BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2279
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
2279 (Cooley)
As Enrolled August 30, 2016
2/3 vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |80-0 |(May 31, 2016) |SENATE: |39-0 |(August 17, |
| | | | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |79-1 |(August 23, | | | |
| | |2016) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HEALTH
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)
to develop and administer instructions for the compilation of
AB 2279
Page 2
revenue and expenditure information related to the Mental Health
Services Act (MHSA) by counties, in consultation with the Mental
Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission and the
County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, as
specified, and permits DHCS to withhold MHSA funds from counties
that do not submit the Annual MHSA Report until the reports are
submitted.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, ongoing costs of $240,000 per year to compile
information submitted by counties, create comparisons of
county-by-county expenditures, and develop the required reports
by DHCS.
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
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
AB 2279
Page 3
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 Web site. 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 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
AB 2279
Page 4
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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2279 without my signature.
This bill requires the Department of Health Care Services to
annually compile and publicly report financial data and program
information from counties on their Mental Health Services Act
expenditures.
The department is already in the process of collecting and
posting county revenue and expenditure reports as well as
updated three year program expenditure plans, which will provide
much of the information outlined in this bill. I encourage the
Legislature and interested stakeholders to continue to work with
the department to identify useful information that can be
integrated into the existing reports to improve transparency and
accountability in the use of these funds.
Analysis Prepared by:
Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN:
0005050
AB 2279
Page 5