BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 766
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
766 (Ridley-Thomas)
As Amended April 27, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Health |19-0 |Bonta, Maienschein, | |
| | |Bonilla, Burke, | |
| | |Chávez, Chiu, | |
| | |Gomez, Gonzalez, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Roger Hernández, | |
| | |Lackey, Nazarian, | |
| | |Patterson, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Ridley-Thomas, | |
| | |Rodriguez, | |
| | |Santiago, | |
| | |Steinorth, | |
| | |Thurmond, Waldron, | |
| | |Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
AB 766
Page 2
| | |Chang, Daly, | |
| | |Eggman, Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Public Health to give
preference to schools with a high percentage of children and youth
who receive free or low-cost health coverage through Medi-Cal or
Covered California when developing a request for proposal for
grant funding for Public School Health Center Support Programs.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill would have negligible state fiscal effect.
This grant program is currently not funded.
COMMENTS: According to the author, children from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds have poorer health outcomes. These
health disparities are due, in part, to barriers in accessing
medical care and using primary care services. Recent expansions
in insurance coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, Medi-Cal, and the Children's Health Insurance Program
have improved access to health care for this population. Yet,
even with the expansion of health insurance, children from
low-income households are not guaranteed access to health care
services.
The author states that children from low-income households who
AB 766
Page 3
have insurance through a public health program still face problems
with gaining access to health care services and finding providers.
Children from low-income households who have private insurance
also have problems finding providers that accept their insurance
and with unaffordable medical costs. Additionally, some parents
feel unwelcome at medical practices, unable to take time off work
for health care appointments, or unable to travel long distances
to seek care for their children.
School Based Health Centers (SBHCs) provide a broad array of
primary care and preventive services, including comprehensive
health assessments; prescriptions for medications; treatment for
acute illness; asthma treatment; oral health education; and dental
screenings. SBHCs have mental health providers on staff to offer
mental health assessments, crisis intervention, brief and
long-term therapy, and other services. SBHCs are the primary, and
occasionally only, available health care for many children and
adolescents who otherwise would have no access. There are
approximately 200 SBHCs in California. Half of SBHC's are in high
schools, a third are in elementary schools and the remainder are
in middle schools or in mobile medical vans. Many SBHCs are
located in schools serving some of the state's most vulnerable
children and on campuses with SBHCs, about 70% of students receive
free or reduced price meals. According to the California
School-Based Health Alliance (CSBHA), 13,500 children have gained
access to health care in their school since 2012, through the
expansion of SBHCs. SBHCs are administered by a variety of
organizations, including school districts, Federally Qualified
Health Centers, county health departments, hospitals,
community-based agencies, and private physician groups. They are
financed through grants from state, local, and private sources as
well as reimbursements from public programs, such as the Child
Health and Disability Prevention Program and Medi-Cal. According
to CSBHA, more than half of SHCs recover less than 50% of their
operating costs from billing sources.
The California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN), states in
AB 766
Page 4
support of this bill that children from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds have poorer health outcomes. These health disparities
are due, in part, to barriers in accessing medical care and using
primary care services. Recent expansions in insurance coverage
under the Affordable Care Act, Medi-Cal, and the Children's Health
Insureance Program have improved access to health care for this
population. CPEHN notes that even with the expansion of health
insurance, children from low-income households are not guaranteed
access to health care services. According to CPEHN, this bill
ensures that grant funding considers schools that have a high
percentage of youth who may come from low-income households and
face more challenges accessing health care services.
The California Black Health Network (CBHN) states in support of
this bill that boys and young men of color are disproportionately
affected by violence and trauma, which can lead to disparities in
health outcomes. For instance, boys and young men of color are
more likely than white to characterize their health as "poor" or
"fair". CBHN believes that SBHCs can specifically help boys and
young men of color through the range of services offered that are
locally designed to meet the specific needs of the student
population. SBHCs increase access to care and this bill would
ensure that boys and young men of color from low-income
households, who may have issues with accessing care, are able to
utilize SBHCs in their communities. By broadening the requirement
of the Public School Health Center Support Program grant funding
to include schools with a high percentage of children and youth
who receive free or low-cost health coverage through Medi-Cal,
this bill will provide health care to California's most vulnerable
students.
The California Right to Life Committee (CRLC) states in opposition
that CRLC must continue to oppose any publicly funded program
which advocates and promotes abortions and related services.
AB 766
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:
Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN:
0000887