association all agree this bill will bring fairness to
the licensing fee system.
8.Arguments in Opposition. The Dental Hygiene Committee of
California (DHCC) writes in opposition to this bill, noting
that DHCC voted at its May 3, 2015 meeting to take an oppose
position on AB 483, as amended on April 9, 2015?. The DHCC
supports the Author's efforts to decrease financial burdens on
newly-licensed professionals in our state; however, AB 483
would place a significant financial burden on one of the
DHCC's main revenue sources and fund condition at this time.
"The DHCC is currently in Release 2 of the Department of
Consumer Affairs' BreEZe online system and the DHCC's existing
licensing process has already been programmed into BreEZe.
Adding the ability to prorate the original licensing fee on a
monthly basis would require additional programming expenses
and expensive change orders to the system.
"In addition, the Committee would stand to lose revenue if
this bill were to pass, due to the proration of the $100
original license fee. The DHCC would need to pursue a fee
increase to the original licensing fee equivalent to the
current renewal fee of $160 (a $60 increase) to replace the
lost revenue from having to prorate the fee (the original
license fee has a statutory maximum of $250). Due to the
significant fiscal impact of this bill and the DHCC's
inability to absorb these costs at this time, the DHCC
respectfully opposes AB 483."
AB 483 (Patterson) Page 7
of ?
9.Staff Comments and Policy Issues:
a) Concerns regarding the regulatory boards. While this
bill makes practical sense in theory, it has not received
the full support of the regulated community its provisions
impact. Several licenses affected by this bill have
expressed support through professional associations: The
Physical Therapy Association, The California Association
for Health Services at Home (unclear which professions in
this bill fall within its membership), and the California
Veterinary Medical Association. However, no DCA boards
have submitted support letters, and the DHCC has voted to
oppose this bill.
It has been indicated by boards with a birthdate renewal
system that changing to a prorated system would be
problematic logistically and financially. DHCC indicates
that they would have to reprogram their licensing system,
BreEZe, at substantial cost, and it would lose revenue
currently relied upon due to the birth date system.
b) Other approaches. The Medical Board of California (MBC)
was previously included in this bill, but requested to be
exempted because they are adopting a different initial
license system pursuant to AB 773 (Baker) of 2015, which
establishes a full two-year license based on the issue date
rather than the applicant's birth date. AB 773 , described
above, would affect physician and surgeon's certificates,
registrations for spectacle lens dispensers and contact
lens dispensers, and certificates to practice midwifery.
It is anticipated that adopting this renewal system would
be easier to implement than a prorated system and would
also result in a more rational payment of fees by
licensees.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
California Association for Health Services at Home
California Physical Therapy Association
California Veterinary Medical Association
AB 483 (Patterson) Page 8
of ?
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Numerous individuals
Opposition:
Dental Hygiene Committee of California (DHCC)
-- END --