BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:   April 21, 2015


                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGING AND LONG-TERM CARE


                                 Cheryl Brown, Chair


          AB 664  
          (Dodd) - As Introduced February 24, 2015


          SUBJECT:  Medi-Cal:  universal assessment tool report.


          SUMMARY:  Requires the California Department of Aging, The  
          California Department of Social Services the California  
          Department of Health Care Services and specified stakeholders to  
          evaluate and report to the Legislature, outcomes and lessons  
          learned from the universal assessment tool pilot project.    
          Specifically, this bill:  


          1)No later than January 1, 2017, directs the Department of  
            Health Care Services (DHCS), the Department of Social Services  
            (DSS) and the California Department of Aging (CDA) to consult  
            with a work group required to have been convened by those  
            three department to develop a universal assessment process,  
            including a universal assessment tool for In-Home Supportive  
            Services (IHSS), Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS), and  
            Multipurpose Senior Services Program (MSSP) services.  


          2)Evaluate and report to the Legislature on the outcomes and  
            lessons learned from the universal assessment tool pilot  
            authorized by SB 1036 (Chapter 45, Statues of 2012) a trailer  
            bill of the Budget Act of 2012, related to Human Services.  









                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  2






          3)Specifies that the evaluation include findings from interviews  
            with consumers who chose to be assessed using the universal  
            assessment.  The evaluation shall include:


               a.     The level of satisfaction consumers experienced  
                 compared to previous assessments.


               b.     The level of satisfaction that the consumer  
                 experienced from the assessor.


               c.     The ability of consumers to understand and respond  
                 to the assessor administering the universal assessment  
                 tool for the duration of the assessment.


               d.     Findings from consumers choosing to be evaluated  
                 using previous assessment tools, including reasons why  
                 the consumer chose the previous assessment process, and  
                 concerns that the consumer had with the universal  
                 assessment tool.


               e.     Data on the amount and type of services identified  
                 by the previous assessment tools as compared to the  
                 amount and type of services determined through the  
                 universal assessment process to identify and understand  
                 discrepancies, if any.


               f.     Data on home-and community-based services  
                 utilization and costs of those services before and after  
                 the use of the universal assessment tool in order to  
                 understand how and if the universal assessment tool  
                 impacts the Home and Community Based Services (HCBS)  
                 system.








                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  3







               g.     Data on the rate of hospitalizations and skilled  
                 nursing care utilization in order to understand how the  
                 universal assessment tool may impact acute hospital care  
                 utilization.


          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Establishes the Medi-Cal program, a free or low-cost health  
            care service for families, seniors, persons with disabilities,  
            children in foster care, pregnant women, and childless adults  
            with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level  
            (FPL).  Benefits include ambulatory patient services,  
            emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn  
            care, and long term services and supports.  Medi-Cal is  
            administered through federal-state-county partnerships with  
            the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),  
            the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), and  
            county welfare departments in each of the 58 counties.  


          2)Establishes the Coordinated Care Initiative in Alameda, Los  
            Angeles, Orange, Riverside, 


          San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties  
            which begins the process of integrating the delivery of  
            medical, behavioral, and long-term services and supports while  
            attempting to integrate Medicare and Medi-Cal for people in  
            both programs, known as "dual eligible" beneficiaries.   
            Consumers at the local delivery points know the program as  
            "Cal MediConnect," while policy makers in Sacramento know the  
            program best as "Coordinated Care Initiative."  











                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  4





          3)Requires DHCS, the Department of Social Services, and  
            California Department of Aging (CDA), in consultation with a  
            stakeholder work group comprised of IHSS and other home and  
            community-based service consumers (or their representatives),  
            managed care plans, counties, IHSS, MSSP, and CBAS providers,  
            area agencies on aging, independent living centers,  
            legislative staff and unspecified others, to develop a  
            universal assessment process drawing upon the IHSS uniform  
            assessment process and hourly task guidelines, the MSSP  
            assessment process, and other appropriate Home and Community  
            Based Services (HCBS) assessment tools, to develop individual  
            plans of care, and to consider how the assessment tool may be  
            used to assess the need for nursing home care, and to divert  
            individuals from nursing facility level of care and to HCBS.  





          4)Authorizes the testing of the Universal Assessment Tool (UAT)  
            in no fewer than two, but no more than four counties.   
            Requires DHCS, DSS, and CDA, to report to the Legislature on  
            the counties and beneficiary categories for which the  
            universal assessment tool may be implemented.  



          5)Requires DHCS, DSS, and CDA to, no later than nine months  
            following the implementation of the universal assessment  
            process, report to the Legislature on the results of the  
            initial use of the process, and authorizes the departments to  
            propose additional beneficiary categories or counties for  
            expanded use of the process.  

          6)Repeals these provisions by January 1, 2017.












                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  5






          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown.


          COMMENTS:  


          Author's Statement:  "California provides Home and Community  
          Based Services (HCBS) to low-income seniors and persons with  
          disabilities to help them remain in their own homes and  
          communities.  Each of the three main HCBS programs rely on  
          workers to determine eligibility and conduct an assessment for  
          the type of services that are needed.  Currently, those who  
          receive services for more than one program undergo multiple  
          assessments that, in some cases, collect duplicative  
          information.  





          In 2012, the Legislature recognized that competing eligibility  
          determination and assessment processes create several forms of  
          inefficiency in the administration of these programs.  The  
          Universal Assessment Tool (UAT) was identified as an alternative  
          to the current assessment system.  A UAT is a single application  
          and data system that would streamline eligibility determinations  
          and assessments.  It would shift the existing HCBS framework  
          from a "program-based" approach to a "person-centered" approach.  
           





          The goal of this new framework is to facilitate better care  
          coordination, enhance consumer choices, reduce administrative  
          inefficiencies, improve data analysis capabilities, and  
          potentially create long-term fiscal savings.  Without fully  








                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  6





          understanding the outcomes of the Universal Assessment Tool, it  
          will be difficult for the legislature to determine if this is  
          worth implementing state-wide."  


          A Shattered System:  According to "A Shattered System: Reforming  
          Long-Term Care in California," a thorough assessment of the  
          state's deficiencies in program and service design and delivery  
          to meet the growing needs of an aging population published  
          recently by the Senate Select Committee on Aging and Long Term  
          Care, the most critical issue facing California's Long Term Care  
          (LTC) system is the fragmentation of programs at the state,  
          regional, and local levels.  This fragmentation reflects decades  
          of bureaucratic convenience, though it creates barriers to  
          citizens accessing appropriate services, and drives, supports  
          and promotes a lack of usable data to inform policy-makers  
          struggling with critical decisions about scarce resources.  





          California lacks a strategic plan on long-term services and  
          supports that would set priorities for services for the future  
          to maximize the use of finite resources.  Despite the lack of a  
          strategic plan, the state should take specific steps to position  
          itself in a more favorable position to absorb the impact of a  
          rapidly expanding population of individuals in need of long-term  
          services and supports.  





          California has an array of programs and services for individuals  
          with disabilities.  The programs are located in multiple  
          agencies, use different delivery systems and challenge  
          consumers, family members, seeking to access services.  Law  
          makers, agency staff, and providers are routinely confounded by  








                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  7





          the results of a poor long-term care strategy.   Multiple  
          reports have concluded that California's long-term care services  
          delivery system operates in different 'silos' causing so-called  
          'fragmentation,' and a barrier to service between each fragment,  
          or silo.  As a consumer ages, and develops greater dependence on  
          services, they are challenged by an assessment process that  
          invades their privacy, seeking detailed information about their  
          health, personal, and familial lives.  The repetitive exposure  
          of personal information serves to deter people from accessing  
          services as the discomfort of disclosing deeply personal details  
          about themselves to yet another stranger can aggravate and  
          demoralize the client.  





          Universal assessment offers a single uniform process to connect  
          services and corresponding data elements about service needs and  
          preferences, while evaluating an individual consumer's needs in  
          a consistent manner.  According to one of the five principle  
          recommendations within the Senate Select Committee on Aging's  
          report, the state should commit to universal assessment as a  
          statewide initiative that can transform the existing system; it  
          can be utilized not only for more accurate and efficient service  
          delivery purposes, but also to support outcome analysis by  
          gathering information that can be used as quality measures.  At  
          the state level, universal assessment data can help law makers  
          and program planners simultaneously understand the needs of  
          individual consumers, and consumers as a whole, support more  
          strategic allocation of resources, and evaluate quality.  A  
          universal assessment tool will also assist the state to develop  
          a data infrastructure with the capacity to collect and report  
          integrated data from across programs to reduce redundancies and  
          duplication while driving high quality program, fiscal and  
          policy decisions.  


          








                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  8







          Arguments in Support:  The American Federation of State, County  
          and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) cites AB 664 as a measure that  
          will help the state shift the existing framework of the HCBS  
          system to one that is more "person centered," and though it was  
          piloted, no formal investigation of its outcomes were  
          authorized.  LeadingAge, a not-for-profit organization  
          representing over 400 providers of HCBS and institutional  
          services for about 100,000 Californians cites improved  
          efficiencies in the existing service delivery system for low  
          income older Californians that foreshadows improved choices for  
          consumers, reduced administrative inefficiencies, better data,  
          and potentially long-term savings.  


          


          Arguments in opposition:  None.





          Dual Referral: AB 664 was previously heard by the Assembly  
          Health Committee on 


          April 7, 2015 and passed 17-0.  



           Related Legislation:


           










                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  9





          SB 21 (Liu) 2011: Require DHCS to work with stakeholders to  
          develop or identify a long-term care assessment tool by July 1,  
          2013, that would identify eligible individuals' long-term care  
          needs; died in Senate Appropriations Committee.





          SB 998 (Liu) 2009: Required DHCS to work with stakeholders to  
          develop or identify a long-term care assessment tool that would  
          identify an individual's long-term care needs; died in Senate  
          Appropriations Committee.


          


          AB 3019 (Daucher) 2005:  Required the Health and Human Services  
          Agency to develop and test the Community Options and Assessment  
          Protocol to minimize duplication and redundancy of multiple  
          assessments for home- and community-based services, and to  
          connect consumers with the appropriate program services; held in  
          Senate Appropriations Committee.  





          AB 786 (Daucher), Chapter 436, Statutes of 2003:  Created a  
          pilot project which required the county of San Mateo to seek  
          funding for an evaluation of the use of an assessment instrument  
          by an independent research organization, and would require the  
          results of the evaluation to be reported to the Legislature and  
          to the Long-Term Care Council in the California Health and Human  
          Services Agency on or before May 31, 2009.  The bill provided  
          that state funds shall not be appropriated for its purposes, and  
          required the county to implement the bill only to the extent  
          that the county received federal or private funds for that  








                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  10





          purpose.














































                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  11





          
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)


          American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees  
          (AFSCME), AFL-CIO


          California Association of Area Agencies on Aging (C4A)


          California Commission on Aging


          California Senior Legislature


          LeadingAge California


          United Domestic Workers of America-UDW/AFSCME Local 3930




          Opposition


          None on file.










                                                                     AB 664


                                                                    Page  12







          Analysis Prepared by:Robert MacLaughlin / AGING & L.T.C. / (916)  
          319-3990