BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 483|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 483
Author: Patterson (R), et al.
Amended: 9/2/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/29/15
AYES: Hill, Bates, Block, Galgiani, Hernandez, Jackson,
Mendoza, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/17/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Healing arts: initial license fees: proration
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill prorates the initial license fee on a
monthly basis, beginning July 1, 2017, for a dentist, registered
dental hygienist, registered dental hygienist in alternative
practice, registered dental hygienist in extended functions,
osteopathic physician and surgeon, occupational therapist,
registered veterinary technician, veterinarian, acupuncturist,
and architect.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/2/15 delay implementation until
July 1, 2017 and add double-joining language to avoid chaptering
issues with SB 800 (Committee on Business, Professions and
Economic Development) and AB 179 (Bonilla).
AB 483
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
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,
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)
AB 483
Page 3
8) States that all osteopathic physicians' and surgeons'
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)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)
11)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)
12)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)
13)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, beginning July 1, 2017, for a dentist, registered
AB 483
Page 4
dental hygienist, registered dental hygienist in alternative
practice, registered dental hygienist in extended functions,
osteopathic physician and surgeon, occupational therapist,
registered veterinary technician, veterinarian, acupuncturist,
and architect.
Background
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.
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 two years, but in the second scenario, the license
will expire after 12 months and five 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 beginning July 1, 2017, so that licensees
do not pay the full fee amount if they are not receiving a full
two years of licensure.
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. Professional
licensees have expressed support through their associations, 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
AB 483
Page 5
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Minor administrative costs to revise regulations and update
forms and procedures for collecting initial license fees by
several boards and committees within DCA Affairs (various
special funds).
One-time costs of about $140,000 for information technology
upgrades to the computer system used to process license
applications (various special funds).
Ongoing revenue loss of about $120,000 per year in reduced
licensing fees (various special funds). The following boards
and committees would experience reduced license fee revenues:
Architects Board ($16,000), DHCC ($19,000), OMBC ($10,000),
Physical Therapy Board ($29,000), VMB ($76,000).
SUPPORT: (Verified9/2/215)
California Association for Health Services at Home
California Veterinary Medical Association
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Numerous individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified9/2/15)
Dental Hygiene Committee of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Veterinary Medical
Association writes, "AB 483 allows for relief from compounding
costs associated with licensing fees when an applicant finds
AB 483
Page 6
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 and the Fresno Chamber of Commerce all agree
this bill will bring fairness to the licensing fee system.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:The DHCC writes in opposition to this
bill, noting that it 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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 6/2/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia,
AB 483
Page 7
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chávez, Grove
Prepared by:Sarah Huchel / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
9/3/15 14:32:32
**** END ****