BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                       AB 601


                                                                      Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          601 (Eggman)


          As Amended  April 23, 2015


          Majority vote


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                |Noes                |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
          |HUMAN SERVICES  |7-0   |Chu, Mayes,         |                    |
          |                |      |Calderon, Lopez,    |                    |
          |                |      |Maienschein, Mark   |                    |
          |                |      |Stone, Thurmond     |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
          |APPROPRIATIONS  |12-0  |Gomez, Bloom,       |                    |
          |                |      |Bonta, Calderon,    |                    |
          |                |      |Daly, Eggman,       |                    |
          |                |      |Eduardo Garcia,     |                    |
          |                |      |Holden, Quirk,      |                    |
          |                |      |Rendon, Weber, Wood |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
          |                |      |                    |                    |








                                                                       AB 601


                                                                      Page  2





          |                |      |                    |                    |
          |                |      |                    |                    |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          SUMMARY:  Expands and further specifies licensure requirements for  
          Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly.


          Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Specifies that any party applying for a license for a  
            residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) that is a firm,  
            or other entity, shall submit evidence affirming the reputable  
            and responsible character of any members or shareholders holding  
            a beneficial ownership interest of at least 10% and of the  
            person holding operational control of the RCFE in question, as  
            specified.


          2)Requires an applicant for an RCFE license to disclose specified  
            information including, but not limited to, previous facility  
            ownership, management, and/or operation.


          3)Expands required disclosure of an RCFE license applicant's prior  
            and present administrative service in or ownership of other  
            facilities, as specified.  Further, specifies that such  
            facilities can be located in California or any other state and  
            that disclosure must encompass the past 10 years, as specified.


          4)Requires an RCFE license applicant to disclose the applicant's  
            chief executive officer's, general partner's, or like party's  
            prior and present administrative service in or ownership of any  
            health or care facility within the past 10 years, as specified.


          5)Expands and specifies required disclosure of an RCFE license  
            applicant's licensing history to include actions taken in  








                                                                       AB 601


                                                                      Page  3





            California or any other state, and to include any suspension,  
            probation, or similar disciplinary action taken or in the  
            process of being taken against a health or care facility, as  
            specified, or against a license held or previously held by the  
            applicant or the applicant's chief executive officer, general  
            partner, or like party, within the past 10 years.


          6)Requires an RCFE license applicant to submit evidence of right  
            of possession of the facility at the time the license is  
            granted, as specified.


          7)Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to cross-check  
            the RCFE license applicant's information regarding facility  
            ownership, as specified, with the Department of Public Health  
            (DPH). 


          8)Removes the requirement that failure of an RCFE license  
            applicant to cooperate with DSS in completion of the  
            application, as specified, result in denial of the application  
            and instead makes such denial permissive.


          9)Requires RCFE license application information, as specified, to  
            be provided to DSS upon initial application and further requires  
            that any changes in such information be provided to DSS within  
            30 calendar days of that change.


          10)Requires DSS to deny an RCFE license application, and allows it  
            to subsequently revoke an RCFE license, if the applicant  
            knowingly made a false statement of fact regarding application  
            information.


          11)Permits DSS to deny an RCFE application or subsequently revoke  
            an RCFE license if the applicant did not disclose enforcement  








                                                                       AB 601


                                                                      Page  4





            actions, as specified, on the application.


          12)Requires DSS, to the extent that its computer system can  
            accommodate additional RCFE information, to post identifying and  
            descriptive information, as specified, for licensed providers.


          13)Permits DSS to deny an application for an RCFE license if the  
            applicant has a history of noncompliance with licensure  
            requirements for RCFEs or other health or care facilities,  
            applicable state and federal laws, and requirements governing  
            facility operators, as specified.


          14)States that noncompliance by the chief executive officer,  
            general partner, or like party with RCFE licensure requirements  
            and implementing regulations, as specified, may be the basis for  
            license decisions against the owner. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:


          1)Unknown, potentially moderate costs (GF) to DSS to "cross-check"  
            information against DPH information, dependent on the process  
            (manual vs. automated) utilized to cross-check information. 

          2)Minor costs (GF) to DSS for automation and staff training.


          3)Cost pressure (GF) to DSS to obtain available technology that  
            would enable posting of identifying and descriptive information  
            for licensed providers on its website.


          COMMENTS:  









                                                                       AB 601


                                                                      Page  5






          Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly:  RCFEs, sometimes  
          referred to as "assisted living facilities," provide housing,  
          care, supervision, and assistance with activities of daily living  
          to individual ages 60 and older, as well as individuals under the  
          age of 60 with compatible needs.  RCFEs differ from Skilled  
          Nursing Facilities (SNFs) in that RCFEs are considered a housing  
          alternative, while SNFs are considered a medical facility;  
          however, incidental medical services may be provided in RCFEs  
          under special care plans.  RCFE residents require varying levels  
          of care and services, and RCFEs can vary widely in the services  
          offered.  Costs can range widely as well; in California, the  
          monthly cost for a one-bedroom single occupancy unit can range  
          from $700 to $10,650, with the median monthly cost at $3,750.


          As of June 30, 2014, there were 7,474 RCFEs licensed in  
          California, with the capacity to serve 146,955 residents.  RCFEs  
          can range in size from six beds to over 100 beds, and are licensed  
          by DSS's Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD). 


          Health and safety concerns in RCFEs:  Events in recent years have  
          drawn increased public attention to health and safety issues in  
          RCFEs.  A 2013 series by ProPublica and Frontline profiled  
          experiences with Emeritus Corp., an assisted living company based  
          in Seattle that, at the time, ran approximately 500 facilities in  
          45 states.  The series chronicled persistent understaffing,  
          substandard care, and a lack of required assessments. 


          Another example drawing significant media and public attention was  
          an incident occurring in Castro Valley:  there, in October of  
          2013, after DSS began license revocation proceedings for the  
          Valley Springs Manor RCFE, 19 seniors in need of care were  
          abandoned by the licensee and all staff, save two.  Those two  
          service staff stayed on over the weekend to provide care for the  
          residents until, eventually, sheriff's deputies and paramedics  
          sent the residents to local hospitals.  A news article documenting  








                                                                       AB 601


                                                                      Page  6





          the events at the Castro Valley facility stated that, "?records  
          showed the owners of the facility had a disastrous history running  
          both nursing homes and other RCFEs over the past several years,  
          including facilities in Modesto, Oakland and Castro Valley."


          Need for this bill:  The author states that, "Currently, if  
          consumers want detailed information about an RCFE, they must drive  
          to one of the 13 regional or district offices located throughout  
          the state.  Having to drive to obtain public information is not in  
          the best interest of consumers because they may live hours away  
          from a regional or district office or may not be able to drive at  
          all.  Additionally, complex ownership structures of RCFEs can lead  
          a consumer to unknowingly transfer their loved one from one  
          troubled facility to another without knowing the facilities are  
          part of the same chain.  [This bill] will increase accountability  
          and transparency of RCFE licensees, as well as make facility  
          information more accessible to the public so consumers can make  
          more informed decisions when choosing a facility for a loved one."







          Analysis Prepared by:                                               
          Daphne Hunt / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089  FN:  



















                                                                       AB 601


                                                                      Page  7