BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2048


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:   April 20, 2016


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair


          AB  
          2048 (Gray) - As Amended April 7, 2016


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Health                         |Vote:|18 - 0       |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  NoReimbursable:  No


          SUMMARY:


          This bill makes changes to the federally funded State Loan  
          Repayment Program (SLRP) administered by the Office of Statewide  
          Health Planning and Development, and appropriates state funding  
          to support the program.  Specifically, this bill:


          1)Requires OHPD include all federally qualified health centers  
            (FQHCs) located in California in the program's certified  








                                                                    AB 2048


                                                                    Page  2





            eligible site list, to strive to maximize the number of  
            applications per grant cycle, and to report to the Legislature  
            on applications and awards.


          2)Continuously appropriates $1 million to OSHPD, without regard  
            to fiscal year, to provide state matching funds for the SLRP. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          1)One-time cost of $1 million GF to provide state matching funds  
            for the program, as appropriated by this bill. 


          2)Up to $200,000 in one-time costs to OSHPD to update policies,  
            procedures, forms, as well as handle a significant influx of  
            applications (California Health Planning Fund). 


          3)Ongoing GF cost pressure to continue state funding  
            participation for the SLRP in future years.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose. This bill is intended to streamline participation in  
            the SLRP by eliminating burdensome application and renewal  
            requirements for FQHCs and shifting the responsibility to  
            provide matching funds to the state.



          2)Background.  The SLRP is a federally-funded,  
            state-administered program that provides loan repayment funds  
            of up to $50,000 per service obligation, which is either a  
            full-time two-year or half-time four-year period.  Extensions  








                                                                    AB 2048


                                                                    Page  3





            to the service obligation are also available.  The program  
            includes a matching requirement. Federal rules require states  
            to make available (directly or through donations from public  
            or private entities) non-federal contributions in cash toward  
            SLRP contracts in an amount not less than $1 for each $1 of  
            federal funds provided in the grant.  California does not  
            currently provide state funding for the required match;  
            instead, participating clinics provide the match.  Thus, a  
            $50,000 award would include $25,000 from the federal grant and  
            $25,000 from the clinic's match.  Essentially, providing this  
            benefit costs the clinic an additional $12,500 per year for  
            two years on top of the provider's salary, while the eligible  
            provider receives a tax-free loan repayment award of up to  
            $50,000 over two years. 



            This bill also requires all California FQHCs to be included in  
            the program's "certified eligible list." Currently, OSHPD uses  
            the list to identify sites that are located in areas that are  
            designated as "health professional shortage areas" and that  
            have agreed to provide matching funds.  To be on the list,  
            sites must apply and renew every three years.  By federal  
            rule, all community clinics meet the "health professional  
            shortage" criteria- and if the program no longer requires  
            clinics to match funds as this bill appears to propose, then  
            allowing automatic eligibility for FQHCs seems reasonable.    





          3)Comments.  While providing state funding would benefit  
            clinics, it does not appear that it would increase the number  
            of loan repayment awards that occur though the program.  If  
            state funding simply displaces private funding for the match,  
            the state will pay $1 million for the same overall amount of  
            recruitment and retention benefits that would occur in absence  
            of state funding.  If this bill is attempting to change the  








                                                                    AB 2048


                                                                    Page  4





            current distribution of funds, rather than increasing the  
            total number of awards, the author could consider alternative  
            ways to do this, or could more clearly specify this intent.   
            Also, it is unclear why the $1 million is continuously  
            appropriated and whether it is intended that the department  
            use this state funding to match federal funding for all  
            recipients, or only for those who could not otherwise afford  
            the match.                 
          


          Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081