BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1836 Page 1 (Without Reference to File) CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1836 (Maienschein) As Amended August 2, 2016 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |80-0 |(June 1, 2016) |SENATE: |39-0 |(August 29, | | | | | | |2016) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: HEALTH SUMMARY: Permits a probate court to recommend a Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorship for an individual for whom a conservatorship has been established under the Probate Code, subject to a hearing attended by the proposed conservatee or the proposed conservatee's counsel, as specified. The Senate amendments: 1)Permit a court, in a proceeding regarding a probate conservatorship and where a conservatorship has already been AB 1836 Page 2 established, to refer a conservatee for an assessment by the local mental health system or plan to determine if the conservatee has a treatable mental illness, including whether the conservatee is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, and is unwilling or incapable of accepting voluntary treatment. The referral must be done in consultation with a licensed physician or licensed psychologist, as specified and must be done after an evidentiary hearing attended by the conservatee takes place. 2)Require, if the conservatee cannot afford counsel, the court to appoint counsel for them. 3)Require the local mental health system or plan to file a copy of the assessment with the court that made the referral for assessment in a proceeding under the Probate Code. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides for the involuntary commitment and treatment of individuals with specified mental disorders and for the protection of committed individuals, with the declared goal of ending inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, developmentally disabled persons, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism. 2)Creates a series of processes for individuals to be taken into custody, upon probable cause that they are a danger to self, a danger to others, or gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder, for a period of up to 72 hours, as specified, known as a "5150 hold". 3)Permits any interested person to petition the court for the appointment of a "conservator of the person" for a person who is unable to provide properly for his or her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter. Permits the appointment of a "conservator of the estate" for a person who is unable to manage his or her financial resources or resist AB 1836 Page 3 fraud or undue influence. 4)Permits a conservator under the Probate Code to place a conservatee in a locked facility only if there is clear and convincing evidence of all of the following: a) The conservatee has dementia; b) The conservatee lacks capacity to give informed consent, as specified, to this placement; c) The conservatee would benefit from this placement; and, d) The court determines that placement in a locked facility is the least restrictive placement given the needs of the conservatee. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 1)County mental health assessments: Potentially significant ongoing local costs, potentially state-reimbursable (General Fund), in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for county mental health departments to conduct LPS assessments of probate conservatees and file copies of the assessments with the referring courts. 2)Public guardians: Potential increase in workload costs to public guardians (Local Funds) resulting from probate court recommendations to county conservatorship investigators for LPS conservatorships based on county mental health assessments. Any increase in local costs is not estimated to be eligible for state reimbursement as the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) has determined that activities conducted by public guardians are prompted only after a county's discretionary decision to establish the office of the public AB 1836 Page 4 guardian, as specified. 3)LPS conservatorship placements and services: Potentially significant to major increases in non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) to county behavioral health and mental health departments for additional LPS placements, services, and treatment. The magnitude of these costs would be dependent on the number of new conservatorships and the level of services and treatment provided to each conservatee, which is unknown at this time. To the extent a number of LPS conservatees are Medi-Cal eligible could result in increases in medically necessary specialty mental health services including but not limited to crisis residential treatment and medication support services, resulting in increased Medi-Cal program costs (Federal Fund/General Fund). 4)DSH placements: For LPS conservatorship placements into Department of State Hospital (DSH) facilities, counties would be responsible for all treatment costs. The counties are also billed for actual bed usage according to the bed rate structure developed by DSH. 5)Court-appointed counsel: Potential increase in county counsel costs (General Fund*) to provide counsel to conservatees unable to afford counsel. *Trial Court Trust Fund COMMENTS: According to the author, probate courts today are hampered in their ability to ensure proper care and treatment of conservatees who suffer from a mental illness, and there are a significant number of people who are not getting the care and treatment they need. Under the LPS Act, the individuals authorized to initiate conservatorship proceedings do not include probate judges or family members. The author contends that this creates a gap in treatment availability, making it harder for individuals who are not already hospitalized but AB 1836 Page 5 whose problems stem from mental illness, alcoholism, or drug abuse, and thus cannot qualify for treatment under the Probate Code. By allowing probate judges to initiate LPS conservatorship proceedings, this bill is intended to remove obstacles to treatment for these individuals. California has two types of conservatorships. Probate conservatorships - established under the Probate Code - are established for adults who cannot adequately care for basic personal needs. Most probate conservatee are elderly persons, but can also include younger adults with severe developmental disabilities. Conservatorships established under the LPS Act, on the other hand, are for persons who are gravely disabled by mental illness or who pose a threat to themselves or others. LPS conservatorships are created when a psychiatric facility in which the prospective conservatee is held makes a recommendation to the county conservatorship investigator, who in turn may petition a superior court for the conservatorship. Conservatorships governed by the Probate Code are the most common type of conservatorship. Probate conservatorships can be established for adults who are unable to provide properly for their personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter. A petition for probate conservatorship can be filed by a spouse, domestic partner, or family member of the proposed conservatee, any interested state or local agency, the conservatee himself or herself, or any other interested person or friend. For conservatees with dementia, current law allows the conservator to place the conservatee in a locked nursing or residential care facility and authorize the administration of medications to treat dementia, provided that the court makes specified findings. However, current law does not contain provisions that allow a probate conservator to place a conservatee in a locked facility for any reason other than dementia. An LPS conservatorship, which lasts for a year before it must be reinitiated and reapproved, is typically sought after an individual has received 72-hour evaluation and treatment and AB 1836 Page 6 14-day intensive treatment and continues to be gravely disabled. The process begins when the professional staff of the psychiatric facility, after having evaluated and treated the individual, makes a recommendation of conservatorship to the county conservatorship investigator. The county conservatorship investigator is then required to conduct a comprehensive investigation and file a petition for conservatorship only if, after considering all available alternatives to conservatorship, there are no suitable alternatives available. The sponsors of this bill, the Conference of California Bar Associations, write in support that this bill will help close a gap in existing law that prevents existing probate conservatees who have become gravely disabled and/or a "danger to themselves or others" from being evaluated for possible LPS conservatorship because they cannot enter the LPS process through the traditional (Welfare and Institutions Code Sections) "5150" process. This bill would do this by permitting a court, after considering medical evidence at a hearing which the proposed conservatee has a right to attend, to order evaluation for a probate conservatee to determine whether an LPS conservatorship is appropriate. The Coalition for Elder and Dependent Adult Rights argue in opposition to this bill stating that it opens yet another door for expensive investigations, assessments, and many billable hours for conservators and attorneys and that conservatorships are fraught with abuse and that courts fail to provide oversight. Analysis Prepared by: Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0004162 0003217 AB 1836 Page 7