BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2279
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2279 (Cooley)
As Introduced February 18, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Health |18-0 |Wood, Maienschein, | |
| | |Bonilla, Burke, | |
| | |Campos, Chiu, | |
| | |Dababneh, Gomez, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Roger Hernández, | |
| | |Lackey, Olsen, | |
| | |Patterson, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Ridley-Thomas, | |
| | |Rodriguez, Santiago, | |
| | |Steinorth, Thurmond, | |
| | |Waldron | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
AB 2279
Page 2
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)
to annually compile county revenue and expenditure information
related to the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) based on the
existing Annual Mental Health Services Act Revenue and
Expenditure Report (MHSA Report) and requires the information
compiled to be made available by DHCS to the Mental Health
Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (Commission),
and requires the Commission to make the information publicly
available online.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, costs to DHCS are expected to be minor and
absorbable.
COMMENTS: According to the author, counties are required to
report information to DHCS annually about local programs,
expenditure plans and how MHSA funds were spent. While some
counties make annual reports available to the public on their
own Web sites, currently there is no complete state-wide
financial picture of how much MHSA revenue is generated
annually. The author argues that the absence of a single
repository for this information makes it difficult for
taxpayers, mental health advocates, and consumers to see which
mental health programs are available and how MHSA funds are
AB 2279
Page 3
spent county-by-county and state-wide. This information would
make it easier for providers to identify best practices and for
consumers to compare services to identify programs that best
address their needs.
Proposition 63 was passed by voters in November 2004. The MHSA
imposes a 1% income tax on personal income in excess of $1
million and creates the 16 member Commission charged with
overseeing the implementation of MHSA. The 2015-16 Governor's
Budget projected that $1.776 billion would be deposited into the
Mental Health Services Fund in fiscal year (FY) 2015-16. The
MHSA addresses a broad continuum of prevention, early
intervention and service needs as well as provided funding for
infrastructure, technology and training needs for the community
mental health system. In addition to local programs, the MHSA
authorizes up to 5% of revenues for state administration. These
include administrative functions performed by a variety of state
entities such as the DHCS and Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development (OSHPD). It also funds evaluation of
the MHSA by the Commission, which was established by the MHSA.
MHSA requires each county mental health department to prepare
and submit a three-year plan to DHCS that must be updated each
year and approved by DHCS after review and comment by the
Commission. In their three-year plans, counties are required to
include a list of all programs for which MHSA funding is being
requested and that identifies how the funds will be spent and
which populations will be served. Counties must submit their
plans for approval to the Commission before the counties may
spend certain categories of funding.
The most recently available MHSA Report discusses expenditures
for FY 2015-16 and is available on the DHCS website, but not on
the Commission Website. The MHSA Report includes an explanation
of estimated revenues, general MHSA Fund expenditures to
counties in the aggregate and to OSHPD, and a detailed summary
AB 2279
Page 4
of how the funds set aside for program administration were
allocated to 14 different state agencies and departments.
The National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
supports this legislation because it will increase transparency
regarding how MHSA funds are spent. California Chapter of the
American College of Emergency Physicians states that without
adequate analysis of the effectiveness of MHSA programs, there
is no guarantee that people with mental illness are receiving
adequate treatment. County-by-county comparisons of MHSA
program would be an important step toward determining the most
effective programs and increasing access to mental health
services. The Steinberg Institute states, in support, that the
current lack of timely and accessible reporting does not align
with the principles set forth in Prop 63.
There is no known opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN:
0003230