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 --