BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1193
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1193 (Eggman) - As Amended April 30, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|16 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |10 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill addresses local implementation of Assisted Outpatient
Treatment (AOT, or Laura's Law). Specifically, this bill:
AB 1193
Page 2
1)Allows specified judges to file a petition to obtain an order
authorizing assisted outpatient treatment.
2)Requires any county that has not held a public hearing by
January 1, 2017, to determine whether to implement AOT, to
hold that hearing by January 1, 2018. Specifies what factors
shall be considered at the hearing.
3)Removes the current requirement that a county make a finding
that "no voluntary mental health program serving adults, and
no children's mental health program, may be reduced as a
result of the implementation" of AOT.
4)Extends the sunset date on statutes authorizing AOT to January
1, 2022 (from 2017).
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)State-reimbursable mandate local costs associated with the
requirement to hold public hearings in the range of $2 million
GF.
2)Potential additional state-reimbursable mandate local costs,
possibly in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars
annually, if authorizing a judge to request a petition compels
a greater number of AOT investigations and reports.
3)In addition, counties could incur significant unknown costs
associated with implementation of AOT if they choose to do so,
but these costs are not state- reimbursable as it remains at
the county's discretion.
COMMENTS:
AB 1193
Page 3
1)Purpose. The author believes this bill will ensure counties
consider the preferences of their residents with respect to
implementation of AOT. The author states the current process
of opting in makes AOT implementation too difficult for
counties to participate, evidenced by the fact that only a
fraction of the counties have implemented AOT. The author
contends mplementing AOT statewide will ensure that those at
highest risks for hospitalization can obtain the necessary
treatment services to keep them in the community, and notes
this bill allows counties to retain control by opting out if
they choose not to participate.
2)Background. Enacted in 2002, Laura's Law was named for Laura
Wilcox, a 19-year-old college student in Nevada County who was
killed by a severely mentally ill man who was not adhering to
prescribed mental health treatment. Laura's Law permits
counties to provide court-ordered outpatient treatment
services for people with serious mental illness. To implement
the order, a court must find that a person's recent history of
hospitalizations or violent behavior, coupled with
noncompliance with voluntary treatment, indicates the person
is likely to become dangerous or gravely disabled without
treatment. The intent of Laura's Law is to prevent a small
number of individuals who meet narrow eligibility criteria
from becoming gravely disabled or threatening. A county board
of supervisors must pass a resolution in order to implement
Laura's Law. To date, about nine counties have implemented
Laura's Law in some form; counties have generally configured
the implementation to align with local priorities.
3)Support. This bill is sponsored by the California Psychiatric
Association and supported by physician groups, hospitals, and
Nick and Amanda Wilcox, parents of the young woman for whom
Laura's Law is named. They cite success of implemented AOT
programs, and desire to increase the reach of this important
option for outpatient treatment.
AB 1193
Page 4
4)Opposition. Disability Rights California opposes this bill
because it removes a key protection, namely, the prohibition
on reducing voluntary mental health services when implementing
AOT programs. Counties and their behavioral health agencies
oppose this bill unless amended to remove all provisions,
except the sunset extension. Counties cite increased county
workload and reduction in county authority to decide whether
to address the option to implement AOT, among other concerns.
5)Related Legislation.
a) AB 59 (Waldron) removes the sunset on Laura's Law so
that the program is indefinitely extended, eliminates the
requirement that the board of supervisors in a county must
find voluntary mental health programs will not be reduced
as a result of implementation of AOT, and allows the
professional staff of the facility where a person has been
detained for involuntarily inpatient treatment to recommend
a petition for AOT for that person.
b) AB 193 (Maienschein) Allows probate courts to recommend
a referral for an LPS conservatorship to the county officer
providing conservatorship investigations.
1)Prior Legislation.
AB 1193
Page 5
a) AB 2266 (Waldron, 2014) increased the maximum period of
imposed outpatient treatment under the AOT Demonstration
Project from six months to one year. AB 2266 failed in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
b) AB 1265 (Conway, 2013) increased the maximum period of
imposed outpatient treatment under the AOT Demonstration
Project from six months to one year. AB 1265 also failed
in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
319-2081