BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”



                                                                    AB 1578


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          1578 (Rodriguez and Kim)


          As Amended  April 19, 2016


          2/3 vote.  Urgency


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Health          |18-0 |Wood, Maienschein,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bonilla, Burke,       |                    |
          |                |     |Campos, Chiu,         |                    |
          |                |     |Dababneh, Roger       |                    |
          |                |     |HernŠndez, Lackey,    |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, Olsen,      |                    |
          |                |     |Patterson,            |                    |
          |                |     |Ridley-Thomas,        |                    |
          |                |     |Rodriguez, Santiago,  |                    |
          |                |     |Steinorth, Thurmond,  |                    |
          |                |     |Waldron               |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bonta, Calderon,      |                    |
          |                |     |Chang, Daly, Eggman,  |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Roger         |                    |
          |                |     |HernŠndez, Holden,    |                    |








                                                                    AB 1578


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Jones, Obernolte,     |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Appropriates $2 million from the General Fund (GF) to  
          the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) to provide  
          maintenance and upkeep of mobile field hospitals (MFHs) within  
          the Mobile Field Hospital Program.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:

          1)$2 million GF one-time to EMSA.  EMSA indicates $900,000 would  
            be sufficient to bring all three MFHs to immediate deployable  
            status and $1.1 million would provide for one year of ongoing  
            maintenance and deployment capability for two Sacramento-based  
            MFHs.  

          2)Ongoing cost pressure of $2 million GF annually to maintain  
            funding for MFHs brought into deployment status.  The  
            maintenance for each of the three MFHs is estimated to cost  
            $600,000, with an additional cost of $175,000 to $250,000 to  
            store a hospital in the Los Angeles area.

          COMMENTS:  According to the author, California currently owns  
          three mobile field hospital units with combined bed capacities  
          in excess of 600 beds.  Because of neglect and past fiscal  
          budgetary crises, the state by not maintaining these assets, has  
          in effect gambled that it would not experience a major disaster.  
           The author states that the time to prepare for disaster and  
          emergency preparedness is now. 


          According to EMSA, in 2007, the state purchased three MFHs with  








                                                                    AB 1578


                                                                    Page  3





          the intent to replace or augment acute hospital care capacity  
          during catastrophic emergencies.  AB 1811 (Laird), Chapter 48,  
          Statutes of 2006, which amended the Budget Act of 2006,  
          authorized the purchase of the three MFHs at an initial GF cost  
          of $18.3 million.  Additionally, $1.7 million GF was authorized  
          in fiscal year (FY) 2006-07 to provide for ongoing costs  
          associated with program staff, storage, maintenance and  
          readiness.  These ongoing funds were eliminated in FY 2011-12.   
          The MFHs have been deployed three times for exercises, but never  
          for a response to a real event.


          Each MFH can be deployed as a 200-bed acute care facility or in  
          smaller modules of 50, 100, or 150 beds.  The shelf life for the  
          MFHs' infrastructure items is a minimum of twenty years; the  
          current age is eight years.  Currently, all three MFHs are  
          stored in the Sacramento area in delayed deployment status.  If  
          needed in the event of a disaster, deployment would be delayed a  
          minimum of 30 days for additional maintenance and  
          recertification.  


          The Rural County Representatives of California argue that  
          disaster preparedness is vital to the State's ability to respond  
          to all types of disasters.  Rural communities face unique  
          challenges in dealing with disaster preparedness, response and  
          recovery.  Disasters resulting in significant medical  
          emergencies would overwhelm rural hospitals and transporting  
          patients to other facilities would overtax available medical  
          transportation delaying timely care.  The California Ambulance  
          Association supports this bill because MFHs are needed in case  
          California faces a catastrophic event.  The American Red Cross  
          argues that having fully equipped MFHs guarantees readiness in  
          case of any emergency situation.


          There is no known opposition to this bill.










                                                                    AB 1578


                                                                    Page  4







          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          John Gilman / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097  FN:  
          0003203