BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1774 Page A Date of Hearing: May 18, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Lorena Gonzalez, Chair AB 1774 (Bonilla) - As Amended May 11, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Business and Professions |Vote:|15 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill repeals state licensure and registration requirements for clinical laboratories (labs), including laboratory inspections, issuance of licenses and registration, and associated fees. Specifically, this bill: 1)Repeals requirements including: a) Licensure and registration of labs by the state. AB 1774 Page B b) Licensure and registration fees, including provisions for adjusting such fees. c) Requirements that out-of-state labs performing tests on California specimens reimburse the department for travel and per diem to perform any necessary onsite inspections in order to ensure compliance with state law. d) Biennial inspections and proficiency testing requirements for licensed labs. e) A number of provisions related to licensure and registration procedures. f) A requirement that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) report to the Legislature, on or before July 1, 2013, on the extent to which the state oversight program meets or exceeds federal oversight standards, the extent to which the federal Department of Health and Human Services is accepting exemption applications, and the potential cost to the state for an exemption from the federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA). 2)Repeals language granting CDPH the ability to approve and rely on accreditation organizations to assess compliance with state licensure requirements, and specifies clinical laboratories may choose to be overseen by CDPH, or by an accrediting organization, as follows: a) For unaccredited labs: Requires CDPH to monitor, inspect, and investigate all unaccredited clinical laboratories for compliance with state standards that are in excess of federal standards. Allows CDPH to levy an AB 1774 Page C inspection fee, not to exceed $1,050, for such inspection, but only when it has spent all but $1 million of the fees collected previously from clinical laboratories. b) For accredited labs: Deems a laboratory accredited by an accrediting organization approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to meet all state standards. 3)Reduces fee levels for personnel licensure and removes authority to adjust such fees. 4)Requires CDPH to post on its website a comprehensive list of the differences between CLIA and state law. 5)Retains numerous standards for clinical laboratories, including requirements for quality control, compliance with personnel standards, and participation in proficiency testing, among others. 6)Authorizes the department or its agents to enter and inspect a clinical laboratory at any time to enforce state laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, state standards that are more stringent than federal standards. 7)Loosens supervision requirements for licensed trainees performing tests or procuring specimens. 8)Includes a number of technical and conforming changes. FISCAL EFFECT: AB 1774 Page D 1)This bill allows LFS to levy a fee for inspection with state standards only when it has spent all but $1 million of the fees collected previously from clinical laboratories. This bill also reduces clinical laboratory personnel fees to pre-2009 levels, prior to their last increase, resulting in reduced revenue. It also allows the department to recover costs for certain activities, but does not allow cost recovery for inspections if a lab is accredited, and limits the cost recovery for inspections to $1,050 if a lab is not accredited. There is a significant reserve of over $20 million in the LFS Clinical Laboratory Improvement Fund, which could mitigate an expected sharp reduction in revenue for a year or two. On an ongoing basis, however, this bill may results in unknown fiscal risk because the ongoing balance between fee revenue and workload is unclear. 2)By repealing lab licensure and registration, this bill should reduce LFS workload. However, given LFS has not performed many enforcement activities expected under current law with existing staff, it is unclear what the appropriate staffing level to meet current-law expectations, nor what it would be under this bill with different, reduced workload. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, this bill implements the State Auditor's recommendation to repeal state clinical laboratory licensing, because federal government oversight is highly similar and well-implemented. This bill will free up state resources to focus on personnel standards which are unique to California, while ensuring a continued level of AB 1774 Page E consumer protection in clinical laboratories. 2)Background. Clinical laboratories analyze human specimens such as blood, tissue, and urine so that medical professionals can make diagnoses, prescribe treatment, and perform research. There are approximately 2,800 laboratories licensed by Laboratory Field Services (LFS) within CDPH, and approximately 19,300 registered labs. A lab's license or registration is separate from personnel licenses or other certifications. LFS also licenses and certifies lab personnel, including clinical laboratory scientists and trainees, phlebotomists, and cytotechnologists. Labs are also governed by federal law, and state law and federal law in California can be enforced by LFS or private accrediting organizations, as explained below. 3)Federal versus state standards. The federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) establishes minimum standards for laboratories to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of patient test results. All labs must maintain a CLIA certificate under federal law. The federal CMS administers CLIA, and enforces requirements through accrediting organizations or through state agencies. California law also specifies a number of requirements that are the same as, or similar to, CLIA.<1> In addition to CLIA standards and CLIA-like standards that were adopted in state law, California clinical labs and out-of-state labs performing tests on California specimens -------------------------- <1> According to CDPH, California has incorporated federal CLIA law as published on January 1, 1994, which is different from CLIA as finally adopted in April 2003. The Clinical Laboratory Technology Advisory Committee, which advises CDPH on lab issues, is currently performing a crosswalk of these differences. AB 1774 Page F must meet other California-specific standards in order to operate. These include a variety of personnel standards specifying which professional may perform what type of test, and requirements related to education and supervision. There are also a number of other provisions, including limitations on cytology laboratories, requirements related to proficiency testing, and actions that constitute unlawful practice. CDPH administers state clinical laboratory law, and enforces requirements through LFS staff and, more recently, through an approved accrediting organizations. 4)Licensed versus Registered Labs. All laboratories must maintain either a registration or a license under state law, depending on if they perform simple or more complex tests. Federal law separates labs into two categories: those performing simple tests, and those performing moderate- to high-complexity tests. Labs performing only simple tests, often physician offices, must be registered with LFS, but are not required to be licensed. They must also maintain a CLIA certificate and pay a biennial fee, and are subject to complaint investigations and sanctions. Labs performing moderate- to high-complexity testing, however, are subject to more stringent standards under CLIA and under state law. To become certified under CLIA, these labs must pay a fee to CMS and meet all applicable standards, including biennial surveys, proficiency testing, and personnel requirements. This group of labs is also subject to state licensure. Similar to CLIA, state licensing law requires biennial surveys, proficiency testing, and personnel requirements. As noted, state law establishes certain standards that differ from, or exceed, CLIA standards. AB 1774 Page G 5)Accredited labs versus Nonaccredited. Licensed labs, those performing complex tests, either be accredited by private organizations, or nonaccredited. About half of the licensed clinical labs in California are accredited. Accreditation can demonstrate compliance with state or federal standards, if the accrediting organization is approved by CDPH or CMS, respectively. Six accreditation organizations have been approved by CMS, and one has been approved by CDPH. For accredited labs, the accrediting organizations perform the inspections, monitor proficiency testing, and oversee compliance with applicable standards. The lab provides the state and/or federal government with proof of accreditation and is deemed in compliance with state and/or federal law. For nonaccredited labs, the federal government contracts with LFS as the oversight entity to ensure compliance with federal CLIA law. LFS verifies compliance with CLIA and uses a "state checklist addendum" to examine compliance with state law. According to the State Auditor, the state checklist of additional requirements in state law includes 15 criteria, most of which relate to personnel standards. 6)Scathing State Audits. The California State Auditor found in 2008, and again in September 2015, severe deficiencies plaguing CDPH's laboratory oversight through LFS. The 2008 audit found LFS inconsistently monitored laboratory proficiency testing, was not inspecting laboratories every two years as required, closed many complaints without taking action, only sporadically imposed sanctions against laboratories for violations, and incorrectly adjusted licensing fees. In response, CDPH sponsored and the Legislature passed SB 744 (Strickland), Chapter 201, Statutes of 2009, which authorized LFS to contract with accreditation organizations to serve as the state inspecting agent, and adjusted lab licensure fees to account for testing volume. AB 1774 Page H The stated purpose of the increased fee revenue pursuant to SB 744 was to allow CDPH to hire needed staff at competitive salaries to carry out oversight duties. More recently, the 2015 audit found lab inspections were still not occurring, and the exact same issues related to proficiency testing, sanctions, and complaints remained. Staffing issues that were supposed to be resolved by increasing revenues pursuant to SB 744 were not resolved. Positions were eliminated in 2012 due to excessive vacancies and hiring for authorized positions did not occur due to other administrative failures. Finally, the 2015 audit noted that since much of state law is duplicative of the federal CLIA, and given the multitude of problems at LFS, the Legislature should repeal state licensure and registration as well as the associated fees. 7)Staff Comments. The state auditor and many stakeholders believe many state licensure and registration standards are duplicative of federal law. Thus, this bill repeals them. However, in so doing, this bill raises other issues, including the following: a) Enforcement of State Standards. It is the author's stated intention to uphold state standards that are stricter than federal standards. However, this bill would create challenges in doing so. If state standards are important to maintain, the issues below should be addressed. 1) Unaccredited Labs: De Facto Modified Compliance Structure is Weak and Not Clearly Specified. The new Section 1223 (Business and Professions Code) of this bill states for unaccredited labs, the state shall monitor, inspect, and investigate for compliance with AB 1774 Page I state standards that are in excess of federal standards. Compliance with state standards would not result in a state license, but the department could inspect, investigate complaints, and cite and fine facilities. By retaining some state-specific standards, this bill creates a de facto modified compliance structure for these state standards. Generally, state facility standards are enforced through a license. For example, there is duplication between CMS certification standards and state licensure standards for other health facilities like hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, but the state still issues licenses to these facilities. Without licensure and the "stick" of licensure revocation, it appears as though the lab could still legally operate in violation of state standards. In addition, the bill gives inadequate direction to the department as to how it should enforce state-specific standards (e.g., via inspections? via a sampling methodology?). Given LFS's difficulty in enforcing current law, clarifying enforcement expectations seems paramount. 2) Accredited Labs: Deemed as Meeting State Standards with no Verification. Unlike (2) above, the compliance structure for state standards with respect to accredited labs is clear: there is none. The bill repeals the existing Section 1223, which gives CDPH the ability to approve accrediting organizations that demonstrate their standards meet or exceed state standards, and the requirement to meet or exceed state standards is not present in the new Section 1223. The new Section 1223 of this bill states for labs accredited by an organization approved under federal CLIA, that accreditation shall be deemed to meet all state standards. Essentially, under this bill's language, federally accredited labs would be "deemed" in compliance with state standards, such as personnel standards, without verification of compliance AB 1774 Page J 3) Out-of-State Labs: Not Subject to State Personnel Standards. Staff notes repealing licensure requirements for out-of-state labs subjects in-state labs to stricter standards than out-of-state labs. b) Ongoing balance of revenue and workload unclear. This bill eliminates licensure fees, limiting the department's ability to generate revenue to enforce the remaining requirements in state law. This bill also reduces unrelated personnel application and license fees from their current levels and deletes authority to adjust them in the future, without providing a workload justification and evidence that fee revenue matches ongoing workload. Additionally, given such uncertainty, the restriction on levying fees until LFS has spent all but $1 million of the previously collected fees may not be practicable. c) Lack of Clarity About Which Standards are Duplicative. This bill retains all current state standards for clinical laboratories- some of which are duplicative of federal law, some of which are similar to federal law, and some of which are state-specific. There is no effort made to distinguish in the law which standards are considered duplicative, and which are state-specific. The differences could be clarified in the law so the public, the department, clinical laboratories, and other stakeholders can clearly identify what is being deferred to federal or third-party oversight versus what the state is expected to enforce. In addition, current state law is aligned with a prior version of federal law, suggesting a more comprehensive statutory overhaul is warranted. d) Makes Other, Unrelated Changes. This bill repeals language that applies to personnel and registered labs as AB 1774 Page K well as licensed labs. For example, it repeals requirements that persons or laboratories report name changes to the department. It repeals standards for cytotechnologist competency. It changes supervision standards for lab personnel. It is unclear whether these changes are inadvertent or support the bill's main intent. e) Removes, and Does not Replace, Certain Provisions Regulating Conduct of Laboratories. Since this bill removes code related to licensure, this bill also removes some licensure-related provisions. For example, this bill repeals a provision that allows CDPH to deny, suspend, or revoke a license based on a refusal of a reasonable request to allow the department to inspect the laboratory, its operations, and pertinent records. If there is no licensure, there could instead be a provision that would allow CDPH to impose a fine for such conduct. Although consistent with the auditor's recommendation to reduce duplication, the blunt nature of the bill's approach results in unintended changes, unspecified enforcement of state-specific standards, and reduced revenue to support any remaining oversight work. The change in fee structure without sufficient workload justification results in unknown fiscal risk and likely inability to perform oversight. Despite LFS's utter failure to perform state-mandated workload, a more deliberative approach to recasting state law in this complex area seems warranted. Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 AB 1774 Page L